By Catherine Saez on 28 February 2011 @ 7:23 pm

Having successfully advanced discussions toward treaties on the protection of folklore and traditional knowledge, country experts this week are meeting at the World Intellectual Property Organization to discuss the protection of genetic resources. But this time, it might prove trickier.

The positive results of the two previous working groups have established momentum toward producing the basis for an international treaty text. However, experts this week might face a tougher task with multiple working documents from which to work and the objectives might have to be humbler.

The Third Intersessional Working Group ^[1] (IWG 3) of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), gathering country experts, is meeting from 28 February – 4 March. The aim is to try to produce a text that would be a basis for negotiations at the 18th session of the IGC from 9-13 May.

The IGC was established by the WIPO General Assembly in October 2000 with the objective of “reaching agreement on a text of an international legal instrument (or instruments) which will ensure the effective protection” of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources, according to WIPO.

In order to help the process, the IGC established three expert working groups to meet between IGC sessions to address the three issues separately. The groups were tasked with providing expert advice and discussions on each subject and provide draft text as a basis for negotiations at the May IGC.

The First Intersessional Working Group (IWG 1) of the IGC worked on traditional cultural expressions in July and produced a text that will be presented to the next IGC (IPW, WIPO, 26 July 2010 ^[2]). The Second Intersessional Working Group (IWG 2) addressed traditional knowledge from 21-25 February and also produced a set of draft articles to be brought forward to the ICG (IPW, WIPO, 25 February 2011 ^[3]).

Key Issues this Week

A key issue of this week’s discussions is the mandatory disclosure of genetic resources in patent applications, according to sources. Another key point is the inclusion of derivatives in the discussions they said. Derivatives are referring to plant extracts, or metabolites (active compounds in plants or animals).

Both of those issues were keenly discussed in October during the negotiations leading to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity ^[4] [pdf].

The experts meeting this week have a heavy load of working documents compiled by WIPO to go through, including proposals kept on the table by countries at the 17th IGC meeting in December (IPW, WIPO, 11 December 2010 ^[5]), such as the draft objectives and principles ^[6] [pdf] proposed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United States, a submission ^[7] [pdf] by the African Group on genetic resources and future work, a proposal ^[8] [pdf] by Switzerland on the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications, and a document ^[9] [pdf] submitted by the European Union also on the source of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in patent applications.

José López de León, second secretary of the Geneva Mexican permanent mission, was elected chair of IWG 3, and laid out its roadmap this morning. Today and tomorrow should be devoted to discussing objectives and principles with the aim of shortening the deadline if possible, he told Intellectual Property Watch.

The following days will be devoted to developing a matrix of different options, see where they fit with the objectives and principles discussed before, and define priorities. It is important to keep in mind that the discussions have to be kept at a technical level, he said.

On the topic of genetic resources, countries can be broadly defined by two extreme positions and the aim of this week is to deliver two options to which countries can relate to so that the IGC can start negotiating on that basis, he added.

According to participants, indigenous peoples vigorously opposed the mention in the objectives and principles of the sovereign rights of states over genetic resources, as that goes against the right to self-determination and the sovereign rights of indigenous peoples as stated in different United Nations conventions and covenants, and in particular their rights over their genetic resources. They also said that the human rights dimensions should be taken into account in the efforts to establish an international instrument.

Several countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela also said they wished to have national sovereign rights on the scope of patentability, in particular on life forms, according to sources.

The Nagoya Protocol, whose aim is to prevent unlawful appropriation of genetic resources, was adopted on 29 October (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 29 October 2010 ^[10]). It includes languages on prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities (Article 6). The protocol was characterised by many as a good starting point but containing softening language like “as appropriate” and “where applicable,” with much left to interpretation and to national level implementation.

A developed country source told Intellectual Property Watch that disclosure of patent applications is an intellectual property issue and as such should remain under WIPO competence. Another developed country source said that the discussions on objectives and principles would be key to further progress.

On 25 February, Mexico became the fifth country to sign the Nagoya Protocol, according to a CBD press release ^[11] [pdf]. The instrument will take effect at the 50th ratification by countries.

