Amazon Basin Biodiversity Information Facility (ABBIF)Feasibility Study Report

Index

Executive SummaryIntroduction 1Methodology 3Architecture, standards, and protocols 4

Elements of the Network......................................................................................................................5

Data Providers 5

Portal 7

Tools 8

Data archive 8

Standards.............................................................................................................................................8

Brazil 9

Bolivia 9

Colombia 9

Ecuador 9

French Guyana 10

Peru 10

Venezuela 10

Communication Infrastructure............................................................................................................10ABBIF and Amazonian countries 13

Analysis based on the ABBIF survey.................................................................................................13

Peru 13

Venezuela 14

Bolivia 16

Colombia 16

Ecuador 16

Brazil 17

Strategy for data digitization..............................................................................................................19

Strategy for capacity building.............................................................................................................20ABBIF and Non Amazonian countries 21

Evaluation..........................................................................................................................................21

Argentina 21

1

Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Bernardino Rivadavia (MACN), Herbario Nacional de Plantas Celulares 21

Museo de La Plata, División Zoología Invertebrados - MLP 21

Austria 22

Belgium 22

Bulgaria 23

Denmark 23

Estonia 24

France 24

Germany 25

Latvia 26

Netherlands 27

Poland 27

Portugal 27

Spain 28

Sweden 28

Switzerland 30

UK 31

USA 32

Analysis and Recommendations........................................................................................................35

Digitization and Collaborative Research Programs...........................................................................36

Natural History Museum Vienna, Dept. of Botany (W) 37

National Botanic Garden of Belgium, Dept. Spermatophyta-Pteridophyta and Dept. Bryophyta-Thallophyta, Herbarium BR 37

Museúm National d'Histoire Naturelle, Herbier Unité taxonomie et Collection - Dept Systematique et Evolution 37

Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universität Berlin, herbarium Berolinense 37

Botanische Staatssammlung München, Dept. Vascular Plants 37

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Herbarium 38

Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) 38

New York Botanical Garden 38

Seed Money Program........................................................................................................................38

Thematic Information Systems..........................................................................................................38Proposed Overall Budget (in US$ 1,000) 39Final Comments 39

2

Executive SummaryThe Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental (CRIA) together with the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) conducted a study to determine the feasibility, need and convenience of establishing an Amazon Basin Biodiversity Information Facility (ABBIF). As biodiversity data is a critical resource for scientific and conservation purposes including better decision-making, ABBIF aims at making available -freely and openly- non sensitive Amazonian biodiversity data via the internet.

The ABBIF feasibility study aimed at identifying the size, location, and availability of Amazonian data, the existence of infrastructure, staff and the availability of resources. It also appraised the interest and willingness of participation and sharing biodiversity data of different data providers within and outside the region. In addition, this study also wanted to assess if an initiative like ABBIF was considered important and/or needed and beneficial for the Amazon region and its institutions.

Based on an inclusive and participatory process that included: an on-line survey, 600 questionnaires sent, direct interviews, a regional workshop with Amazonian scientists and consultation with representatives from northern-based large Natural History institutions, the following results and reports have been produced:

1) Proposal for digitization of biological collections: http://www.cria.org.br/abbif/docs/digit.doc

2) Report on data sharing and repatriation of biodiversity information: Setting-up a collaboration program with collections from non-Amazonian Countries:

http://www.cria.org.br/abbif/docs/repatriation.doc

3) Proposal on architecture: http://www.cria.org.br/abbif/docs/Architecture.doc

This study concluded that there is a strong support and endorsement from the scientific community from the Amazon region to promote and establish an initiative like ABBIF (http://www.cria.org.br/eventos/abbif/ and share biodiversity data. Furthermore, scientists working in northern-institutions that hold vast quantities of specimens collected in the Amazon expressed also their keen interest in collaborating with ABBIF and in promoting activities of data sharing with countries of origin.

Technology, standards, and protocols for distributed systems are readily available and ABBIF can be structured following a decentralized and distributed architecture having GBIF as an articulator and integrator. Siamazonia in Peru and Humboldt Institute in Colombia, both GBIF nodes, and CRIA in Brazil are prepared to contribute with a distributed architecture. Most northern-based large Natural History institutions are also serving data to GBIF. It is therefore expected that with appropriate funding, data systems can be organized and made available very quickly, showing at an early phase the value and importance of ABBIF.

ABBIF is envisaged as building upon existing expertise and national initiatives and projects. A three year project is being proposed to the Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation to: (1) fully establish and make ABBIF operational (2) help catalyze initiatives and (3) establish the basis of a regional and decentralized network. Yearly evaluations based on clear indicators shall be carried out to help institutions responsible for maintaining the information systems in Amazonian countries to analyze their progress and to help promote the exchange of experiences and know-how.

For further information please contact:

Vanderlei Canhos (vcanhos@cria.org.br)

Dora Canhos (dora@cria.org.br)

1

Beatriz Torres (btorres@gbif.org)

2

IntroductionBiodiversity information is critical to a wide range of scientific, conservational, educational and governmental uses, and is essential for decision making. Most of the biodiversity information on the Amazon Basin is neither readily available nor accessible. Access to taxonomic information (scientific names and synonymic lists) and specimen data (primary data, including geospatial information) is fundamental to build robust ecological niche models and environmental change scenarios. An initiative to integrate worldwide distributed species and specimen information on the fauna, flora and micro-biota of the Amazon Basin is urgently needed. An action plan must be carried out to digitize and integrate all relevant information on the region in a structured manner, with the adoption of standards and protocols that allow transparent data integration and systems interoperability.

Recent developments in the field of biodiversity informatics can directly benefit environmental education programs, resource management, conservation efforts and biomedical and agricultural research in the region. However, in order to benefit from the recent developments in information and communication technologies a shared digital data infrastructure is a fundamental requirement. Species and specimen data (scientific names and synonyms; localities and collection dates) and associated environmental information (climatic, geological and geographical data) are the fundamental building blocks for the comparative spatial analysis, synthesis and visualization of biodiversity information.

ABBIF’s primary goal is to support the development of a shared data infrastructure associated to a modeling framework, with a broad and inclusive participation of local stakeholders. This facility will be developed adopting GBIF recommended standards and protocols and modern approaches of data capture and management, increasing the value, visibility and usage of available data worldwide through dynamic networking. The scheme of the proposed infrastructure integrating data, web-services, tools and products is shown in figure 1

Web Services• Name Server• Locality Server• Map Server

Tools• Data Quality• Modeling

Specimen & Species Data• Herbaria & Museums• Checklists

Environmental Data• Climate, soil, etc.

Maps

DATA

Products:• Integrated Checklists• Virtual Collections• Species Distribution Maps

Standards & Protocols:• interoperability• integration

Figure 1. Biodiversity information infrastructure components

3

MethodologyIn order to involve the greatest number of partners possible, the following activities were carried out:

(1) Internet survey. The first step was to carry out an internet-based survey to identify potential data providers and custodians. Special attention was given to on-line species and specimen data, with focus on biological collections and species and specimen data custodians. This information is evidently biased as it is restricted to data and information that is available on-line. But, as the objective is to develop an internet based information facility in order to quickly prove its utility and usefulness, it is important that existing initiatives be integrated while non Internet data providers organize and digitize their data.

(2) Questionnaire. A questionnaire was prepared in consultation with GBIF. Its objective was to analyze a number of aspects in data providers and custodians such as:

Taxonomic group: plants, animals, microorganisms

Type of data: checklists, specimen data, observation data

Digitization: status, software used

Standards used: data models and protocols

Existing infra-structure: hardware, software, humanware

Internet access

Data and information access policy

Willingness to participate in the project

(3) Survey. The questionnaire was sent out to potential data providers and custodians known to GBIF and CRIA and to those identified in the Internet survey. A web site1 was developed with information about the project, inviting all interested players to answer the questionnaire that was made available on-line. Over 600 emails were sent to 254 institutions from 15 countries. More then 200 answers were received from 22 countries.

(4) Personal meetings, phone conferences and hired consultant. Personal meetings were held at the American Museum of Natural History and at the New York Botanical Garden. Phone conferences were carried out with specialists from the Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Colombia, and the Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana – IIAP, Peru. A consultant was hired to contact interested parties in Venezuela.

(5) Studies. Specific studies were carried out on architectures, standards, and protocols used in different information systems.

(6) Analysis. The questionnaires were received and analyzed and together with the IT studies were the basis for the production of the following reports:

Proposal for digitization of biological collections2

Proposed Architecture3

Data Sharing and Repatriation of Biodiversity Information: Setting-up a Collaboration Program with Collections from Non Amazonian Countries4

1 ABBIF website – http://www.cria.org.br/abbif 2 Report: Proposal for digitization of biological collections - http://www.cria.org.br/abbif/docs/digit.doc 3 Report on the Architecture: http://www.cria.org.br/abbif/docs/Architecture.doc4 http://www.cria.org.br/abbif/docs/repatriation.doc

4

(7) Dissemination of reports. All reports were made available on the Internet for comments and suggestions.

(8) Technical meetings. A workshop and a briefing meeting were organized to present and discuss the reports and the results of the survey

A workshop was held with data providers and custodians of the Amazon region5 in Campinas in March, 2006. 18 participants from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, and Peru discussed with CRIA and GBIF first whether an information facility for the Amazon Basin is needed and second, if it is necessary and important, would those present be willing to collaborate. The answer was unanimous as to the necessity of structuring an information facility for the region and in the participants’ willingness to collaborate. A summary of the survey was presented and the architecture was discussed. Contributions expressed during the workshop and after (sent by email) were included in the feasibility study.

A meeting was held in Curitiba, Brazil, during COP 8 with 30 participants, mostly from non Amazonian countries. Here again the survey and architecture were presented and partnerships were discussed. The idea is to try and make digitization of Amazonian data a priority for collections held in Europe and North America. Here again, great interest was shown and worldwide collaboration seems to be feasible if the necessary resources are in place.

