AIN 14459

Arnlso bch

Harmonizing the information management infrastructure for
biodiversity-related treaties

Jerry Harrison and Mark Collins
World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Introduction

Many nations have confirmed their commitment to the principles of conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity by ratifying the five global biodiversity-related treaties, and have similarly adopted
international programmes and ratified treaties relating to broader environmental issues.

In order to effectively implement each of these international agreements and programmes, nations need
to collect, manage and use information. This is necessary in order to:

e characterise and prioritise action to be taken

e identify appropriate success indicators

e monitor the actions taken and their effects

e report on implementation at national and international levels

The various treaty secretariats themselves also have a strong interest in efficient management of
information, and at least a moral obligation to support contracting parties through:

e encouraging development of good information management practice

e facilitating integration and/or sharing information

e requesting only necessary information from parties

e using efficiently any information to which they have access

Submissions and reports from parties constitute much of the information that secretariats manage, and
they have an obligation to be as efficient and responsive as possible in using this information. Its
application should facilitate national activities and be compatible with the approaches of associated
agencies such as GEF, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank.

However, although steps are being taken to rectify the situation, it is generally acknowledged that the
treaty secretariats are not yet working efficiently enough in collecting, managing or using inforrnation
themselves, nor are they working together efficiently to share information and experience. This paper
describes efforts underway and planned to rectify this situation, and also proposes some areas where
future effort might be encouraged.

Feasibility study on harmonizing information management

Early on in the development of the programme of work of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
the Conference of the Parties, in Decision II/13:
“Requests the Executive Secretary to co-ordinate with the Secretariats of relevant
biodiversity-related conventions, with a view to (a) facilitating exchange of
information and experience; (b) exploring the possibility of recommending procedures
for harmonising, to the extent desirable and practicable, the reporting requirements of
Parties....."

Responding to the interest and momentum evident in this decision, the five global biodiversity-related
treaty secretariats and UNEP commissioned the World Conservation Monitoring Centre to undertake a
Feasibility Study to identify opportunities for harmonising information management between the
treaties. The five treaties are:

Convention on Biological Diversity
Convention on Migratory Species
Convention on Trade in Endangered Species
Convention on Wetlands

World Heritage Convention

The Feasibility Study considered approaches towards development of a harmonised information
management infrastructure for the treaties within their existing defined mandates. Its purpose was to
consider how the secretariats could improve effectiveness and efficiency in the gathering, handling,
disseminating and sharing of information.

Recognising the close connections with initiatives to explore synergies between the Rio treaties, the
secretariats of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention to Combat
Desertification were invited to participate as observers at the workshop where options were reviewed.

While conceived as an essential prerequisite for country-focused capacity building and the
development of harmonised national reporting and information management activities, this study did
not extend to considering country-level activities, which would need to be dealt with at a later stage.

Reviewing information requirements

The first step in increasing synergy is an improved understanding of the information requirements of
each convention and the linkages between them. Where information is shared, a standard approach to
its collection would:

e enable the data to be used easily for more than one convention

e facilitate the production of cross-convention summaries (where there are links)

e serve to encourage greater co-ordination between national agencies/focal points

Information needs implied by the convention articles and decisions As part of the Feasibility Study,
the articles of each convention together with the decisions and other documents relating to
implementation were reviewed and the information requirements documented. This covered not only
the information required in national reporting, but all the information required to implement the
convention.

While the CBD has broad information requirements, each of the other conventions has a particular
focus. CITES and CMS are focused on species while Ramsar and World Heritage are focused on
sites. Commonalities would be expected between these pairs, and are indeed apparent. Certain data
are unique to one convention, but there are a number of fundamental data sets that are required by
more than one convention - some by all five. These information needs are summarised in Table 1.

Information from contracting parties (reporting requirements) The primary source of information
for each secretariat is the convention’s contracting parties - each convention requires some form of
reporting. In addition to periodic reports, parties provide information on initial accession to certain of
the treaties, on nomination or designation of sites, and in support of amendments to the treaty articles
or annexes in the case of species.

