Docstoc

Streamlined National Reporting

Document Sample
Streamlined National Reporting Powered By Docstoc
					                       Ministry of Environment
                        Republic of Indonesia




         Streamlined National Reporting
                       under
         Biodiversity-related Conventions


                       Pilot Study
                          in the
                   Republic of Indonesia




                                                 Project facilitated by
                                                 Mainstream Environmental
       United Nations
                                                 Consulting Pty Ltd
UNEP   Environment Programme
This pilot study was supported by funding from The United Nations Environment Programme
  (UNEP) and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government of the
    United Kingdom, under the UNEP project "Streamlined National Reporting under the
biodiversity-related Conventions: Pilot Studies in Selected Countries". This project is led by the
   UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions and implemented in cooperation with the
 Ministry of Environment, Republic of Indonesia, Mainstream Environmental Consulting Pty.
                  Ltd., and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Center.


                                                                                         July 2003




                                                2
Table of Contents:
                                                                           Page
Executive Summary                                                            4
1. Introduction                                                             10
2. Background                                                               12
3. Approach taken and outputs generated                                     13
        3.1     Establishment of national team of experts                   13
        3.2     Development of work plan                                    14
        3.3     Preparation of institutional map                            16
        3.4     Understanding reporting requirements                        19
        3.5     Designing and modular framework                             20
        3.6     Inventory of data management processes and                  24
responsibilities
4. Discussion and recommendations                                           26
Abbreviations and acronyms used in this report                              34
Acknowledgements                                                            35
Contact details                                                             35
Supplement: Modular reporting framework with Indonesia‟s national report    36
information included

Figures:
1 – Modular reporting approach                                              10
2 - Summary work plan                                                       14

Tables:
1 - Members of the Indonesian team of experts                               13
2 - Institutional map                                                       16
3 - Modular reporting structure                                             23

Appendices1
A - MoU between Indonesia and UNEP
B - ToRs of the external consultant engaged to facilitate the project
C - First mission report (20-24 May 2002)
D - Second mission report (13-16 August 2002)
E - National reporting under the CBD
F - National reporting under the World Heritage Convention
G - National reporting under the CITES and Ramsar Conventions
H.- Data mapping questionnaire
I - Indonesia‟s National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN)
J - Compilation of results from data mapping questionnaire




1   Available on request
                                               3
Executive Summary:
In October 2000, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened a workshop
at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in Cambridge to consider and
propose a way forward to further investigate the issues and prospects of harmonizing and
streamlining national reporting of the biodiversity-related treaties. The workshop reviewed
several options for how such national reporting could be harmonized and streamlined at all
levels, including the so-called 'modular approach'. Under this approach, the information
required for reporting on the implementation of these conventions would be defined into a
series of discrete information packages or themes. Relevant national agencies and focal
points would then provide, and maintain as current, their national information in the
appropriate modules and report these (or make them accessible) to the relevant convention
secretariats. Figure 1 of the report shows this graphically.

Following the Cambridge workshop, UNEP established pilot projects in Ghana, Indonesia,
Panama and the Seychelles to „field‟ test information management and harmonization
concepts in the context of the national reporting under five global biodiversity-related
conventions; namely, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Convention on Migratory Species
(CMS), the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention) and the World Heritage
Convention (WHC).

The Government of Indonesia volunteered to undertake a pilot study on harmonizing national
reporting, and in October 2001 the State Ministry of the Environment signed a Memorandum
of Cooperation with UNEP for this purpose. Under this MoU the Indonesian Government,
with the Ministry of Environment acting as the lead, agreed to pilot the modular approach for
streamlining and harmonizing reporting processes. With financial support from the United
Kingdom, an external consultant, Dr Bill Phillips (operating as MainStream Environmental
Consulting Pty Ltd) was engaged to assist and facilitate the pilot project in Indonesia. This
report has been prepared by MainStream Environment Consulting and describes the approach
taken and the conclusions drawn. It represents the views of MainStream Environment
Consulting and not necessarily those of the Indonesian Government, the Ministry of
Environment, UNEP or any others that participated in this project.

The project proceeded through a series of phases under the guidance of relevant national
experts and convention focal points as shown below. A workshop was held in August 2002
to progress these three project streams:

       (1) preparation of an institutional map to show the internal administrative
       arrangements in place in Indonesia for implementing the four global biodiversity-
       related conventions under consideration; namely, CBD, CITES, and the Ramsar and
       World Heritage Conventions (the Convention on Migratory Species was not
       considered as Indonesia is not a signatory to this convention). The UNESCO Man
       and the Biosphere programme was added to this exercise during the project;

       (2) designing a modular reporting format and cross-checking this for suitability and
       utility against recent existing national reports for the four conventions, and;

                                              4
       (3) developing a better understanding of how relevant data, necessary to underpin
       implementation and reporting, was being gathered and maintained.

Institutional arrangements
The institutional map prepared as part of this project (Table 2) shows a complex and still
evolving framework through which Indonesia seeks to manage its biological resources and
implement the four biodiversity-related conventions to which it is a party, plus the Man and
the Biosphere programme. If the modular national reporting approach was to be introduced
in the future it is clear that Indonesia would need to review, and most probably rationalize its
institutional arrangements for this to occur without significant hardship.

In more general terms there is also a clear signal from this pilot study that implementation of
the biodiversity-related conventions in Indonesia would be strengthened through the
establishment of a multi-stakeholder national biodiversity committee or a similar body to
provide a forum for pursuing more coordinated, and thereby more efficient and effective,
implementation of the four biodiversity-related conventions and the MAB programme. The
current allocation of institutional responsibilities for implementing the biodiversity-related
conventions and MAB is spread across four Ministries, which is not ideal, especially given
that there is no established coordination mechanism between the focal points. A key aspect
of modular reporting is that such coordination mechanisms are in place and working
effectively. Without these mechanism modular reporting would not be successful, and would
not be able to achieve the improvements which it seeks to provide in terms of more efficient
use of human resources and synergies in information/data handling. For modular reporting to
operate effectively it is also desirable that one Ministry be given an overall coordination role
for national reporting, possibly doing this in conjunction with establishing and convening
whatever is considered to be the most appropriate coordination structure or body.

The modular framework
This pilot study has shown that it is possible to develop an overarching thematic framework
for modular national reporting which can accommodate the requirements of CBD, CITES,
Ramsar and the World Heritage Convention (see Table 3). While some fine tuning (and
perhaps extension) of the framework developed herein may be necessary to also
accommodate the Convention on Migratory Species (not considered in this project as
Indonesia is not a Party to this convention), the Man and the Biosphere Programme and
possibly other regional biodiversity-related agreements, it is apparent that the modular system
can deliver one consolidated reporting matrix.

It is important to be aware that the so-called modular approach envisages that each
convention focal point contributes, as appropriate, „modules‟ of information into a range of
reporting themes within the overall matrix or framework (Figure 1 shows this graphically).
This is the approach taken here also, with the reporting themes based broadly on the articles
of the text of the CBD, although modified away from that structure in some areas to avoid
duplication. There is an obvious logic to starting with the most complex and comprehensive
convention (in terms of issues and reporting themes) to design such a modular framework.

Further reduction in the number of reporting themes would be possible although it is doubtful
that this will result in significantly reduced reporting requirements. Less themes, simply
means that more information will have to be housed in fewer, more complex packages. The
information partitioning proposed through this structure is considered a compromise, middle-
ground, option based on the exercise done as part of this project to reorganize recent existing
                                               5
national reports from the four conventions into the proposed modular framework (see the
Supplementary volume to this final report which presents these existing national reports
organized into the modular framework). This cross-checking was done as an iterative
process, with the workshop held as part of the project reviewing and suggesting changes to
the modular framework to house the information of all four conventions.

The workshop also identified two key issues that would need to be addressed by the
biodiversity-related conventions at the international level in order to harmonize and
streamline national reporting through a modular approach; (A) how national report questions
are formulated and, (B) the frequency of the reporting cycle. More specifically, it was noted
that for several national reporting themes (see Table 3) two, three or all four of the
biodiversity-related conventions considered here seek closely related, or the same
information, from their Parties. At present each convention focal point is required to provide
this information at different times and in slightly different ways simply because of the timing
of reporting and of the way the questions are formulated. Modular reporting does not
necessarily require that all conventions have the same reporting cycle, but it would
significantly reduce the burden, on developing and transition countries especially, if this
process was dissociated from the holding of Conferences of the Parties (CoPs), and national
reporting occurred on an agreed 3 or 4 yearly cycle for all conventions.