(9) Feasibility study. Based on the surveys, the studies, and the contributions received at the workshop and technical meeting and through email, a feasibility study report was prepared and is being submitted to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Architecture, standards, and protocolsWhen designing and implementing the network, it is important to consider the fact that ABBIF should:

promote free and open access to taxonomic information and non-sensitive specimen data;

enable that each data provider or custodian be fully responsible for his/her own data;

enable frequent updating managed by each data provider;

enable data validation;

assure that full attribution to data and information sources are given;

aim at strengthening local biological collections and data custodians;

be integrated to existing information systems at local, national, and regional levels; and,

be integrate to GBIF.

The proposed architecture for ABBIF is based on the study of existing systems that are disseminating species and specimen data through the Internet and on the answers received to the questionnaire by biological collections and data custodians as to what standards and protocols are being used.

The report on the architecture3 included the following elements:

Centralized, distributed and combined or mixed systems: main characteristics, advantages and disadvantages.

5 Workshop: Amazon Basin Information Facility, March 16-17, 2006 (http://www.cria.org.br/eventos/abbif/)

5

Standards and protocols: what is available, what is being used or has been adopted by networks of direct interest to ABBIF and what is the situation of local data providers and custodians concerning infrastructure and expertise.

Architectures: how data custodians and information systems of direct interest to ABBIF are being structured

Elements of the NetworkThe aim is the establishment of a shared data infrastructure open to all interested, where the data provider has complete control over his/her data.

Data ProvidersIt is important to determine target data providers for ABBIF’s initial phase. Focus should be given to specimen and specie data, and the organization of data providers must be country driven, meaning that the articulation and involvement of different providers will be carried out nationally.

Biological collections, due to the nature of their activities, are information centers. They must have sufficient infrastructure and expertise to set up their own information system for internal purposes. Those that also have the necessary infrastructure and expertise to hold an internet information system available 24 hrs a day can serve their data directly to the network. Those that don’t have or don’t want to maintain dynamic links should have a mechanism to submit, alter, and delete their data at a regional server (or cache node).

Figure 2 shows a diagram of the network.

ABBIF Portal

Collections with dynamic links

Regional Servers

Collections mirroring their data in regional servers

Figure 2. Component data provider: biological collectionsCollections with dynamic links and regional servers must adopt compatible standards and protocols and must be held in institutions capable of maintaining the system and serving data through fast Internet connections.

Observation data and taxonomic descriptions represent two other groups of data providers, individuals or research groups. This is the case where facilities must be offered by data custodians where researchers may deposit their data for full and open access on the internet. This is not a task

6

for amateurs. There must be a specialized staff that has as its main activity the development and maintenance of information systems that guarantee the preservation and dissemination of data.

Based on the concept of open and free access to non-sensitive data, this element of the network will be called digital data commons space6. The network may have more then one server that will guarantee the necessary infrastructure for preservation, maintenance, recuperation, and dissemination of the data. Internet connectivity must be stable and fast (figure 3).

portal

“data commons”Data commons space

Observation data

“data commons”

Taxonomic data Other data

Internet 2

Figure 3. Architecture element: digital data commons spaceThis element could involve stakeholders from the conservation community with important observation data that are normally disseminated through books and reports.

PortalGBIF today has a data index that serves data to the system. A subset of over 96 million records, with name and locality data is harvested from 174 data providers and maintained at a centralized database. This makes the basic search system much quicker and solves problems such as slow or unstable connectivity. After carrying out the basic search the user obtains a list of providers with the number of records found. Users can then display the list of records corresponding to each provider. Users can also download the selected records and may choose to do so directly from the data providers or from the GBIF index (faster), and may also select the format of the downloaded file. There is also a map illustration of the distribution of the requested records that can be produced dynamically.

CRIA developed a fully distributed system. When a query is processed it is sent out to the providers that search the databases and dynamically send the results. At the moment, the speciesLink Network has 6 regional servers (mirroring data from 38 collections) 2 collections with dynamic links, one centralized database with observation data (at CRIA), and one centralized information system of microbial collections (with 9 collections). This architecture is interesting for advanced users that can search any field and retrieve the full data set as a file. Speed and the “fragility” of the network is a disadvantage. If a server for any reason is off-line, that “branch” of the network will be unavailable. Maps are also produced dynamically.

6 see National Science Board. Long-Lived Digital Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21st Century. NSB-05-40. September, 2005. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsb0540/

7

CRIA developed an indexing service of a subset of the data which is used for data cleaning. At the moment CRIA is planning to provide a service to users of searching its index for the data subset to provide faster results and a more stable system. But the distributed search system will continue to be offered as it is very powerful and important to advanced users.

ToolsAnother important activity is the development of tools for data providers and users. These tools should be preferably developed as web services to be able to be used more freely at all levels (local, country, and regional).

Data archiveAn important element to be addressed in the network design is long term data archiving. This may also be a task for country data custodians or their partners. It is important that the scientific council discusses this issue to determine priorities as to what data should be added to a permanent archive and identify an institution or a pool of institutions responsible for this activity.

Figure 4 below presents a diagram of the system.

portal

long term data archive

data commonsspace

biological collections observation data

data commonsspace

taxonomic data

Web services•Maps•Modeling•Data cleaning•automatic georeferencing

•Other services

regional server

Figure 4. Diagram of the system

StandardsIn order to build a distributed or combined system, basic standards must be used. Of immediate interest to ABBIF are: DarwinCore; ABCD – Access to Biological Collection Data; DiGIR; BioCASe; and TAPIR. The report on the proposed architecture offers a brief description of each one. Basically, the data model and communication protocol DarwinCore/DiGIR has been adopted by information systems in the Americas and ABCD/BioCASE has been adopted by Europe. Tapir is being developed to meet the needs of both DiGIR and BioCASE protocols.

Information systems of Amazonian countries were analyzed to see whether an interoperable system could be developed.

8

BrazilBrazil has two very important projects underway that are of direct interest to ABBIF: the speciesLink network7 and PPBio – MCT8, the biodiversity research program of the Ministry of Science and Technology. The speciesLink network involves 40 collections, one centralized information system of observation data from São Paulo State (SinBiota9) and one centralized network with 9 microbial collections (SICol10). The network adopted DarwinCore and DiGIR as data model and protocol. PPBio of the Ministry of Science and Technology is adopting the speciesLink architecture as a model. Data from the network could be immediately linked to ABBIF.

BoliviaBolivia does not have an on-line information facility in place but the Noel Kempff Mercado is willing to participate in this effort. Due to slow connectivity, at a first stage perhaps the best solution would be for Bolivian collections to deposit their non-sensitive data in a regional server with good connectivity. Capacity should be built in order to address the problems associated with connectivity and biodiversity informatics.

ColombiaColombia has a GBIF node established at the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Research Institute, responsible for the Biodiversity Information System SIB (Sistema de Información sobre Biodiversidad11). The interface for distributed searches is not available yet.

SIB’s communication protocol was being developed concurrently with DiGIR and is now aiming at compatibility. The “Standard for exchanging biodiversity information to the organisms’ level Estándar para intercambiar información sobre biodiversidad al nivel de organismos was built based on the mandatory elements indicated in Darwin Core V2, and in some data elements proposed in the Estándar para la documentación de registros biológicos developed by SIB. It seems clear now that in order to share data with other initiatives it is important to use a common protocol and GBIF recommended that SIB should use TAPIR that should be ready for testing in the near future. Meanwhile, in order to integrate SIB in the network it may be necessary to implement some translation routines from one standard to another, which is not a big problem.

EcuadorEcuador does not have an information system, responsible for integrating data from biological collections, but the herbarium of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (QCA) is in the process of digitizing its data and is willing to share non-sensitive data through the Internet. This is the case where a regional server could be installed to start the process of sharing biological collection data in Ecuador. The herbarium would either have to adopt data model standards such as DarwinCore or some translation routines would have to implemented.

French GuyanaAlthough French Guiana is an overseas department of France and, consequently, is politically a part of Europe, it is located in South America, within the Amazon region, and for this reason was included in the analysis of Amazonian countries. The “Herbier de Guyane (CAY)”, a Center of the Institute de

7 http://splink.cria.org.br/ 8 http://ppbio.inpa.gov.br/ 9 http://sinbiota.cria.org.br/atlas/ 10 http://sicol.cria.org.br/cv/ 11 http://www.siac.net.co/Home.php

9

Recherche pour le Developpment (IRD) in Cayenne adopted the data model RIHA (Réseau Informatique des Herbiers Africains) that is compatible to ABCD. Biocase is used as a communication protocol and CAY already serves data through GBIF.

PeruPeru has developed Siamazonia12, the information system for biological and environmental diversity of the Peruvian Amazon (Sistema de Información de la Diversidad Biológica y Ambiental de la Amazonía Peruana). Siamazonia was created in 2001 through the BIODAMAZ project (Proyecto Diversidad Biológica de la Amazonía Peruana), an agreement between Peru and Finland, and was developed by the Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana (IIAP). IIAP is a GBIF node and therefore is a natural partner of the ABBIF network. Its structure is based on nodes, similar to GBIF. Siamazonia is already serving data to GBIF using DarwinCore/DiGIR.

Venezuela Venezuela does not have an information system in place but is beginning to develop an integrated information system on Collections of Vertebrates (Sistema Integrado de Información de Colecciones de Vertebrados de Venezuela). There are 3 institutions participating in this initiative: Museo de Historia Natural La Salle (MHNLS), Museo de Biología de la Universidad Central de Venezuela (MBUCV), and Museo Estación Biológica Rancho Grande (EBRG). Although the intention is to set up a web interface for on-line access, the idea is to control access, having different levels of accessibility according to the user. This restriction, if maintained, will mean that the system will not be interoperable.

Communication InfrastructureAnother important element to be considered in the design is the existing or potential communication infrastructure or connectivity. An analysis of research and education networks in Latin America was carried out to see whether there are any serious constraints that may hinder the full participation of a node in the network.

Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela are all members of RedClara, an association of Latin American networks that aims at connecting academic networks to stimulate cooperation and promote scientific and technological development in the region and with European scientific communities.