With all reporting regimes, careful attention needs to be given to what is to be achieved and how the
content of such reports will enable activities to be assessed and priorities for the future determined.
Reporting guidelines are an important element of such processes and provide a framework to assist
parties with their submission. In addition, information received in a standard format will be easier to
review and will facilitate the production of a report considering the collective achievements of all
contracting parties.

i)

Although the reporting requirements differ between the conventions, some of the information
required is common to all. By harmonising the reporting requirements and timing where possible,
and encouraging a standard approach to data collection, the conventions may be able to share
information more effectively, and at the same time encourage national level co-ordination.

National level co-ordination is needed because information flow is not necessarily simple. The
national authorities for a given party may be vested in different government departments for each of
the treaties. Thus countries may have up to five different lines of communication with the
biodiversity treaties.

Information from other sources Convention secretariats also receive information from NGOs and
international agencies. In some cases these are specifically designated supporting or advisory bodies,
in other cases the arrangements are more informal. The information that flows by this means is
primarily scientific — for instance in support of taxonomies, reviews of species lists, species
population statistics, site descriptions.

Information flow between conventions A\l five convention secretariats meet regularly to discuss
issues of common interest. Officials of secretariats routinely attend each others CoPs and other major
meetings, and exchange principal documents. At present, there is very little flow of scientific
information between the conventions apart from some exchange between Ramsar and WHC,
regarding sites common to both conventions.

Secretariats perceive the need for improved inter-convention exchange, and during the Feasibility
Study a number of examples were given of information known to be held by one which would be of
value to others and where there would be benefits of sharing scientific expertise. Information flow is
hampered by lack of knowledge about the respective data holdings of the conventions, so improved
understanding should lead to a number of benefits.

Information flow from secretariats to parties All of the secretariats are charged to provide
assessments of the state of implementation of the convention, and to support parties in implementing
the convention. This is achieved in part by synthesising national reports. However, apart from
administrative information, relatively little information flows from the secretariats to parties. All of
the conventions recognise the need to improve feedback of information to parties, and to find
methods to disseminate case studies and information on “best practice” to parties to support
implementation of the provisions of the treaties.

Reviewing needs for improved information management capacity

The use of information technology to support information management in the secretariats is variable.
CITES and Ramsar both have significant databases, while those of CMS and WHC are more basic.
All secretariats have web sites, containing a wealth of information, often in a number of languages.
Particularly significant are the search tools developed by both CBD and WHC. However these web
sites vary considerably in approach and information content.

Most of the secretariats have in place an information management strategy or other plans to review or
enhance information management. In all cases the availability of resources (especially human) limits
the ability to implement these plans. The following are key issues that were identified during the

Feasibility Study.

Les)

Limited access to existing documents Reports and submissions from parties as well as scientific
reports and summaries from other sources held by the secretariats represent a potentially valuable
information resource. In most cases these documents are neither indexed nor in digital form, and thus
are difficult to access by the secretariat or contracting parties.

Need for case studies and “lessons-learned” There is a demand from parties for information to assist
in implementation of treaty provisions - exemplary strategies and plans, case studies of aspects of
implementation, “good practices” and so on.

Need for improved linkages with other conventions There is currently little communication
between the information technology officers of the secretariats and little exchange of information
management strategies, plans, common problems and experiences.

Limited human resources in IT Human resources needed to effectively utilise modern information
technology are limited in each of the five secretariats. In addition secretariats need more experience
and broader skills to make effective use of existing IT. Information management has not been a
priority of CoPs, and the potential benefits of increased investment have not been well explained or
understood.

Use of an external data manager The two secretariats that are the most advanced in information
management (Ramsar and CITES) have found that the use of an external data manager is an efficient
solution. Using external data managers avoids the need to employ specialised staff such as web
designers, programmers, and database managers. The use of external consulting expertise for a one-
time project to develop strategies and implement improvements is also an option to build IT capacity
within the secretariats.

Difficulty in responding to queries Responding to queries from parties, as well as NGOs, press
media, prospective parties, etc., is mainly done on an ad hoc basis rather than using automated
processes to provide easy access to information. This is in part because official document distribution
tends to consume most of the resources available for information analysis and administration.

