Study on Data-sharing with Countries of Origin
Contract no. GBIFS/2003/04
February - 2004
Team:
Dora Ann Lange Canhos (dora@cria.org.br)
Arthur Chapman (Arthur@cria.org.br)
Vanderlei Perez Canhos (vcanhos@cria.org.br)
Executive Summary
The present report is the result of a commissioned study by GBIF (OCB Work Programme - contract no. GBIFS/2003/04), to analyze experiences on data sharing with countries of origin (a.k.a. repatriation). This study was carried out by the Reference Centre on Environmental Information (CRIA). Work involved selecting and contacting institutions, developing a questionnaire, tabulating answers, analyzing the responses, and writing this report.
The questionnaire was formulated in consultation with the GBIF secretariat and sent to 27 institutions. A total of 27 institutions were contacted and we received 18 filled out forms. An attempt was made to cover all continents and to include both biological collections and institutions responsible for structuring online information systems. Of the 18 institutions, 4 are from the USA, 8 from Europe, 1 from India, 2 from Australia, and 3 from Latin America. Included are important herbaria and natural history museums that curate specimens from practically the whole world; initiatives concerned with digitizing data for their own institutional purposes; and explicit bilateral agreements directly dealing with data sharing with countries of origin. From a technological view there are institutions concerned in bringing data into the country and maintaining it in a centralized database and others developing distributed systems that will harvest data at remote sites.
The following points were analyzed by this report: data sharing; criteria for the selection of taxonomic groups and collections, priorities and user groups contractual arrangements and intellectual property rights receiving institution/country contribution; process; data format and transfer; exchange formats and standards; funding, time scale, and costs; results and products; problems and hurdles addressed; and recommendations and advice.
In general terms, for the group of institutions that answered the questionnaire it was found that:
most projects, regardless of whether the main purpose is to share data with the country of origin or not, are making information freely available on the internet;
data-sharing is carried out as a collaborative effort through informal agreements;
as to IPR, important issues are proper attribution or credit to all partners involved, custodianship and ownership (i.e. each contributing museum retains ownership of its records) and acknowledgement;
digitizing and data basing collections are fundamental for the day-to-day operation of a collection. Regardless whether linked to a data-sharing program or not collections must database their collections and document their activities.
international collaboration, which has always existed in taxonomy, is largely enhanced by on-line dissemination of data and information;
with the evolution of information and communication technology it is becoming possible to develop inter-disciplinary applications, disseminate information to a wider public and promote the use of scientific data for other purposes;
financial constraints, followed closely by technological problems and human resources constraints were the three problems and hurdles most mentioned;
digitization is a trend and will continue to happen. It depends on proper policies and technologies to accelerate the process, and to ensure the accuracy and quality of the resultant product.
international collaboration is largely enhanced by on-line dissemination of data and information;
Recommendations are that:
all countries are considered users and providers of data and information. Not only is it important to promote digitization of the largest holdings, but it is fundamental to promote digitization of smaller and perhaps more specialized collections and promote capacity building in countries with rich biological diversity, also in the fields of curatorial practices (to guarantee quality information) and in information and communication technology;
GBIF promote the concept that information be made freely and quickly available for educational purposes and for scientific research;
GBIF explore/support the development of tools and standards that are open to different architectures and that guarantee that the ultimate control over data remains in the hands of each provider;
GBIF explore/support the development of standards and tools to aid in the improvement of the quality and accuracy of the data;
GBIF must acknowledge, respect and consider different levels of technological development. We recommend that GBIF promote regular meetings with developers of different countries to exchange experience and expertise;
GBIF could consider a small on-line questionnaire that would be open to any collection to respond to. In this way, once the GBIF Discovery system is available, an automated email could be sent to each of the respondents with details on the Discovery system and on registration;
GBIF support demonstrative projects that clearly show the benefits of distributed systems, data sharing and collaborative efforts (applications).