Side Events this Week

On Tuesday, South Africa will hold a side event to the IWG 3 on “The National Recordal System as multimedia platform for the recording, documentation and dissemination of indigenous knowledge in South Africa.” On Thursday, the International Centre For Trade and Sustainable Development and the United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) will co-organise a panel discussion on The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing and its impact on other multilateral debates on intellectual property and biodiversity.

Related Articles:

• Draft WIPO Instrument On Genetic Resources Shows Lists Of Options ^[12]
• Debate Rises Over Elevating Profile Of Genetic Resources At WIPO ^[13]
• WIPO Draft Treaty Text On Genetic Resources Joins Folklore, Traditional Knowledge ^[14]

Categories: Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech,English,Human Rights,Language,News,Themes,Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge,Venues,WIPO

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/28/long-week-ahead-for-wipo-experts-considering-treaty-on-ip-and-genetic-resources/

URLs in this post:

[1] Third Intersessional Working Group: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=22093

[2] IPW, WIPO, 26 July 2010: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/26/wipo-sees-first-real-progress-on-text-for-protection-of-folklore-in-10-years-2/

[3] IPW, WIPO, 25 February 2011: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/25/after-folklore-traditional-knowledge-makes-steps-toward-wipo-treaty-text/

[4] Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity:http://treaties.un.org/doc/source/signature/2010/Ch-XXVII-8-b.pdf

[5] IPW, WIPO, 11 December 2010: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/12/11/wipo-members-move-into-detailed-talks-toward-folklore-treaty/

[6] draft objectives and principles: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_9.pdf

[7] submission: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_8.pdf

[8] proposal: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_4.pdf

[9] document: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_2.pdf

[10] IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 29 October 2010: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/10/29/compromise-un-protocol-treaty-against-biopiracy-adopted-in-japan/

[11] CBD press release: http://www.cbd.int/doc/press/2011/pr-2011-02-25-mexico-en.pdf

[12] Draft WIPO Instrument On Genetic Resources Shows Lists Of Options: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/04/draft-wipo-instrument-on-genetic-resources-shows-lists-of-options/

[13] Debate Rises Over Elevating Profile Of Genetic Resources At WIPO: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/01/debate-rises-over-elevating-profile-of-genetic-resources-at-wipo/

[14] WIPO Draft Treaty Text On Genetic Resources Joins Folklore, Traditional Knowledge: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/04/wipo-draft-treaty-texts-on-folklore-traditional-knowledge-genetic-resources-now-ready/

Click here to print.

Date and time:
Friday, 11 June 2010, 9:00 h -18:00 h
Room:
130, UN Campus – Langer Eugen, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10, Bonn
Organizer:
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

A sub-set of two impact indicators was identified as the minimum required for reporting by affected countries beginning in 2012: land cover status and proportion of the population in affected areas living above the poverty line

In order to enable affected countries to report on the two impact indicators in 2012, the CST was requested to prepare a glossary of terms and definitions and to continue work on methodologies for collecting, processing, monitoring and reporting the relevant data needed to effectively use them

A meeting with relevant institutions and/or agencies that have experience related to the implementation of the sub-set of two impact indicators will be held on 11 June 2010. The meeting will give the opportunity to invited institutions and/or agencies to exchange information on international developments related to impact indicators and to share their experiences in implementing them

The meeting would have, among its specific objectives:

a. To discuss methodologies in use to measure the sub-set of two impact indicators and provide practical recommendations on data collection, processing, monitoring and reporting methods for the production of these indicators;

b. To review availability, accessibility and quality of the necessary data for the sub-set of impact indicators and to identify data sources and gaps.

c. To initiate the discussion on the technical support that the invited institutions and/or agencies could provide in the reporting process of the sub-set of impact indicators at the global and the national level.

Provisional agenda

source: http://www.unccd.int/science/announce/meeting-on-methodologies-data-needs.php

image: © Oleg Tsaruk, The batle with the nature, 1st UNCCD photo contest

By Catherine Saez on 4 May 2010 @ 7:18 pm

Intellectual property rights and access to medicines were on the agenda at the first day of a biotechnology industry group’s annual convention yesterday. The group held a panel on IP rights and also released a policy statement on access to medicine in developing countries. The director of the US Patent and Trademark Office commented positively on the initiative.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)’s annual convention ^[1] is taking place in Chicago from 3-6 June. BIO is an industry advocacy group claiming some 1,200 members worldwide.