5 Amazonian countries are already operating with installed capacity between 10 and 155Mbps. There is a direct link to Europe of 622 Mbps and to the United States (figure 5).

12 www.siamazonia.org.pe/

10

Figure 5. RedClara: Connections established and planned (April, 2006)Bolivia is the only Amazonian country where the connections have not been established. Unfortunately the Guyanas are not members of the network. Table 1 shows the status of connectivity of Amazonian countries.

11

Table 1. Network Status of Amazonian countries

Country Network Status

Capacity Number of institutions connectedInternal External

Brazil RNP/Ipê operating 8M - 10G155M (EU) 1G (USA) 400

Colombia Renata planned 34M 10M 43

Peru RAAP operating 2M - 10M 45M 7

Ecuador Cedia operating 4M - 45M 16M 21

Venezuela REACCIUN2 operating34M - 155M 45M 78

It is important to stress the fact that even if the country has an operating network this does not guarantee that the institutions that are important to ABBIF have a good and reliable connectivity.

The conclusion of this study is that all information systems developed by Amazonian countries that were analyzed are compatible with GBIF, meaning that the development of an Amazon Basin Biodiversity Information Facility is technically feasible. Some systems are centralized other distributed, so the architecture must be a combined system (Figure 6).

DiGIRPortal

virtualcatalogusers queries

Collections (data providers)

HTTP / XML

SOAP

DiGIRProvider

DiGIRProvider

DiGIRProvider

HTTP / XML

RegionalServer

DiGIRProvider

Figure 6. Diagram of a combined system

ABBIF should be built upon existing expertise and national initiatives. A three year project is being proposed to help catalyze initiatives and to establish the basis of the network. Yearly evaluations based on clear indicators shall be carried out to help institutions responsible for maintaining the information systems in Amazonian countries to analyze their progress and to help promote the exchange of experiences and ideas. Three institutions are ready to receive investments and support to

12

carry out this initiative in their countries: Siamazonia, Humboldt, and CRIA. Venezuela is in the process of structuring a system for vertebrates. In other countries where there isn’t an institution with capacity and expertise to hold an information system, it is recommended that the collections link directly to the closest node or, in the case of low or unstable connectivity, to a regional server that will be established for this purpose.

We recommend a yearly budget of US$ 2 million for the system.

ABBIF and Amazonian countriesThis section will focus on the size of the holding, the degree of digitization and the needs of the collections. The results of the ABBIF survey, sponsored by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which aimed at identifying the location and size of the relevant collections within and outside the region, highlights the size of the universe that needs digitizing, as well as the location and size of these collections.

The strategy is not only to involve biological collections and offer resources to digitize data, but to promote a greater integration between the collections and local GBIF nodes or information networks. Most collections that haven’t digitized their data or are very behind in the process, besides hardware, software, and humanware, require training in collection management, databases and on internet connectivity. It is very important to promote local expertise, and GBIF nodes and other local initiatives have a role to play and should be involved in the process.

Analysis based on the ABBIF surveyAll questionnaires from collections from the Amazonian countries were analyzed. Only collections willing to participate in ABBIF and share their data, even if with some restrictions, were considered. Institutions that don’t have species or specimen data were not included in this analysis.

PeruThe Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana is responsible for Siamazonia (www.siamazonia.org.pe/) and is a GBIF node. They are natural partners to the ABBIF network. Siamazonia is developing a system to integrate biodiversity data including that of biological collections. They have 60,000 records on-line 50% of which are georeferenced.

The ABBIF questionnaire was sent to 5 institutions and 15 individuals in Peru and 7 answers were received. The numbers of questionnaires sent obviously does not include possible downloads from the internet. The answers from 6 institutions were sent by Siamazonia which already shows the important role Siamazonia has in the region.

Numbers are as follows:

Collection Plants Animals total records Digitized (no. & % of total)

Georeferenced (no. & % of digitized)

Herbário MOL-FCF 1 11.428 6.857

Herbário Amazonense 1 130.000 32.500 22.750

Hérbário Regional de Ucayali 1

13

Collection Plants Animals total records Digitized (no. & % of total)

Georeferenced (no. & % of digitized)

Herbário Herrerensi 1 6.000 3.300 2.640

UNMSM (11 collections) 1 10 1.500.000 200.000

Personal collection of leafbeetles and their hostplants 1 1 100.000 5.000 5.000

Total 6 11 1.747.428 247.657 (14%) 30.390 (12%)

Only considering records from the Amazon region one has the following:

Collectiontotal records amazon

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georeferenced (no. and % of digitized)

on-line

PERU – Siamazonia 60.000 60.000 30.000 www.siamazonia.org.pe

Herbário MOL-FCF 5.000 www.darwintreediversity.org.pe

Herbário Amazonense www.siamazonia.org.pe

Hérbário Regional de Ucayali

No answers

Herbário Herrerensi 5.000 3.200 0 - 2500 www.siamazonia.org.pe

UNMSM (11 collections) 400.000 40.000 no

Personal collection of leafbeetles and their hostplants 5.000

Total (Siamazonia wasn’t included in the total) 415.000

100.000 (24%) 30.000 (30%)

Where there was no information the table or cell is blank.

One can see that all collections require resources for digitization of data. This group is also concerned with digitizing images and making it available on-line. A digitization grant involving Siamazonia could be very effective.

VenezuelaQuestionnaires were sent to 21 institutions and 28 individuals. As there is no local organization working on an information system to integrate biodiversity data, a local consultant was hired to visit the collections. 9 answers with information from 4 herbaria and 6 zoological collections were received.

14

Collection Plants Animals total records

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georeferenced (no. and % of digitized)

EBRG 1 61.529 61.529 6.153

MIZA 1 2.500.000 5.289 5.289

PORT 1 100.000 7.500

GUYN 1 18.625 18.625 13.037

Museu de Zoologia, BioCentro 1 53.000 53.000 40.000

VEN 1 350.000 113.000 35.000

MHNLS 1 1 5.399 5.399 5.399

MBUCV 1 14.898 14.898 10.000

ULABG 1 200 0 0

Total 4 6 3.103.651 279.240 (9%) 114.878 (41%)

Only considering records from the Amazon region one has the following:

Collection total records amazon

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georeferenced (no. and % of digitized)

on-line

EBRG 7.404 7.404 740 no

MIZA 500.000 768 768www.miza-fpolar.info.ve

PORT no

GUYN no

Museu de Zoologia, BioCentro 10.000 10.000 no

VEN 27.200 27.200 no

MHNLS no

MBUCV 1.628 1.628 1.628 no

ULABG 200 0 0 no

Total 546.432 47.000 (9%) 3.136 (7%)

Venezuela shows a need of resources to digitize data and to develop a system to make biodiversity data available on the Internet. They are beginning to develop a project that aims at developing an integrated information system for vertebrate collections.

15

BoliviaThe questionnaire was sent to 14 institutions and 13 individuals. Answers were received from one herbarium and two zoological collections.

Collection Plants Animals total records Digitized Georeferenced

USZ 1 68.500

MNK-Zoologia 1 92.970

MNK-Entomologia 1 500.000

Total 1 2 661.470 0 0

There was no information on the percentage of digitized or georeferenced data as they were not able to organize a meeting with all curators to obtain this information. No site on the Internet that makes data available was indicated. An interesting aspect mentioned is the necessity of collaboration with other institutions for identification (entomology). This may be another interesting activity to be funded by Moore: visits from experts to collections to help identify specimens.

ColombiaBased on the web survey on possible data providers that was carried out in the beginning of the project, 124 questionnaires were sent out to Colombian institutions and 133 to individuals. At first, only 9 answers were received, but the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Research Institute, (www.humboldt.org.co/sib), carried out a very good survey on 93 institutions involving 29 herbaria, 60 zoological and 9 microbial collections. These institutions together hold a total of 4.071.632 records, more then 50% digitized and about 10% of the digitized records georeferenced. Approximately 2% of the records are from the Amazon region, but this is undoubtedly an important initiative to be sponsored. As in the case of Peru with Siamazonia, a digitization project should involve the Humboldt Institute.

EcuadorThe questionnaire was sent to 16 institutions and 23 individuals, based on the Internet survey. Six answers were received, including 2 collections that have interest in participating in ABBIF.

Collection Plants Animals Checklists total records

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georeferenced (no. and % of digitized)

total records amazon

CHEP 1 8,700 5,000 1,500

QCA 1 250,000 30,000 10,000

QCAZ 1 11,500 10,220 7,200

Total 2 1 0 270,200 45,220 (17%)

7,200 (16%) 11,500 (4%)

These collections would require training and support to help digitize and make data available on the internet.

16

BrazilBrazil has two important projects underway that are of direct interest to ABBIF: the speciesLink network (http://splink.cria.org.br/) and PPBio – MCT, the biodiversity research program of the Ministry of Science and Technology.

The speciesLink network involves 40 collections (table 2), including some very specialized collections with important holding from the Amazon Basin such as:

the fish collection of the São Paulo State University Museum (MZUSP) that have 36% (26.348) of their digitized records (72.705) from the Amazon region, 11% (2.891) of which are georeferenced; and,

Coleção Camargo (RPSP) a bee collection with 68.598 digitized records on-line, 60% of which are from the Amazon region, but only 3% of these are georeferenced.

Table 2. Number of records available through the speciesLink network

Collections no. of records Digitized % of total Georeferenced % of digitized

Plants (herbaria, algae, wood) 1.431.750 486.987 34,0 191.945 39,4

Zoological collections 2.228.666 377.952 17,0 193.053 51,1

Microbial Collections 8.724 8.724 100,0 0 0,0

Observation Data 88.717 88.717 100,0 88.717 100,0

Total records 3.757.857 962.380 25,6 473.715 49,2

There is a clear need for resources for digitization, especially for large collections that have historical data and that normally require some interpretation and validation, besides the use of data cleaning and georeferencing tools.