Options for harmonization

During the Feasibility Study, options were identified based on common information needs,
constraints and functions. Four principal areas were identified where harmonization would yield
effective results:

e harmonisation to improve management of information provided by parties

e harmonisation to improve the management of secretariat “business”

e harmonisation to facilitate parties in implementation and reporting

e harmonisation to improve capacity to assess the effectiveness of implementation

Within each of these areas, broad concepts or visions, as well as short and long term actions, were
elaborated, and discussed with the five treaty secretariats. At a workshop in Geneva, three streams of
action were agreed as feasible and of strategic value in further harmonized information management
for the five biodiversity-related treaties, each of which is discussed further in the next three sections.
They were:

e Developing a harmonized convention information resource

e Streamlining national reporting to, and implementation of, conventions

e Developing a “lessons learned” network

Developing a harmonised convention information resource

The aim is to establish an information resource covering all five biodiversity-related treaties based on
the reports provided by parties, managed in a structured and harmonised manner to enhance their
value. The following benefits are expected:
e Improved access to information contained within reports
Simplification of standard reports such as overviews on implementation
Improved feedback to parties on implementation
Opportunities to develop additional reports based on the available material
Ability to conduct electronic searches across all reports
Opportunities to archive documents and retain easy access

Five priority areas of activity are anticipated, each of which is briefly elaborated below. While some
of these may seem to be relatively minor developments, they are all necessary stages in increasing
access to and use of information.

Harmonise document cover sheets The purpose of the cover sheet is to provide standard information
for all documents submitted by contracting parties and generated by the secretariats across all five
conventions. It would also serve as the entry for each document into the meta-database (see below).

Adopt a standard thesaurus for keywords and searching The purpose is to adopt a standard
terminology so that searching for keywords can be accomplished across the five conventions. An
already existing standard should be used if possible, preferably one with a multi-lingual capability.

Harmonise web sites As a means of facilitating use of web sites, it is recommended that, along with
convention-specific material, each convention web site has a consistent minimum set of features.
Harmonisation should not restrict the creativity or freedom of individual secretariats but recognise
the unique aspects of each convention and deliver benefits from the identified minimum common
elements.

Develop a meta-database \t is recommended that a meta-database be developed primarily to indicate
the information that is available and where it is located. The meta-database should initially be
implemented on the web site of each of the five convention secretariats, following standard protocols
and software. The meta-database would essentially consist of digital versions of the ‘cover sheets’
available in a searchable form, with additional information on availability of the full document.

Develop an inter-convention web site and search engine The development of an inter-convention
web site and search engine is a logical follow-on to harmonised web sites and meta-databases in each
of the secretariats. The inter-convention web site would be a single point of entry — in the sense of a
gateway. The search engine would enable users to interrogate and retrieve information from the
meta-database covering the five conventions.

Streamlining national reporting to conventions

The eventual purpose is to encourage and assist the development of co-ordinated biodiversity
information resources at the national level. There are four necessary steps.

Review and clarify reporting requirements of each convention This would build on the analysis in
the Feasibility Study and result in the identification of well-defined structured ‘modules’ of
information required. The intention is that this would reduce the potential for duplication in
reporting, and increase the options for sharing information between conventions.

Prepare an integrated handbook of national reporting This follows from the previous review.
Guidelines for each convention would be assembled into a consolidated handbook with a common
glossary and terminology. The handbook should particularly suggest how contracting parties could
most usefully organise national information systems and collection regimes to facilitate preparing
reporting modules to the conventions while contributing to their own national polices, strategies and
action plans.

Pilot testing of handbook (proof-of-concept) The handbook would be tested in a number of
countries. The results of this pilot would be used to improve and refine the handbook, as well as to
define the capacity building requirements at national level for full implementation of integrated
reporting.

Capacity building in national biodiversity information banks and related technology Capacity
building is not necessarily a harmonisation activity (although the manner in which it is conducted
may result in more harmonised approaches to information management). Building capacity at
national level to implement the integrated reporting guidelines would however help achieve the
desired goal of developing co-ordinated national biodiversity information resources. The envisaged
national biodiversity information banks would serve the needs of the national biodiversity strategies
and action plans, and would also help nations to report to the conventions.

Developing a lessons-learned network

The objective is to encourage the sharing of experience from case studies, whether positive success
stories or examples of what to avoid. There are four main activities.

