Knowledge Management workshop

Document Sample
Knowledge Management workshop Powered By Docstoc
					                  UNEP Workshop on Knowledge Management
                      among Biodiversity-related MEAs
                           Cambridge, UK, 7-9 March 2008
See Annex 1 for a list of participants
See Annex 2 for a list of documents and webpages

Workshop Day 1
Chaired by Jerry Harrison, UNEP-WCMC

Opening remarks: Jon Hutton, Director of UNEP-WCMC, welcomed participants to
Cambridge, and introduced them to the recent developments at the Centre. With regards to the
Knowledge Management (KM) project, he stressed the importance of implementation at the
national level and of supporting secretariats in their knowledge management efforts. He thanked
UNEP for their support for the project. Elizabeth Mrema conveyed greetings from Bakary Kante,
Director of UNEP DELC.

Workshop Objectives: Elizabeth Mrema introduced the objectives of the workshop. She
outlined the major features of the Knowledge Management project that UNEP has been
conducting since 2006, and also introduced Tematea, a project jointly managed by UNEP and
IUCN. She said that UNEP had organised this workshop to get guidance from the secretariats on
these two projects, how they have been working for them and how they should be taken to the
next stages.

Presentation on the KM project: Peter Herkenrath presented the salient features and outcomes
of the KM project, stressing the wider context of efforts for achieving interoperability of
information management between the biodiversity-related conventions and even across the whole
UN. He pointed to the three main threads of the KM project:
    • the Internet portal that makes available key information from the six participating MEAs
    • online reporting for CMS, AEWA and the CITES biennial reports, with the use of a
       generator that allows for easy creation of other online reporting tools or questionnaires
    • desk studies on harmonization of reporting

Discussion focused on the following issues: On the KM portal: It would need to be updated, e.g.
with new decisions or resolutions from meetings of the governing bodies; how the portal has been
tested by parties (a number of individuals at parties, chosen in consultation with secretariats and
UNEP Regional Offices, provided feedback); the significant issue of having the portal available
in other languages than English. On the online reporting tool: It was stressed that a tool that
analyses the reported information is crucial – such a tool has not been part of the first phase of the
project; the need to continue offering parties to use a Word format for reporting; testing by parties
which, due to time constraints, was not carried out under the current project. On harmonization of
reporting: The crucial issue of defining what information MEAs need; online reporting would
need to be advertised to parties, helping to reduce and not increasing their burden; 2008 being a
good year to move the agenda forward with several COPs taking place; lack of capacity in
secretariats to adequately address harmonization of reporting.

Presentation on Tematea: Ines Verleye presented on Tematea, stressing the underlying
challenge of information needs of parties for implementing MEAs. Tematea follows a two-track
approach: developing the issue-based modules and building national capacity for MEA

implementation. The project developed four initial modules, selected by the Biodiversity Liaison
Group (inland waters, invasive alien species, biodiversity and climate change, and sustainable
use), to which subsequently two further modules, access and benefit-sharing, and protected areas
were added. The modules inform parties (and other users) of their obligations for implementing
the issue-related provisions of the MEAs. The MEAs include global and regional ones, including
some non-environmental treaties. She demonstrated the online version of the modules, available
in several UN languages. The modules and the database are stand-alone so they can be replicated
on CD, which would particularly help countries with poor Internet access. In several pilot
countries in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Africa, national workshops have been conducted.
The workshops have resulted in lessons about making use of the modules in support of MEA
implementation, such as in developing national policies or legislation, or in implementing GEF
projects. The modules need to be updated periodically and to be extended to all regions and more
countries as well as to other issues (e.g. forest, marine & coastal biodiversity); but promoting the
national use of the modules remains the most important issue. The discussion focused on the lack
of capacity of secretariats to adequately address Tematea; the need to better publicise Tematea; to
need to provide links with other KM work; and the significance and success of national capacity-