Index
2.5.Receiving Institution / Country Contribution
2.7.Funding, Time Scale, and Costs
2.9.Problems and hurdles addressed
2.10.Recommendations and Advice
2.11.List of Key Publications, Reports and Websites
Tables
Table 1. Institutions that were contacted, their website, and status.
Table 2. A brief profile of each institution based on answers from the questionnaire.
Table 3. Aims: questions and answers
Table 4. Criteria for selection of taxonomic group
Table 5. Criteria for Selection of Collection
Table 7. User groups for shared data
Table 8. Type of contractual arrangement established to facilitate the data-sharing procedures
Table 9. How IPR issues are dealt with.
Table 10. Type of data exchanged/transferred
Table 12. Data Transfer Method
Table 13. Exchange formats and standards
Table 16. Funding, Time Scale, and Costs
Table 18. Problems and hurdles addressed
This report is the result of a commissioned study by GBIF (OCB Work Programme - contract no. GBIFS/2003/04) to analyze experiences on data sharing with countries of origin (a.k.a. repatriation) carried out by the Reference Centre on Environmental Information (CRIA). Activities included: preparation of a questionnaire, selection of institutions/initiatives, survey, analysis and synthesis of replies, preparation of a draft report submitted to the GBIF Secretariat and preparation of the final report based on the comments and suggestions received.
The questionnaire for the study on data sharing with countries of origin was formulated in close collaboration with the GBIF Secretariat, in order to ensure the development of a simple form with a good coverage on content, technology and political framework. This questionnaire was sent to a preliminary list of institutions that was also prepared in consultation with the GBIF Secretariat. This list was further extended in order to include relevant ongoing experiences in different regions of the world. Table 1 has the list of the 27 institutions that the questionnaire was sent to.
Table 1. Institutions that were contacted, their website, and status.
|
Institution |
Web site |
Status |
|
1. Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute, Bogotá, Colombia. |
replied |
|
|
2. Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Canberra AUSTRALIA |
NA* |
|
|
3. BioMap Project |
no reply |
|
|
4. Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum, Berlin-Dahlem, Germany |
replied |
|
|
5. CABI Bioscience, UK Initiative: The Herb IMI Database – online Website: in preparation |
replied |
|
|
6. Centre of Plant Biodiversity Research; Rapid Assessment of Biodiversity Project – World Bank, Department Entomology, Cromwell Road, London, |
|
no reply |
|
7. The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), International Cooperation, Brasília, Brazil Initiative: Plants of the Northeast Program. |
NA* |
|
|
8. Department of Mycology and Phycology, Botanische Staatssamlung Munich, Germany Initiative: projects GLOPP and InfoComp funded by the German Ministry for Education and Sciences |
replied |
|
|
9. Forest Herbarium, Oxford, UK |
|
no reply |
|
10. Herbarium, National Botanic Garden of Belgium |
replied |
|
|
11. Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK Initiative: Repatriation of Herbarium Data for the Flora of Northeastern Brazil |
www.rbgkew.org.uk/data/repatbr/homepage.html - in preparation |
replied |
|
12. Information Division, National Chemical Laboratory Initiative: Repatriated Biological Collections of India, RBCI |
replied |
|
|
13. Nacional Institute of Biodiversity, INBio, Costa Rica |
NA* |
|
|
14. Missouri Botanical Garden, USA Initiative: TROPICOS & W3TROPICOS |
replied |
|
|
15. Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin |
no reply |
|
|
16. National Commission on Biodiversity, CONABIO, Mexico |
replied |
|
|
17. National Herbarium Netherlands - Leiden University Branch Initiative: South East Asian Botanical Collections Information Network SEABCIN Web site in development |
replied |
|
|
18. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, USA |
replied |
|
|
19. New York Botanical Garden |
replied |
|
|
20. Reference Center on Environmental Information CRIA, Brazil Initiative: Biota/Fapesp Program |
replied |
|
|
21. Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences RBINS, Brussels, Belgium |
|
no reply |
|
22. Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney Initiative: Repatriation of data to Papua New Guinea |
replied |
|
|
23. Royal Museum for Central Africa, Belgium Initiative: African Biodiversity Information Centre, ABIC |
replied |
|
|
24. The Natural History Museum NHM, London, UK |
replied |
|
|
25. University of Kansas Biodiversity Research Center, USA Initiatives: Specify, Lifemapper, Species Analyst, and NABIN |
replied |
|
|
26. Western Australian Museum Initiative: Western Australian Museum's FaunaBase and FaunaList |
replied |
|
|
27. Wildlife Trade & Sustainable Fisheries Branch, Department of the Environment and Heritage |
no reply |
* Note: NA = not applicable, refers to institutions that acknowledged having received the questionnaire but stated that they could not fill out the questionnaire as they weren’t directly involved in any activity concerning data sharing with countries of origin.
