|
GBIF
is now in its third financial year, and the independent review process
called
for by the MoU is underway. This review will be overseen by a
partnership
between CODATA and the international advisory group KPMG. The Steering
Committee for the review will include Mr. Paul Uhlir (representing
CODATA), and
two representatives from KPMG, Mr. Kjeld Christiansen and Mr. Thomas
Riisom.
Following
GB7, nominations for possible members of an ad hoc Review
Committee were sought from all GBIF delegations. Ultimately,
six individuals who are highly
respected and knowledgeable about the subject matter and intent of
GBIF, but who
are not presently involved in GBIF, were selected by the Steering
Committee to
serve on the Review Committee. These
persons
are:
Dr.
Marvalee Wake (Dept.of
Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley), who will be
the chair,
Dr.
Motonori Hoshi (Department of Biosciences
and Informatics, Keio University),
Dr.
Tim Littlejohn (IBM Asia
Pacific),
Dr.
Ghillean Prance (retired
Director, Royal Botanical Garden, Kew),
Dr.
Jameson Seyani (The Commonwealth
Secretariat), and
Dr.
Peter Mann de Toledo (Director,
Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi).
The
Review Team (Steering Committee + ad hoc
Review Committee) will attend GB 8 (April 2004), produce an interim
report by
GB9 (October 2004) and a final report by GB10 (April 2005). The report will be based on fact-finding by
the KPMG representatives, the results of online questionnaires, and
interviews
with GBIF delegates, subcommittee members, officials of Participant
countries,
the Secretariat staff, representatives of other international
organisations,
and potential end users of GBIF data.
Content
of the Review
The
major focus of the review is to analyse GBIF’s effectiveness and to make
recommendations
regarding its future (e.g., should GBIF be continued beyond the initial
fiveyear period?). The three major questions to be considered by the
Committee
are:
- Have the present
organisational structure and funding been sufficient for GBIF to
achieve its goals?
- Has GBIF made sufficient and
appropriate progress toward getting established as a megascience
undertaking and thereby making scientific biodiversity data freely and
openly available over the Internet?
- Has GBIF achieved sufficient
profile and uptake within its target audiences?
In
pursuing answers to these questions, the Review Committee will examine
the
quality and effectiveness of the following areas:
Work
Programme: Is
GBIF making sufficient and appropriate progress in carrying out each of
the
components of the Work Programme?
Governance
Structure: Do
the Rules of Procedure serve GBIF well? Should GBIF continue with two
kinds of
Participants?
Legal
Basis:
GBIF is an independent organisation, based on a non-binding, voluntary
MOU. Is
this basis sufficient and appropriate?
Operations
of the
Secretariat and
the Governing Board: Are they appropriate and
efficient?
Nodes:
Have
the Participants made sufficient and appropriate progress toward
setting them up
and sharing data through them?
Voting
Participation by
Intergovernmental, Non-governmental and Other
Organisations:
The
Rules of Procedure do not currently allow these organisations to be
Voting
Participants, and state that the possibility of offering Voting
Participation
to these entities should be considered in the third-year review.
Links
to International
Conventions:
Has GBIF developed sufficient and appropriate links to the various
international conventions dealing with biological diversity?
Links
to Other International
Organisations:
Has GBIF developed sufficient and appropriate
links to other intergovernmental, non-governmental and other scientific
organisations
dealing with biological diversity and informatics (e.g., BIOSIS, IUBS,
IUCN)?
IPR:
Has GBIF developed
sufficient and appropriate ways to deal with IPR, access,
and benefit-sharing issues?
Financial
Mechanisms: Should
the schedule of Financial Contributions for Voting Participants (Annex
I of the
MOU) be adjusted?
Additional
Funding: Has
sufficient and appropriate progress been made by the Participants in
increasing
their in-country or intra-organisational investments in biodiversity
information
infrastructure in support of GBIF, as the MOU encourages them to do?
Timetable
2004
April:
First meeting of the
Review Committee,
at GB8
June:
Second meeting, at the
GBIF
Secretariat
September:
Committee
prepares issues paper
(interim report) for discussion at GB9
October
(GB9): Committee
holds discussions
and interviews with a number of key players in GBIF
November:
Fixing the Focus –
telephone and
e-mail communication
December:
Writing of final
report begins.
2005
January:
Committee finishes
report and
makes final changes – fine tuning of recommendations.
February:
Report sent to
Governing Board.
April:
Presentation of
report at GB10 by
Review Committee. Discussion of report and preliminary decisions about
making
any necessary changes in GBIF structure.
| 