Comments from the Ramsar Convention: Nick Davidson said that the KM tools and Tematea
are complementary, not duplicating each other. As Tematea has now reached a well-developed
state, the secretariats could better publicise it. On online reporting, he said that an integrated
package is needed, with keeping the option of reporting through the traditional Word document,
but encouraging parties to report online. He stated that many attempts have been made to move
harmonization of reporting forward. The KM project outputs are immensely helpful, but have to
be seen as a step in a longer process. Ramsar currently looks into all the information needs for the
convention – a broader approach that goes beyond national reporting. There is a need to clearly
define the purpose of harmonization efforts. Parties need to be encouraged to build bridges
between focal points for different MEAs at the national level. He said that the successful
preconditions for getting parties to commit to harmonized reporting need to be identified and

Comments from CITES: Jonathan Barzdo said that they are impressed by Tematea and happy to
provide links from the CITES website. However, there are some overlaps between Tematea and
the KM portal and there is a need to ensure that both tools are complementary rather than
duplicative. On the KM portal, it is essential that this be useful for parties. The controlled
vocabulary is a weak point that needs more work. He also stressed the issue of updating. One of
the original objectives highlighted by the 2006 workshop was increasing capacity at secretariats;
this crucial issue needs to be looked at. On online reporting, Marceil Yeater said that CITES is
very keen, but needs a database to back the information up, similar to the annual reporting
information system. Online reporting is in a position to further promote Parties’ uptake of
biennial reporting. On harmonization of national reporting, she said that a single joint report for
the biodiversity-related conventions may not be likely at the moment but this could change as
national implementation of biodiversity-related conventions becomes more integrated. An
example to learn from is the significant progress in collaboration among the chemical cluster of
MEAs. Both Jonathan and Marceil made the point that if progress is to be made with
harmonization of reporting, then governments need to be involved, and they proposed the
formation of a cross-MEA working group of government representatives to look at this.

Comments from CMS: Rob Hepworth stressed the issue of having the KM portal available in
more languages. Communicating the results of the various KM components is important – a
common marketing tool for KM and Tematea should be considered, perhaps even a logo for this

joint effort of secretariats. On national reporting he said that CMS are acknowledging the
advancing of reporting through online reporting, but for the 2008 round of reporting, the Word
format will still be used as the sole medium. The CMS reporting format is still too long – far too
much information about species is being gathered, some of which is available elsewhere. The
format should focus on implementation and make information available that supports parties in
implementation. He echoed sentiments that the secretariats need to do more to publicise Tematea.
On harmonization he stressed the need to further explore the option of a core report, with
advantages and disadvantages apparent.

Comments from CBD: Olivier de Munck recommended linking to the Tematea website to
promote its use by Parties. The CBD will publicise Tematea. He also mentioned to add an on-line
feature to allow Parties to describe what they are doing for each action item recommended by
Tematea. Doing so would promote sharing of experiences between Parties. He suggested
improvements to the KM portal, such as making the search available on the first page. Due to the
intrinsic limitations of interlinking, the next phase should be much more ambitious with a central
database that holds all relevant information from all agreements. The next steps could include
preparing functional specifications, drafting the user interface, developing a controlled
(multilingual) vocabulary as well as defining common formats for the various types of
information. He stressed the need for a strategy document for KM – where we are currently,
where we want to go to, what services we want, etc.

Comments from AEWA: Sergey Dereliev mentioned the growing implementation burden for
parties. He described Tematea as a useful instrument and suggested raising the AEWA profile
within Tematea; AEWA, currently listed as a regional agreement, is spanning several regions. As
to the KM portal, he highlighted its value especially for Parties, which implies the need for
constant feedback from users, and for monitoring the use of the portal. Online reporting has been
the most important aspect for AEWA within the KM project as it responds to the call of the MOP
for online reporting. A top priority for AEWA is the development of the analytical tool. On
harmonization of reporting, he referred to the need to reduce the burden of reporting and to a
mismatch between expectation of parties and what harmonization efforts can offer. He finished
by asking whether the purpose of harmonization of reporting has been sufficiently addressed.