USPTO Director David Kappos, who is also the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, spoke at a session entitled “Leveraging IP to Spur Global Biotechnology Innovation, Investments and Jobs.” The session was aimed at examining the role of IP systems in biotech investment and how some countries are leveraging their patent policies to encourage economic growth, according to the BIO website.

BIO also released a policy statement ^[2] [pdf] yesterday on access to medicine in developing countries. The statement, entitled Options for Increasing Access to Medicines in the Developing World, calls on its members to consider several options to address the issue of access to medicine while at the same time protecting strong intellectual property rights.

Among those options are licensing practices. The statement encourages BIO members, when negotiating licensing agreement with universities, non-profit entities, or commercial partners, to “explore with their partners opportunities to expand access to resulting medicines in the developing world.” Also, “while researching and developing products, work to identify compounds or technologies that can have useful applications in the developing world.”

Companies may also consider pooling their IP rights in order to facilitate research and development of useful products or applications for the developing world, the statement said.

Partnerships were also strongly encouraged, in particular public-private partnerships with governmental or nongovernmental organisations. The needs of people living in developing countries should be taken into account when doing clinical trials, the statement said.

The price barrier is not the only one to address, according to BIO. There also are issues such as lack of adequate manufacturing, delivery and public health infrastructure, trade and tariff barriers, regulatory obstacles, and lack of market incentives. The statement encouraged members to explore tiered-pricing approaches with “special humanitarian pricing,” as well as licensing to generic companies in certain countries.

“We believe government can, and should, play a role in providing incentives to encourage humanitarian commitments to treating disease in impoverished parts of the world,” said Kappos, according to prepared remarks, adding that “one mechanism we are currently discussing with various other government health agencies is the possibility of an annual award to companies that have done breakthrough research and development in a neglected disease area.”

Kappos also said he was looking to BIO members to provide the USPTO with ideas on the types of incentives that would be useful either for research on neglected diseases or for “exemplary humanitarian licensing.” He cited an example of the Priority Review Voucher of the Food and Drug Administration.

The voucher is transferable and is “awarded to a company that secures approval for a product that treats of prevents a neglected disease,” he said. It entitles its bearer to priority review for future new drug application.

World Intellectual Property Organization Director General Francis Gurry also spoke at the session.

Related Articles:

• Medicines Patent Pool Aims To Increase Access To HIV Drugs In Developing Countries ^[3]
• Patent On AIDS Medicine Denied In India; Seen Unlocking Market ^[4]

Categories: Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech,Development,Education/ R&D/ Innovation,English,IP Policies,Language,Lobbying,News,Patent Policy,Public Health,Subscribers,Themes,US Policy,Venues

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/04/biotech-convention-pays-homage-to-ip-pledges-to-increase-access-to-medicine/

URLs in this post:

[1] annual convention: http://convention.bio.org/

[2] policy statement: http://www.bio.org/healthcare/innovation/Access_to_Medicines_Policy_Statement_Final.pdf

[3] Medicines Patent Pool Aims To Increase Access To HIV Drugs In Developing Countries: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/10/medicines-patent-pool-aims-to-increase-access-to-hiv-drugs-in-developing-countries/

[4] Patent On AIDS Medicine Denied In India; Seen Unlocking Market: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/01/04/patent-on-aids-medicine-denied-in-india-seen-as-unlocking-market/

Click here to print.

It’s also a difficult item for Creative Commons to comment on. Both “sides” are clearly mostly correct. Wide access to digital copies of most books ever published would be a tremendous benefit to society — it’s practically an imperative that will happen in some fashion. It’s also the case that any particular arrangement to achieve such access should be judged in terms of how it serves the public interest, which includes consumer privacy, open competition, and indeed, access to books, among many other things. Furthermore, Creative Commons considers both Google and many of the parties submitting objections to the settlement (the Electronic Frontier Foundation is an obvious example) great friends and supporters of the commons.