Select lessons-learned from existing secretariat documents This requires an internal review in each
secretariat to select appropriate material from project files and national reports. These would be
posted on a special section of the convention web sites. Use of standard terminologies or
vocabularies will help to increase access to this information.

Develop prototype lessons-learned web site This would be an integrated facility developed as a
separate web site or as part of the inter-convention web site and would serve to test the methodology
and delivery of information, and to attract input from other agencies beyond the five treaty
secretariats.

Establish links to lessons-learned of development agencies, and national lessons-learned web sites
Proactive efforts should be made to collect case studies from national and international levels on key
themes. Also, from the experience of Ramsar, once a prototype web 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.

Link lessons-learned network to CBD-CHM. This is the fully operational stage. It follows the
testing of 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.

Overall process issues

Achieving harmonization of information management through these proposed projects requires
active collaboration between the five participating conventions. To help achieve this, three processes
were identified:

e high level harmonisation steering committee

¢ joint scientific panel
e joint information technology working group

It was acknowledged that there was a need for closer collaboration between the information
management and technology staff of the secretariats. The CMS Secretariat hosted a meeting of these
staff during 1998, and the process of implementing some of the recommendations of the Feasibility
Study was begun.

Collaboration on scientific issues is more difficult. A single joint scientific panel would be possible, but
there are probably too few issues in common for this to be worthwhile across all five treaties. The
existing well-defined CITES standard taxonomies are a useful base that could be expanded to include
standardised species lists for Ramsar and CMS. Also, co-ordination between the chairs of the CMS
Scientific Council and the CITES Nomenclature Committee would be beneficial.

Actions and decisions requiring co-ordination are:

e adoption of standards (including document types, country names, dates)
selection/adoption of high-level keyword vocabulary
minimum content of harmonised web sites
co-ordination on meta-database design
input to design of central web site and search engine
collaboration in the identification of information packets
design of integrated handbook
harmonisation of terminology
selection of proof-of-concept countries
species lists and taxonomies
lower-level key-wording vocabulary for lessons-learned

Conclusions of the Feasibility Study

The Feasibility Study succeeded in identifying specific areas for harmonisation between the five
conventions.

There are significant areas where the five conventions need information on the same sectors of
biodiversity and there are practical steps that can be taken towards harmonising information
management. Most notable areas of commonality are the species information data required by CITES
and CMS, and the site-based information needed by Ramsar and WHC. There is considerable scope
within these to harmonise information management and the information requirements from national
reports to improve efficiency and gain greater benefits from efforts at all levels.

Information flow could be managed and directed to greater effect. This is especially the case from the
secretariats to the parties where information disseminated is currently largely administrative but
could be extended to include more scientific and analytical information or more sharing of
experience. Information flow and co-ordination are impeded by the multiple channels that reflect the
diversity of agencies charged with implementation at national level. Greater co-ordination at national
level would be beneficial.

The five secretariats share challenges relating to IT and information management. Their responses to
these challenges would benefit from improved communication and sharing of experience.

Of the range of options proposed by WCMC some, such as virtual reporting, were seen as
impractical, at least in the short-medium term, and so are excluded from the recommended

immediate actions. Options of this type are worthy for reconsideration once the more immediate
steps have been taken.

Feasible steps agreed by the secretariats as both pragmatic and of strategic value to improve
harmonisation are to:

e develop a harmonised conventions information resource

e streamline reporting to conventions

e develop a lessons-learned network

These steps are now being taken forward through the development of proposals by the secretariats
with support from WCMC.

During implementation of the Feasibility Study, there was considerable interest from other treaties
notably the FCCC and CCD. A broader study embracing these and other treaties would be beneficial
and timely.

Beyond the Feasibility Study

Most of this paper has dealt with the proposals and steps that are being taken as a result of the
Feasibility Study, but we wish also to cover two further issues that demonstrate the direction that we
believe harmonization of action by international agreement secretariats and international programmes
should be leading. In both cases, movements to harmonize action at the international level should be
leading to harmonization of approach at the national level. The first example takes an information
management approach, while the second takes a particular category of information.

Concept 1: Facilitating reporting by Contracting Parties

Two ideas that were discussed during the Feasibility Study fit neatly together in defining a potential
future process for national reporting on international conventions that would significantly reduce the
burden on Contracting Parties. This is the combination of Modular Reporting and Virtual
Reporting.