The Indonesian workshop also expressed great concern that while the modular reporting
framework appears to be a workable one, there does remain the constraint of limited
resources to see every module established and maintained. If there is a move toward
harmonized national reporting, through whichever model, then it is clear that developing and
transition countries will need financial and perhaps technical assistance, to set up the
necessary systems and build national capacity.

Data management
The third phase of the project was to undertake an inventory of data collection and
management as it related to the proposed modular reporting framework; the aim being to
establish how well placed Indonesia is at present to implement such a national reporting
system. While within the timeframe of this study there was only a limited response to a
questionnaire survey, the information collected did begin to provide some insights into the
biodiversity-related data collection and management „landscape‟ in Indonesia. Based on the
seven questionnaires returned it is clear that Indonesia would need to look very carefully at
this aspect of moving to a modular reporting format, taking into account the existing data
gathering and handling arrangements and institutional structures which in their present form
would not facilitate such a move. There would be a need to introduce new systems to
improve cohesion between data gathering and handling, institutional structures and national
reporting.

A National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN) is being established at present in
Indonesia (see attached summary at Appendix I.). This is intended to operate as a metadata
„warehouse‟ or common entry point for accessing biodiversity-related data. In theory, this
initiative, if able to provide more cohesion to data collection and management, could
underpin a move by Indonesia to a modular reporting framework. If this initiative was to be
well resourced, and given a mandate to perform such a role, then Indonesia would be well on
the way to building the foundation it would need to use modular reporting. It is not essential
that all data be held centrally in one location, simply that it can be accessed readily, ideally


                                               6
through one portal, and be made available in a form suitable and corresponding to the needs
of policy makers and other stakeholders.

Conclusions and recommendations
At the workshop convened by UNEP and WCMC in Cambridge in October 2000, from which
this pilot project emerged, the paper presented in relation to the modular reporting model
stated that the primary objective of such an approach would be “to eliminate duplicate
reporting and reduce the effort required for parties to prepare and submit specific reports to
the conventions.” This pilot study has demonstrated that significant economies could be
made in this regard, not to mention the benefits that would come from closer collaboration
and even coordination between national convention focal points as a consequence of their
cooperation in providing information for the reporting themes they share.

Under an ideal modular reporting system there would be one data warehouse or clearing
house through which national reporting and related information could be accessed. This does
not require that the information be all housed in one facility, only that there be a primary
access point. Data could be dispersed throughout relevant agencies or organizations, so long
as it was accessible electronically. A key issue then becomes data compatibility and
standards across agencies and institutions and this would require careful development and
management.

Another implication of having a data storage system, allied to national reporting
requirements, is that it can help to identify information gaps for future attention. It can also
help to identify opportunities for those gathering relevant information to collaborate with
others (both within the country and at the more regional scale), thus saving resources and
building more integrated programs of implementation. One excellent example of this is that
of the identification of future protected areas. In Indonesia‟s case, processes are underway to
identify suitable World Heritage, Ramsar, Man and the Biosphere and other types of
protected areas. A drawing together of these efforts, as a modular reporting system would
encourage, should result in significant cost savings and a more integrated national system of
protected areas.

Assuming that the adoption of a modular reporting approach also resulted in appropriate
institutional and data management reviews and reforms being introduced both at the national
and international levels, then a longer term impact of modular reporting should also be
improved 'on-ground' implementation of the respective conventions. An added advantage
would be to assist the intersessional governing bodies and secretariats of the conventions with
their strategic and forward planning for Conferences of the Parties and joint work planning
between the conventions. Reference to Table 3, the modular reporting framework proposed
herein, immediately shows the areas of common interest between the Conventions. It may
also reveal where gaps exist in the policy evolution of a convention and help focus attention
in that area for the future.

Harmonised national reporting in itself would be well received by the developing and
transition countries that frequently observe that the current uncoordinated arrangements are
too onerous, resource intensive and of little value to national administrations In this regard,
the Ramsar Convention has been an innovator, responding by making it‟s national report
format serve the dual purpose of a national planning tool. The national report format is
based around the comprehensive six year strategic plan of the Convention. Ramsar Parties
submit national reports every three years, yet they are encouraged to use the same framework
                                               7
as their ongoing planning and priority setting tool for national and even sub-national
implementation. Modular reporting, if approached in this same way, would help national
efforts to integrate the implementation of the biodiversity-related conventions.

Recommendations:

1.     It is recommended that Indonesia undertake a formal review of its institutional and
       administrative arrangements for implementing the biodiversity-related conventions
       (and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme) to identify opportunities for
       greater efficiency and effectiveness;

2.     It is further recommended that Indonesia establish a formal committee, involving the
       focal points of the biodiversity-related conventions (and the UNESCO Man and the
       Biosphere programme) and representatives of key stakeholder and scientific bodies to
       guide coordinated implementation. One Ministry would ideally be given a lead role
       to coordinate the work of this committee, and a move to modular national reporting
       should this eventuate.

3.     UNEP and WCMC are urged to continue to work to pilot test and further develop the
       modular reporting approach, recognizing the potential this model has demonstrated in
       the Indonesian pilot study. In addition to trialing the modular approach in other
       developing countries, small island developing states and countries in transition,
       information should be gathered from a number of developed countries in different
       parts of the world in order to evaluate the utility of this method in settings that are less
       resource constrained.

4.     As part of further developing streamlined reporting approaches UNEP and WCMC
       are urged to encourage the biodiversity-related conventions to investigate
       harmonizing the structures and questions posed in their national reporting formats,
       where possible;

5.     It is also recommended that as part of moving to more streamlined national reporting,
       UNEP and WCMC draw attention to the benefits in terms of human and other
       resource savings which would come from dissociating the timing of national reporting
       from the holding of COPs, so that administrations would have to prepare national
       reports only every 3 or 4 years.

6.     Indonesia, with support from development assistance agencies and bilateral donors, is
       urged to invest in seeing its National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN)
       realize its potential to serve as a metadata „warehouse‟ and common entry point for
       this type of information. This will provide significant benefits including help to
       inform biodiversity conservation and sustainable use efforts;

7.     In order to assist with undertaking recommendation 6. above, Indonesia is
       encouraged to continue the data mapping exercise begun in this project, so that future
       efforts to harmonize and coordinate data collection and management are done in a
       cohesive way; and,

8.     To assist with fulfilling recommendations 6 and 7 above, Indonesia should consider
       establishing a Biodiversity-related Data Management Task Force, as a subsidiary
                                                8
body to the conventions coordinating committee proposed in recommendation 2. The
functions of this expert body would be (among others) to address data compatibility
and standards and to ensure data access and availability across agencies and
institutions.




                                     9
1. Introduction:
In October 2000, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened a workshop
at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in Cambridge to consider and
propose a way forward to further investigate the issues and prospects of harmonizing national
reporting of the biodiversity-related conventions2. The workshop reviewed several options
for how such national reporting could be harmonized, including the so-called 'modular
approach'. Under this approach, the information required for reporting on the implementation
of these conventions would be defined into a series of discrete information packages or
themes. Relevant national agencies and focal points would then provide, and maintain as
current, their national reporting information in modules within in each relevant theme.
Figure 1 from Discussion Paper 1 of the Cambridge workshop, as shown below, illustrates
this approach diagrammatically.

                                Figure 1 – Modular reporting approach



                         National                     National                          National
                         Agency                       Agency                            Agency
                            A                            B                                 C




Information
modules
provided




Information
modules
required




                       International                  International                   International
                        Convention                     Convention                      Convention
                             (i)                           (ii)                            (iii)




2   Information, discussion and background papers as well as the report from the workshop are available on the
    UNEP-WCMC web site (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/conventions/harmonization/workshop.htm)
                                                        10
Discussion Paper 1 of the Cambridge workshop also provided the following useful statement
of objectives and outcomes which it was thought at the time the modular approach to national
reporting could provide. These are considered further in section 4 of this report.


       The primary objective of the approach would be:
          to eliminate duplicate reporting and reduce the effort required for parties
           to prepare and submit specific reports to the conventions.
       The approach would also potentially:
          improve the quality, availability and usefulness of information for national
           purposes;
          encourage integrated national approaches and improved information
           access and sharing between institutions within party countries; and
          facilitate links to other conventions and regional bodies, and improve
           information sharing between neighbouring countries.


Following the Cambridge workshop, UNEP established pilot projects in Ghana, Indonesia,
Panama and the Seychelles to „field‟ test information management and harmonization
concepts in the context of the national reporting under five global biodiversity-related
conventions; namely, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Convention on Migratory Species
(CMS), the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention) and the World Heritage
Convention (WHC).

