|
|
|
Strategies for Open and Permanent Access to Scientific Information in Latin America: Focus on Health and Environmental Information for Sustainable Development
Breakout session: Biodiversity Data & Metadata
Chair: Andrea Ferreira Portela Nunes, Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil
Rapporteur: Bonnie Carroll, USA
Challenges
Complexity inherent in Biodiversity
- Complexity and amount of information
- Digitization
- For species and specimens -->5% digital
- Diversity of stakeholders (eg. Indigenous populations cultures; languages)
- Integrate diverse data over large areas
- Need to filter for sensitive data; levels of access (technical also?)
- Lack of good surveys - needed for land use planning, monitoring impacts
- Lack of standards in collection biological data techniques
- Not just existence, Need to ensure abundance, relationships, complimentarity for economic zone planning
- Need integrated surveys not isolated studies
- Standardization - biological protocols, metadata standards
- Integrated
- Large enough
- Modular
- Compatible with existing indicatives
- Make data available quickly for managers/decision making
- Must Connect needs with research processes through information capacity
- Must Link S&T system to Environmental System for Biodiversity
- How to Effectively use biodiversity information
- Lack of strong political and technical and commercial uses of info
- Involve practical applications - e.g. commercial uses; what's it to the policy makers; why do they care
Cultural
- Weak information culture
- Not invented here (only child syndrome)
- Data providers resistance
- Proprietary-ness
- Central database thinking
- Collaboration
- Scientific community and authorities of S&T catch the standards, ideas and protocols to be more efficient to do the work that needs to be done.
- Understand importance of opened inform
- Cultural change towards the open and free sharing of data
- Confidence and transparency
- Traditional knowledge issues
Institutional
- Complex institutional landscape
- Environmental authorities
- Science and technology system
- Other sectors of society (public and private)
- Sustainability: Need more sustained support from authorities in terms of money (not just project based)
- Be implementable with resources
- No reward system or incentives for publishing/sharing databases or information vs publications
- Not only will but must be organized, Doable, Planned and resourced
- Data Providers
- Do not disrupt work
- Credit
- Financial constraints (Also cultural)
- Lot's of research but no coordinate regional and national expertise and disseminate this knowledge
- Capacity building for human resources
- When no jobs, students don't go into the field.
- Training of specialists in biodiversity (especially systematic), information and computer science
- Getting cooperation between biodiversity studies organizations
- Lack of local capacity; distribution of expertise
- Generation gap in higher education
Legal-Policy
- IPR consistency and understanding
- Long term vs project perspective
- Diversity/conflicting National policies
- Weak information and data policies
- Need for biodiversity research policies
- Clear rules for data sharing
- Distributed ownership (equal opportunities for contribution and participation)
- Lack of policy to build capacity to address environmental (biodiversity) issues
Technological
- Access to information = internet (only 17%?? (Internet Cafes?) of pop have internet access)
- Internet connectivity - different modes of communication
- Slow and unstable connectivity, need work arounds but are compromises
- Rapid new developments
- Have many systems diverse so how to integrate across
- Interoperability without putting burden on originators
- Not expensive
- Leverage other networks
- Dissemination of information
- Long term preservation of data (digital information is very fragile; hardware, software, and format changes through time) (also institutional)
MODELS/QUALITIES
GBIF
- Data freely and openly via internet
- Based on gov's and intl orgs
- Partnerships - no reinventing wheel
- Agree to share data; build a node to build the network
- Good set of model policies
- Gateway: data belongs to providers
- Full attribution
- Data with metadata
- No sensitive data
- Data sharing agreements/documentation of agreements
- Open access policy
- Develops local capacities
- Inclusive, not exclusive
- Decentralization builds confidence
Species Link
- Responds to needs of data providers with technological solutions
- Value add:
- Do data cleaning
- Collection profiles - visualizations of info about the collections: e.g. density of collections, families, collectors, degree of digitization, degree of georeferencing
- Indicators
- Ecological niche models
PPBio for integrated surveys.
- Data Policy says freely available on the web (2 yr embargo for scientific use - public property
- Standard Curator protocols - Integrate different layers of data
- Value added: data cleaning
SIAMAZONIA
- at the National level
- Local capacities at work
- Decentralized
- Inclusive
- Legal framework
- Traditional means of communication - no internet only
- Practical uses of information (in development)
- Promote bio-commerce - need to involve private sector
- Country driven
- Build local capacities
- Lessons learned - take from his slides
- Contribute to key processes
- Mirroring in places with better connectivity (Peru/Finland)
National Information System of Colombia
- Strategy to link data and info contents with national capacity building with technological infrastructure
- Good tools
- Catalog of Research Methods (protocols??)
- Good metadata network
- Thesaurus
- Distributed search
- Good applications development: commercial, etc.
- Get good partners in addition to researchers
PROJECTS
- ABBIF Amazon Basin Biodiversity Information Facility
- Create a network of cooperating institutions to share and disseminate species and specimen data and information about the Amazon Region
- Mobilize more institutional partners
- Improve decision making.
- Country driven initiative
- Products: checklist of Amazonian Flora and Fish
- WHO:
- GBIF nodes in the Amazon Region (IIAP, IAvH, SINCHI, IRD (CAY Herbarium) , IABIN) plus collaborating institutions in region (INPA,CRIA, Venezuela, PUCE)
- Sharing lessons learned of successful biodiversity informatics centers/projects
- Develop way to share these lessons learned on a continuous basis
- Virtual community through a collaborative tool
- Colombia willing to share what they are already doing
- Brazil (CRIA, INPA) , Colombia (SIB, IAvH), Peru (IIAP)
- E.g., New GBIF protocols added to leapfrogging, e.g. DiGIR
- Soon
- Proving the value (economic, cultural, social, decision making) of biodiversity information
- Work with scientific community to mobilize scientific data and connect to key issues. E.g. 2010 challenge Disappearance of species; consequences of climate change
- Return on investment projects
- Work to better understand the impact of Access to information = internet (only 17%?? (Internet Cafes?) of pop have internet access) to the populations that need to contribute to and be served with biodiversity information.
- Address the issue of dissemination.
- Internet connectivity vs different modes of communication
- Determine valid metrics
- CLARA doing some things already
- Develop/promote reward system approach for database management and publication
- CODATA to consider a Working Group/Task Group; ABBIF, GBIF, Brazil (CGEE)
- IPR relationship to reward system
Sponsors
- The Global Alliance for Enhancing Access to and Application of Scientific Data in Developing Countries, of the United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development, UN G@ID
Organizers
- U.S. National Committee for CODATA
- Brazilian National Committee for CODATA.
- CODATA Task Group on Preservation of and Access to Scientific and Technical Data in Developing Countries
 |
 webmaster@cria.org.br |
