IABIN Vision Meeting Washington, DC, 28 – 29 October, 2008
Post on 06-Jan-2016
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
IABIN-GEF PROJECTLessons Learned in Four Years
of Implementation
Boris Ramírez and Rita BesanaIABIN Secretariat
IABIN Vision Meeting
Washington, DC, 28 – 29 October, 2008
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
Data
Providers
Thematic
Networks
Focal
Points
Coordination
Global
Networks
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Project Planning
What Went Well Letters of support/co-financing to obtain GEF funding from 78 organizations
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Project Implementation Plan (PIP)
What Went WellRequesting a 2:1 co-financing from CIs to implement the TNs – a first for a GEF Project
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Project Implementation Plan (PIP)
What Could Have Been BetterImplementation 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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Technical Secretariat
What Could Have Been Better
Closer follow up with Coordinating Institutions
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Project ImplementationProject 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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Project Implementation
What Could Have Been BetterDecision-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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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)
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
OutreachOutreach
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.)
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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.)
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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)
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Focal PointsFocal 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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
Focal PointFocal 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
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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).
www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net
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
top related