The general task of each of these pilot projects is to review and analyze the reporting
requirements under those global biodiversity conventions to which the country is a party. In
addition, each pilot project has the specific task to test one of the harmonization concepts for
national information management and reporting recommended by the workshop, as follows:
            Ghana        -     linked to State of the Environment (SoE) reporting
            Indonesia -        using information modules / modular approach
            Panama       -     exploring regional support mechanisms
            Seychelles         -      testing of a consolidated approach

These pilot studies are designed to give special attention to institutional co-ordination
mechanisms and interlinkages at national and international levels. The pilot projects are
being coordinated by UNEP‟s Division of Environmental Conventions (DEC) and the UNEP-
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).




                                               11
2. Background:
As outlined in section 1 above, the Government of Indonesia volunteered to undertake a pilot
study on harmonizing national reporting, and in October 2001 the State Ministry of the
Environment signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with UNEP for this purpose (see
Appendix A). Under this MoU the Indonesian Government, with the Ministry of
Environment acting as the lead, agreed to pilot the modular approach for harmonizing
reporting processes.

With financial support from the United Kingdom, an external consultant, Dr Bill Phillips
(operating as MainStream Environmental Consulting), the former Deputy Secretary General
of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (and author of this report) was engaged to assist and
facilitate the pilot project in Indonesia. The Terms of Reference of this consultancy are
provided at Appendix B. Note that the specific tasks expected of the consultant, and
which this report addresses, are a sub-set of those which the Indonesian Government
committed to undertake through the MoU. More specifically, the external consultant was
engaged to assist and advise the Indonesian national team of experts with fulfilling the
following tasks as specified in the MoU; tasks 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 3.4.

In order to fulfil his ToRs the consultant was expected to travel to Indonesia on three
occasions (see Appendix B, part 2) and “…submit analytical reports to UNEP as and when
required on the progress being made in Indonesia on the pilot project.” Missions were
conducted to Jakarta in May and August of 2002 (see Mission reports at Appendices C and
D), with a third mission planned for November or December of that same year. Due to
security warnings issued by the Australian government following the nightclub bombing in
Bali in November 2002, the consultant was forced to complete the project from Canberra.
This was done with the assistance of the contact officers in the Ministry of Environment. The
consultant also had the opportunity to meet with Mr Stefan Hain of UNEP-WCMC in London
in November 2002, and this allowed for useful and constructive discussions on how to
conclude the project and prepare this report.




                                             12
3.      Approach taken and outputs generated:
3.1     Establishment of national team of experts:
As per its MoU with UNEP (see Appendix A) the Indonesian Ministry of Environment
established a national team of experts to provide guidance to the project. The membership of
this team was as shown below:

                     Table 1: Members of the Indonesian team of experts

Member                                                    Organization
1. Mr. Agus Sriyanto                                      Nature Conservation Information
                                                          Center, Ministry of Forestry
2. Mr. Herry D. Susio/Ms. Siti Khadidjah                  Directorate General Forest Protection
                                                          and Nature Conservation, Ministry of
                                                          Forestry
3. Mr. Tamen Sitorus                                      Directorate General Forest Protection
                                                          and Nature Conservation, Ministry of
                                                          Forestry
4. Ms. Faustina Ida                                       Directorate General Forest Protection
                                                          and Nature Conservation, Ministry of
                                                          Forestry
5. Ms. Hardini Sumono                                     Ministry of Culture and Tourism
6. Ms. Muthia Frida                                       Ministry of National Education
7.Mr. Gatot Gautama                                       Culture and Tourism Board, Ministry
                                                          of Culture and Tourism
8. Mr. Basuki Budhi Mulyono                               Indonesian Institute of Sciences
9. Mr. Haswan Yunaz                                       Ministry for People's Welfare
10. Ms. Siti Nurmaliati Prijono                           Indonesian Institute of Sciences
11. Mr. Soenartono Adisumarto                             Special adviser/Naturindo
12. Ms Enny Sudarmonowati                                 Man and Biosphere Indonesia
                                                          Program, Indonesian Institute of
                                                          Sciences
13. Ms. Ina Binari Pranoto                                Ministry of Environment
14. Ms. Jossy Suzanna                                     Ministry of Environment
15. Mr. Budhi Satyawan Wardhana                           Ministry of Environment
16. Mr. Satyawan Warsono Adi                              Ministry of Environment
17. Ms. Eka Dramayanti                                    Ministry of Environment
18. UNEP representative
19. External consultant, Dr Bill Phillips                 MainStream Environmental Consulting


This team of experts, or a subset of it (the so-called ‘kitchen group’) met at regular intervals throughout
the project to review progress and provide specific feedback to the consultant on the various outputs of
the project.




                                                     13
3.2     Developing the work plan:
In designing an overall approach to follow for undertaking the specified tasks and generating the expected
outputs (see MoU, Appendix A), the ‘kitchen group’ of the national team of experts agreed that the work
should proceed along three parallel, but eventually converging pathways – as indicated below in Figure 2.

                                 Figure 2: Summary work plan

1. Preparing     Team to           This advice       Consultant                         Ministry of
an               review draft      once              prepares next                      Environme
institutional    and add           provided to       draft of the                        nt finalizes
map              advice on         the Ministry      institutional                            the
                 current           of                map for                 W          institutiona
                 national          Environment       consideration                        l map in
                 reporting         is transmitted    by the                  O           consultatio
                 processes.        to the            workshop                               n with
                                   consultant                                R              other
                                                                                        members of
                                                                             K          the national
                                                                                           team of
                                                                             S             experts

2.               National          Consultant        Draft                   H          Consultant
Designing        reports           „populates‟       modular                              revises
the modular      provided to       the draft         framework               O             draft
framework        consultant        modular           with national                        modular
                                   framework         reporting               P          framework
                                   with this         information                         to reflect
                                   information       added                               views of
                                   to cross-         provided                               the
                                   check and         back to                             workshop
                                   verify the        national
                                   utility of the    expert team
                                   framework         for
                                                     consideration
                                                     at workshop



3. Matching      Consultant        Consultant                           To be done       Consultant
data             prepares          reviews this                           after the       reviews
availability     „data             advice in                             workshop          „data
and needs to     mapping‟          consultation                           once the       mapping‟
the modular      questionnaire     with the                                 draft       information
framework        to be             national team                          modular            for
                 circulated to     of experts                           framework       inclusion in
                 all relevant                                            has been       final report
                 agencies,                                                revised.
                 focal points
                 and

                                                    14
               organizations
               for input.




The rationale for adopting the above approach was a recognition among the national team of
experts that the respective convention focal points involved here; namely those for CBD,
CITES and the Ramsar and World Heritage Conventions knew relatively little about how the
others conventions were implemented in the country, and also what were the respective
national reporting requirements of each. Accordingly, step one in the project was to bring
together descriptions (to „map‟) the institutional arrangements that are in place for
implementing each convention in Indonesia. Section 3.3 below details how this was done.

The national team of experts also considered that a workshop of the convention focal points,
and other relevant Ministries, agencies and organizations would be the best way to inform
and engage a broader range of stakeholders in the project. It was decided that the ideal
timing of this workshop would be once a draft of the institutional map had been developed,
and also when a draft modular reporting framework had been designed. The workshop could
then focus on fine tuning the institutional map and reviewing and improving the draft
modular framework. Once both of these were near complete, attention could turn to
investigating and gaining an understanding of the processes that were in place for gathering
and maintaining relevant data for each of the proposed themes in the reporting framework. In
the following sub-sections 3.3-3.6 the steps taken to implement the above summary work
plan are described and the outputs presented.

Note, that as explained in section 3.3 below, at the workshop held under this project in
August 2002 it was agreed by those present that there would be merit in including
Indonesia‟s activities under UNESCO‟s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in the
project. This was possible for the institutional mapping exercise, but not for the other
streams of the project (that is the modular report formulation and data mapping) due to time
constraints.




                                             15
     3.3         Preparation of institutional map:
     As foreshadowed in the Summary Work Plan (Figure 2) above, the national expert team
     undertook as step one of the project the preparation of an institutional map – as shown below.
     The initial drafting of this was done giving consideration to the four biodiversity-related
     conventions to which Indonesia is a Party; that is, CBD, CITES, the Ramsar and World
     Heritage Conventions. At the workshop held under this project in August 2002 it was agreed
     that it would be appropriate to expand the institutional map to include Indonesia‟s activities
     under UNESCO‟s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme. It was noted by the workshop
     that since Indonesia has six MAB sites that this inclusion was appropriate, particularly in the
     context of inventory and assessment processes to identify future protected areas, and with the
     ongoing Indonesian efforts directed at in situ conservation. Therefore, in Table 2 below, the
     MAB programme has been included.