The three institutions that did not fill out the questionnaire were:
The Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio), Costa Rica, answered: "We have not been repatriating information from museums or herbaria, as we have focused on generating information from our own collections. In that sense we try to obtain cooperation from foreign institution via training, identification, etc.”
The Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Entomology, Canberra that answered: "we at the Australian National Insect Collection have not been involved in efforts at repatriating data to countries of origin. We are not opposed to doing this, it has just never come up” (sic). We are mainly a collection of Australian insects, and only a small proportion of our holdings is from outside the country (then mostly SE Asian). We only rarely receive any requests for data or information, and the few that we do receive are generally about small amounts of specific information. We do our best to answer these requests when we get them, but we do not get them often."; and,
The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), International Cooperation. They were contacted because of the repatriation program developed with Great Britain. Their answer about this program was included in the brief profile of the project "Repatriation of Herbarium Data for the Flora of Northeastern Brazil".
The following 18 institutions answered the questionnaire:
Missouri Botanical Garden, USA
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas, USA
New York Botanical Garden Herbarium, USA
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, USA
Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK
The Natural History Museum, London
CABI Bioscience, UK
Botanische Staatssammlung Munich, Germany
Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum, Berlin Dahlem, Germany
African Biodiversity Information Centre, Belgium
National Botanic Garden of Belgium
South East Asian Botanical Collections, Information Network - National Herbarium Netherlands-Leiden University Branch, Netherlands
Repatriated Biological Collections of India, Information Division, National Chemical Laboratory, India
FaunaBase: Western Australian Museum, Australia
Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, Repatriation of data to Papua New Guinea
National Commission on Biodiversity, CONABIO, Mexico
Alexander von Biological Resources Research Institute, Bogotá, Colombia.
Reference Center on Environmental Information - CRIA, Brazil
Within this group we have four institutions from the US, eight from Europe, one from India, two from Australia, and three from Latin America. The surveyed institutions include important herbaria and natural history museums that curate specimens from practically the whole world. We have initiatives concerned in digitizing their data to help with their own research and to make their curatorial work easier and more efficient, and we have explicit bilateral agreements directly dealing with data sharing with countries of origin. There are institutions concerned in bringing data into the country and maintaining it in a centralized database and others developing distributed systems that will harvest data at remote sites. We believe that this set of institutions and initiatives form a good base of experiences where good examples can be further studied and lessons can be learned.
A brief profile of each institution, based on each initiative's objectives and aims, is presented in table 2 For a more complete assessment please refer to each individual questionnaire (annex) or to the web sites indicated.
Table 2. A brief profile of each institution based on answers from the questionnaire.
