DOCSLIB.ORG

Full Report Twenty-Year Review of Gbif

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Full Report Twenty-Year Review of Gbif TWENTY-YEAR REVIEW OF GBIF FULL REPORT 2 CODATA Twenty Year Review of GBIF Please cite this report as: CODATA, the Committee on Data of the International Science Council; Pfeiffenberger, Hans; Uhlir, Paul; Twenty-Year Review of GBIF (CODATA, Paris, 2020) https://doi.org/10.35035/ctzm-hz97 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License – Except where noted otherwise (some figures) – Table of Contents 3 The Twenty-Year Review of GBIF comprises two documents: The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and the FULL REPORT (this document).1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Background and Previous Reviews of GBIF ........................................................................................ 7 1.2. Brief Description of GBIF Today .......................................................................................................... 8 1.3. Overview of the 20-Year Review Process ........................................................................................... 9 1.4. Review Methods ................................................................................................................................ 10 1.5. Structure and Organization of the Report .......................................................................................... 11 1.6. Conventions in this Document ........................................................................................................... 12 2 GBIF AND THE LANDSCAPE OF BIODIVERSITY-RELATED ORGANIZATIONS . 14 2.1. Users and Contributors of (GBIF-mediated) Biodiversity Data .......................................................... 17 Science ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Organizations at the Science-Policy Interface ................................................................................. 18 Applied Research ............................................................................................................................. 19 Citizen Science ................................................................................................................................ 20 Commercial Sector ........................................................................................................................... 22 2.2. Biodiversity Infrastructures ................................................................................................................ 22 Museums and Collections ................................................................................................................ 22 Data Infrastructures .......................................................................................................................... 24 Information Infrastructures ............................................................................................................... 26 Data Infrastructures as Organizational Entities ................................................................................ 27 Actors in Setting Standards .............................................................................................................. 27 2.3. GBIF’s Position in the Global Biodiversity Informatics Landscape .................................................... 28 1 This independent report was requested from CODATA by the GBIF Governing Board and leadership, who comprise the primary intended audience. Government decision-makers and others in the biodiversity community may want to read Chapter 9 of the FULL REPORT, which contains the full conclusions and recommendations, and the body of the report for the supporting evidence and rationale. The report is also intended to provide the GBIF team leaders and data Node managers with a neutral view of GBIF by external experts. 4 CODATA Twenty Year Review of GBIF 3 USER AND CONTRIBUTOR PERSPECTIVES ........................................................ 30 3.1. Description ......................................................................................................................................... 30 3.2. SWOT Compilation ............................................................................................................................ 33 3.2.1 Strengths ..................................................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Weaknesses ................................................................................................................................ 33 3.2.3 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.4 Threats ......................................................................................................................................... 34 3.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 34 4 GBIF/BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION IMPACT AND ITS METRICS ...................... 37 4.1. Description ......................................................................................................................................... 37 4.1.1 Success Stories ........................................................................................................................... 38 4.1.2 Citation of GBIF-mediated data use ............................................................................................ 40 4.1.3 Other measures of impact ........................................................................................................... 42 4.2. SWOT Compilation ............................................................................................................................ 44 4.2.1 Strengths ..................................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.2 Weaknesses ................................................................................................................................ 44 4.2.3 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 45 4.2.4 Threats ......................................................................................................................................... 46 4.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 46 5 DATA, STANDARDS, AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................ 48 5.1. Description ......................................................................................................................................... 48 5.1.1 Data Volume and Quality ............................................................................................................. 50 Data Volume ..................................................................................................................................... 50 Data Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 54 5.1.2 Gaps and Biases ......................................................................................................................... 59 5.1.3 Standards and Technologies ....................................................................................................... 61 5.1.4 The Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge ...................................................................................... 63 5.2. SWOT Compilation ............................................................................................................................ 66 5.2.1 Strengths ..................................................................................................................................... 66 5.2.2 Weaknesses ................................................................................................................................ 67 5.2.3 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 70 5.2.4 Threats ......................................................................................................................................... 73 5.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 74 5.3.1 Data Volume and Quality ............................................................................................................. 75 5.3.2 Gaps and Biases ......................................................................................................................... 76 5.3.3 Standards and Technology .......................................................................................................... 77 6 COMMUNITY, OUTREACH, CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT, AND TRAINING ......... 80 6.1. Description ......................................................................................................................................... 80 6.2. SWOT Compilation ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unitary Or Unified Taxonomy?