PPBio in its first phase is concentrating on the Amazon and the semi-arid regions. Partner institutions include INPA – Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; MPEG – Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi; and INSA-CF – Instituto Nacional do Semi-Árido Celso Furtado. These institutions will have support from the Brazilian government to digitize and make their data available on-line.

The tables that follow present a summary of the status of the institutions that answered the questionnaire.

Collection Plants Animals Micro. total records

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georeferenced (no. and % of digitized)

DZSJRP - pices 1 7.500 7.500 4.684

UNIR - Fish 1 23.229 23.229 23.229

UNIR - Mammals (CRM)

1

MEFEIS 1 10.200 1.000

UFRR 1 2.751 2.751

UFAM Coleção Zoológica

1 191.992 0 0

MIRR 1 5.914 4.666

INPA - Peixes 1 24.536 17.000

17

Collection Plants Animals Micro. total records

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georeferenced (no. and % of digitized)

INPA - CMIM 1 7.459 7.459 0

INPA - Mammals 1 4.819 4.819

INPA - invert. 1 303.015 1.022

INPA - Amphi 1 13.500 13.500 6.750

INPA - Herbaria 1 215.000 200.000 86.000

INPA - Aves 1 631 631 400

JBRJ 1 410.000 40.000

SPF - USP 1 145.000 15.000 7.000

Herbário MG 1 174.000 165.000

Instituto Butantan - IBSP

1 9.298 2.295 593

HRCB 1 40.000 5.000 0

MPEG - Invert 1 2.000.000 20.000

MPEG - Fish 1 11.000 8.500

MPEG - Herp. 1 60.000 58.000 2.000

IPT - BCTw (xiloteca)

1 19.500 7.600 0

MPEG - Masto 1 34.000 16.000 1.000

MPEG - Coleção Ornitológica

1 74.965 71.200

INPA - xiloteca 1 10.392 3.100

Total 9 16 1 3.798.701 695.272 (18%) 131.656 (19%)

Records from the Amazon Basin:

Collection Plants Animals Micro. total records amazon

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georef. (no. and % of digitized)

on-line

DZSJRP - pices 1 390 309 343 splink.cria.org.br

UNIR - Fish 1 23.229 23.229 23.229 no

UNIR - Mammals (CRM)

1 no (100% digitized - Word)

MEFEIS 1 splink.cria.org.br

UFRR 1 2.751 2.751 no

UFAM Coleção Zoológica

1 191.992 0 0 no

18

Collection Plants Animals Micro. total records amazon

Digitized (no. and % of total)

Georef. (no. and % of digitized)

on-line

MIRR 1 Nno

INPA - Peixes 1 no

INPA - CMIM 1 no

INPA - Mammals

1 4.819 4.819 no

INPA - invert. 1 no

INPA - Amphi 1 13.500 13.500 6.750 no

INPA - Herbaria 1 no

INPA - Aves 1 631 631 400

JBRJ 1 splink.cria.org.br

SPF - USP 1 splink.cria.org.br

Herbário MG 1 no

Instituto Butantan - IBSP

1 splink.cria.org.br

HRCB 1 splink.cria.org.br

MPEG - Invert 1 no

MPEG - Fish 1 8.000 8.000 no

MPEG - Herp. 1 59.000 58.000 2.000 no

IPT - BCTw (xiloteca)

1 splink.cria.org.br

MPEG - Masto 1 32.000 16.000 no

MPEG - Coleção Ornitológica

1 63.720 60.500 no

INPA - xiloteca 1 8.300 no

Total 9 16 1 408.332 187.739 (46%)

32.722 (17%)

Strategy for data digitizationTo be more effective, a digitization effort of the region should be based on establishing partnerships with local institutions (giving preference to existing GBIF nodes or partners) that will be responsible for offering support to local biological collections. Where a local partner specialized in information systems does not exist an institution that can give this support locally should be identified. There are clearly three institutions that can play this role in their countries:

The Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana (IIAP) in Peru, contact person: Victor Miyakawa (vmiyakawa@iiap.org.pe)

19

The Alexander von Humboldt Biological Research Institute in Colombia, contact person: Ximena Franco Villegas (xfranco@humboldt.org.co); and,

The Reference Center for Environmental Information (CRIA) in Brazil, contact person: Vanderlei Perez Canhos (vcanhos@cria.org.br).

It is recommended that the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation should reserve US$ 200,000 for digitization projects a year during a three year period in each of these countries (total of US$ 600,000 per year). Each institution together with GBIF should present a proposal or a set of proposals, clearly stating which collections were selected for digitization and why, what are their holdings and what is the digitization strategy. A clear statement on open and free access to non sensitive data must also be made. When an institution capable of integrating partners and structuring an on-line data system is structured in Venezuela, the same procedure is recommended, that is, involve this institution in the selection of holdings and the formulation of a digitization strategy and proposal. In order to involve all other countries that may have greater difficulties with on-line communication and may have interest and people willing to become involved, it is also recommended that an extra budget of US$ 200,000 be made available for GBIF per year to send out a call for proposals to try and identify these possible partners.

It is important that all proposals include:

a digitization plan;

a clear policy for data sharing, with free and open access to non-sensitive data on the Internet; and,

a definition or strategy as to how data will be made available on the Internet.

GBIF must provide the means to share data for those institutions that do not have local data providers.

This is the “digitization” component of the strategy that is being formulated for ABBIF. The budget recommended up to USD 1 million per year for a period of 3 years, after which the effectiveness of this activity will be evaluated together with the necessity of new investments in data digitization. This activity may have a great impact on local scientific development, on international partnerships and on open and free access to scientific data important for research, conservation and policy making.

Strategy for capacity buildingAn important component is capacity building in the region. The questionnaire and workshops identified four basic areas for training:

collection management: ABBIF should concentrate on information management)

taxonomy: ABBIF should concentrate on taxonomic information processing

database management, tools, and information systems

use of biodiversity data

It is recommended that ABBIF holds yearly workshops and or training courses on these themes, so a yearly budget of US$ 200,000 for this purpose is proposed. An extra US$ 100,000 is proposed for technical meetings.

20

ABBIF and Non Amazonian countriesIn 2003 a survey was carried out to study the theme “Data-sharing with Countries of Origin” (Contract no. GBIFS/OCB/2003/04)13. This study showed that collections were already working on digitizing their data and were willing to share this if properly acknowledged. A very strong tendency to openly share data was observed. This new survey carried out with the support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation focuses on Amazonian collections outside of the Amazon region. The 33 responses received from institutions around the globe, highlight their interest in digitizing and making data available, as well as the need to establish partnerships with experts in taxonomy/systematics that can assist in the identification of materials.

EvaluationThe evaluation process was carried out based on the questionnaires answered by each institution and, when possible, further information was sought analyzing each web site. The existence or not of a GBIF node in the country was also considered as, in principal, if a node is in place, the technology to openly share data is available. The objective was to evaluate whether there was interest and whether it would be feasible to set up a collaboration program with collections from non Amazonian countries aiming at data and expertise sharing.

ArgentinaArgentina joined GBIF in 2002 as an Associate participant. Seven (7) institutions serve data through GBIF (approximately 135,000 records). Two of these institutions answered the questionnaire. Argentina is establishing a national network of biological collections (Red Nacional de Colecciones Biológicas Argentina – RNCB14) as a GBIF node, using the protocol DiGIR.

Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Bernardino Rivadavia (MACN), Herbario Nacional de Plantas Celulares

Holdings: 100 specimens of Algae, all georeferenced and 70 digitized (Excel), 32 of which are from the Amazon region.

Infrastructure: Inadequate hardware and software with adequate staff. Internet access through modem.

Comments: The museum serves data to GBIF (a total of 40,292 records), so all data of interest to ABBIF could be serviced through the GBIF node in Argentina.

Website: www.macn.secyt.gov.ar/colnac/herbario.htm

Museo de La Plata, División Zoología Invertebrados - MLPHoldings: non-arthropod invertebrates, Arachnida and Myriapoda. 230 digitized records of Molluscs, Platyhelmintha, Myriapoda

Infrastructure: Sufficient hardware and software, insufficient staff for data entry.

Contact: Cristián Ituarte (cituarte@fcnym.unlp.edu.ar)

Comments: This collection also serves data through GBIF (a total of 19,419 records), and as the case of MACN, all data of interest to ABBIF could be serviced through the GBIF node in Argentina.

13 http://www.gbif.org/prog/ocb/sdco 14 http://www.gbifargentina.org.ar/

21

Website: www.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar/museo/

AustriaAustria is an Associate Participant, having joined GBIF in September 2001, and has established its national focal point of GBIF15. Ten institutions serve over 2 million records through the GBIF’s portal.

Natural History Museum Vienna, Dept. of Botany (W)Holdings: The museum holds many historical collections including probably several thousand types. There are approximately 5.5 million records, with only 5,000 digitized. There are several ten thousand records from the Amazon region with several thousand types, but nothing has been digitized.

Infrastructure: The museum requires additional scanning and PC facilities and has inadequate staff (only 2 curators)

Contacts: Ernst Vitek (ernst.vitek@nhm-wien.ac.at) & Anton Igersheim

Comments: This herbarium is part of the Virtual Herbaria Austria. 4 herbaria have added data to the system which has approximately 45,000 records on-line. This initiative is being partially funded through GBIF's DIGIT program. It would be interesting to establish a digitization program of Amazonian specimens. The Museum is a GBIF data provider and serves almost 8 thousand records through the network.

Website: herbarium.botanik.univie.ac.at/database/search.php

BelgiumBelgium is a voting participant, having joined GBIF in February 2001. The Belgian Biodiversity Platform16 is the Belgian node of GBIF and is serving over 160,000 records.

National Botanic Garden of Belgium, Dept. Spermatophyta-Pteridophyta and Dept. Bryophyta-Thallophyta, Herbarium BR

Holdings: The herbarium holds 3 million specimens, of all plant groups including fungi. There is important historical material such as the collections of Funck and Schlim (Venezuela), Claussen (Brazil) and Herbarium Martii (~60,000, 24,000 from Brazil, 11,000 from Central & South America). Of the 3 million specimens, 40,000 are nomenclatural types; 200,000 are databased, 20,000 imaged, and 100,000 georeferenced. There are 200,000 records from the Amazon region, 2,000 of which are digitized, but none are georeferenced. Fungi are 100% digitized and plants only 1%. The software used are BGBASE, Progress (fungi), and Microsoft Access.

