IABIN Vision Meeting Washington, DC, 28 – 29 October, 2008

1. IABIN-GEF PROJECTLessons Learned in Four Yearsof ImplementationBoris Ramírez and Rita BesanaIABIN Secretariat IABIN Vision Meeting Washington, DC, 28 – 29 October, 2008

2. Background and Objectives • The activities implemented have been based on the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) • How the PIP has been interpreted has greatly influenced how well the activities have addressed the needs • With this in mind we will highlight what went well and what could have been better

3. Data Providers Coordination Focal Points Thematic Networks Global Networks IABIN • Is IABIN Necessary? • Fills gaps: Standards, tools, training, grants • Bridges DP – FP • Bridges Regions • Integration of different type of data • Is IABIN feasible? • Concept is proven • Needs a lot of coordination (general & national) • Needs Funds

4. Project Planning • What Went Well • Letters of support/co-financing to obtain GEF funding from 78 organizations

5. Project Planning • What Could Have Been Better • Organizations who gave co-financing letters should have been informed of the responsibility they were acquiring to report on a semester basis on the co-financing they offered -- very few sent co-financing reports during implementation because it required work and they gained nothing from project • Too much time was allowed to pass between the obtaining of these letters and any communication with the organizations (2003 to 2005) – many of the people who signed them were no longer there

6. Project Planning • What Could Have Been Better • Consultants who carried out the Regional Analysis in 2003 promised to send reports to the organizations but none were sent – this caused initial distrust in IABIN during project implementation. Final reports should have been sent to all participants. • Same thing happened with initial Consultant for Mid Term Review

7. Physical Host of the Secretariat In City of Knowledge, Panama • What Went Well • Support in facilities, utilities, equipment, administration of donations, introduction to potential donors, secretarial assistance • Panama is centric and convenient in terms of travel, not too expensive • CoK Hemispheric Hub for other organizations (UN, Red Cross, etc.) and offers many opportunities for networking • Panama offers good quality of life for the Secretariat staff vis-à-vis the salaries paid

8. Physical Host of the Secretariat In City of Knowledge, Panama • What Could Have Been Better • Better choice of building/internet access provider other than CATHALAC

9. Project Implementation Plan (PIP) • What Went Well • Requesting a 2:1 co-financing from CIs to implement the TNs – a first for a GEF Project

10. Project Implementation Plan (PIP) • What Could Have Been Better • Implementation of pilot projects in selected countries would have achieved a greater involvement from at least some countries -- better results with the funds available instead of spreading thin among 34 countries

11. Project Implementation Plan (PIP) • What Could Have Been Better • The contractual relationship with the Coordinating Institutions should have been better thought out in the signing of the agreements given requirement that each CI contribute 2:1 funding • Implementation of Components was planned to happen at the same time while the results from Component 1 were needed to implement Component 2 and Component 3

12. Implementation Strategy • What Could Have Been Better • The Hemisphere has Regions with different interests, degree of development, integration and capacity – it would have been better to be able to target regions depending on their needs and the ability/resources of IABIN to respond to those (e.g. In the Caribbean there is a great technological obstacle which IABIN could have addressed) • It would have given better results in some countries to have identified the few/key data providers and target them directly

13. Implementation Strategy • What Could Have Been Better • No funds earmarked in the PIP for outreach to potential donors nor potential data providers • Naïve concept of how to achieve sustainability • Requiring the Director to fundraise for his/her own salary when there were no products yet ready to sell nor resources to cultivate donors • Expecting that requiring co-financing from CIs would cause these to become “owners” of the TN and to carry out their own fundraising to maintain it

14. Selection of a Technical Secretariat • What Went Well • Good division of knowledge, skills and experience to complement each other • Multidisciplinary team • Team work • In-depth knowledge of IABIN, its stakeholders, the implementation of the GEF Project • Contacts in the global conservation and bioinformatics community • Main face of IABIN • Oversight of the Thematic Networks • Outreach to potential data providers • Organizational memory • Insights for IABIN´s future