We hope that a socially beneficial conclusion is reached. However, it’s important to remember why getting there is so contentious. Copyright has not kept up with the digital age — to the contrary, it has fought a rearguard action against the digital age, resulting in zero growth in the public domain, a vast number of inaccessible and often decaying orphan works, and a diminution of fair use. If any or all of these were addressed, Google and any other party would have much greater freedom to scan and make books available to the public — providing access to digital books would be subject to open competition, not arrived at via a complex and contentious settlement with lots of side effects.

Creative Commons was designed to not play the high cost, risk, and stakes game of litigation and lobbying to fix a broken copyright system. Instead, following the example of the free software movement, we offer a voluntary opt-in to a more reasonable copyright that works in the digital age. There are a huge number of examples that this works — voluntary, legal, scalable sharing powers communities as diverse as music remix, scientific publishing, open educational resources, and of course Wikipedia.

It’s also heartening to see that voluntary sharing can be a useful component of even contentious settlements and to see recognition of Creative Commons as the standard for sharing. We see this in Google’s proposed amended settlement, filed last Friday. The amended version (PDF) includes the following:

Alternative License Terms. In lieu of the basic features of Consumer Purchase set forth in Section 4.2(a) (Basic Features of Consumer Purchase), a Rightsholder may direct the Registry to make its Books available at no charge pursuant to one of several standard licenses or similar contractual permissions for use authorized by the Registry under which owners of works make their works available (e.g., Creative Commons Licenses), in which case such Books may be made available without the restrictions of such Section.

This has not been the first mention of Creative Commons licenses in the context of the Google Book Settlement. The settlement FAQ has long included an answer indicating a Creative Commons option would be available. Creative Commons has also been mentioned (and in a positive light) by settlement critics, for example in Pamela Samuelson’s paper on the settlement and in the Free Software Foundation’s provocative objection centering on the tension between the intentions of public copyright licensors and the potential for settlements to result in less freedom than the licensor intended.

Independent of the settlement, we happily noted a few months ago that Google had added Creative Commons licensing options to its Google Book Search partner program. This, like any voluntary sharing, or mechanism to facilitate such, is a positive development.

However you feel about the settlement, you can make a non-contentious contribution to a better future by using works in the commons and adding your own, preventing future gridlock. You can also make a financial contribution to the Creative Commons annual campaign to support the work we do to build infrastructure for sharing.

If you want to follow the Google Book Settlement play-by-play, New York Law School’s James Grimmelmann has the go-to blog. We’re proud to note that James was a Creative Commons legal intern in 2004, but can’t take any credit for his current productivity!

by: Mike Linksvayer
source: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/19210

This spring, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Coalition for Networked Information sent a document entitled “The Research University’s Role in the Dissemination of Research and Scholarship,” [3] to all public and private US research universities, requesting that serious campus discussion on the topic occur. The document resulted from a roundtable of officers of the four associations and 21 provosts, research officers and librarians, and university press representatives, invited from their member universities. There is much to be gained by enlarging the universe of those who have full access to scholarship. Ubiquitous campus public-access deposit mandates will rapidly generate this gain.

Click here for the test of the text

PDF version

GBIF is building a metadata portal to enable discovery of biodiversity resources on both the GBIF and other networks.  A metadata catalogue, based on Metacat, will constitute the main component of the GBIF portal backend and link to other metadata catalogues in the GBIF network with the ultimate goal of providing a virtual unified catalogue of all metadata from participating organisations.

In order to stimulate the process of sharing dataset-level metadata, the GBIF Secretariat is offering a limited number of small grants of up to € 5,000 to GBIF Participants to enable them to build and/or connect their existing metadata catalogues to the GBIF network. Please be aware that this is a once-off offer to kick-start the process of building the distributed GBIF metadata catalogue system: no repeat funds will be provided.

