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