|
Institution |
Brief Profile |
|
The botanical databases at the Missouri Botanical Garden are maintained to support the research of the institution and it's on going research and training activities in Latin America, Africa, Madagascar and Asia. The main purpose of TROPICOS was education and training to promote scientific research in the countries. Data sharing has always been a primary objective to promote research, conservation, and sustainable use of resources. Countries providing data: Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Suriname, Venezuela, Paraguay, South Africa, Tanzania, Gabon, Zambia, Madagascar, Vietnam, China. |
|
The initiatives at the University of Kansas dealing with data-sharing include Lifemapper, Species Analyst, Specify, and NABIN. This is part of a larger international framework, involving capacity building (biodiversity informatics architecture/network), training of students and collection professionals and distributed sharing and integration of biodiversity data. The main purpose of these initiatives is integration, access to, serving, sharing of collection-based biodiversity information distributed in museums and herbaria worldwide, and predictive modeling of biodiversity phenomena based on this biodiversity data. The Species Analyst Network involves more then 15 countries and more then 50 institutions worldwide |
|
The New York Botanical Garden Virtual Herbarium's objective is to provide data on-line to improve access to its collections by the worldwide scientific community, to aid its own research programs and to aid the management of the herbarium. Data-sharing is the main purpose of the project. |
|
The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History holds one of the largest collections of biological specimens in the world. For many years it has been working to database the collections for its internal uses for science and management, yet only about 10% of the specimens have been databased. With limited exceptions for security and sensitivities, museum information has always been freely available to scientists and policy makers who have visited and worked at the museum Internally the Smithsonian has invested substantial funds and time in moving the databases into an integrated multimedia catalog that will make the data freely available on the internet and accessible through the search processes being developed by GBIF. The main purpose of the project is to make its data freely and widely available, expanding its research capacities and from Congressional mandate. |
|
The name of the project concerned with data-sharing with countries of origin is "Repatriation of Herbarium Data for the Flora of Northeastern Brazil" which is part of the Biodiversity subprogram of the Plants of the Northeast Program (PNE) of Brazil. The present phase of the project aims to repatriate herbarium data on 50% of the Northeastern Brazilian collections found at Kew herbarium in 3 years, in order to facilitate the access of Brazilian scientists to the information contained in the collections. This is a bilateral collaboration between RBG Kew and the Associação Plantas do Nordeste (Association Plants of the Northeast) supported by the Brazilian and UK governments, among other partners. It is important to understand that the project on repatriation of herbarium data is part of a broader program that is structuring databases, carrying out surveys and taxonomic studies, and is also carrying out community programs. Information from the Brazilian government (CNPq) states that between 1995 and 2003 R$1.590.897,44 was spent on scholarships and 10 different projects were supported, including a specific project on "Information, Dissemination, and Training". |
|
The Museum is a major international repository, holding collections of approximately 70 million specimens. Projects undertaken by NHM staff include capacity building, training and information sharing, although the major institutional aim is to carry out research, under the institutions mission statement: "to maintain and develop the collections and use them to promote the discovery, understanding, responsible use and enjoyment of the natural world." The major institutional aim is not data sharing with countries of origin. Projects include: Checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Belize (www.nhm.ac.uk/botany/lascuevas/belize_herplist.html); Birds of Colombia (www.biomap.net/); Plant diversity in Paraguay (internt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/botany/paraguay/); and Trees of the shade coffee farms of El Salvador (internt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/botany/estrees/) among many others. The NHM is a leading partner in ENHSIN – European Natural History Specimen Information Network (www.nhm.ac.uk/science/rco/enhsin/index.html) which developed standards for data exchange, and is also involved with BioCISE – Resource Identification for a Biological Collection Information Service in Europe (www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/biocise). |
|
The project is IMI digitization (fungi). Countries providing data are mainly Commonwealth countries and the data has been accumulated over a period of more than 60 years. Data-sharing is the main purpose of the project. |
|
One of the aims of the projects GLOPP and InfoComp funded by the German Ministry for Education and Sciences was the online presentation of specimen data of large German Natural History Collections. The main purpose is to present this data to support research and services. |
|
The initiative is "Digital specimen images at the Herbarium Berolinense" which offers on-line access to high resolution images of its herbarium holdings. Digitizing specimen information is seen as a curatorial activity. |