Connecting other Metacat catalogues to the Metacat installation in the GBIF portal is straightforward (the application supports this directly). Already deployed Metacat systems are thus not the focus of this call. Rather, this call is focused on those who have already deployed other catalogue systems or have not yet installed any metadata system. Those who already use other catalogue applications will need to implement the Open Archives Initiative – Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH – http://www.openarchives.org/) so that the contents of their catalogue can be shared on the network. For more information on the process, we refer you to the OAI-PMH FAQ statement:  http://www.openarchives.org/documents/FAQ.html#How long will it take me to implement the protocol

Grant Applications
Applications for grants are accepted from two categories of provider:

1. those who already have a (non-Metacat) metadata catalogue system in operation and are willing to implement the OAI-PMH interface for harvesting of dataset metadata;
2. those who do not yet have an online metadata catalogue system in place but are willing to deploy one (e.g., Cassia, GeoNetwork, Mercury, Metacat), implement the OAI-PMH (if the catalogue is not based on Metacat), and populate the catalogue with dataset metadata;

Submission Process
All GBIF Participants are eligible to apply for these grants. To apply,

1. complete the form below by selecting one of the two categories as they apply to your organisation and providing a brief statement of how much funding you require and how you intend to use the funds;
2. provide a letter of support from your host institution that the metadata system will be maintained after this catalytic investment.

Applications should be submitted by email to Éamonn Ó Tuama, Programme Officer for IDA (eotuama_@If you can read this, please upgrade to a modern browser.gbif.org) and will be accepted up to 30 November 2009. Successful applicants will be notified in December. Please note that no overhead can be charged and that a financial report will be required on conclusion of the work.

Click here to download application form.

1. Background:

In order to help achieve targets and address specific issues and/or objectives as outlined in the GBIF Work Programme 2009-2010, GBIF may commission time-bound and subject-specific Task Groups. Recent Task Groups have included those dealing with observational data (ODTG), multimedia data (MRTG), data publishing framework (DPF TG), content needs assessment (CNA TG), natural history collections (GSAP-NHC), LSID and GUIDs (LGTG) and metadata implementation framework (MIFTG). For each of these TGs, the GBIF Secretariat has led the process; however, we now seek to contract out such coordination and project management on future TGs. With this Request for Proposals (RoP), we are initiating this process.

2. Request for Proposals:

In 2010 GBIF wishes to commission two further Task Groups addressing the following issues;

1. A Global Strategy and Action Plan for mobilisation of Observation, Ecological, Multimedia and other types of primary biodiversity data (GSAP-OEM)
2. A Data-Hosting Centres Task Group (DHC TG)

Objectives, terms-of-reference (ToR), and timeline of activities of each of these proposed Task Groups are detailed in Annex I.

Through this RoP, the GBIF Secretariat invites proposals from organisations/institutions, research groups and individuals working in the area of biodiversity informatics, bioinformatics, ecoinformatics and/or related fields of scientific data management to coordinate the commissioning and activities of these Task Groups as per the GBIF approved guidelines (Annex II). Contracting organisation(s)/individual(s) would be responsible for project management of the full process, including delivery of the final outputs of the Task Groups as detailed in Annex I.

Proposals as per attached proforma (Annex III) to coordinate either or both specified Task Groups must be submitted to Dr. Vishwas Chavan, Senior Programme Officer for DIGIT (email: vchavan_@If you can read this, please upgrade to a modern browser.gbif.org) on or before 25th November 2009.

Annex I: Objectives and ToRs of the Task Groups

(A) Global Strategy and Action Plan for mobilisation of Observation, Ecological, Multimedia and other types of primary biodiversity data (GSAP-OEM)

As part of a broader Global Strategy for mobilising Primary Biodiversity Data, GBIF is proposing to catalyse the development of a Global Strategy and Action Plan (GSAP) for the further mobilisation of observation, ecological, multimedia and other types of primary biodiversity data worldwide.