Comments from IOSEA: Douglas Hykle explained that online reporting and an analytical tool
both exist in IOSEA; the analysis is used well for the further development of the MoU. He is
currently working with UNEP-WCMC on presenting the spatial information from reports using
Google Earth. He stated that insufficient use is made of NGOs and other non-government sources
of information. IOSEA is looking into options for annotating governmental information by NGO-
sourced information. The way of querying information could build information networks through
national reports. He also stressed that many Parties to ISOEA do not have computers or Internet
access. On harmonization, he echoed the scepticism about the core report concept. An option
would be to identify the major themes common to all MEAs and then group MEA-specific
questions under those themes. He referred to the paper on national reporting within the CMS
family of agreements that he drafted last year (the paper was later made available to workshop

Observations from the Environment Management Group: Hossein Fadaei informed the
meeting that the EMG had started working on information exchange across the UN agencies
several years ago. He observed that managing KM in order to make it sustainable is an issue, and
that capacity within the MEAs for this needs to be built. He asked whether links from the KM
project and Tematea to the work of other UN agencies would add value and observed that
incentives for participating in collaboration efforts are required. He pointed to the difference

between management of information and management of knowledge; both relate to different
clients. The EMG could provide a platform for agencies to capitalise on KM.

CIESIN/ENTRI MEA Decision Search Tool: Peter Herkenrath introduced the discussion on the
CIESIN/ENTRI MEA decision search tool. He explained its main features and the differences to
the KM portal. In the ensuing discussion, secretariats stressed they had not been consulted in the
development of the tool and also asked who the audience was. While there was concern over the
similarity of the CIESIN tool to the KM portal, it was also felt that the availability of widespread
information on the MEAs is generally useful. The need for publicising the KM portal was
highlighted. The discussion on this item was postponed to the next day.

Harmonization of National Reporting: The meeting continued with a presentation by Peter
Herkenrath on harmonization of national reporting. He demonstrated the outcomes of the KM
project on the issue, including a report on potential joint core reporting elements between the
agreements involved, following the example of the human rights treaty system as well as studies
on joint reporting frameworks for CMS, AEWA and IOSEA; for CBD and Ramsar on inland
waters, and for CBD and UNCCD on drylands.

In the discussion, Jerry Harrison stressed the importance of coordination between the national
focal points and of guidelines for national information management. He said that harmonization
of reporting among the CMS family would be an obvious approach. Gerardo Fragoso suggested
the harmonization of information systems across the MEAs in order to allow users to query
specific information from one joint source. Nick Davidson said that parties would need to be
advised on the preconditions for any harmonization efforts and suggested a joint document from
the MEAs. As to reporting on inland waters, aspects of information could be identified that
Ramsar are delivering, while the CBD delivers other aspects. Rob Hepworth and Jonathan Barzdo
stressed that in the end, the governing bodies, i.e. the Parties, have to decide on harmonization
efforts. Douglas Hykle reported experience from IOSEA where national reporting has brought
national agencies in charge of terrestrial areas together with those responsible for marine issues.
Participants felt that there is a momentum for a joint paper on harmonization by the secretariats
that could be drafted by UNEP-WCMC.

Summary of discussions: After the afternoon coffee break, the Chair presented the key issues he
had identified from the day’s discussions:

• Stocktaking – where are we now?
• Planning – where next?
• Today we will be stocktaking and identifying the key issues.
• Tomorrow we will be using this as a basis for identifying the next steps.