    Published online 23 March 2004 Unitary or unified taxonomy? Malcolm J. Scoble Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK ([email protected]) Taxonomic data form a substantial, but scattered, resource. The alternative to such a fragmented system is a ‘unitary’ one of preferred, consensual classifications. For effective access and distribution the (Web) revision for a given taxon would be established at a single Internet site. Although all the international codes of nomenclature currently preclude the Internet as a valid medium of publication, elements of unitary taxonomy (UT) still exist in the paper system. Much taxonomy, unitary or not, already resides on the Web. Arguments for and against adopting a unitary approach are considered and a resolution is attempted. Rendering taxonomy essentially Web-based is as inevitable as it is desirable. Apparently antithetical to the UT proposal is the view that in reality multiple classifications of the same taxon exist, since different taxonomists often hold different concepts of their taxa: a single name may apply to many different (frequently overlapping) circumscriptions and more than one name to a single taxon. However, novel means are being developed on single Internet sites to retain the diversity of multiple concepts for taxa, providing hope that taxonomy may become established as a Web-based information discipline that will unify the discipline and facilitate data access. Keywords: unitary taxonomy; Web revisions; taxonomy; Internet; multiple classifications 1. INTRODUCTION of ‘the field of taxoinformatics’ was another of Ashbur- ner’s concerns. Progress will surely need continued and If taxonomy were ever to be funded in proportion to the much expanded engagement with the Internet as the fast amount it is discussed, there might be less concern about evolving medium for providing access to information cur- its purported decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Establishment of a Centralized Spider Traits Database
    2020. Journal of Arachnology 48:103–109 Towards establishment of a centralized spider traits database Elizabeth C. Lowe1,*, Jonas O. Wolff1,*, Alfonso Aceves-Aparicio1, Klaus Birkhofer2, Vasco Veiga Branco3, Pedro Cardoso3,4, Filipe Chichorro3, Caroline Sayuri Fukushima3, Thiago Gonc¸alves-Souza5, Charles R. Haddad6, Marco Isaia7, Henrik Krehenwinkel8, Tracy Lynn Audisio9, Nuria Mac´ıas-Herna´ndez3,18, Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte3,4, Stefano Mammola3,10, Donald James McLean1, Radek Michalko11, Wolfgang Nentwig12, Stano Peka´r13, Julien Pe´tillon14, Ka¨ına Privet14, Catherine Scott15, Gabriele Uhl16, Fernando Urbano-Tenorio3, Boon Hui Wong17 and Marie E. Herberstein1: 1Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia; E-mails: [email protected], Jonas. [email protected]; 2Department of Ecology, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, 03046 Cottbus, Germany; 3Laboratory for Integrative Biodiversity Research (LIBRe), Finnish Museum of Natural History (Luomus), University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 17 (Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 13), 00014 Helsinki, Finland; 4cE3c – Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes / Azorean Biodiversity Group and Universidade dos Ac¸ores – Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, Rua Capita˜oJoa˜od’A´ vila, Sa˜o Pedro, 9700-042 Angra do Hero´ısmo, Terceira, Ac¸ores, Portugal; 5Ecological Synthesis and Biodiversity Conservation Lab, Department of Biology, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Brazil; 6Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of the Free State,
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle, Taxonomy, and Traits
    Aristotle, Taxonomy, and Traits Internship Report Vanessa Peña Master Biology, Biodiversity: conservation and restoration, University of Antwerp [email protected] 6/8/2020 Abstract Although Carolus Linneaus is seen as the start of western taxonomy, the traces of the biological works of Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, are still visible in current day taxonomy. Aristotle is recognized for his inventory of species and his ability to distinguish between organisms. He has contributed to the classification and distribution of marine organisms. He has provided significant information on ecological, biological, and distributional traits of marine organisms that are worth analyzing. During my internship program at the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ), I took part in an ongoing detailed analysis of all marine animals previously described by Aristotle. Information on previously described traits will be compared to the modern information on these species that can be found to this day. Introduction Linnaeus fathered western taxonomy. Though there has been research and discoveries made long before Linnaeus, that is of equal importance. Along with the famous Linnaeus, Aristotle is another well-known name in history who can be thanked for our current classification system we use today. Without him, the Linnaeus system might never exist at all. Aristotle (384 BC-323 BC) was a Greek philosopher born in Stagira, Greece (Voulusiadou et al., 2017). He developed his love for the study of nature while studying at Plato's Academy in Athens for 20 years. In 347 BC, after the death of his tutor Plato, he traveled to Asia Minor and Lesbos Island, where he took part in the origination of biology (Lennox, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Who Played a Key Role During the Development of Our Modern-Day Taxonomy and How Does the World Register of Marine Species Contribute to This?