Task Group Objectives

1. Review the current state of free and open access to observational, ecological, multimedia and other types of primary biodiversity data.
2. Identify constraints/barriers (infrastructural, technical, training, social, and political) to exchange/sharing of these data types.
3. Produce guidelines for developing:
   • institutional, national, regional and thematic strategies and action plans for discovery and mobilization of such types of primary biodiversity data;
   • strategies and action plans for mobilising ad-hoc and non-primary biodiversity data, e.g. data collected through EIA studies, in-situ and ex-situ studies;
   • tool kits, standards and best practices for simple, and cost-effective capture, management, quality enhancements and mobilisation of data;
   • accreditation and recognition frameworks to acknowledge the efforts of various players involved in the data life cycle from its generation to publishing;
   • outreach and capacity building related to all of the above.
4. Recommend technical and infrastructural enhancements within the GBIF network to facilitate discovery and publishing of these new data types.
5. Recommend mechanisms and innovative approaches towards mobilising resources (financial and infrastructural) to expedite mobilisation of such types of data.

Task Group Characteristics, Timeline and modus operandi

The Task Group should start functioning from early February 2010 and should remain active until the final report is submitted by beginning of August 2010. The Task Group should convene most of its business remotely through mailing-list, wiki, skype and conference calls. Regular physical meetings are not planned but at least one is foreseen in order to either scope or formulate the final report.

The Task Group will report through the DIGIT Work Area Chair and DIGIT Programme Officer at the GBIF Secretariat.

Task Group Composition

The Task Group should consist of not more than 10 experts in the field of observational, ecological, multimedia and other types of primary biodiversity data digitisation, management and publishing, each with a proven record of excellent liaison with multinational, multicultural stakeholders. Given that different data types and data publishers will require different strategic approaches, representation of the different domains needs to be ensured. Considering the global scale of this exercise an attempt will also be made to maintain regional and gender balance.

Timeline:

January 2010:  Call for nominations
February 2010:  Establishment of the Task Group
March/April 2010:  Draft discussion document(s) to seek inputs from stakeholders
May/June 2010:  Face-to-face meeting of the Task Group
July 2010:  Release of draft report of the GSAP-OEM TG to seek inputs from GBIF Participants and other stakeholders
August 2010:  Final Report submission

Budget:

An allocation of € 10,000 each has been made in 2009 budgets for this activity. Additional resources, if required can be made available from 2010 budget. However, an additional expense would need justification and prior approval of the Secretariat.

(B) Data Hosting Centre Task Group (DHC TG)

Whilst an unprecedented volume of biodiversity data is currently being generated worldwide, it is perceived that significant amounts of data get lost or will be lost after project closure. To investigate the causes of such loss, and recommend strategies as to how biodiversity data can be rescued and archived, through ‘data hosting centres’ a Task Group on ‘Data Hosting Centres’ will be commissioned.

Task Group Objectives:

1. Identify the socio-political, cultural, technical and economic causes of loss of biodiversity data.
2. Review the state-of-the-art of the ‘data hosting’ and/or ‘data archival’ infrastructures in engineering and social sciences, as well as in biological sciences, etc.
3. Produce guidelines for developing:
   • Strategies and best practices for prevention of ‘biodiversity data loss’;
   • Guidelines to implement data rescue and archival mechanisms across the GBIF network;
   • Criteria for establishment, endorsement, and monitoring of ‘data hosting centres’;
   • Mechanisms to discover and archive orphaned or to be orphaned biodiversity datasets; li>
   • Innovative ways to collaborate with existing infrastructures and initiatives, and industry players to integrate the above mechanisms to rescue and archive threatened biodiversity data with the existing global infrastructure
4. Inventorise data rescue tools, processes, software’s, and infrastructures etc.

Task Group Characteristics, Timeline and modus operandi:

The Task Group should start functioning from February 2010 and should remain active until the final report is submitted by beginning of August 2010. The Task Group should convene most of its business remotely through a mailing-list, wiki, skype and conference calls. Regular physical meetings are not planned but at least one is foreseen in order to scope or formulate the final report.

The Task Group will report through the DIGIT Work Area Chair and DIGIT Programme Officer at the GBIF Secretariat.

Task Group Composition

The Task Group should consist of not more than six experts in the field of data rescue, data archival, data managers, and industry leaders, with a proven record of excellent liaison with multinational, multicultural stakeholders. Considering the global scale of this exercise an attempt will also be made to maintain regional and gender balance.