                                           Table 2:         Institutional map

   Institutions               CBD                Ramsar                   WHC                CITES                 MAB
National Focal       Deputy Minister for    DG for FPNC, MoF      1.    Deputy         DG for FPNC, MoF      Deputy Chairman
Point (NFP)          Environmental                                     Minister for                          for Life Science,
                     Protection, MoE                                   Culture and     Head of Research      LIPI
                                                                       Tourism,        Center for Biology,
                                                                       MoPW            LIPI

                                                                  2.    Deputy         Research Center for
                                                                       Minister for    Oceanography,
                                                                       Health and      LIPI
                                                                       Environment,
                                                                       MoPW
National             1.    Working          National              National Working     Coral Working         National
Committee or              Group on          Committee on          Group for            Group                 Committee on
National Working          Biosafety         Wetlands (not         Protection of The                          MAB
Group                                       active)               World Cultural and
                     2.     Working                               Natural Heritage
                          Group on          Vice Chaired by
                          Clearing House    Deputy for            Chaired by Ass.
                          Mechanism         Environmental         Deputy for
                          (pending          Protection, MoE       Environmental
                          approval)                               Affair, MoPW and
                                            Chaired by DG for     Ass. Deputy for
                     3.     Working         FPNC, MoF             Cultural Affairs,
                          Group on                                MoPW
                          Genetic
                          Resource
                          Management
                          (establishing)
Members of the       Working Group on       1.   MoE              1.  MoF              1.  MoF               1.   LIPI
above committees     Biosafety :            2.   MoF              2.  MoMF             2.  LIPI              2.   Forest
or working groups    1. MoE                                                                                       Protection
                                            3.   MoA              3.  MoFA             3.  KEHATI
                                                                                                                  and Nature
                     2. LIPI                4.   MoS&I            4.  MoC&T            4.  Pelangi                Conservation
                     3. MoF                 5.   Research         5.  MoE              5.  TELAPAK                (PHKA)
                     4. MoA                      Center for       6.  LIPI             6.  WWF               3.   KEHATI
                     5. BPPT                     Limnology,       7.  MoPW             7.  MoMF              4.   CIFOR
                     6. National                 LIPI                                                        5.   CI
                                                                  8.  Indonesian       8.  MoT
                         Agency for         6.   Wetlands                                                    6.   BAPPENAS
                                                                     Zoo Association   9.  IPB
                         Drug & Food             International                                               7.   IPB (Bogor
                                                                  9. Indonesia         10. Indonesia              Agricultural
                         Control            7.   Research            National
                                                 Center for                                Birdlife               University)
                     7. Quarantine                                   Commission for
                                                 Biology, LIPI                         11. Custom Office     8.   PROSEA
                         Bureau                                      UNESCO                                  9.   MoE
                                                                 16
                         8.  ITB                                        10. ICTB                  12. Quarantine           10. The
                         9.  UI                                                                       Bureau                   Indonesian
                                                                                                  13. Jaringan                 National
                         10. IPB
                                                                                                      Pantau                   Commission
                         11. UGM                                                                                               for UNESCO
                         12. National                                                             14. HAPFFI
                             Committee of                                                         15. Trade
                             Plant Genetic                                                            Association
                             Resources
                         13. ICEL
                         14. Konphalindo
                         15. KEHATI
Unit responsible for     Ass. Deputy for       Directorate for Area                     1.        Directorate for         LIPI
reporting                Biodiversity, MoE     Conservation &                            Dir      Biodiversity
                                               Directorate for                           ect      Conservation, MoF
                                               Biodiversity                              orat
                                               Conservation, MoF                         e
                                                                                         for
                                                                                         Are
                                                                                         a
                                                                                         Co
                                                                                         nse
                                                                                         rvat
                                                                                         ion,
                                                                                         Mo
                                                                                         F
                                                                        2. Directorate of
                                                                            Archeology &
                                                                            Museum, ICTB
                                                                        3. Ass. Deputy for
                                                                            Preservation and
                                                                            Conservation,
                                                                            MoC&T
Technical Team           Not yet established   1.    TT for             Not yet established       Not necessary yet       Not yet established
(TT)                                                sustainable use
                                               2.    TT for
                                                    Protected Area
                                                    Management
                                               3.    TT for Public
                                                    Participation &
                                                    Awareness
                                               4.    TT for Science
                                                    & Research

                                                Not active


      ACRONYMS:
      MoE : Ministry of Environment            MoA : Ministry of Agriculture                 MoS&I : Ministry of Human Settlement
                                                                                             and Infrastructure
      MoF : Ministry of Forestry               MoFA: Ministry of Foreign Affair              MoEd : Ministry of Education
      MoPW : Ministry of People Welfare        MoFA : Ministry of Foreign Affair             MoT: Ministry of Trade
      MoC&T: Ministry of Culture and           MoMF: Ministry of Marine and Fisheries        FPNC : Forest Protection and Nature
      Tourism                                                                                Conservation
      LIPI: Indonesia Institute of Science     BPPT: Agency for Assessment and               ICTB: Indonesian Cultural & Tourism
                                               Development Technology                        Board
      HAPFFI: Indonesia Association for
      Flora and Fauna Trader




      The above institutional map reveals a complex and evolving framework through which
      Indonesia seeks to implement its four biodiversity-related conventions, plus the Man and the

                                                                      17
Biosphere programme. While not strictly within the Terms of Reference of this project, it
was noted at the national workshop that the complexity of this institutional map suggested the
need for some review and that perhaps rationalisation of convention focal point roles may be
warranted in order to achieve greater efficiency. It is also pertinent that at present Indonesia
has no formal or even informal structure or body in place through which coordinated
implementation of conventions can be advanced. This would be a significant impediment to
Indonesia attempting to introduce a more streamlined national reporting process as this
project sought to explore. This issue is revisited and discussed further in section 4 below.




                                              18
3.4    Understanding reporting requirements:
As part of the project it was necessary for the national expert team to gain a clearer
understanding of the national reporting requirements under each of the conventions. This
was achieved in two ways. Firstly, at the workshop held in August 2002 representatives of
each national focal point for the conventions gave presentations outlining the reporting
obligations, frequency of reporting and the types of information which are required. The
summaries of these presentations are provided in this report as Appendices E, F and G.

In conjunction with the above, the external consultant also undertook a review of the national
reporting formats currently being used by the four conventions, and, based on this review,
developed the first draft modular reporting framework which was considered by the national
workshop. The following sub-sections examine this more detailed comparison of reporting
information requirements.

In the discussion of reporting obligations and arrangements, the workshop noted in particular
that efforts to move toward more streamlined or harmonized reporting in the future will need
to consider two key issues:

       1. The differing reporting cycles of the various conventions which are in turn
          dictated by the differing frequencies of the Conferences of the Parties (COPs). A
          move to dissociate national reporting from COPs, so that they are required by all
          conventions on an agreed 3 or 4 yearly cycle would greatly assist national
          administrations with this most time consuming task; and,

       2. A continuation of differing approaches to national reporting by the various
          conventions. If the formats and questions posed in national reports could be
          harmonized then this would also serve to immediately streamline reporting
          processes.




                                              19
3.5    Designing a modular framework:
Having gained a clearer understanding of the institutional arrangements in place for
implementation, and also the national reporting obligations under the biodiversity-related
conventions, the second major phase of the project was to design a modular framework which
could accommodate the national reporting information needs of all four conventions.

At the meeting of the „kitchen group‟ of the national expert team in May 2002 (which was
facilitated by the external consultant), preliminary consideration was given to this issue. The
conclusion was that because it was the most recent and most comprehensive of the
conventions under consideration, the articles of the text of the CBD potentially presented an
over-arching format that may be suitable to begin developing such a modular framework.
The external consultant was requested to explore this further prior to the national workshop,
and at that time provide a more considered view on whether or not this framework would be
suitable. It was agreed (by the „kitchen group‟) that in preparing a draft modular framework,
it would be wise to cross-check the matrix of reporting themes for utility and suitability by
attempting to reorganize the most recent national reports prepared under the four conventions
into the proposed framework. This was considered to be the most appropriate way to
proceed to fulfill task 2.7 of the MoU between UNEP and the Ministry of the Environment
(see Appendix A).

Accordingly, the national expert team undertook to provide the consultant with national
reports as follows to undertake this developmental work and assessment:

      CBD second national report:      2000
      Ramsar national report for COP8: 2002
      CITES Annual report (summary only):            2001 (not provided until after the
workshop)
      World Heritage Convention:       2002

In advance of the workshop the participants were provided with the first draft „cut and paste‟
version of a CBD-based modular framework showing how the national report information for
all conventions (see note above re CITES summary report) could be readily inserted. At the
workshop the framework was reviewed, theme by theme, to ensure that it was suitable and
comprehensive. There was agreement that it was both of these and that further work should
now proceed to „polish‟ and rationalize the information where possible.