    Report Who played a key role during the development of our modern-day taxonomy and how does the World Register of Marine Species contribute to this? By Daisy ter Bruggen Module LKZ428VNST1 Project internship Van Hall Larenstein, Agora 1, 8934 AL Leeuwarden [email protected] Abstract: Our Western taxonomy officially began with Linnaeus. Nevertheless, equally important discoveries and research has been done long before the Linnaean system was introduced. Aristotle and Linnaeus are two of the most well-known names in history when discussing taxonomy and without them the classification system we use today might have never existed at all. Their interest, research and knowledge in nature was influenced by their upbringing and played a major factor in the running of their lives. Introduction The definition of taxonomy according to the Convention on Biological Diversity “Taxonomy is the science of naming, describing and classifying organisms and includes all plants, animals and microorganisms of the world” (2019). Aristotle and Linnaeus are two of the most well-known names in history when discussing taxonomy and without them the classification system we use today might have never existed at all. Their interest, research and knowledge in nature was influenced by their upbringing and played a major factor in the running of their lives. Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) was a Greek philosopher. He was born in Stagira, a small town in Macedonia, Northern Greece (Voultsiadou, Gerovasileiou, Vandepitte, Ganias, & Arvanitidis, 2017). At the age of seventeen, he went to Athens, and studied in Plato’s Academy for 20 years. Which is where he developed his passion to study nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Simms, M.J. 2008A. Licheneering Around Ireland
    ISSN 2009-0900 Bulletin of the National Biodiversity Data Centre Issue 2 – Autumn 2008 In this issue: AlgaeBase – Listing the World’s algae. P2 Invasive Species Ireland – Tackling a growing threat to Ireland’s biodiversity. P4 The Flora of Co. Waterford. P6 Biodiversity tales. P8 Annual Recorders’ Event 2008. P12 Celebrating Irish entomologists. P13 Biodiversity beginners. P14 Book reviews. P16 Letter to editor. P17 Biodiversity connections. P18 Biodiversity Ireland Issue 2 2008 Biodiversity Ireland is published by the National Biodiversity Data Centre. Enquiries should be sent to the editor, Editorial Eugenie Regan, [email protected] elcome to the second issue of Biodiversity Ireland. Through the work at the National Biodiversity Data Centre, Wthe enormity of the task at hand is beginning to dawn on me. With over 12,000 species of insects alone in Ireland, we have thousands of species from lichens to butterflies to whales that need recording and monitoring. In this issue, there are a number of articles on very successful endeavours to do just that – record and monitor our species – and in one instance an Irish project is recording all of the World’s species! AlgaeBase databases the World’s algae facilitating The National Biodiversity Data Centre, on-line access to information on algae from around the World and Prof. Mike Guiry describes the workings of this fantastic on-line Beechfield House, WIT West Campus, resource. Dr. Cathy Maguire highlights the importance of partnership Carriganore, Waterford. at a national level in her article on Invasive Species Ireland while Dr. Tel: +353 (0)51 306240 Úna Fitzpatrick illustrates how partnership at a local level can bring Email: [email protected] huge added-value to datasets in the Flora of Waterford.
    [Show full text]
  • How Global Is the Global Biodiversity Information Facility? Chris Yesson1, Peter W
    How Global Is the Global Biodiversity Information Facility? Chris Yesson1, Peter W. Brewer1, Tim Sutton1, Neil Caithness1, Jaspreet S. Pahwa2, Mikhaila Burgess2, W. Alec Gray2, Richard J. White2, Andrew C. Jones2, Frank A. Bisby1, Alastair Culham1* 1 School of Biological Sciences, Plant Science Laboratories, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, United Kingdom, 2 School of Computer Science, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom There is a concerted global effort to digitize biodiversity occurrence data from herbarium and museum collections that together offer an unparalleled archive of life on Earth over the past few centuries. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility provides the largest single gateway to these data. Since 2004 it has provided a single point of access to specimen data from databases of biological surveys and collections. Biologists now have rapid access to more than 120 million observations, for use in many biological analyses. We investigate the quality and coverage of data digitally available, from the perspective of a biologist seeking distribution data for spatial analysis on a global scale. We present an example of automatic verification of geographic data using distributions from the International Legume Database and Information Service to test empirically, issues of geographic coverage and accuracy. There are over 1/2 million records covering 31% of all Legume species, and 84% of these records pass geographic validation. These data are not yet a global biodiversity resource for all species, or all countries. A user will encounter many biases and gaps in these data which should be understood before data are used or analyzed. The data are notably deficient in many of the world’s biodiversity hotspots.