Timeline:

January 2010:  Call for nominations
February 2010:  Establishment of the Task Group
March/April 2010:  Draft discussion document to seek inputs from stakeholders
May/June 2010:  Face-to-face meeting of the Task Group
July 2010:  Release of draft report of the DHC TG to seek inputs from GBIF Participants and other stakeholders
August 2010:  Final Report submission

Budget:

An allocation of € 10,000 has been made in 2009 budget for this activity.

Annex II: Guidelines for coordination of Task Groups

1. The Contractor will prepare the final version of the ToR for the Task Group in consultation with respective Work Area Chair(s) and the GBIF Secretariat Programme Officer.
2. The Secretariat will release the ‘Call for Nominations’ for the membership of the Task Group.
3. The Contractor, in consultation with the Secretariat and respective Work Area Chair(s) will determine the composition of the Task Group and will identify two experts as co-chairs.
4. In the case of too few nominations experts can be co-opted by the Task Group co-chairs in consultation with the Secretariat.
5. The Secretariat will announce the commissioning of the Task Group through its communications portal, and mailing lists.
6. The Task Group should convene most of its business remotely through mailing-list, wiki, skype and conference calls.
7. Dates, venue and agenda of the face-to-face meeting will be determined by the co-chairs of the Task Group in consultation with the contractor, Work Area chair(s) and the Secretariat point of contact.
8. The Contractor will be responsible for making the necessary logistical arrangements for smooth conduct of the face-to-face meeting.
9. The Contractor and Co-Chairs in consultation with the Work Area Chair and the Secretariat will determine the best mechanism for seeking inputs from GBIF Participants and other stakeholder communities.
10. The members and the Co-Chairs of the Task Group will not receive remuneration for their participation. However, all related expenses towards their participation will be covered by the contract.
11. The Task Groups are mandated to provide a suite of recommendations on the issues under evaluation.
12. The Contractor and Task Group Co-Chairs will determine the structure of the report in consultation with Work Area chair and the Secretariat.
13. The Contractor will seek the prior consent of the Secretariat to make the final report available in the public domain and/or share with other networks, and initiatives.

Annex III: Proforma for Proposals on Coordination of a GBIF Task Group

1. Name of the Task Group:
2. Name of the organisation:
3. Address (including tel., fax., & email):
4. Name of the coordinating person:
5. Skills and experience of contracting institutions and/or individuals in successful coordination of international, multi-domain, and multi-cultural Task Groups:
6. Suggestions to optimise the coordination of the Task Groups (other than those listed in Annex I and II.
7. Suggest experts who could be potential co-chairs of the Task Group:
8. Statement of Undertaking (on the official stationary, and to be signed by the Grants Officer and the contractor):

On behalf of <name of the contractor> our institution / organisation agree to extend all necessary support for smooth functioning of the Task Group. We further agree fulfil the expectations, obligations and conditions set in the award letter. We further undertake the responsibility for submitting final reports within the agreed timeline. We would further provide the detailed statement of expenditure incurred on various activities of the Task Group.

Signature of the Grants Officer / Head of the Organisation
Name and Title of the Grants Officer / Head of the Organisation
Seal of the Organisation

More information at http://www.gbif.org/communications/news-and-events/showsingle/article/coordination-of-a-gbif-thematic-task-group/

Protocol for assigning a LifeWatch Label to supporting projects

This protocol serves to provide information about the assignment of the label LifeWatch Supporting Project to projects contributing to the LifeWatch infrastructure development.

Objectives

The development of the LifeWatch research infrastructure is a major undertaking and requires collaborative efforts of the European and even international scientific and technical communities. The actual construction of the distributed infrastructure will only be possible by contributions and investments of cooperating countries and organisations. The current LifeWatch Preparatory Project is entering a consultation proces with countries to establish a Consortium to legally establish LifeWatch as a European Research Infrastructure. A parallel bottom-up process will identify current and planned projects contributing to the infrastructure construction.

Part of this bottom-up process is this protocol to assign a LifeWatch Supporting Project label to contributing projects (construction components, pilots or demonstrators).

Remark: Such projects have to generate their own funding. LifeWatch is not a funding organisation and will not consider funding requests.