Following the workshop, the consultant (having now been provided with the year 2001
CITES Summary report also) re-worked and slightly re-organized the modular reporting
framework in accordance with the views expressed at the workshop. The modular format
developed through the above process is as summarized below in Table 3. Note that the MAB
programme national report information was not received by the consultant in time to be
considered in this part of the project. Accompanying this report is a supplementary volume
that provides the revised modular framework (as shown in Table 3) with the data from the
above national reports inserted in the appropriate modules.

In undertaking the preparation of the supplementary volume (in essence a consolidation of
the four previously prepared national reports referred to above into the modular framework)
no effort was made to re-write the information, as provided, into single and unified texts
under each theme. This was a task well beyond the scope of this project. This is a reflection
                                              20
of another key finding of this project that while it is possible to group national reporting
information from these four conventions within a thematic modular framework, the current
formulations used by the conventions to request this information are so at variance that it
provides, in effect, a major barrier to moving to modular reporting. Some examples are as
follows:

       Theme 4.2: Integration of conservation and sustainable use into sectoral and
       cross-sectoral programs and policies. For this theme CBD‟s focus is on
       application of the ecosystem approach; Ramsar‟s is the inclusion of wetlands into all
       levels of water management, river basin and landuse planning and World Heritage
       seeks advice on how the Party has integrated protection of World Heritage properties
       into “comprehensive planning programmes”. Both CBD and Ramsar are also seeking
       advice on pilot studies in the same context and all three are interested to know about
       impediment, limitations etc. With some careful rewording it would be possible to
       seek the same information to satisfy all three conventions, and to do so through 4 or 5
       questions rather than the 12 questions currently used.

       Sub-theme 5.1.3: Inventory. In this case CBD is seeking information about
       inventory programmes operating at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels. Ramsar
       requests advice on regional wetland inventories and national scientific inventories and
       how these may be assisting to identify potential Ramsar sites. It also seeks
       information on waterfowl population numbers and information related to designated
       Ramsar sites. World Heritage likewise asks Parties to advise on their inventories of
       cultural and natural heritage and how this is being used to progress possible future
       World Heritage nominations. While there are some specializations, it would be
       possible to streamline this reporting theme through some collaboration between the
       secretariats and the Conferences of the Parties.

These are but two examples designed to illustrate the point that at present a lack of
harmonization at the international level is a key issue to be resolved for the future of any
move toward more harmonized national reporting. Section 4 considers this matter further.

In designing the modular framework trialed here careful attention was given to all elements
of the national reporting frameworks being used by the four conventions under consideration
here. Some notable aspects are as follows:

       Theme 1 (Ecosystem overviews): this provides the opportunity for the Party to
       prepare executive summary-type information under the various ecosystem themes
       which the CBD uses. It is expected that in preparing such overviews the CBD focal
       point would need to consult with the other convention focal points in order to provide
       a comprehensive picture. For example, a large proportion of the activities taken
       pursuant to the Ramsar Convention would need to be reflected in preparing an
       ecosystem overview report to CBD in relation to inland water (theme 1.1 -
       Biodiversity of inland water ecosystems) or marine and coastal ecosystems (theme 1.2
       - Marine and coastal biodiversity). Likewise, CITES-regulated trade in species
       derived from agricultural lands, forests etc would need to be taken into consideration
       with ecosystem-based reporting under the CBD. World Heritage sites in any of these
       ecosystem types would also warrant recognition in the appropriate ecosystem reports
       under CBD. So, even though theme 1 is in principle a CBD-only reporting


                                              21
requirement, modular reporting should streamline the preparation of such ecosystem
reports if it has pre-prepared information drawn from the other modules.

Theme 2 (Institutional details and arrangements): this theme brings together the
information from the institutional map (see section 3.2) with other information
relating to coordination mechanisms and consultative processes. At present, this is
not sought in a uniform way through the national reporting formats being used, and
this is one area where harmonization would seem relatively simple. Theme 2.2.3
(Information management) is especially notable as it is designed to allow the
information on data capture and management to be drawn together in one framework.
Something which is seen as a key aspect of moving to harmonize the data
management process which underpin convention implementation and national
reporting. Section 4 explores this issue further.

Theme 3 (Cooperation): draws together in one place the reporting requirements
relating to “cooperation”. All conventions seek advice repeatedly throughout their
national reporting formats with respect to cooperation, whether it be globally,
regionally, with neighbouring countries or within or among the scientific community.

CBD-only reporting themes: The modular reporting framework developed here also
contains a number of themes which are exclusive to the CBD (apart from Theme 1 –
see above). These are the themes on:

       5.1.1 Taxonomy;
       5.1.2 Indicators and rapid assessments;
       6.4 Management of living modified organisms;
       7 Ex situ conservation;
       9 Incentive measures;
       12.3 Emergency responses;
       12.4 Liability and redress;
       13 Access to genetic resources;
       14 Access to and transfer of technology;
       16 Biotechnology and distribution of benefits; and,
       17.3 Financial mechanism.

For these themes, the modular reporting approach suggests that only the CBD focal
point has a role in providing and maintaining national reporting information.




                                     22
                               Table 3.              Modular reporting structure

Theme    Reporting theme                                                     CBD   Ramsar   WHC   CITES
number
1        ECOSYSTEM OVERVIEWS
         1.1 Biodiversity of inland water ecosystems                         √
         1.2 Marine and coastal biodiversity                                 √
         1.3 Agricultural biodiversity                                       √
         1.4 Forest biodiversity                                             √
         1.5 Biodiversity of dry and sub-humid lands                         √
         1.6 Biodiversity of mountain ecosystems                             √
2        INSTITUTIONAL DETAILS AND ARRANGEMENTS
         2.1 Convention Focal Points                                         √     √        √     √
         2.2 Coordinating mechanism(s)
             2.2.1 Administrative processes                                  √     √        √
             2.2.2 Non-governmental consultative                             √     √
              processes
             2.2.3 Information management                                    √
3        COOPERATION
         2.1 General cooperation – global and regional                       √     √        √
         3.2 Trans-boundary cooperation                                      √     √
         3.3 Technical and scientific cooperation                            √     √        √
4        GENERAL MEASURES FOR CONSERVATION AND
         SUSTAINABLE USE
         4.1 Strategies, policies and programmes                             √     √        √
         4.2 Integration of conservation and sustainable use into sectoral   √     √        √
         and cross-sectoral programes and policies
5        IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING
         5.1 Identification
             5.1.1 Taxonomy                                                  √
             5.1.2 Indicators and rapid assessments                          √
             5.1.3 Inventory                                                 √     √        √
         5.2 Monitoring                                                      √     √
6        IN SITU CONSERVATION
         6.1 General in situ conservation measures                           √              √
         6.2 Systems of protected and special areas                          √     √        √
         6.3 Restoration & rehabilitation of ecosystems and threatened       √     √
         species/populations
         6.4 Management of living modified organisms                         √
         6.5 Invasive species                                                √     √
         6.6 Knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local    √     √
         communities
7        EX SITU CONSERVATION                                                √
8        SUSTAINABLE USE                                                     √     √              √
9        INCENTIVE MEASURES                                                  √
10       RESEARCH AND TRAINING
         10.1 Research                                                       √              √
         10.2 Training                                                       √     √        √
11       COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC                                 √     √        √
         AWARENESS
12       IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MINIMIZING ADVERSE
         IMPACTS
         12.1 Impact assessments procedures                                  √     √
         12.2 Transboundary impacts –see module 3.2                          √     √
         12.3 Emergency responses                                            √
         12.4 Liability and redress                                          √
13       ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES                                         √
14       ACCESS TO AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY                                √
15       EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION                                             √     √
16       BIOTECHNOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ITS                               √
         BENEFITS
17       FINANCIAL RESOURCES
         17.1 Annual and additional contributions                            √     √        √
         17.2 National financing                                             √     √        √
         17.3 Financial mechanism                                            √




                                                               23
3.6    Inventory of data management processes and responsibilities:
The third phase of the project was to undertake an inventory of data collection and
management as it related to the proposed modular reporting framework; the aim being to
establish how well placed Indonesia is at present to implement such a national reporting
system.