    [Show full text]
  • FADA in the Biodiversity Information World
    FADA in the Biodiversity Information World Hendrik S EGERS Belgian Biodiversity Platform Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences FADA workshop Bruges, December 5-7 2009 Acronyms unlimited FADA workshop Bruges, December 5-7 2009 The Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment what we’re talking about FADA Data today: • What: Taxonomy / nomenclature data • Where: Biogeographical information / Georef’d data (minimal) Focus on taxonomy , taxon diversity, biogeography FADA workshop Bruges, December 5-7 2009 The Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment what we’re talking about FADA METADATA (data on the data): • Who, When, What (references)? • Responsible taxonomist : Author FADA workshop Bruges, December 5-7 2009 The Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment and other global cataloguing initiatives • Global lists of species • Taxonomic scope • Tool for science, conservation, management • A (1) topical, (2) global species database • Contributes to the Catalogue of Life FADA workshop Bruges, December 5-7 2009 Catalogue of Life Goal: a catalogue of all known species of organisms (by 2011) Partnership of: Species2000: federation of taxonomic database custodians, largely EUR and Asia-Oceania Integrated Taxonomic Information Service (ITIS - US, Can, MX) CODATA’s (Committee on Data for Science and Technology, ICSU) Global Species Data Networks (Sp2000) Brings together 47 databases, most GSDs; 1M+ FADA workshop Bruges, December 5-7 2009 Global Species Databases 1350 citations, 1460 collaborators 25 M hits/month Biosystematic Database on World Diptera
    [Show full text]
  • Manual of Marine and Coastal Datasets of Biodiversity Importance
    MANUAL OF MARINE AND COASTAL DATASETS OF BIODIVERSITY IMPORTANCE AN INTRODUCTION TO KEY MARINE AND COASTAL BIODIVERSITY DATASETS (03/2019 EDITION) Detailed dataset-specific metadata TEAM Osgur McDermott Long, Ruth Fletcher, Miranda Jones, Emma Sullivan, Derek Tittensor, Chris Mcowen, Laurens Geffert, Jan-Willem van Bochove1 , Hannah Thomas, Simon Blyth, Corinna Ravillious, Melissa Tolley, Damon Stanwell-Smith, Juliette C.G. Martin, Rachael Scrimgeour, Holly Brooks , Steve Fletcher, Corinne Martin, Lauren V. Weatherdon IN COLLABORATION WITH Kristin Kaschner (AquaMaps; Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Germany) PUBLISHED March 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to the Proteus Partnership who part-financed this work. SUGGESTED CITATION McDermott Long O, Fletcher R, Jones MC, Kaschner K, Sullivan E, Tittensor DP, Mcowen C, Geffert JL, van Bochove JW, Thomas H, Blyth S, Ravillious C, Tolley M, Stanwell-Smith D, Martin JCG, Scrimgeour R, Brooks H, Fletcher S, Martin CS, Weatherdon LV (2019). Manual of marine and coastal datasets of biodiversity importance. March 2019 edition. Cambridge (UK): UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Available at: http://library.oceanplus.org [On-line]; wcmc.io/MarineDataManual [PDF]. EDITION This Manual was first published by Martin et al. in 2014, and updated by Weatherdon et al. (2015). The 2017 update includes 13 additional, updated metadata sheets, while the March 2019 update includes a further 34 metadata sheets. This publication is available online at: http://wcmc.io/MarineDataManual. ...……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… COPYRIGHT 2019 UN Environment The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity centre of UN Environment, the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The Centre has been in operation for over 40 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice.
    [Show full text]
  • 20189 Sybsc, Life Sciences Semester III, Paper III March 2018 Answer Key
    Q.P. Code :20189 SYBSc, Life Sciences Semester III, Paper III March 2018 Answer key Q1. Do as directed: A) State whether the following are True or False: 1) Gingko tree is an example of Living Fossil- True 2) According to Darwin ‗the fittest‘ forms that are allowed to survive, are chosen by ‗Natural selection‘. – True 3) The maintenance of the sickle cell anaemia allele in human population of central Africa is an example of genetic drift. - False 4) Palaeontology is the study of past life based on fossil record.- True 5) Analogous organs are dissimilar in function but have same origin- False 6) Certain variations that get established in the population and get inherited continually are termed, heritable variations- True 7) Directional selection is an example of artificial selection- False Q. 1 B) Fill in the blanks: 1) Conditional Probability 2)Binomial 3) Equation of the curve 4)Favourable 5)Poisson 6)x = μ 7)Poisson Q. 1 C) Explain the following terms 1. PDB: The Protein Data Bank (PDB) is a crystallographic database for the three-dimensional structural data of large biological molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids. The data, typically obtained by X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, or, increasingly, cryo-electron microscopy, and submitted by Q.P. Code :20189 SYBSc, Life Sciences Semester III, Paper III March 2018 Answer key biologist and biochemists from around the world, are freely accessible on the Internet via the websites of its member organizations (PDBe, PDBj, and RCSB). The PDB is overseen by an organization called the Worldwide Protein Data Bank, wwPDB.