The concept of Modular Reporting is built on the belief that the information requirement for
implementation of the conventions can be defined as a series of discreet information packages or
modules, where some modules would be convention-specific, while others would be relevant to more
than one convention. Contracting Party reports would be defined as a particular set of modules.

These modules or information packets would have the following characteristics:

e information packets would be complementary (non-overlapping) - so that information is
provided only once and in one consistent format

e an information packet may serve the needs of more than one convention

e information packets should be a subset of national biodiversity information management
products - part of the input to national planning/policy development

e information packets are produced in a cycle which suits national requirements and that is
in harmony with the reporting cycles of the conventions

The information packet process would be supported by harmonised guidelines, nomenclature, and
thesauri, as well as recommended good practices and information management methodologies. This
process will ease the reporting burden on parties, while improving the quality, availability and
usefulness of information for national purposes. In addition the process can be easily extended to
other environmental treaties through the addition of new relevant information packets.

The concept of modular reporting is illustrated in Figure 1. Each of three national agencies (A, B and
C) provides a number of information modules, and each of three international conventions (i, ii and
iii) requires certain modules in its report. Some of the modules are common to all three conventions,
some are only used once.

To achieve this approach will require more detailed study of the information requirements of each of
the conventions, and the definition of a number of discrete information packets. This would be
followed by a pilot project with a number of countries to test the relationship between the defined
packets, the arrangement or responsibilities within national organizations, and the type of supporting
guidelines and thesauri required.

The next step might be towards Virtual Reporting. In this case, instead of submitting information
packets to National Focal Points for subsequently submitting to convention secretariats, the
information would be placed on or linked to a national website on biodiversity or sustainable
development. Reporting would become an ongoing process, and the convention secretariat could then
download or link to the modules it required when it required them.

In other words, virtual reporting would see party countries providing access to their information
packets in electronic form continuously updated in a cycle which suits national needs. The
convention secretariats would then select and retrieve the most up-to-date information packets as and
when required. Figure 2 provides an illustration of virtual reporting, building on the information
already presented in Figure 1.

This approach would eliminate duplicate reporting and reduce the effort required for parties to
prepare and submit specific reports to the conventions, and more importantly, would serve to
encourage integrated national approaches and improved information access and sharing between
institutions within party countries. Further, it would facilitate links to other conventions and regional
bodies, and improve information sharing between neighbouring countries.

Practical integrated guidelines (jointly between the conventions) are needed for developing,
organising and maintaining a national virtual reporting site, to ensure that the selected information
can be found and extracted in a consistent manner. This would best be developed through a pilot
project building on the modular reporting pilot.

Concept 2: Information on protected areas

Nationally designated protected areas are now 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.

Systematic information on nationally designated protected areas is compiled on a periodic basis by
WCMC working in collaboration with the IUCN World Commission on National Parks (WCPA) and
others, published as the United Nations List of Protected Areas (following a 1962 UN Resolution).

However the response to requests for information can be poor, and requests are often not given the
level of priority that might be expected for such an internationally recognised process. This leads to
significant variability in the quality of information provided. At the same time, insufficient
resourcing often means that the information that is included is not checked as rigorously as it could
be. These problems inevitably lead to a number of inaccuracies in the resulting products.

Meanwhile three of the global biodiversity-related treaties have direct interests in data on protected
areas. The World Heritage and Ramsar Conventions are both concerned with protection of specific
sites, and Article 8(a) 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”.

In addition, at least 11 other international agreements and programmes recognise or designate
specific protected areas. These include: the Barcelona, Helsinki, Bern, Cartagena and Antarctic
conventions, UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve programme, Council of Europe Biogenetic
Reserves and European Diploma sites, ASEAN Heritage sites, and the EC Birds and Habitats
Directives.

Given the push to harmonize activities relating to international agreements, the time is right to review
and restructure the UN List and focus attention on its importance as a unifying thread in reporting on
several international agreements and programmes. The content might include:

e information on nationally designated areas

e information on internationally designated and recognised areas

e comparative information on coverage of international sites

e analysis of coverage and effectiveness
If the UN List was clearly seen as an international product serving the needs of a wide range of
agreements and programmes, it is anticipated that the process of collecting reliable and complete
information would be significantly improved. In order to achieve this, WCMC and WCPA anticipate
talking with each of the relevant secretariats during the second half of 1999, with a view to
implementing a collaborative programme of work during 2000.