Generic issues (relevant to all aspects of the work)
• Working in multiple languages
• Ensuring work is demand driven, knowing the stakeholders and obtaining their feedback
• Publicising work in an appropriate manner to key audiences/stakeholders
• Employing a common marketing approach
• Potentially linking publicising to incentives for stakeholder participation

•   Launching at side events
•   Reaching focal points with publicising and marketing
•   Incorporating more conventions and agreements into tools and approaches
•   Capacity building and technical support for secretariats
•   Value of meetings of secretariat technical officers for sharing experience
•   Need to build links to other UN agencies and programmes
•   Need to ensure links to MEA cooperative processes

Knowledge management and Tematea (not all issues are relevant to both projects)
• Refine KM search tools to increase their functionality
• Potential use of controlled vocabularies/thesauri, including multilingual thesauri in KM
• Need to address maintenance issues, including both update and dealing with weblink changes
• Need to develop a strategy for knowledge management on which to base future work
• Strategy to include: purpose, actions, results, communication mechanisms, management needs
• Links between KM Portal and Tematea, including different layers of knowledge management
• Working with Tematea (and CIESIN?) to identify and avoid any potential for duplication
• Ensuring links between KM portal and Rio Conventions interoperability project
• Increase liaison within and between secretariats on exploring use of available information
• Consider data archive approach with linked data access and search
• Consider the value of the Tematea approach as support for secretariats
• Consider the value of the Tematea approach as support for advisory bodies
• Consider the potential for a Tematea based reporting “tool”
• Means of communicating relevant contents of draft decisions to focal points of other MEAs

Online reporting
•   Absolute need to include synthesis/analysis of reports, and open access to such tools
•   Urgent need for testing with parties and other stakeholders, and seeking their feedback
•   Consider building intelligence into searches and synthesis based on past user queries
•   Seeking tools/experience in getting Word input transferred into online tools
•   Controlled multiple access/update at national level before submission
•   Opportunity for annotations by non-party stakeholders
•   Potential need for capacity building and technical support at the national level
•   Identify successful preconditions for reporting, noting differences between MEAs
•   Linked to this need increased focus on the purpose of reporting

Harmonization of reporting
•   Need to think through rationale with respect to link between reporting and information needs
•   Need to rethink communication of harmonization, stressing benefits
•   Learn lessons later this year from inland waters work and response of CBD/Ramsar COPs

•   Note importance of supporting improved (modular) information management at national level
    to underpin implementation and reporting for MEAs, and need for guidance for achieving this
•   Means to improve focal point coordination and information exchange at the national level
•   Consider differences between outcome and process reporting
•   Joint reporting on a theme, versus separate reporting with agreement on who asks what
•   Note potential to use Tematea as a framework and potentially tool for reporting
•   Explore the potential for sharing experience with the chemicals cluster
•   Identify successful preconditions for reporting, noting differences between MEAs
•   Identify successful preconditions for harmonization of reporting
•   Prepare a paper for communication to upcoming MEA governance and advisory meetings

Rio conventions and interoperability: Olivier de Munck presented on the interoperability
efforts between the Rio Conventions, which were conducted as a pilot initiative for future
collaboration. The three secretariats acknowledged that their data are dispersed and not well
connected and that best use should be made of the available technology, such as web services.
The work addressed information on events and national focal points. The project underwent the
following stages: i) First draft of technical specifications (function parameters and return codes;
XML; unique ID scheme, e.g. NFP-CCC-1234; classifications; rules and guidance), ii)
development of SOAP webservices (Simple Object Access Protocol: a platform-independent
Internet protocol to call a function on a remote server; requests data instead of a web page), iii)
finalization of technical specifications, iv) public web pages by UNFCCC. The results are
available at (click on interoperability - draft specifications). The
recommendations out of this test phase include the following: i) Conduct a needs assessment for
data exchange, identify direct benefits from interoperability, ii) Ensure management buy-in, and
iii) prepare and implement a market strategy.

The use of SOAP web services makes it possible to implement interoperability between websites
and on-line databases. A client SOAP application can request data from or submit data to a server
with a SOAP web service. This technology can be used to automate the update of national focal
point information and is therefore of specific interest for the KM work of the biodiversity-related
agreements. In the discussion it was pointed out that interoperability could help to share draft
COP decisions with other agreements. Each agreement would ideally have a system to provide
updated information to the KM tools, including Tematea, although the limited capacity of
secretariats remains a challenge.