Infrastructure: The herbarium requires more server storage capacity and additional staff. They especially require expertise with knowledge of the Neotropics.

Contact: Piet Stoffelen (stoffelen@br.fgov.be)

Comments: The institution is open to collaboration. It would be important to establish collaborative programs with Amazonian countries to database data from the Amazon (~200,000 specimens). The herbarium serves the Martius collection data through the Belgium GBIF node.

Websites: fungi:ww.br.fgov.be/RESEARCH/COLLECTIONS/HERBARIUMS/FUNGI/SURVEY/index.html vascular plants: projects.bebif.be/enbi/martius

15 http://www.biodiv.at/gbif/16 http://www.biodiversity.be/

22

BulgariaBulgaria is an associate participant of GBIF since August, 2001 and holds a GBIF node, BULBIONET (BULgarian BIOdiversity NETwork). They are not yet providing data through the GBIF portal.

National Museum of Natural History, BAS (NMNHS), Fossil and Recent Birds Dept. (FRBD - NMNHS)

Holdings: The museum was established in 1889 and holds specimens collected 140 years ago. Over 250 specimens of 60 species are referred to as extinct, endangered or vulnerable. The collection has 31,029 specimens. Nothing has been digitized. 400-500 records are from the Amazon region.

Informed infrastructure: The museum requires one computer and 1 person for data entry.

Contact: Zlatozar Boev (boev@nmnh.bas.bg)

Comments: GBIF could look into this collection and analyze its holdings. As the resources requested are very small, it might be interesting to help the collection in digitizing its data.

Website: www.nmnh.bas.bg/

DenmarkDenmark is a voting participant since January 2001, and has structured the Danish Biodiversity Information Facility (DanBIF)17 as a National Node of GBIF. DanBIF serves over 250,000 records through the GBIF portal.

Copenhagen University, Institute of Biology, Dept. MicrobiologyHoldings: The department holds fungal specimens from Ecuador. There are more then 10,000 digitized records using FileMaker.

Comments: The responses to the questionnaire were incomplete, with no indication as to protocols and standards used. The on-line system is very interesting, with a lot of images and an identification key, but does not include information about any counterpart in Ecuador. This group should be contacted to evaluate how this data could be served through GBIF and ABBIF.

Contact: Thomas Læssøe (thomasL@bi.ku.dk)

Website: www.mycokey.com/Ecuador.html

University of Aarhus, Herbarium (AAU)Holdings: The herbarium holds 750,000 specimens worldwide including those from Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. 118,000 records are digitized and georeferenced. 60,000 records are from the Amazon region, of which 41,200 are digitized and georeferenced (41,000). 100% of the records from Ecuador are databased and available through GBIF. Standard and protocol used are DarwinCore, and DiGIR)

Contact: Finn Borchsenius (finn.borchsenius@biology.au.dk)

Comments: The herbarium received an award (GBIF DIGIT 2004) to digitize data and to set up Danish herbaria as data providers to GBIF. This herbarium today serves almost 12,000 records and the Danish Biodiversity Information Facility over 250,000 through GBIF. We recommend that ABBIF should filter the data directly through GBIF. A search for "Ecuador" carried out in January/2006 retrieved 96,640 records.

Website: herb42.bio.au.dk:591/AAUbase/

17 http://www.dk.gbif.net/

23

EstoniaEstonia is a voting participant, and although it hasn’t an established node, the Institute of Zoology and Botany of the Estonian Agricultural University is serving 439 records through GBIF’s portal.

Estonian Agricultural University, Institute of Agriculture and EnvironmentHoldings: The institute holds Geometridae of the world including from French Guyana, Venezuela, and Ecuador. There are 8,000 records from the Neotropical region, 200 of which are digitized (Excel), and none are georeferenced. There is no information on-line.

Infrastructure: The institution has sufficient hardware, software, and staff.

Contact: Jaan Viidalepp (jaan@zbi.ee)

Comments: The institution states that it is willing to participate in ABBIF but doesn't indicate any specific needs and can't be automatically linked to the network. Perhaps this would be the case for GBIF node in Estonia to offer a data commons space for deposit of data.

FranceFrance is a voting participant but also hasn’t set up a GBIF node. Three (3) institutions are serving over 600,000 records to GBIF’s portal.

Laboratoire Dynamique de la Biodiversité, Université Paul Sabatier, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien

Holdings: The collection is still housed in Toulouse University with the exception of types. They hold Ephemeroptera from French Guyana. There are 1000 digitized records (Excel) not on-line

Informed infrastructure: The questionnaire indicates that the institution has sufficient hardware, software, and staff.

Contact: A.Thomas (alain3d@cict.fr) & Y. Dominique (y.dominique@epoc.u-bordeaux1.fr

Comments: The institution indicates that it is willing to participate in ABBIF but doesn't indicate any specific needs and can't be automatically linked to the network. Perhaps this would be the case for GBIF or ABBIF to offer a data commons space for deposit of data.

Museúm National d'Histoire Naturelle, Herbier Unité taxonomie et Collection - Dept Systematique et Evolution

Holdings: Relevant to the Amazon region, the herbaria holds collections of Humboldt-Bonpland, A. de St. Hilaire, Alexandre R. Ferreira, A. Glaziou, Gaudichaud, Poeppig, among others. The collection includes phanerogams, cryptogams, fungi, and lichens. There are 10 million records of which 500,000 are types. 520,000 records have been digitized and 81,000 georeferenced. There are 500,000 records from the Amazon Region, of which only 18,000 are digitized.

Infrastructure: The collection has insufficient hardware and staff for digitization and for making information available via the Internet.

Contact: Odile Poncy (Curator American Plants)

Comments: This is a very important collection with only 3.6% of its holdings digitized. The online information system seems to have all the necessary elements for data sharing through interoperable systems. The Museum is a GBIF data provider and serves almost 600,000 records to the network. It would be very important for both GBIF and ABBIF to have a digitization project with this herbarium.

Website: www.mnhn.fr/base/sonnerat.html

24

GermanyGermany is a voting participant and has structured GBIF – Deutschland18, as its node. Germany serves over 5 million records to the GBIF portal.

Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universität Berlin, herbarium Berolinense

Holdings: The herbarium holds 3.5 million specimens, 296,000 of which are digitized and 145, 000 georeferenced. The total amount of records from the Amazon region is unknown to the herbarium. There are 5,600 digitized records from Brazil 1,700 of which are georeferenced, including 1,950 high resolution images.

Informed infrastructure: The herbarium requires personnel for digitization, georeferencing, quality control; and for curatorial and technical tasks.

Contact: Walter Berendsohn (w.berendsohn@bgbm.org)

Comments: Several datasets are offered through GBIF (over 150,000 records) and BioCASE. Standard and protocol used are ABCD and BioCASe. This herbarium should receive support for the digitization of its holding. ABBIF should filter data through GBIF.

Website: www.bgbm.org/BioDivInf/databases.htm

Botanische Staatssammlung München, Dept. Vascular PlantsHoldings: This is a state herbarium with 2.5 million specimens from all plant and fungal groups and areas. It includes approximately 7,000 species and 25,000 specimens from the Martius expedition, and the herbarium of P. von Luetzelburg (1910-1938) with the Amazonian Colombian border expeditions of General Rondon, and Amazonian collections by Prance, Krukoff, and Kubitzki. 1.5 million records are of vascular plants, but only 6,000 are digitized and georeferenced. Approximately 25,000 records are from the Amazon region, but only 200 have been digitized and georeferenced. There are 330,000 records of fungi, 25,000 digitized and georeferenced. Very few of these records are from the Amazon region. There are 150,000 records of algae, 25,000 of which are digitized and georeferenced, but none are from the Amazon region. As to lichens, there are 250,000 records, 3,200 digitized and georeferenced and perhaps 2,000 records are from the Amazon region but maybe only 50 are digitized and georeferenced. As to Bryophytes, there are 300,000 records but nothing has been digitized or georeferenced and there aren’t any records from the Amazon region.

Infrastructure: This department considers itself understaffed at all levels, stating that there are no tenured IT staff.

Contact: Hans-Joachim Esses (esser@bsm.mwn.de - Vascular Plants);Dagmar Triebel (triebel@bsm.mwn.de - GBIF-D Mycolocy Node Manager)

Comments: Museum is a GBIF dataprovider, serving over 30 thousand records to the network, and adopted ABCD and BioCASE as standards. Amazon basin biodiversity data is a priority and is stated as a research focus of Munich's scientific staff. They hold important vascular plants' collection from the Amazon (quantity, historical significance, types) and have expertise in Amazonian Euphorbiaceae, Melastomataceae, and Siparunaceae. Besides recommending data integration with ABBIF possibly through GBIF, it would be interesting to study future collaboration with specialists from Amazonian countries associated with a digitization project of Amazonian vascular plants.

Website: www.botanischestaatssammlung.de/projects/coll_online.html

18 http://www.gbif.de/

25

Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Zoology/Ornithology

Holdings: This is a large ornithological collection of the 19th century of the Amazon region (collectors: Sello, von Hoffmannsegg, Olfers). There are 200,000 records, 20,000 of which are digitized, but not georeferenced. 5,000 records are from the Amazon region, 500 are digitized in a SQL database. There is no information on-line

Infrastructure: The museum requires personnel for technical work in the collection

Contact: S. Frahnert (sylke.frahnert@museum.hu-berlin.de)

Comments: The museum is a GBIF data provider and serves approximately 3,000 records. It might be interesting to include this institution in a digitizing program.

LatviaLatvia is not a GBIF member.