This exercise was discussed at the workshop held in August 2002 and followed up with a
questionnaire distributed to all relevant agencies and organizations (see Appendix H). Note
that the questionnaire did not seek information on all themes in the modular reporting
structure, leaving out those that required more administrative or institutional information
(such as theme 2 – Institutional details and arrangements, theme 3 – Cooperation and theme 4
– General measures for conservation and sustainable use). The omission of these themes was
done to allow the data mapping exercise to focus more on the data gathering and maintenance
processes underway for core biodiversity-related information.

At the workshop a presentation was given on the objectives and activities of Indonesia‟s
National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN) project by a representative of the
Indonesia Biodiversity Information Centre – see attached summary at Appendix I. There
was recognition in the workshop that NBIN offered a ready-made program which could
become a metadata „warehouse‟ for modular national reporting. It has formal agreements in
place with the relevant national organizations and Ministries for data networking and is keen
to play a role in support of this effort to harmonize national reporting and the associated data
management.

The workshop noted that if modular reporting were to proceed, then issues of quality control
for the information being submitted by a range of sources would need to be addressed. There
was also concern expressed that while the modular approach may seem like a workable one,
there would remain the constraint of limited resources to see every reporting theme populated
and then maintained with the most current data and information. This is a very real issue,
especially for developing and transition countries, and one that cannot be ignored if there is a
decision at some time in the future to adopt such an approach.

The results of the questionnaire exercise are presented in Appendix J. While within the
timeframe of this study there was only a limited response to the survey, the information
collected did begin to provide some insights into the biodiversity-related data collection and
management „landscape‟ in Indonesia.

The seven questionnaire responses indicate that the agencies or organizations involved are,
through various programmes and initiatives, gathering and holding information which (on
face value at least) has some relevance to nine of the reporting themes and 13 sub-themes.
Of interest is that none of the agencies or organizations that responded to the survey indicated
that they were collecting data relevant to sub-theme 1.1 – Biodiversity of inland waters, sub-
theme 1.3 – Agricultural biodiversity or sub-theme 6.4 – Management of living modified
organisms. The assessment is that this does not reflect a gap in data gathering, simply that
further work is needed to identify the bodies that are collecting such data. Perhaps of greater
significance in this context is the finding that for several of the themes and sub-themes there
are two or more agencies or organizations collecting and holding data. The design of the
questionnaire was by necessity very general, however this finding does identify those themes
within the reporting structure where further clarification of who is collecting what
                                               24
information and for what purpose would be warranted. Under a modular reporting
framework it would be imperative that the agencies and organizations gathering data relevant
to any particular theme be aware of what others are doing, and ideally collaborating, where
this is appropriate.




                                             25
4. Discussion and recommendations:
Global efforts directed at the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity have
been evolving over the past 30 years through a range of mechanisms, and most notably
through the development of multilateral environment conventions. The earliest of these, such
as the Ramsar and World Heritage Conventions and CITES were more specialized, and
national administrations responded by developing appropriate institutional arrangements,
policies and programmes to see them implemented. In most cases, the Parties to these
conventions established for each convention stand-alone processes through which
implementation, including national reporting, would be undertaken. At the same time, and
serving to further encourage segregated national implementation, the Conferences of the
Parties to the biodiversity-related conventions each reviewed and amended their national
reporting formats in isolation from one another.

The advent of the Convention on Biological Diversity, by far the most comprehensive of the
biodiversity-related conventions, has, in most countries, further compounded these same
problems of segregated and uncoordinated implementation and served to place even greater,
and more complex national reporting responsibilities on Parties.

Another dimension to this same issue is that of how countries gather and keep up-to-date
information on their biological diversity and then apply this through appropriate policies,
plans and programmes. Few, if any, countries can boast that they have systems in place to
collect, house and maintain this information in a way that fully serves the needs of those
responsible for developing and implementing policies, plans and programmes for biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use.

At the global level there has been a growing recognition that more integrated implementation
of these conventions is both wise and desirable. There are now a number of bilateral
memoranda of cooperation in place between these conventions or their secretariats, and
increasingly joint work planning is taking place under these same memoranda. The efforts to
move toward more harmonized national reporting are a part of this global recognition that
segregated, un-integrated implementation of the conventions is not proving efficient or cost-
effective.

It is within this context that this pilot study has been undertaken; to test one approach, the so-
called modular approach, for more harmonized national reporting. The pilot project has
considered, in the Indonesian context, the three closely linked issues of institutional
arrangements, information gathering and maintenance and national reporting. The
conclusions and recommendations set out below represent those of MainStream
Environmental Consulting, and not necessarily those of the Indonesian Government,
the Indonesian Ministry of Environment, UNEP or any others that participated in this
project.

Institutional arrangements
The institutional map prepared as part of this project shows a complex and still evolving
framework through which Indonesia seeks to manage its biological resources and implement
the four biodiversity-related conventions to which it is a party, plus the Man and the
Biosphere programme. If it were to be the case that a modular national reporting approach
was introduced in the future it is clear that Indonesia would need to review, and most
                                                 26
probably rationalize its institutional arrangements for this to occur without significant
hardship.

In more general terms there is also a clear signal from this pilot study that implementation of
the biodiversity-related conventions in Indonesia would be strengthened through the
establishment of a multi-stakeholder national biodiversity committee or a similar body to
provide a forum for pursuing more coordinated, and thereby more efficient and effective,
implementation of the four biodiversity-related conventions and the MAB programme. The
current allocation of institutional responsibilities for implementing the biodiversity-related
conventions and MAB is spread across four Ministries, which is not ideal, especially given
that there is no established coordination mechanism between the focal points. A key aspect
of modular reporting is that such coordination mechanisms are in place and working
effectively. Without these mechanisms modular reporting would not be successful, and
would not be able to achieve the improvements which it seeks to provide in terms of more
efficient use of human resources and synergies in information/data handling. For modular
reporting to operate effectively it is also desirable that one Ministry be given an overall
coordination role for national reporting, possibly doing this in conjunction with establishing
and convening whatever is considered to be the most appropriate coordination structure or
body.

Recommendations:

1.     It is recommended that Indonesia undertake a formal review of its institutional and
       administrative arrangements for implementing the biodiversity-related conventions
       (and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme) to identify opportunities for
       greater efficiency and effectiveness;

2.     It is further recommended that Indonesia establish a formal committee, involving the
       focal points of the biodiversity-related conventions (and the UNESCO Man and the
       Biosphere programme) and representatives of key stakeholder and scientific bodies to
       guide coordinated implementation. One Ministry would ideally be given a lead role
       to coordinate the work of this committee, and a move to modular national reporting
       should this eventuate.


The modular framework
This pilot study has shown that it is possible to develop an overarching thematic framework
for modular national reporting which can accommodate the requirements of CBD, CITES,
Ramsar and the World Heritage Convention (see Table 3). While some fine tuning (and
perhaps extension) of the framework developed herein may be necessary to also
accommodate the Convention on Migratory Species (not considered in this project as
Indonesia is not a Party to this convention), the Man and the Biosphere Programme and
possibly other regional biodiversity-related agreements, it is apparent that the modular system
can deliver one consolidated reporting framework.

It is important to be aware that the so-called modular approach envisages that each
convention focal point contributes, as appropriate, „modules‟ of information into a range of
reporting themes within the overall matrix or framework (Figure 1 shows this graphically).
This is the approach taken here also, with the reporting themes based broadly on the articles
                                               27
of the text of the CBD, although modified away from that structure in some areas to avoid
duplication. There is an obvious logic to starting with the most complex and comprehensive
convention (in terms of issues and reporting themes) to design such a modular framework.

Further reduction in the number of reporting themes would be possible although it is doubtful
that this will result in significantly reduced reporting requirements. Less themes, simply
means that more information will have to be housed in fewer, more complex packages. The
information partitioning proposed through this structure is considered a compromise, middle-
ground, option based on the exercise done as part of this project to reorganize existing
national reports from the four conventions into the proposed modular matrix (see the
Supplementary volume to this final report which presents these existing national reports
organized into the modular framework). This cross-checking was done as an iterative
process, with the workshop held as part of this project reviewing and suggesting changes to
the modular framework to house the information of all four conventions.

Operationally, to make the modular reporting framework developed herein work as intended,
would require close collaboration between the respective convention focal points for those
themes which they „share‟. Under the framework developed by this project, the CBD focal
point would be required to contribute to all 17 themes (comprising 42 sub-themes), the
Ramsar administrative authority to at least 22 sub-themes, the World Heritage focal point to
at least 14 sub-themes and the CITES focal points to at least 2 sub-themes.

For those themes that are exclusively for the attention of the CBD focal point there are no
coordination issues, at least on face value. However, the Ramsar Convention for one is
constantly evolving as each Conference of the Parties further elaborates its mandate and with
time it will also begin to expect reporting against some of the themes which at present only
CBD does. An example of this is the area of indicators and rapid assessments.