15. Technical Secretariat • What Could Have Been Better • Closer follow up with Coordinating Institutions

16. Project Implementation • What Went Well • OAS as a Convener • IABIN Member Countries respect the OAS and respond to its summons • Opened opportunities at Summits and other Fora • Good management of administrative processes

17. Project Implementation • What Could Have Been Better • Decision-making Process • OAS made almost all the decisions – conceptual, operational and administrative • Unclear Roles and Responsibilities between OAS and Secretariat • Stronger Involvement from the IEC would have made a difference

18. Project Implementation What Could Have Been Better • Decision-making process • More communication between OAS Project Manager and Secretariat staff for purposes of coordination, planning • Face-to-face meetings for planning and/or supervision (none were carried out)

19. Project Implementation What Could Have Been Better • Decision-making Process – how it should be • IEC – conceptual and overarching decisions • Secretariat – Operational decisions, day by day • OAS – Establishment of administrative systems, management of contracts and agreements, enforcement of procurement rules and payment of bills

20. Outreach • What Could Have Been Better • Many people/organizations see IABIN as only the GEF Project. • Initiatives that are not part of the GEF Project are not considered as important for the Secretariat to cultivate (FAO Panama, CIDES, DGF) • Participation of Secretariat in international initiatives would give IABIN a wider range (GBIF, GEOSS, etc.)

21. Procurement Process • What Could Have Been Better • Contracting of some of the key players would have been easier without having to open up bids – the strong players in the Hemisphere were known and could have been approached directly • Data content grantees could have been approached directly for a more uniform distribution of data providers from all countries

22. Selecting a Consortium Led by a Coordinating Institution for Each Thematic Network • What Went Well • Powerful idea of synergy of a Consortium • Experts/Leaders in their area • Leveraging for IABIN – technically and financially • Diversifying the risks – requesting a 2:1 co-financing from each CI

23. Establishment of Thematic Working Groups • What Went Well • Information Technology TWG made possible the interoperability of the TNs • Added synergy and great knowledge to each TN • Created and cultivated camaraderie among members of TNs and others (e.g. GBIF, UT, etc.)

24. Development of Long-lasting Bioinformatics infrastructure • What Went Well • Standards and protocols for each TN • Software – Data interoperability and exchange, data digitizing, portals, web templates • Unique contribution – Ecosystems

25. Capacity Building • What Went Well • Grants to make data accessible • Training in the use of data digitizing and other tools • Unique contribution – awareness of alien invasive species even among scientist • One-to-one proposal development (only with PATN data providers)

26. Focal Points • What Went Well • IABIN's main face in the country • Link to country's individual bioinformatics needs • Main point for dissemination of information at the national level

27. Focal Points • What Could Have Been Better • Only a few Focal Points respond and get involved • Many Focal Points attend meetings but rarely participate of discussions. Other times they send a substitute who has no background on IABIN • Great amount of time spent in sending messages with no response from FPs • No notification to OAS/Secretariat when a Focal Point changes or when an email address, phone number or other contact information changes – Secretariat and OAS have difficulty in reaching Focal Points without current information

28. Focal Point • What Could Have Been Better • IABIN is a low priority for some FPs – other initiatives take their time and attention • If FP is not interested and does not carry out follow up, trainings and other capacity building are wasted • Opportunities missed for countries

29. Project Administration • What Could Have Been Better • Contract process too slow (e.g. donations that were approved in December 2007 have not yet been signed) • Legal processes caused several contracts to fall off (e.g. Catalog, ETN) – flexibility should prevail • Extremely complex processes – OAS-Secretariat-CIs-WB. OAS has to convince WB, WB takes its time to respond (sometimes months).

30. In Spite of Everything… All of Us Together have come far! A recent review of Project Objectives Shows they will be achieved by end of Project Thank you for your attention