The Entomological Society of LatviaHoldings: Coleoptera (Anthicidae) worldwide. There are 50,000 records, all digitized (Excel) and georefenced, 500 of which are from the Amazon region. There is no information on-line

Infrastructure: The society indicates that it has sufficient hardware, software, and staff.

Contact: Dmitry Telnov (telnov@parks.lv)

Comments: It is willing to participate. As all records are digitized but not on-line, perhaps this would be the case for GBIF to offer a data commons space for deposit of data

Website: www.lubi.edu.lv/les/kafernieki.htm

NetherlandsThe Netherlands are voting members and joined GBIF in February, 2001. They have structured the Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility - nlbif19 which serves over 2 million records to GBIF’s portal.

Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures (CBS)Holdings: This collection holds 46,000 filamentous fungi and yeasts, and 15,000 specimens from the herbarium. Its status in June, 2005 was all fungi and yeasts and 12,000 herbarium specimens digitized. No material is georeferenced. Expectations were that the holdings would be fully digitized by the end of 2005. 5,000 fungi and yeast cultures and 500 digitized specimens are from South America.

Infrastructure: The institute indicates that it has sufficient hardware, software, and staff, but not enough time for new projects.

Contact: Gerrit Stegehuis (stegehuis@cbs.knaw.nl)

Comments: CBS uses DarwinCore & CABRI as data models and DiGIR protocol and are willing to participate. They are a GBIF data provider and serve more than 35,000 records to the network. ABBIF could filter data through GBIF.

Website: www.cbs.knaw.nl

19 http://www.nlbif.nl/

26

PolandPoland is an associate participant and joined GBIF in March, 2001. They have established a GBIF node20 and nine (9) institutions are serving approximately 80,000 records to the GBIF portal.

Polish Academy of Sciences - Institute of Systematics and Evolutions of Animals, Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology (IZ)

Holdings: The collection has Lepidoptera from Brazil, French Guyana, Peru. There are 12,000 specimens that have not been databased and most have not been identified. Part of the Microlepidoptera (Tortricidae) are identified and could be databased.

Informed infrastructure: Hardware and software are considered insufficient, but the staff (2 technicians) is considered adequate.

Contact: Lukasz Przybylowicz (lukasz@isez.pan.krakow.pl)

Comments: They offer facilities for visitors to database Tortricidae and Arctiidae.

Website: www.isez.pan.krakow.pl

PortugalPortugal is a voting member and joined GBIF in 2001. It does not have a node and is not serving data to the GBIF portal.

Jardim Botânico - Museu Nacional de História Natural, Universidade de Lisboa, Herbário de Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira

Holdings: This herbarium holds the collection of Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira when he traveled to Brazil between 1783 and 1793. This collection has 1187 angiosperms, 69 pteridophytes, and 4 algae, but nothing has been digitized or georeferenced.

Infrastructure: Insufficient hardware, software, and staff. Specimens require revision and identification.

Contact: Ana Isabel D. Correia (aicorreia@fc.ul.pt)

Comments: This may be another case of promoting collaboration with Brazilian specialists and offering a data commons space for data deposit.

Website: www. www.jb.ul.pt/

SpainSpain is a voting member and joined GBIF in February, 2001. The Spanish GBIF Node21 is in place and serves over 600,000 records to the portal.

Museu Darder d'História Natural de BanyolesHoldings: The museum was founded in 1916 and has a small collection with fish (2), reptiles (5), birds (<100), mammals (<18), and insects (168) all digitized and 124 are georeferenced. There are 250 specimens from the Amazon. The database is not on-line.

Informed infrastructure: insufficient staff

Contact: Georgina Gratacós i Teixidor (mdhn@ajbanyoles.org)

20 http://www.ksib.edu.pl/ 21 http://www.gbif.es/

27

Comments: If these holdings are of interest to GBIF or ABBIF perhaps the easiest/fastest solution would be to offer a data commons space at the GBIF node in Spain, where the data can be deposited.

Website: www.banyolescultura.net/mdhncat.htm

SwedenSweden joined GBIF in February, 2001, is a voting participant and holds a GBIF node22.

The Swedish Museum of Natural HistoryThe Swedish Museum of Natural History is serving over 6 million records through GBIF’s portal. As standards they are using DarwinCore and DiGIR. Amazonian data can therefore be served to ABBIF through GBIF.

Ichthyology Collection, Department of Vertebrate Zoology (NRM)Holdings: The fish collection holds 50,000 records, 41,000 of which are digitized and 6,000 georeferenced. Amazonian collections come mostly from Peru and some from Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, and Bolivia. There are 5,000 digitized records from the Amazon region, 3,000 of which are georeferenced.

Informed Infrastructure: Sufficient hardware and software and adequate staff.

Contact: Sven O. Kullander (sven.kullander@nrm.se)

Comments: The collection uses the Artedian (MS-Access) and is interoperable with Fishbase and GBIF, using DarwinCore and DiGIR. As to access to data, it restricts the access to its work in progress and is willing to collaborate with ABBIF.

Website: http://www.nrm.se/ve/pisces/

Department of Invertebrate ZoologyHoldings: The collection holds about 560,000 records, 14% of which are digitized (78 thousand). There are only 296 records from Amazon countries (not necessarily of the Amazon region).

Infrastructure: Sufficient hardware and software and adequate staff

Contact: Elizabeth Watson (elizabeth.watson@nrm.se)

Comments: The collection is using FileMaker Pro and DarwinCore and DiGIR as standards. Digitized data is available on-line through GBIF. As is the case of the Fish collection, access is only restricted in the case of work in progress.

Website: http://www2.nrm.se/ev/welcome.html.en

BryophytesHoldings: The collection has 706,000 records of which 100,000 are digitized. There are 3,236 digitized records from Amazon countries, and they hold about 400,000 specimens from South and Central America and from the Caribbean. There are about 25,000 type specimens and a separate Ecuador herbarium with about 35,000 specimens.

Informed Infrastructure: sufficient hardware and software and adequate staff.

Contact: Elizabeth Watson (elizabeth.watson@nrm.se)

22 http://www.gbif.se/

28

Comments: This collection has significant material for South and Central America and from the Caribbean. They don’t indicate what standards are being used, but they serve their data to GBIF, so there shouldn’t be any problems with interoperability. As is the case with the other collections of Swedish Museum of Natural History, access is only restricted in the case of work in progress.

Website: http://www2.nrm.se/kbo/welcome.html.en

LichensHoldings: There are 295,000 records of which 100,000 are digitized. There are 2,652 digitized records from Amazon countries.

Infrastructure: Sufficient hardware and software and adequate staff

Contact: Elizabeth Watson (elizabeth.watson@nrm.se)

Comments: All digitized records are served through GBIF’s portal.

Website: http://www2.nrm.se/kbo/saml/lavkoll.html.en

Botanical Museum, University of LundHoldings: The Botanical Museum (LD) holds 2.5 million specimens, mostly vascular plants but also lichens, mosses, fungi and algae. 175,000 records are digitized, of which only 362 records are from Amazon countries (not necessarily from the Amazon region). Access to data is protected in the case of work in progress.

Infrastructure: Sufficient hardware and software and adequate staff.

Contact: Elizabeth Watson (elizabeth.watson@nrm.se)

Comments: Although there are only very few digitized records from Amazon countries, there are a number of types, with digitized images. This may be important data to be integrated to ABBIF.

Website: http://www.biomus.lu.se

Gothenburg Herbarium (GB)Holdings: This herbarium has focused on exploring the Neotropical flora, mainly the flora of Ecuador. They hold 1.6 million records, of which only approximately 100,000 are digitized. This data is not available on-line.

Infrastructure: no information was offered.

Contact: Elizabeth Watson (elizabeth.watson@nrm.se)

Comments: The contact person is Elizabeth Watson from the Swedish Museum of Natural History. The best strategy for access of this important data is most probably through the GBIF portal.

Website: http://www.systbot.gu.se/

SwitzerlandSwitzerland is an associate participant and joined GBIF in February 2001. It established GBIF Switzerland23 and the country serves approximately 50,000 records to the portal.

23 http://www2.unine.ch/gbif

29

Muséum d'histoire naturelle (MHNG), Dept. herpetology and ichthyologyHoldings: The department holds specimens of freshwater fish, amphibians, and reptiles and their parasites. Nothing has been digitized. They have a checklist of pseudoscorpians of South America. The questionnaire does not indicate the size of the holdings.

Infrastructure: They require one student to digitize Amazonian fauna

Contact: Volker Mahnert (volker.mahnert@mhn.ville-ge.ch)

Comments: There is an interest in cooperating as a data provider. The answers and the web site seem to indicate that a lot of resources would be necessary to make this possible as nothing has been digitized. As there is no indication as to the size of the holdings, it is difficult to evaluate.

Website: www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/mhng/

Natural History Museum Bern, NMBE

Invertebrate Dept.Holdings: The collection holds 1.7 million insect and 1.2 mollusk specimens. The actual state of inventoried specimens include: 250.000 insects and spiders, 150.000 mollusks. The museum holds the collection assembled by Emílio Augusto Goeldi and collaborators in Brazil (1894-1910). They hold 9,500 insects, mainly Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, and Hymenoptera - among them 90 Ducke type specimens. All records are digitized, not georeferenced and are available in Excel on request.

Vertebrate Dept.Holdings: They hold the collection assembled by Emílio Augusto Goeldi and collaborators in Brazil (1894-1910). There are 3,600 vertebrates, mainly birds & mammals. All records are digitized but not georeferenced. Excel lists are available on request.

Infrastructure: They do not have specialists in neotropical fauna.

Contact: Marcel Güntert (marcel.guentert@nmbe.unibe.ch)

Comments: This would be an interesting museum for GBIF to contact as a data provider. They hold their data in an oracle database. No information is offered as to standards or protocols. If they do not wish to disseminate their data themselves, maybe Amazonian data could be stored in a data commons service held by ABBIF.

Website: www.nmbe.ch

UKThe United Kingdom is a voting participant, having joined GBIF in August, 2001. They have established a National Biodiversity Network24 as the GBIF node and are serving over 11.6 million records to the GBIF portal.