For those themes where more than one of the conventions is seeking reporting information,
these would have to be considered on a case by case basis to establish appropriate processes
for data and information assembly (see below). The workshop participants noted that if
modular reporting were in place then appropriate systems would need to be introduced to
ensure quality control for the information being submitted from a range of sources.

The workshop also identified two key issues (also referred to under sections 3.4 and 3.5
above) that would need to be addressed by the biodiversity-related conventions at the
international level in order to harmonize and streamline national reporting through a modular
approach; (A) how national report questions are formulated and, (B) the frequency of the
reporting cycle. More specifically, it was noted that for several national reporting themes
(see Table 3) two, three or all four of the biodiversity-related conventions considered here
seek closely related, or the same information, from their Parties. At present each convention
focal point is required to provide this information at different times and in slightly different
ways simply because of the timing of reporting and of the way the questions are formulated.
Modular reporting does not necessarily require that all conventions have the same reporting
cycle, but it would significantly reduce the burden, on developing and transition countries
especially, if this process was dissociated from the holding of Conferences of the Parties
(COPs), and national reporting occurred on an agreed 3 or 4 yearly cycle for all conventions.

The Indonesian workshop also expressed great concern that while the modular reporting
framework appears to be a workable one, there does remain the constraint of limited
                                               28
resources to see every reporting theme established and maintained. If there is a move
toward harmonized national reporting, through whichever model, then it is clear that
developing and transition countries will need financial and perhaps technical assistance, to set
up the necessary systems and build national capacity.

Recommendations:

3.     UNEP and WCMC are urged to continue to work to pilot test and further develop the
       modular reporting approach, recognizing the potential this model has demonstrated in
       the Indonesian pilot study. In addition to trialing the modular approach in other
       developing countries, small island developing states and countries in transition,
       information should be gathered from a number of developed countries in different
       parts of the world in order to evaluate the utility of this method in settings that are less
       resource constrained.

4.     As part of further developing streamlined reporting approaches UNEP and WCMC
       are urged to encourage the biodiversity-related conventions to investigate
       harmonizing the structures and questions posed in their national reporting formats,
       where possible;

5.     It is also recommended that as part of moving to more streamlined national reporting,
       UNEP and WCMC draw attention to the benefits in terms of human and other
       resource savings which would come from dissociating the timing of national reporting
       from the holding of COPs, so that administrations would have to prepare national
       reports only every 3 or 4 years.


Data management issues
While within the timeframe of this study there was only a limited response to the data
mapping questionnaire survey, the information collected did provide some insights into the
biodiversity-related data collection and management „landscape‟ in Indonesia. Based on the
seven questionnaires returned it is clear that Indonesia would need to look very carefully at
this aspect of moving to a modular reporting format, taking into account the existing data
gathering and handling arrangements and institutional structures which in their present form
would not facilitate such a move. There would be a need to introduce new systems to
improve cohesion between data gathering and handling, institutional structures and national
reporting.

This should not be interpreted as a criticism of Indonesia, as this same situation prevails in
most countries. It is true that the data needed to underpin the implementation of the
biodiversity-related conventions comes from many sources; some are ongoing inventory or
research programmes, while others are one-off projects the outputs of which may have a
unique or specific purpose. However, much of this data, irrespective of its origin, can help to
inform policy making, strategic planning, programme delivery, and of course, national
reporting. For this reason it is in the best interests of the country to have systems in place to
access all such data, and wherever possible to use it for a variety of purposes.

As was described in section 3.6 above, a National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN)
is being established at present in Indonesia (see attached summary at Appendix I.). This is
                                               29
intended to operate as a metadata „warehouse‟ or common entry point for accessing
biodiversity-related data. In theory, this initiative, if able to provide more cohesion to data
collection and management, could underpin a move by Indonesia to a modular reporting
framework. If this initiative was to be well resourced, and given a mandate to perform such
a role, then Indonesia would be well on the way to building the foundation it would need to
use modular reporting. It is not essential that all data be held centrally in one location,
simply that it can be accessed readily, ideally through one portal, and be made available in a
form suitable and corresponding to the needs of policy makers and other stakeholders.

Recommendations:

6.     Indonesia, with support from development assistance agencies and bilateral donors, is
       urged to invest in seeing its National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN)
       realize its potential to serve as a metadata „warehouse‟ and common entry point for
       this type of information. This will provide significant benefits including help to
       inform biodiversity conservation and sustainable use efforts;

7.     In order to assist with undertaking recommendation 6. above, Indonesia is
       encouraged to continue the data mapping exercise begun in this project, so that future
       efforts to harmonize and coordinate data collection and management are done in a
       cohesive way; and,

8.     To assist with fulfilling recommendations 6 and 7 above, Indonesia should consider
       establishing a Biodiversity-related Data Management Task Force, as a subsidiary
       body to the conventions coordinating committee proposed in recommendation 2. The
       functions of this expert body would be (among others) to address data compatibility
       and standards and to ensure data access and availability across agencies and
       institutions.


Final conclusions
In the Introduction to this report an excerpt from Discussion Paper 1 from the workshop
convened by UNEP and WCMC in Cambridge in October 2000 was provided in order to give
some context for this pilot project. In drawing out final conclusions it is worth reviewing
what that Discussion Paper proposed at that time by way of a primary objective and
indications of what the modular reporting approach could potentially deliver.

Firstly, the Discussion Paper stated that the primary objective of such an approach would be
“to eliminate duplicate reporting and reduce the effort required for parties to prepare and
submit specific reports to the conventions.” This pilot study has demonstrated that significant
economies could be made in this regard, not to mention the benefits that would come from
closer collaboration and even coordination between national convention focal points as a
consequence of their cooperation in providing information for reporting themes they share.

The Discussion Paper also stated that the modular approach “….would also potentially:
          improve the quality, availability and usefulness of information for national
           purposes;


                                              30
          encourage integrated national approaches and improved information
           access and sharing between institutions within party countries; and
          facilitate links to other conventions and regional bodies, and improve
           information sharing between neighbouring countries.”

Under an ideal modular reporting system there would be one data warehouse or clearing
house through which national reporting and related information could be accessed. This does
not require that the information be all housed in one facility, only that there be a primary
access point. Data could be dispersed throughout relevant agencies or organizations, so long
as it was accessible electronically. A key issue then becomes data compatibility and
standards across agencies and institutions and this would require careful development and
management.

Another implication of having such a data storage system, allied to national reporting
requirements, is that it can help to identify information gaps for future attention. It can also
help to identify opportunities for those gathering relevant information to collaborate with
others (both within the country and at the more regional scale), thus saving resources and
building more integrated programs of implementation. One excellent example of this is that
of the identification of future protected areas. In Indonesia‟s case, processes are underway to
identify suitable World Heritage, Ramsar, Man and the Biosphere and other types of
protected areas. A drawing together of these efforts, as a modular reporting system would
encourage, should result in significant cost savings and a more integrated national system of
protected areas.

Looking to the future it is also apparent that a modular reporting framework, which all Parties
to these conventions were applying, would greatly assist with more regional scale approaches
and with collaboration across national boundaries. The current ad hoc nature of reporting
and the associated data management systems in most countries limits the opportunities for
such regional, bilateral or multilateral approaches. For continental countries which share
borders with other convention Parties, there are obligations in place to work cooperatively
toward promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. It is clear that
any form of harmonized reporting system will assist Parties to meet these obligations.

Assuming that the adoption of a modular reporting approach also resulted in appropriate
institutional and data management reviews and reforms being introduced both at the national
and international levels, then a longer term impact of modular reporting should also be
improved 'on-ground' implementation of the respective conventions. An added advantage
would be to assist the intersessional governing bodies and secretariats of the conventions with
their strategic and forward planning for Conferences of the Parties and joint work planning
between the conventions. Reference to Table 3, the modular reporting framework proposed
herein, immediately shows the areas of common interest between the Conventions. It may
also reveal where gaps exist in the policy evolution of a convention and help focus attention
in that area for the future.

Harmonised national reporting in itself would be well received by the developing and
transition countries that frequently observe that the current uncoordinated arrangements are
too onerous, resource intensive and of little value to national administrations In this regard,
the Ramsar Convention has been an innovator, responding by making it‟s national report
format serve the dual purpose of a national planning tool. The national report format is
based around the comprehensive six year strategic plan of the Convention. Ramsar Parties
                                                31
submit national reports every three years, yet they are encouraged to use the same framework
as their ongoing planning and priority setting tool for national and even sub-national
implementation. Modular reporting, if approached in this same way, would help national
efforts to integrate the implementation of the biodiversity-related conventions.