    [Show full text]
  • Bgj4.1 Cover:Bgj1.1 Cover
    BGjournalJournal of Botanic Gardens Conservation International Volume 4 • Number 1 • January 2007 Special 2007 anniversary issue Taxonomy and plant conservation the tercentenary of the birth of Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) 20 YEARS 1987-2007 Contents 02 Editorial Editors: Etelka Leadlay and Sara Oldfield Co-editors: Suzanne Sharrock and Fiona Wild 04 The legacy of Linnaeus Cover Photo: Sarracenia flava L. a species described by Linnaeus in Species Plantarum 1:510 (1753) in Linnaean names and their types: a permanent reference point cultivation at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 08 (Photo: BGCI) Design: John Morgan, Seascape 12 Taxonomy and plant conservation E-mail: [email protected] Submissions for the next issue should reach the editor 16 Botanical buffet – the importance of living collections for plant before 20th March, 2007. The theme of this issue will be climate change. We would welcome contributions. systematics Please send text on diskette or via e-mail, as well as a hard copy. Please send photographs as original slides or prints unless scanned to a very high resolution (300 21 Taxonomy is the tool that measures plant diversity – and our pixels/inch and 100mm in width); digital images need to level of knowledge be of a high resolution for printing. If you would like further information, please request Notes for authors. BGjournal is published by Botanic Gardens Conservation 24 The Catalogue of Life: indexing the world’s species International (BGCI). It is published twice a year and is sent to all BGCI members. Membership is open to all interested individuals, institutions and organisations that 30 Book notices and taxonomic support the aims of BGCI (see page 32 for Membership resources application form).
    [Show full text]
  • Report 2009-2012 Naturalis Research and Education Naturalis Biodiversity Center (Duistermaat, L
    Report 2009-2012 Naturalis Research and Education Naturalis Biodiversity Center (Duistermaat, L. & van Tol, J., editors), 2014. Report 2009-2012 Naturalis Research and Education Copyright and photocopying © 2014 Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden. All rights reserved. With the exception of fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Special requests should be addressed to the Publisher at the Museum. Disclaimer. The Publisher, the Museum and the Editors cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of the publication; the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Publisher, Museum, or Editors. Contents Introduction — 1 Research contributions — 23 Departments, focus projects and Staff, projects and Naturalis programmes — 3 publications — 141 Botany — 5 Research staff — 143 Geology — 7 Awards 2009-2012 — 151 Marine Zoology — 9 Lipke Bijdeley Holthuis — 152 Terrestrial Zoology — 11 Education — 154 Bio-informatics — 13 Professor Lam Student Prize — 155 Nature of the Netherlands — 14 Extramural functions — 156 Character evolution — 16 Naturalis publications — 160 Dynamic biodiversity — 18 EDIT — 164 Evolution of species Economic structure interdependencies — 20 enhancement fund (FES) — 167 Publications 2009-2012 — 169 Introduction Not many natural history museums in the world have budget for research thus totally amounted to changed so much as Naturalis Biodiversity Center 15.3 million euro for the years 2010­2015, which we since 2009. In this report we present over 50 larger invested in new molecular and morpho logical labo­ and smaller projects of the last four years, providing ratories, and an EMP / Electron microprobe.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity in Latin America: a Survey of Current Information
    Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: 28936-LCR PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Public Disclosure Authorized IN THE AMOUNT OF US$6 MILLION TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES FOR THE BUILDING THE INTER-AMERICAN BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION NETWORK (IABIN) PROJECT June 29,2004 Public Disclosure Authorized Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit Latin America and the Caribbean Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization Public Disclosure Authorized CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective) Currency Unit = US dollar FISCAL YEAR FY04 -- FY09 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAS Country Assistance Strategy (World Bank) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCAD Central American Commission for Environment and Development CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation (North America) CI Coordinating Institution (of an IABIN Thematic Network) CHM Clearing-House Mechanism CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CONABIO Mexican National Biodiversity Commission (Comisidn Nacional para el Conocimiento y Us0 de la Biodiversidad) COP Conference ofthe Parties (Convention on Biological Diversity) CRLA Reference Center on Environmental Information (Centro de Refergncia em Informaqio Ambiental) (Brazil) DFS Department
    [Show full text]