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, HerbariumHoldings: Kew holds 7 million specimens (plant & mycological diversity), 350,000 of which are types. They have significant collections from Guyana (formerly British Guyana), but only a small portion of the Amazon specimens have been digitized - specimens collected by Richard Spruce from 1849 to 1864 in Peru (2902 records) and Ecuador (4081 records). They don't have an idea of the total number of specimens from the Amazon.

24 http://www.nbn.org.uk/

30

Infrastructure: Kew requires hardware and staff for new digitization and databasing projects. As to standards, they have adopted HerbCore, and use Microsoft Access.

Contact: William Milliken (w.milliken@kew. org)

Comments: The institution is open to digitize Amazonian collections if funded through a project. This would certainly be an important partnership for ABBIF. Kew serves over 85,000 records through GBIF.

Website: internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/projects/spruce/index.dsml

School of Geography, University of Leeds, RAINFOR project (Amazon Forest Inventory Network)

Holdings: This is not a collection but a collaborative scientific project assembling permanent plot data. Its objective is to monitor the biomass and dynamics of Amazonian forests. According to the questionnaire they have data on phanerogams, but it is not available on-line.

Infrastructure: They require investment in data basing and data management for the project and at individual Amazonian institutions.

Contact: Tim Baker (t.r.baker@leeds.ac.uk)

Comments: This project apparently does not have a plan for disseminating data or a policy for data sharing. There are links to project documents and publications but no access to data. At this point, it would be difficult to interact with the project.

Website: www . geog.leeds.ac.uk/projects/rainfor/index.html

USAThe USA is a voting participant and jointed GBIF in January, 2001. They have structured a US GBIF node25 at NBII (National Biological Information Infrastructure) and serve over 30 million records to the GBIF portal.

ant.baseHoldings: 11,833 species; online digital library with more then 4,000 publications on ant systematics. There are basically two sources of data: distribution and specimen description that is extracted from legacy publications; and input of data matrices from field surveys - Ants in the Neotropics. There are 80,000 pages of publications and they are using DarwinCore and DiGIR.

Infrastructure: The project requires one additional programmer; resources for OCR-ing existing publications and data extraction.

Contact: Donat Agosti (agosti@amnh.org)

Comments: Antbase is being built and maintained at the American Museum of Natural History (Donat Agosti) and the Ohio State University (Norman F. Johnson) (Also see additional information below).

Website: antbase.org/

Ohio State University C.A. Triplehorn Insect Collection, Dept. EntomologyHoldings: Taxonomic name service for hymenoptera (180,000 names - collaborate with ITIS), DiGIR interface for all specimen records. They hold 100,000 digitized records of hymenoptera, 95% of which are georeferenced. 26,648 records are from the Amazon of which 25,746 georeferenced.

25 http://gbif.nbii.gov/

31

Infrastructure: They require support for a programmer (PL/SQL, Perl) and personnel for data entry.

Contact: Norman Johnson (johnson.2@osu.edu)

Comments: They are responsible for maintaining an ant name server and specimen data (extraction project and leaf litter ant surveys). “Ants” are an interesting theme for ABBIF to explore (see item “Themes”). Ohio State University Insect Collection is a GBIF data provider with almost 115,000 records.

Website: iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/hymenoptera/

Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, HerbariumHoldings: The herbarium’s specialty is native plants of Florida and the West Indies. It has recently expanded its scope to plants from all tropical regions. It holds 165,000 records, 52,000 of which are digitized, 3,454 georeferenced. There are between 2 and 3,000 specimens from Amazon, 135 of which are digitized.

Contact: Lauren Raz (lraz@fairchildgarden.org)

Comments: Data is compatible as they have adopted Darwin core & DiGIR and they are willing to share data. They already are a GBIF data provider with 93,000 records. Amazon data could be filtered for ABBIF.

Website: www.virtualherbarium.org

Field Museum, Division of MammalsHoldings: The mammals division holds 182,000 digitized records worldwide 170,000 of which are georeferenced. 22 thousand digitized records are from the Amazon region, 21,000 of which are georeferenced.

Contact: Bruce Patterson (bpatterson@fieldmuseum.org)

Comments: Field Museum serves almost one million records through GBIF, who could create filters to serve data to ABBIF.

Website: fm1.fieldmuseum.org/collections/search.cgi?dest=mml

Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ)Holdings: The MCZ holds 10 scientific collections with 21 million specimens, 12 million records, 900,000 of which are digitized and 200,000 georeferenced. 22 thousand are from the Amazon region and only 8,000 are digitized and 6,200 are georeferenced. They hold important historical material collected from the Amazon by Louis Agassiz and party on the Thayer Expedition (1865-66),

Infrastructure: personnel for data entry of catalogued data

Contact: Linda Ford (lford@oeb.harvard.edu)

Comments: MCZ serves almost 700,000 records through GBIF, so it would be interesting to filter its data to ABBIF through GBIF. It would also be interesting to study a digitizing program of the records from the Amazon region. Online collections available include fish, herpetology (amphibians and reptiles), invertebrates, invertebrate paleontology, mammals, mollusks, and birds.

Website: collections.oeb.harvard.edu/

32

IUCN/SSC-CI/CABS Biodiversity Assessment UnitHoldings: Databases available: Global Amphibian Assessment and IUCN Red List. Incomplete databases: fish, reptiles, and insects (25% digitized). The contact person informed that the Global Mammal Assessment is also complete.

Contact: Simon Stuart (simon.stuart@iucn.org

Comments: IUCN is an important institution to liaise with. In our search for the Global Mammal Assessment we only found explanatory texts. Apparently no online database is available. IUCN is heading the Conservation Commons Initiative (www.conservationcommons.org) and aims at making its data freely and openly available. It would be important for GBIF (and ABBIF) to study means of making their systems interoperable.

Website: www.globalamphibians.org; www.iucnredlist.org

Missouri Botanical Garden (MO)

HerbariumHoldings: MO holds 5.6 million specimens, 5.2 million vascular plants and 450,000 bryophytes, of which 42% are digitized. Its Tropicos database system has 978,000 scientific names, 2,677,000 specimen records of which 1,299,000 are georeferenced. There are 887,000 digitized records from the Amazon Region, 559,000 of which are georeferenced.

Contact: James Solomon (jim.solomon@mobot.org)

Comments: MO received grants (GBIF DIGIT 2004) for georeferencing and imaging over 200 thousand Mesoamerican Vascular Plant Specimens. They are a GBIF data provider and serve almost 2 million records to the network. It would be important that this data be filtered for ABBIF.

Website: www.tropicos.org

CEEB - Ethno and Economic BotanyHoldings: CEEB is indexing collections of Ethno- and Economic Botany around the world and aims at setting standards, databases, and to disseminate information on-line. Some data is available on-line for only some collections and only through individual institutions.

Infrastructure: They state that they require support for the network.

Contact: Jan Salick, Curator of Ethnobotany (jan.salick@mobot.org

Comments: This is an interesting initiative to follow as the theme is of great interest for the region. Serving data to the network may be achieved through the existing infrastructure in the herbarium.

Website: www.ceeb.info

New York Botanical Garden, HerbariumHoldings: The herbarium holds 6.5 million specimens of all plant groups and fungi. Of the vascular plants, 925,000 are from South America, 550,000 from Brazil and 330,000 from Amazonian Brazil. Approximately 800,000 records have been digitized and are available online. Of these about 200,000 are georeferenced. Of the 330,000 records from the Amazon region, 82,500 are georeferenced. There is a large backlog of unidentified Neotropical plant specimens because of the Flora Amazônica project the Garden led in the 1970s and 1980s (rough estimate: is 8,000 specimens).

33

Infrastructure: They require students to identify specimens in the backlog. The number of students possible depends on how much supervision/training they would need -as the herbarium, at the moment, only has one staff member who oversees the entire visitor program.

Contact: Jacquelyn Kallunki (jkallunki@nybg.org) & Barbara M. Thiers (bthiers@nybg.org)

Comments: The digitized data can be immediately integrated through interoperable links as NYBG already serves GBIF with over 200,000 records. A collaborative project for identifying and digitizing backlog from the Amazon is recommended. According to information offered the groups for which they don't have specialists, and for which there are likely to be specimens in need of identification, are Aquifoliaceae (Ilex), Celastraceae (Maytenus), and Nyctaginaceae. While they do have specialists for some genera of Poaceae, Cyperaceae, and legumes, there are probably some specimens of these families in the backlog, such as Scleria in the Cyperaceae and legumes from Acre collected since Rupert Barneby's death in 2000. If there are graduate or post-graduate students with expertise in the Amazonian taxa of these groups, they certainly could make a contribution by identifying them. There are also unidentified specimens filed at the end of each family in the herbarium itself. The large families, such as Poaceae, legumes, Cyperaceae, are bound to have many undetermined specimens that would be much more useful when catalogued if they are accurately identified. Their virtual herbarium holds important on-line specimen catalogues such as: Neotropical Flora and Mycota Catalog; Neotropical Lecythidaceae Catalog; Ericaceae of Ecuador, Flora and Mycota of Acre, Brazil, and Plant Diversity of Central French Guiana (among many others).

Website: sciweb.nybg.org/science2/VirtualHerbarium.asp

University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ), Mammal CollectionHoldings: The mammal collection of the museum holds 215,900 specimens of mammals, with approximately 5,500 from the Amazon. All records are digitized and georeferenced, and are accessible on-line through mvz.berkeley.edu and MaNIS (dlp.cs.berkeley.edu/manis/).

Contact: James Patton (Patton@berkeley.edu)

Comments: The Museum of Vertebrate Zoology is a GBIF data provider, serving about 650 thousand records.

Website: mvz.berkeley.edu

Analysis and RecommendationsThere is a lot of digitized data that, once ABBIF is structured, would only require to be integrated into the system. The table below shows the number of records and taxons collected in Amazon countries available through GBIF (May, 2006).