10

Table 1: Summary of main information requirements

Information

ECOSYSTEMS
Ecosystems and habitats
ecosystems
habitat types
traditional use
SPECIES
Classification, names and identification
higher taxonomy
scientific name
common names
identification materials
Status
conservation status
protection status (national and international)
Ecology
range and distribution
population data (size and trends)
habitat requirements/availability
migration routes
In situ and management activities
legislation
in situ conservation and management activities
Threats
threats (direct, habitat destruction, indirect, etc)
illegal trade

invasive/exotic species

Use
use of species (medicinal, agricultural, economic etc)
traditional knowledge
sustainable use (including levels and effect of trade)
number, quantity and type of specimens being traded
source/destination of specimens and permits details
trade in wetland products
waterfowl hunting statistics

GENES

Genes and genomes
social, scientific or economic importance

legislative, administrative and policy measures

CBD

<

SS SY SS

1]

CITES

We RS eo

SS Ss SOS

CMS

<

SN SS S

Ramsar

SS NS

WHC

SITES
Site details
geographic location
site description
boundaries and map
Ecology of site
physical features
In situ and management activities
legislation
conservation measures and management of site
Threats
threats
Use
land use
hydrological values
social and cultural values
land tenure/ownership
economic value

role of site to local communities

12

SY SS S SOS

Table 2: Summary of reporting requirements

Description
CBD

Measures countries have taken to implement the provisions of the
convention. Timing and content of reports to be decided by CoP

Report on the implementation of Article 6 General Issues. General
measures for conservation and sustainable use

CITES
Annual report containing a summary of permits and trade in species

included in Appendices I, II and III of the Convention

Biennial report on legislative, regulatory and administrative measures
taken to enforce the provisions of the Convention

CMS

Parties to provide the Secretariat with details of the migratory species
listed in Appendices I and II they consider themselves to be Range
States.

Initial comprehensive report by parties on accession to the convention

Updating report by parties

RAMSAR

Completed Ramsar datasheet should be submitted to Bureau upon
designation of site

Change in ecological character of a site (Montreux Record)

Report for CoP 7

WORLD HERITAGE

Every Party shall submit to the World Heritage Committee an

inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage.

Parties shall in the reports they submit to the General Conference of
UNESCO on dates and in a manner to be determined by it, give

information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they

have adopted and other action which they have taken for the
application of this Convention

Frequency/Timing

to be decided by CoP

CoP4 (May 1998)

Annual; by 31% October of
the following year

Biennial; no set rule or
recommendation about
timing, although the first
report of a Party is
expected to be submitted
two years after the entry

into force of the
Convention and
subsequent reports to be
submitted every 2 years.

On-going

Upon signature

Each CoP; next CoP in
1999

Upon designation of each
site. Updates every 6
years.

As necessary

to Bureau by 1/9/1998;
next CoP May, 1999

next meeting of the World
Heritage Committee, Dec.
1998

Reference

Article 26

Decision II/17

Article VIII and Notif. No. 788
Article VIII

Article VI

Article VI and Res. 4.1
Article VI and Res. 4.1

Article 2, Rec. 4.7 and Res. 5.3

Res. 5.4
Notif. 1998/1

Article 11-12 and Operational

Guidelines

Article 29 and Operational
Guidelines

Figure 1 — Modular reporting

National National National
Agency Agency Agency
A B Cc

Information
modules
provided

Information
modules
required

International International International
Convention Convention Convention

(i) (ii) (iii)

Figure 2 — Virtual reporting

National
Agency

National
Agency
B

National
Agency
(e

Information
modules
provided
National
Reporting
Website
Information
modules
required

Internationai
Convention

International
Convention

(ii)

International
Convention

(iii)

(i)

i ;
“hy a ‘
, i ii \ :
tL 1
Than | \
Sahil A t) {
‘ F
ee
‘ ey
i :
j
iy ‘
1 T
} 5
—_
| Plog