Workshop Day 2
Chaired by Elizabeth Mrema, UNEP DELC

Opening remarks: The Chair reminded participants of the discussions held on the previous day
and suggested that the focus for further discussions be lessons learned from the KM project and
Tematea. She suggested linking discussions to possible finalization of the current KM project and
addressing some potential options for the way forward.

Environment Management Group: Hossein Fadaei made a presentation on EMG activities that
relate to issues of synergies among MEAs and links to knowledge management, and provided
some salient points from the paper drafted by EMG for presentation to the EMG and UNGA on
synergies amongst MEAs. In his presentation he described the rational and mandate of EMG,

activities undertaken since 1999 on synergies and cooperation. Describing the role of
International Environmental Governance (IEG) processes, he drew attention to the fact that
mandates provided by the UNGA seem to be different to those coming from the governing bodies
of MEAs with respect to synergies and cooperation. He highlighted the progressive approach to
institutional cooperation – that has connotations for effective knowledge management – amongst
the ‘chemical cluster’ of MEAs and indicated the role played by the respective governing bodies
in deciding common approaches to implementation of activities and decisions. Citing the study
carried out by EMG on MEA synergies, he highlighted the lack of coherence at activity level
among the members of the Joint Liaison Group (JLG) and lack of clear objectives and scope of
the Biodiversity Liaison Group (BLG). Indicating the possibility of using the 2010 targets as a
common thread to weave the mandates of the biodiversity related MEAs, Mr. Fadaei pointed out
that reducing costs cannot be the prime driver for synergies and cooperation among MEAs as
assessments show the contrary. He suggested issue-specific cooperation as a starting point and
that such cooperation should be time bound and result oriented. He suggested use of EMG as a
sounding board for ideas related to synergies as well as managing the knowledge networks.

In the ensuing discussion, participants suggested the option of using the Chairs of Scientific
Bodies of MEAs as a useful conduit to send clear messages on cooperation and needs. It was
highlighted that while JLG receives differing mandates from the MEA governing bodies, BLG
needs more focus and mandate. Suggestions were made for using the forthcoming CBD COP to
foster a discussion between the BLG, Chairs of Scientific Bodies and Inter-Agency Heads Task
Force to discuss ideas on furthering knowledge management and synergies. Political support will
be critical to ensuring such cooperation, which can only be forthcoming if such discussions are
held in-depth and with a clear rationale.

Next steps: Balakrishna Pisupati made a presentation on the future directions of the knowledge
management programme for UNEP, and the follow up actions to the KM project and Tematea
based on key issues that had emerged from the discussions so far. He highlighted the need for a
programmatic approach, and identified the following questions for consideration while
developing the next phase of the projects. He suggested that these could be wrapped into a
programme with enhanced mandate and objectives that also links with the UNEP Medium Term
• Assuming that the target beneficiaries of the KM programme are the MEA parties (countries)
    what will the form of delivery of KM products to them be, and how will the contents be
    designed and delivered according their needs and priorities?
• What is the best way forward for increasing the interoperability options for managing
    information amongst MEAs, and how will this be packaged and delivered?
• What content management strategy should be put in place for such a KM programme, and
    how can we ensure its sustainability over time?
• How can effective linkages be ensured at the national level?

In developing this programmatic approach, he suggested: using the current project(s) as a base;
collaboration with and learning from secretariats and parties as well as other agencies on how to
deal with KM; using KM as a cross-cutting issue across programmes and not just for MEAs;
using ongoing activities (e.g. chemicals cluster) as a platform; and finding ways for
mainstreaming KM into strategic processes such as EMG discussions.

During the following discussion, it was agreed that a programmatic approach to KM would be
useful and that a strategy paper to this effect could help take forward the thinking and

discussions. Relating to this, it was pointed out that in the report put forward by the UN
Economic and Social Council (Committee for Programme and Coordination, 46th session) which
focused on knowledge management networks in support of the MDGs did not provide any
indication of UNEP related activities on KM, despite the fact that UNEP was consulted in
preparation of the report. This might suggest a need for wider communication within UNEP on
what was being done to support knowledge management among the MEAs. In the discussion,
reference was also made to the 2007 Joint Inspection Unit report on Knowledge Management in
the United Nations System. This report presents challenges, such as the lack of a common
understanding of knowledge management across the UN, and identifies the need for a more
systematic approach towards a comprehensive knowledge management strategy.