34

Country records taxons

Bolivia 202,298 24,611

Brazil 228,426 40,044

Colombia 214,228 29,832

French Guiana 56,442 5,489

Guyana 61,018 7,366

Peru 350,179 32,102

Suriname 32,889 5,012

Venezuela 128,911 21,498

Total 1,274,391 165,954

These records are not all from the Amazon region, but the table gives an idea as to the possibility of very quickly serving data to ABBIF and of the necessity of establishing partnerships to increase the amount of data available.

Data from large scientific expeditions in the past are practically all held in museums and herbaria in Europe. US collections also hold a large amount of specimens collected in South America (including the Amazon region) which are fundamental for building the Amazonian Basin Biodiversity Information Facility. Just to compare the magnitude of the data housed in collections outside of the Amazon region, the total number of specimens in Brazil’s more than 100 active herbaria is estimated as being 5 million. Individual herbaria such as Kew, Harvard, Missouri, New York, and France, each individually, hold more then that.

All collections that answered the questionnaire are willing to share data, and hold over 65 million records, less than 4% of which are from the Amazon region. Even so, there are over 1 million digitized records (more than 70% are georeferenced) which could relatively quickly be made available on-line. In fact, most of this data is already available on-line and would require an integration mechanism. Of the 16 countries that hold the collections that answered the questionnaire all, with the exception of one, are either voting or associate participants of GBIF and fourteen provide data to GBIF’s portal.

The results presented also show a number of smaller collections wishing to make their data available requiring hardware, software or just expertise. In these collections, the percentage of records from the Amazon region is very small, and it may be difficult to justify a project based on the digitization of less then 500 records. It would be important for GBIF to analyze their holdings to see whether seed money through digitization grants could integrate these collections to the network. In some cases it would be important if GBIF and its nodes studied the possibility of holding a data commons space where providers could, through a password controlled interface, deposit, control, and make their data available. A technical solution for this is already available in the form of the GBIF Data Repository Tool (DRT). The DRT allows individual scientists to upload their datasets which are in document format, such as a spreadsheet. From there they automatically become parsed, validated, and entered into a database connected to an embedded DiGIR provider.

There are specific collections that could be quickly integrated such as:

Department of Microbiology, Institute of Biology, Copenhagen University – with 10,000 digitized records of fungal specimens from Ecuador;

AAU Herbarium from the University of Aarhus, with a digitization process in place, already providing data through GBIF, with 60,000 specimens from the Amazon (70% digitized and georeferenced);

35

The collections from the Swedish Museum of Natural History that already serve more then 6 million records through GBIF;

Antbase and the Ohio State Insect Collection with the ant name server and specimen data;

Division of Mammals from the Field Museum with 22 thousand digitized records from the Amazon region;

Missouri Botanical Garden (MO), with its Tropicos database system with over 978,000 scientific names and approximately 900,000 digitized records from the Amazon Region; and

The Mammal Collection of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ) from the University of California, Berkley with approximately 5,500 digitized and georeferenced records from the Amazon, already accessible on-line.

Digitization and Collaborative Research ProgramsIn principle, all collections are important, and those with smaller holdings or with a small representation of specimens from the Amazon region could be linked through GBIF nodes. It would be important for GBIF to look carefully at the questionnaires and identify holdings that can be easily linked and others that, although with a small representation of Amazonian species, may be important for other regions. The ABBIF architecture document suggests using the GBIF UDDI registry to link collections.

As resources are scarce important holdings for the Amazon region must be prioritized. Of those collections that answered the questionnaire, it would be very important to develop a digitizing program with the following institutions:

Natural History Museum Vienna, Dept. of Botany (W)This is a herbarium with 5.5 million records with less then 0.1% digitized and with only 2 curators. Against it is the fact that they have very little digitized data and lack of specialized personnel, so it is probably correct to affirm that a digitization project in this case would demand a lot of resources. In its favor is the fact that Austria has a GBIF node and they are developing the Virtual Herbaria Austria, so the technology is in place and there already is a movement to digitize and openly disseminate data. This may be a good opportunity to establish bilateral or multilateral research programs to help identify and digitize material.

National Botanic Garden of Belgium, Dept. Spermatophyta-Pteridophyta and Dept. Bryophyta-Thallophyta, Herbarium BRThe Herbarium BR has important historical collections and is open to collaboration. The herbarium holds 200,000 records from the Amazon region with approximately 1% digitized. For ABBIF it would important to set up a digitization project associate with bilateral or multilateral research programs as specialist knowledge of the Neotropics is required.

Museúm National d'Histoire Naturelle, Herbier Unité taxonomie et Collection - Dept Systematique et EvolutionThis is a very important herbarium for South America with many historical collections. The herbarium holds 10 million records with only 5.2% digitized. As to Amazon specimens the total is 500,00026 with less then 4% digitized. A very solid project for digitizing and georeferencing the holdings should be in place. This project could involve, GBIF Secretariat, its node in France and multilateral agreements for the exchange of experts to help identify and digitize material.

26 Note: 500,000 specimens would be the holding of the largest herbaria in Brazil

36

Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universität Berlin, herbarium BerolinenseFor ABBIF, this herbarium should be further studied to know whether its holdings are significant for the Amazon region. In general, it would be interesting if GBIF could help set a digitization program with them due to the fact that they hold 3.5 million specimens with less then 10% digitized. Data of importance to ABBIF could then be filtered through GBIF.

Botanische Staatssammlung München, Dept. Vascular PlantsFrom ABBIF’s perspective, even though this herbarium only holds 25,000 records from the Amazon region, it is relevant as they are the result of important expeditions. Less then 1% is digitized, but at the same time the digitization process could perhaps be carried out in a very short period of time. GBIF – Germany could maybe help the herbarium in this initiative. Multilateral and bilateral agreements should be sought as the Amazon Basin is a research focus of its staff.

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, HerbariumIt would be very important to fund a digitization project with Kew. They hold 7 million specimens which includes significant collections for the Guyana. A partnership could perhaps be established between GBIF, the National Biodiversity Network, and Kew Gardens to digitize this data. Bilateral and multilateral agreements could be established to send students and experts to Kew to help in the identification and data validation process.

Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ)This is a very large group of collections with 21 million specimens and 12 million records, with less then 8% digitized. Of direct interest to ABBIF are the 22,000 records from the Amazon region, 36% of which is digitized. Perhaps these records could be digitized through graduate student programs involving bilateral or multilateral agreements.

New York Botanical GardenNYBG has a very important collection, especially for Brazil. Their digitization process is in place, but they have a backlog of unidentified Neotropical plant specimens. It would be important to establish bilateral agreements (especially with Brazil) to send students and specialists to help identify this backlog.

Seed Money ProgramThis is an important component, as a complementary activity to support the core ABBIF project. Seed money calls for proposal will help in the in the identification of Amazonian holdings in large collections and help smaller collections to organize their data. Preliminary candidates for this type of program include:

Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Zoology/Ornithology with 5,000 records from the Amazon region collected during the 19th century;

Jardim Botânico, Museu Nacional de História Natural, Universidade de Lisboa, Herbário de Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira with Ferreira’s collection when he traveled to Brazil between 1783 and 1793; and

The Invertebrate and Vertebrate Departments of the Natural History Museum in Bern with the collection assembled by Emílio Augusto Goeldi and collaborators in Brazil (1894-1910) to help georeference the records that are all digitized.

37

A yearly grant of US$ 400,000 for this purpose is proposed and an exercise in identifying additional key collections with material collected from the Amazon region should be carried out.

Thematic Information SystemsThe survey did not directly addressed the issue of thematic information systems, however, as part of this study we have found several examples that showcase the importance of adding content, specific to a certain taxa or geographic region. One such example is the positive and important outcome of Antbase (http://www.antbase.org/). Another interesting example, based on the number of botanical institutions that responded to the questionnaire and are willing to share their data, would be a Virtual Herbarium. This should be further discussed, once the basic infrastructure with species and specimen data is in place or under development.

Proposed Overall Budget (US$ 1,000)Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TotalInformation Systems 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000Digitization in Amazonian Country Collections 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000Capacity building 300 300 300 600ABBIF seed money grant 400 400 400 1,500Total 3,700 3,700 3,700 11,100

Final CommentsThe ABBIF feasibility study has raised a huge interest from small to large collections from developed to developing countries. The ABBIF project could be an excellent exercise to address cross-cutting issues ranging from data capture (from high throughput to hand digitization) to the deployment of emerging modeling tools. All this could be addressed as a large scale international project, promoting technology transfer, capacity building and training. The core project could be carried out in coordination with GBIF seed money projects. The challenge now is to develop a detailed project proposal and secure the necessary funds to do the job, possibly from multiple funding sources. The ABBIF feasibility study experience should be considered in the development of studies to define priority topics/issues/areas to be addressed by GBIF campaigns.

The ABBIF survey focused on data custodians and species and specimen data providers. There are gaps in this survey, as some large institutions did not reply, such as the Smithsonian Institution, the Natural History Museum in London, and the American Museum of Natural History in New York. This does not invalidate the work, but indicates that the development of partnerships with key players should be an ongoing process. Another gap refers to conservation NGOs, as only one representative answered the questionnaire.

This community is very important and should be involved and motivated to collaborate with ABBIF, not only as data providers, but as data users as well. The Conservation Commons27 initiative should support ABBIF’s development, as both initiatives basically follow the same principles concerning data sharing.

An important issue to be dealt with is to explore existing mechanisms for bilateral and multilateral collaboration, identifying opportunities for joint projects and programs with focus on taxonomy,

27 http://www.conservationcommons.org

38

digitization and data sharing and repatriation of species and specimen data. This should be carried out in association with an effort to link the digital observational/monitoring databases resultant from large scale projects and programs in the in the Amazon Basin.

The task of identifying, describing, and classifying all live species of the planet is one of the great challenges of the 21st century. The lack of knowledge of the Amazonian biota and its importance makes the region fragile and more vulnerable to destruction and misuse. We believe that once operational, ABBIF will help promote a collaborative environment to study, discover, and describe species diversity in the region, to analyze, synthesize, and share information and knowledge for the sake of science and society.

39