Eligible projects are encouraged to propose concrete deliverables which are useful for the construction or operations of LifeWatch. Examples are:

• impacts of changes on biodiversity richness and ecosystem services
• biodiversity valuation mapping
• web-based modelling tools
• development of software for specific applications
• specialized user portals
• applications with linkages to other data sources
• design or prototyping of environmental sensors

LifeWatch development plans

Applicants are suggested to read the general project outline and summary of results.

The recently published LifeWatch Reference Model vs. 0.2 provides a first draft of the envisaged ICT infrastructure as a service-oriented architecture. It includes guidelines for the specification and implementation of the LifeWatch ICT infrastructure as well as defining a number of generic information models and services. This document also highlights some showcases which may be developed as initial demonstrator services for biodiversity projects (from page 105).

Benefits and implications

The affiliation with LifeWatch, currently an influential European development for biodiversity research, provides collaborating projects free publicity and  support to generate additional funding. Projects with the LifeWatch Supporting Project label have the right to use the LifeWatch logo in all project communications. This right is only valid for the agreed project duration. LifeWatch lists the affiliation with the ‘labeled’ external projects on this website.

‘Labeled’ projects are expected to share their results with the LifeWatch Preparatory project and its follow-up Construction Project. Cooperation with LifeWatch may include advice from the LifeWatch project.

Procedure and criteria

Applicants are not restricted to Europe. The LifeWatch project is happy to receive proposals which should be sent to the LifeWatch Coordinator This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Proposal details are to be summarized in a Proposal Cover Note.

The applicant is suggested to add a letter of support from a cooperating Network of Excellence or National LifeWatch Network. It is recommended that the applicant consults a partner in the LifeWatch team in advance.

The LifeWatch Preparatory Project will accept contributing projects on the basis of the following criteria:

Quality and feasibility

• Innovative and original contribution to the LifeWatch development
• A demonstrated independant positive project evaluation
• Expected delivery and timing

Competence

• The project is unique or has a leading position in its work area
• The project team has a solid reputation, proven expertise and experience in the work area

Relevance and significance

The project indicates:

• its place in and relevance for the architectural model of LifeWatch
• which expected results are served as deliverables for the LifeWatch development

Cooperation

The project agrees to cooperate with LifeWatch with respect to:

• sharing all project results and to provide free access and the use of these results
• establishing collaborative agreements as reflected in an Assignment Letter

The LifeWatch Coordinator decides on the proposal in consultation with the LifeWatch Management. After a positive decision the Coordinator and external project leader both sign an Assignment Letter, summarizing the expected project results to be shared with LifeWatch and the collaboration details.

All labeled projects are registered at the LifeWatch project office and will be displayed on the LifeWatch website.

Contact

DC-2009 will focus on linked data and the enabling of the Semantic Web. Conference participants will explore the conceptual and practical issues in breaking the constraints of data silos and connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge. Metadata is a key to these processes supporting publishing and interlinking structured data on the Semantic Web.

There is a growing interest in the metadata community in connecting existing and future data contained in silos within and across organizations in a meaningful way that supports extraction and correlation of the data. The linking of data from disparate data silos presents technical and social challenges that will be explored at DC-2009 through full papers, project reports, posters, special sessions and workshops.

The Pacific Institute, an environmental research organisation, is already using the tool. Together with media network Circle of Blue they have provided free international access to global freshwater data.

Alon Halevy, senior engineer at Google Labs, told SciDev.Net: "We wanted to make it easier for people to share their data, to save it and make it searchable on the web … We want to unlock data from its current repositories and let more people get value out of it."
Google is currently in conversation with several non-profit and government-funded organisations in an effort to increase the available online information.

Since the tool’s launch in June ClimateWizard — a collaboration between The Nature Conservancy, the University of Washington and the University of Southern Mississippi — has uploaded data on global climate change predictions.

The Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) may contribute information to the tool in the future. Communications manager Sarah Wilson told SciDev.Net: "It’s a very interesting piece of kit, and we’ll be watching it develop."

Halevy also highlights education as a key area for application of the accumulated data: "I think Fusion Tables is a great tool for teachers in the classroom to let students investigate their own data, integrate it or fuse it with data from other places, and make the data come alive by visualising it on maps." He says he would love to see the tool applied to teaching in developing countries.