Discussions were held on immediate steps to wrap up the KM project and consider more country
level use of the Tematea modules. It was decided that the following will form the core of
activities irrespective of availability of additional funding:

On the KM portal
Necessary actions in the short term:
• Identify name (‘’ was agreed), register and use URL, and use the name
    on the portal
• Modify and agree design, noting that participants liked the look of the homepage of the
    Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) hosted by FAO which demonstrated more clearly
    the collaborative approach of the secretariats and UNEP
• Create a multi-language interface
• Improve search functionality
• Create Tematea hyperlinks
• A note on maintaining and updating the portal should be developed and shared with UNEP-
• Including Google statistics, providing a log-in and comment (feed back) form on the portal
Suggested actions in the medium term:
• A strategy paper on information guidelines and knowledge management will be developed.
    This will be converted into a concept with links to Tematea also identified.
• Agree and incorporate a controlled vocabularly/thesaurus
• Improve multilingual capability based on this
• Add further conventions
• Add further categories of information (documents, case studies, etc)
• Develop interoperability in the sense of the Rio Conventions (focal points, event diaries, etc)
• Implement a content management system
• Incorporate use tracking and feedback mechanisms

It was agreed that there were experiences from different MEAs that could be used to further
strengthen future implementation of the project. For example the CMS ‘interactive classroom’, or
the experience of the CBD Secretariat in iteroperability.

Focusing on the need to get in touch with the CIESIN secretariat about duplication of the website
created by ENTRI, it was suggested that a draft communication will indicate to the CIESIN

secretariat that the development of the website was done without consultation with the MEA
secretariats and that there should be future contacts between ENTRI and KM projects. The
CITES secretariat kindly agreed to develop the draft.

On launching the portal at CBD COP 9
• Prepare a common agreed approach for show-casing the ‘prototype’ during COP 9
• Go for plenary presentation rather than side events
• Deliver a broad message on tools
• A formal message from UNEP should be sent to all Parties, simultaneously by all MEA
    secretariats participating in the project, to inform them about the Tematea and KM projects,
    showcasing of the portal during CBD COP 9 and a side event planned during COP 9.
• Participate in existing Tematea initiatives (Ines Verleye will check whether the portal could
    be launched during a Germany-funded Tematea event on the middle weekend of the COP)

On online reporting
Necessary actions in the short term:
• Split the database into separate MEA databases
Suggested actions in the medium term:
• Further testing of the questionnaire tool by secretariats
• Build synthesis and analysis tools (noting existing experience with IOSEA and CMS
   Information Management System)
• Further develop and implement virtual training
• Offer the option of reporting in Word format, including developing the ability to create
   formatted Word document from tool and to reincorporate information from this document
• Add facility to search through questions in other existing reports generated through the tool,
   in order to facilitate small steps to harmonization
• Demonstrate/advertise different potential uses of the tool (e.g. registration)
• Build links to the knowledge management portal
• Facility for pre-filling forms from past information
• Build in help text generation
• Explore security issues further

On harmonization of reporting
Necessary actions in the short term:
• A paper on pre-conditions for harmonization of national reporting can help countries
   understand the rationale and challenges to harmonization of national reporting. This will be
   drafted by UNEP-WCMC for secretariats to distribute.
• Review and learn lessons from feedback on inland waters paper to CBD and Ramsar
• Secretariats to review and comment on existing papers circulated to them
• Develop a concept on guidance for national information management - UNEP-WCMC to draft
• Document experience on links between Tematea and reporting
Suggested actions in the medium term:

•   Use 2010 and other indicators as a vehicle for a participatory harmonized approach
•   Possibility of a joint reporting framework on protected area related issues covered by
    different MEAs can be considered by UNEP-WCMC
•   Joint and harmonized reporting is possible for CMS and its Agreements and MOUs. This
    should be developed and show-cased to all Parties under different MEA processes. Other
    possible themes could also be considered, including indicators, and species extinctions
•   Explore further opportunities for recommending clustering of reporting questions along the
    lines of modular framework previously discussed (including building links into the
    questionnaire generator

In wrapping up it was decided that funding for follow up components and the KM programme
can be sought jointly by MEAs along with UNEP. Opportunities for a programme based support
to KM were indicated as a priority for UNEP.

With a note that the workshop report will be sent to all participants as soon as possible, the
workshop ended with a note to ensure a side event during the CBD COP as a priority, with further
discussions to be held in Bonn.

Training day

On 9 March, WCMC provided a day of training for technical staff of CMS, CITES and AEWA in
the use of the online reporting tool, with IOSEA also attending. Specific focus was put on the use
of the generator tool that allows for easy changes to the online format and presentation.

                                Annex 1: Participants list

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Olivier de Munck

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
Jonathan Barzdo
Marceil Yeater

Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)
Rob Hepworth
Liam Addis

CMS/Indian Ocean South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA)
Douglas Hykle

African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA)
Sergey Dereliev
Florian Keil

Ramsar Convention
Nick Davidson

Environmental Management Group
Hossein Fadaei

Countdown 2010
Ines Verleye

UNEP Divison of Environmental Law and Conventions (UNEP DELC)
Elizabeth Mrema
Balakrishna Pisupati

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
Gerardo Fragoso
Derek Gliddon
Jerry Harrison
Peter Herkenrath
Jon Hutton (welcome on 7 March)
Daniel Jackson
James O’Carroll (9 March)

                           Annex 2: List of documents and webpages


   •   Provisional agenda

   •   Update on the knowledge management project
       This document gives a brief overview of the implementation status of all activities of the

   •   Joint core reporting elements of biodiversity-related conventions and agreements
       This report analyses the potential for the identification of joint core elements for a
       harmonized reporting system for CBD, CITES, CMS, AEWA, IOSEA and Ramsar,
       following the approach to harmonized reporting of the Human Rights Treaty System. A
       lengthy annex to this report is available on request.

   •   A Joint Reporting Framework on Inland Waters for the Convention on Biological
       Diversity and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
       This report develops a framework for joint reporting on inland waters for CBD and Ramsar,
       following the request of CBD COP 8 to Ramsar to take the lead in developing such a
       framework. A lengthy annex to this report is available on request.

   •   Joint Reporting on Drylands for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United
       Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
       This report suggests a framework for joint reporting on drylands for CBD and UNCCD,
       reflecting on the request for the identification of harmonized formats of reporting for the
       two conventions in their joint work programme. A lengthy annex to this report is available
       on request.

   •   Joint Reporting for Convention on Migratory Species, African-Eurasian Waterbird
       Agreement, and Indian Ocean - South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of
       This report suggests a framework for joint reporting for CMS, AEWA and IOSEA. A
       lengthy annex to this report is available on request.

   •   The CIESIN/ENTRI Decision Search Tool – a brief overview and comparison with the
       UNEP Knowledge Management portal

   •   Report from the Knowledge Management workshop in Cambridge, UK in June 2006

   •   Report from the workshop on harmonization of reporting in Cambridge, UK, in June

   •   Tematea – Issue-based modules for coherent implementation of biodiversity-related

   •   Participants list

   •   List of documents

Note that the online reporting tools for CMS, CITES and AEWA require a username and
password for use.

   •   Knowledge Management portal:

   •   Online reporting tool for CMS: http://development.unep-

   •   Online reporting tool for CITES (biennial reports): http://development.unep-

   •   Online reporting tool for AEWA: http://development.unep-

   •   Tematea:

   •   CIESIN/ENTRI decision search tool:


Shared By:
Description: Knowledge Management workshop