Email: peter@eti.bio.uva.nl
GENERAL IMPRESSIONS
I was impressed by the two sessions of the workshop and found
participating very stimulating. The meetings were well organized
and in my opinion effective to their purpose. I was specially
impressed by the enthusism and willingness of the ( large number
of) participants to contribute to the aims of the workshop and
the way they actively took steps to get the difficult process
of inventorying underway.
The discussions were rewarding. Although (of course) different
views exist how to tackle this task, overall there was agreement
on the main line of approach. The prework by the organizing committee
was helpful to get discussions (and work) started.
Inviting representatives of different organizations to present
their views, demonstrate and explain electronic tools, and share
experiences with similar processes enriched the workshop and gave
the possibilities of using case studies as an example. Also having
representatives from various disciplines present, enriched the
discussions tremendously.
I have been part of various workshops, working groups and scientific
symposia dealing with biodiversity databases and the process of
making biodiverity inventories, and I feel that this workshop
in São Paulo made a good example how to get things moving!
During the first (preparing) workshop all discussions and presentation
were in English, which made the participation of people from outside,
not speaking Portuguese, easy. Also there was sufficient time
for elaborate presentations and discussions, adding to the effectiveness
of this meeting.
During the second part of the workshop in Serra Negra, the
participants discussed mostly in Portuguese. Thus was certainly
justified, as the workshop aimed at scientists and specialists
from the state of São Paulo itself. I was impressed and grateful
for the continuous translations, allowing me to follow the presentations
and discussions. Due to the large number of participants during
the second meeting, there was a greater pressure for time. Perhaps
it would have been more effective to have the invited experts
present their cases during the first day and to use their joint
expertise during a panel discussion in the mid of the meeting.
However, I would like to emphasize that I got the impression that
in individual discussions "in the corridors" most questions
were answered to satisfaction.
Observations and suggestions
- It is important to keep this process going, certainly now
sufficient basis proved to be present. The workshop should be
followed up by subsequent activities not to lose momentum.
- It is important to keep the participants abreast of development
and involved with the follow up of the workshop. The website that
was set up is certainly a good tool to do so, although for those
that do not have (direct) access other more traditional channels
(mailings) should not be forgotten. Also generated data should
be disclosed in an early stage, to evoke response from both specialist
data providers and users, in order to adjust and "fine tune"
the project in time.
- The metadatabase of knowledge sources should be made available
on-line (and off-line) so that a continuous process of updating
and extending will be supported and stimulated.
- I have the feeling that more attention should be given to
the users side. Biodiversity data, though generated by scientists,
will be used by a broad forum of users. It is advisable to give
the aspect of use, and type of use of the information, more attention.
- Many electronic tools are available for storing, processing,
handling, manipulating and disseminating biodiversity information.
It is important to make use of those existing tools, instead of
losing time by devising (and maintaining!) new ones.
- Instead of going for one major database that might take a
long time to complete, it is worth while to consider to work with
distributed but interlinked databases, maintained by the specialists
themselves. Interoperationability and a central access to these
databases is important.
- When third party electronic tools are chosen it is advisable
to check whether sufficient support is warranted (e.g. technical
support, updates and upgrades) also for the future.
- Related to the above there are internationally experts available
to guide processes of setting up biodiversity information tools.
It may pay to acquire their assistance in some parts of the technical
work.
- It is important to install a quality control mechanism to
warrant reliability of the information. However "overshoot"
should be avoided: e.g. not for all application a high level of
detail in the data will be needed. Aiming for a too high standard
can stall the process.
- Related to the above it is advisable to check the use of taxonomic
names for correctness. Only by using valid names, checklists can
be merged and exchanged between states or with other countries
or to link to additional information. Collaboration with Species
2000 may be an option for downloading or assistance with checklists
of valid taxonomic names.
- Apart from the obvious users of biodiversity data, such as
for science, nature conservation, sustainable use and general
"eco" management, it is important not to forget an output
that may be used in schools or for the general public. Creating
awareness in all levels of society is just as important. Therefore
(electronic and traditional) publications with a more general
character on the countries biodiversity, its value and responsible
use, should receive attention as well.
I hope these comments will prove to be of use and do not sound
to much like lecturing! Again I would like to emphasize that I
was impressed by the planning and execution of the workshop. The
São Paulo Biodiversity initiative has the makings of a successful
program. I felt honored to be able to be part of it and to be
a witness to this well run operation. Last but not least, if there
are any questions I will be happy to (try to) answer them and
I would like to offer ETI's or Species 2000's assistance where
needed.