|
The initiative is "Prototype Image server to integrate the Martius Herbarium and the Digital Flora Brasiliensis. This project is part of ongoing networking efforts between Brazilian herbaria, North American (especially St. Louis, Madison and New York Botanical Garden), and European institutions (particularly National Botanic Garden of Belgium in Meise, National Herbarium of the Netherlands in Leiden, Herbarium Munich and Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew). Its ultimate goal is to expand the digitization of Martius' collection, already begun at Munich and Leiden, to cover all relevant collections and build transparent links to a number of key illustrated works including Martius' Flora Brasiliensis. The project will contribute to the development of a prototype for structured data management of modern on-line treatments of the revised Flora brasiliensis. The prototype will give access in an electronic form to a selection of reference and type specimens from the Martius’s collection. In addition to the specimen and taxonomic databases, access will also be given to digitized herbarium sheets, images of the related plates in Flora brasiliensis, electronic copies of the taxonomic literature and archives of Martius’s collection. Brazilian post-doctorate students could participate of the selection and digitization of specimens in Europe. Stakeholders include:
|
|
The African Biodiversity Information Centre, department of African Zoology, is affiliated to the Royal Museum for Central Africa and in located in Belgium. This is part of a framework agreement with the belgian ministry of development cooperation. The aims and objectives are to provide a structural contribution to the national obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity concerning co-operation with developing countries. It gives particular emphasis on key activities directly committed by the CBD relating to co-operation in identification, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, such as:
Data-sharing is an important component, but not the main purpose; training in the use of the data is a more important component. |
|
The network's main aim is to share label information on Southeast Asian plants as part of Flora Malesiana and Flora of Thailand projects. Its goals include collection maintenance (improvement identifications of duplicates) and research (revisions, distribution maps, biodiversity analyses). Its activities are:
The project is being financed by the European Commission (SE Asia IT&C programme). |
|
The mission of this initiative is "to develop tools and standards and to help improve infrastructure and capacity building to accelerate national progress in collection, collation, analysis, prediction and dissemination of knowledge about Indian biotic resources and its environment to make their sustainable use". Repatriated Biological Collections of India (RBCI) is an effort to form a link between taxonomists dealing with Indian biota and museums that hold the specimens (mostly in Europe and USA). RBCI plans to link information with the other datasets being developed by NCBI and other agencies (e.g. ECATs on Indian Biota, Database on Sacred Groves of India, Conservation Sites in India, data collated using SAMPADA, ecological and genetics datasets, etc.) Acquisition of data on specimens originated from India from the collection facilities / museums abroad is the main objective of this project. |
|
FaunaBase is a search engine originally developed to make information derived from the Western Australian Museum's vertebrate collections available online. Primarily designed with the general public in mind, FaunaBase also caters for specialists by providing restricted access to records contained in the underlying database. FaunaBase was expanded to include the vertebrate records of the Queensland and Northern Territory Museums on a trail basis to test the ability of the technology to handle larger data sets and still deliver an acceptably fast response. FaunaBase will soon include invertebrate records. It was not developed with being part of a larger framework in mind. |
|
This activity is based on the Australia's Virtual Herbarium framework, and involves capacity building for the botanists of the Papua New Guinea National Herbarium (LAE) - providing a tool for readily providing data for conservation and environmental management decisions within their region. The staff will be trained in database, record and content management. Data will be shared between the Australian National Herbarium (CANB), National Herbarium of New South Wales (NSW) National Herbarium of Victoria (MEL), and the Queensland Herbarium (BRI). Initially, the database will be housed off-site (at NSW) and will be access via Internet technology. This will minimise the need for expensive hardware and software. It will also minimise the risks associated with database management for the LAE because the management will be done at NSW. |
|
SNIB is a law mandated initiative of the Mexican Government that requires CONABIO to create a permanently updated biodiversity information system to support research for its growth and to use it to provide advice to all sectors of Mexican society. Work includes supporting projects, promoting and creating standards, capacity building, data compilation, data sharing and data distribution. |
|
The initiative is "Sistema de Información sobre Biodiversidad" or The Biodiversity Information System (BIS). It was established and co-ordinated in Colombia by the Humboldt Institute, in association with other organizations from public and private sector (including research institutes, universities, NGOs, biological collections, etc.). The BIS is part of the Environmental Information System of Colombia, a big initiative managed directly by the Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development. The BIS promotes data and information sharing, by providing technical guidelines and tools, as well as capacity building and trainning among participants. Information sharing process under BIS scheme are not completely implemented at this moment, because designing of tools and policies are still in progress. This initiative has been established to facilitate information sharing among national institutions. Exchange process with other countries are not a main purpose of the BIS, but it is considered in terms of interoperability tools under implementation. As to stake-holders, the institution that is providing data is the Missouri Botanical Garden, USA. |
|
CRIA is a not-for-profit private organization that aims at disseminating electronic information as a tool for the organization of the scientific and technological community of the country. It disseminates biological information of environmental and industrial interest and through this, hopes to contribute directly to the conservation and sustainable use of Brazil's biological resources. The initiatives included in this survey are part of the São Paulo State Program "Biota/Fapesp The Virtual Biodiversity Institute". They are speciesLink, a distributed information network of biological collections (splink.cria.org.br/) and SinBiota (sinbiota.cria.org.br/atlas), an information system for the program's field surveys. CRIA works with biodiversity informatics. |
The questionnaire asked whether data-sharing with the originating country was the main purpose of the project. Answers are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Aims: questions and answers
|
Institution |
Was data-sharing with the original country the main purpose of the project? |
If not, what was the main purpose of the project? |
|
|
yes |
no |
||
|
Missouri Botanical Garden, USA |
|
x |
The main purpose was education and training to promote scientific research in the countries. Data sharing has always been a primary objective to promote research, conservation, and sustainable use of resources. |
|
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas, USA |
x |
x |
Integration, access to, serving, sharing of collection-based biodiversity information distributed in museums and herbaria worldwide; predictive modeling of biodiversity phenomena based on this biodiversity data. |
|
New York Botanical Garden Herbarium, USA |
x |
|
|
|
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, USA |
|
x |
Making our data freely and widely available, expanding our research capacities and from Congressional mandate. |
|
Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK |
x |
|
|
|
The Natural History Museum, London |
|
x |
The major institutional aim is not data sharing with countries of origin, although this can be a, or the, major aim of projects carried out by our staff… |
|
CABI Bioscience, UK |
x |
|
|
|
Botanische Staatssammlung Munich, Germany |
|
x |
Present collection data of our large natural history collection to support research and services |
|
Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum, Berlin Dahlem, Germany |
|
x |
Digitizing specimen information is seen as a curatorial activity. |
|
National Botanic Garden of Belgium |
x |
|
|
|
African Biodiversity Information Centre, Belgium |
x |
x |
Data-sharing is an important component, but not the main purpose; training in the use of the data is a more important component (i.e. no data dumps without further training or follow-up. |
|
South East Asian Botanical Collections, Information Network - National Herbarium Netherlands-Leiden University Branch, Netherlands |
x |
|
|
|
Repatriated Biological Collections of India, NCL Centre for Biodiversity Informatics (NCBI), Information Division, National Chemical Laboratory (NCL), India |
x |
|
Acquisition of data on specimens of Indian origin from the collection facilities / museums abroad is the main objective of this project. |
|
FaunaBase: Western Australian Museum, Australia |
|
|
|
|
Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, Repatriation of data to Papua New Guinea |
x |
|
Yes but capacity building was also a major driver of this project |
|
Sistema Nacional de Información sobre Biodiversidad (SNIB), National Commission on Biodiversity, CONABIO, Mexico |
x |
|
|
|
Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute, Bogotá, Colombia |
|
x |
This initiative has been established to facilitate information sharing among national institutions. Exchange process with other countries is not a main purpose of the BIS, but it is considered in terms of interoperability tools under implementation. |
|
Reference Center on Environmental Information - CRIA, Brazil |
x |
|
Data sharing is the main purpose of the project. But more then data sharing we hope to contribute to promote collaborative research. The system is also integrated with other networks such as Species Analyst. |
|
Total |
11 |
8 |
|
Only one institution did not answer. Of the total of 8 institutions that answered that data-sharing was not the main purpose of the project, 2 answered both "yes" and "no", and of the 6 that just answered "no", 5 specifically state data-sharing as an important component. Basically, most projects are making information generally available or, in other words are actually sharing their data on the Internet. Data sharing with country of origin is seen as a valuable spin-off, and the rational is that by making the information freely available, it becomes available not only to the countries of origin, but to anyone else who needs or can benefit from such access.
The following aspects related to data sharing strategies were analyzed:
criteria for selection of taxonomic group;
criteria for selection of collection;
priorities addressed; and,
user groups for shared data. Tables 4-7 present a summary of the answers given.
The criteria "selection of taxonomic groups" shows interesting answers from institutions working with information systems. While herbaria and natural history museums set as a priority recent taxonomic revision, recently curated, and as "other", the presence of research groups, institutions such as CONABIO, CRIA, and the Humboldt Institute in Colombia, concerned with developing information systems, include as "other" the willingness to share data and information and the availability of data in an electronic format.
The most important criteria for the selection of a collection, based on the answers given are taxonomic and regional scope answered respectively by 72% and 78%. Here again, the institutions closely involved with the development of information systems, University of Kansas, CRIA and CONABIO all include willingness to participate as a key factor.
As to priorities addressed, once again taxonomic, included by 15 of the 18 institutions and conservation, 12 out of 18, were the most important criteria. Policy-making is included by 7 institutions which may indicate the increasing concern to make quality information a basis for the elaboration of policies.
Finally, as to user groups, as was expected, all institutions included the scientific community as a target user. It may have been interesting to have requested that a priority list be made in order to be able to analyze in which order these users are placed for each institution. Policy makers and the "general public" were included by 61% of the institutions followed closely by Educators with 56%. Only 5 of the 18 institutions (28%) included private companies as target users.
Table 4. Criteria for selection of taxonomic group
|
Institution |
Economic Importance |
Recent Taxonomic Revision |
Biogeographic Study |
Conservation Priority |
Recently Curated |
Phylogenetic Study |
Endemism |
Historic sources of data |
other |
|
Missouri Botanical Garden |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
disease, invasive species, pest |
|
New York Botanical Garden Herbarium |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
groups/areas currently the focus of research programs at NYBG and elsewhere |
|
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
Presence of specialist on staff or group of collaborating specialists |
|
The Natural History Museum |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Because of the wide variety of staff and reasons for projects, all of the alternatives apply to activities undertaken by the NHM. There is no institutional policy that would necessarily prioritize these |
|
CABI Bioscience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Botanische Staatssammlung München |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin Dahlem |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Loans |
|
National Botanic Garden of Belgium |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The herbarium material will be selected within 8 pilot plant groups that are currently the focus of research of taxonomists at the universities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. These groups are the most feasible ones for a prototype image server and will result in data of immediate interest for the users. |
|
African Biodiversity Information Centre |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
South East Asian Botanical Collections Information Network - National Herbarium Netherlands-Leiden University Branch |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repatriated Biological Collections of India Information Division, National Chemical Laboratory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
All taxonomic groups are selected |
|
FaunaBase: Western Australian Museum |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
Fully databased and most complete taxonomy |
|
National Commission on Biodiversity, CONABIO |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
Willingness of curators to allow access to their data |
|
Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute, Bogotá, Colombia |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
Data electronically available |
|
Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental - CRIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willingness to database information and to share data |
|
Total |
7 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
|
|
% of possible total |
39 |
44 |
44 |
44 |
44 |
22 |
28 |
44 |
|
Table 5. Criteria for Selection of Collection
|
Institution |
Types |
Ecological |
Collectors |
Taxonomic |
Expeditions |
Regional Scope |
Other |
|
Missouri Botanical |