Recommendations:

1.     It is recommended that Indonesia undertake a formal review of its institutional and
       administrative arrangements for implementing the biodiversity-related conventions
       (and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme) to identify opportunities for
       greater efficiency and effectiveness;

2.     It is further recommended that Indonesia establish a formal committee, involving the
       focal points of the biodiversity-related conventions (and the UNESCO Man and the
       Biosphere programme) and representatives of key stakeholder and scientific bodies to
       guide coordinated implementation. One Ministry would ideally be given a lead role
       to coordinate the work of this committee, and a move to modular national reporting
       should this eventuate.

3.     UNEP and WCMC are urged to continue to work to pilot test and further develop the
       modular reporting approach, recognizing the potential this model has demonstrated in
       the Indonesian pilot study. In addition to trialing the modular approach in other
       developing countries, small island developing states and countries in transition,
       information should be gathered from a number of developed countries in different
       parts of the world in order to evaluate the utility of this method in settings that are less
       resource constrained.

4.     As part of further developing streamlined reporting approaches UNEP and WCMC
       are urged to encourage the biodiversity-related conventions to investigate
       harmonizing the structures and questions posed in their national reporting formats,
       where possible;

5.     It is also recommended that as part of moving to more streamlined national reporting,
       UNEP and WCMC draw attention to the benefits in terms of human and other
       resource savings which would come from dissociating the timing of national reporting
       from the holding of COPs, so that administrations would have to prepare national
       reports only every 3 or 4 years.

6.     Indonesia, with support from development assistance agencies and bilateral donors, is
       urged to invest in seeing its National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN)
       realize its potential to serve as a metadata „warehouse‟ and common entry point for
       this type of information. This will provide significant benefits including help to
       inform biodiversity conservation and sustainable use efforts;

7.     In order to assist with undertaking recommendation 6. above, Indonesia is
       encouraged to continue the data mapping exercise begun in this project, so that future
       efforts to harmonize and coordinate data collection and management are done in a
       cohesive way; and,



                                               32
8.   To assist with fulfilling recommendations 6 and 7 above, Indonesia should consider
     establishing a Biodiversity-related Data Management Task Force, as a subsidiary
     body to the conventions coordinating committee proposed in recommendation 2. The
     functions of this expert body would be (among others) to address data compatibility
     and standards and to ensure data access and availability across agencies and
     institutions.




                                          33
                Abbreviations and acronyms used in this report

BPPT     Agency for Assessment and Development Technology
CBD      Convention on Biological Diversity
CITES    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
CMS      Convention on Migratory Species
COP      Conferences of the Contracting Parties
DEC      Division of Environmental Conventions within UNEP
FPNC     Forest Protection and Nature Conservation
HAPFFI   Indonesia Association for Flora and Fauna Trader
ICTB     Indonesian Cultural & Tourism Board
LIPI     Indonesia Institute of Science
MAB      Man and the Biosphere Programme of UNESCO
MoA      Ministry of Agriculture
MoC&T    Ministry of Culture and Tourism
MoE      Ministry of Environment
MoEd     Ministry of Education
MoF      Ministry of Forestry
MoFA     Ministry of Foreign Affair
MoMF     Ministry of Marine and Fisheries
MoPW     Ministry of People Welfare
MoS&I    Ministry of Human Settlement and Infrastructure
MoT      Ministry of Trade
MoU      Memorandum of Understanding – in this case between UNEP and the Indonesian Ministry
         of Environment (see Appendix A)
NBIN     National Biodiversity Information Network
Ramsar   Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar is not an acronym, it is the place in Iran where the
         convention was signed by the first 18 countries in 1971)
UNEP     United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO   United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WCMC     World Conservation Monitoring Centre
WHC      World Heritage Convention




                                           34
Acknowledgements

The Government of Indonesia wishes to thank the following people for their assistance with
various aspects of this project.

First, the Indonesian national team of experts established specifically for this project, and also
the "kitchen group" of government officials that supported the work of the team. In particular
thanks goes to Ina Binari Pranoto, Iwan Wardhana, Setyawan Adi and Eka Darmayanti of the
Ministry of Environment for their support and assistance with all aspects of the project, and
especially with their organization of the workshop convened as part of this project.

Second, thanks also to Stefan Hain, focal point for this project at the UNEP World
Conservation monitoring center for his ongoing constructive comments on the outputs as they
were developed. Likewise, the assistance given by Meg Seki, Linda Bomu and John Hilborn
of the United Nation Environment Programme's Division of Environmental Conventions is
gratefully acknowledged.

Third, Bill Phillips, Director, Mainstream Environmental Consulting Pty.Ltd. who was
engaged to assist the Indonesian national team of experts and facilitate the preparation of this
report.

Contact details

For the Government of the Republic of Indonesia
Ms. Ina Binari Pranoto
Biodiversity Unit, Ministry of Environment
Government of the Republic of Indonesia
J1 DI Panjaitan
Jakarta 13410, Indonesia
Tel: 021-8517163
Fax: 021-85905770
www.menlh.go.id; ina.pranoto@menlh.go.id


For Mainstream Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd.
Dr. Bill Phillips
8 Huon Place, Lyons, ACT, 2606
Australia
Telephone/fax: 61 2 62817470
www.mainstream.com.au; mainstream@mainstream.com.au

For the United Nation Environment Programme
Mr. Robert Hepworth
Division of Environmental Conventions
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 20 623260
Fax: 254 20 623926
www.robert.hepworth@unep.org
                                               35
    SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL REPORT


        Streamlined National Reporting
                      under
        Biodiversity-related Conventions




o   Convention on Biological Diversity
o   Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
o   World Heritage Convention
o   Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
o   UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme (in part)




                              36
                                            Modular Framework
Module   Reporting theme                                              CBD   Ramsar   WHC   CITES   MAB
number
1        ECOSYSTEM OVERVIEWS
         1.1 Biodiversity of inland water ecosystems                  √
         1.2 Marine and coastal biodiversity                          √                            √
         1.3 Agricultural biodiversity                                √
         1.4 Forest biodiversity                                      √                            √
         1.5 Biodiversity of dry and sub-humid lands                  √
         1.6 Biodiversity of mountain ecosystems                      √                            √
2        INSTITUTIONAL DETAILS AND ARRANGEMENTS
         2.1 Convention Focal Points                                  √     √        √     √       √
         2.2 Coordinating mechanism(s)                                                             √
             2.2.1 Administrative processes                           √     √        √             √
             2.2.2 Non-governmental consultative                      √     √                      √
              processes
             2.2.3 Information management                             √                            √
3        COOPERATION
         3.1 General cooperation – global and regional                √     √        √             √
         3.2 Trans-boundary cooperation                               √     √
         3.3 Technical and scientific cooperation                     √     √        √             √
4        GENERAL MEASURES FOR CONSERVATION AND
         SUSTAINABLE USE
         4.1 Strategies, policies and programmes                      √     √        √             √
         4.2 Integration of conservation and sustainable use into     √     √        √             √
         sectoral and cross-sectoral programes and policies
5        IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING
         5.1 Identification
             5.1.1 Taxonomy                                           √                            √
             5.1.2 Indicators and rapid assessments                   √                            √
             5.1.3 Inventory                                          √     √        √             √
         5.2 Monitoring                                               √     √                      √
6        IN SITU CONSERVATION
         6.1 General in situ conservation measures                    √              √             √
         6.2 Systems of protected and special areas                   √     √        √             √
         6.3 Restoration & rehabilitation of ecosystems and           √     √                      √
         threatened species/populations
         6.4 Management of living modified organisms                  √
         6.5 Invasive species                                         √     √                      √
         6.6 Knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and   √     √                      √
         local communities
7        EX SITU CONSERVATION                                         √
8        SUSTAINABLE USE                                              √     √              √       √
9        INCENTIVE MEASURES                                           √                            √
10       RESEARCH AND TRAINING
         10.1 Research                                                √              √             √
         10.2 Training                                                √     √        √             √
11       COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC                          √     √        √             √
         AWARENESS
12       IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MINIMIZING
         ADVERSE IMPACTS
         12.1 Impact assessments procedures                           √     √                      √
         12.2 Transboundary impacts –see module 3.2                   √     √
         12.3 Emergency responses                                     √                            √
         12.4 Liability and redress                                   √                            √
13       ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES                                  √                            √
14       ACCESS TO AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY                         √                            √
15       EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION                                      √     √                      √
16       BIOTECHNOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ITS                        √
         BENEFITS
17       FINANCIAL RESOURCES
         17.1 Annual and additional contributions                     √     √        √             √
         17.2 National financing                                      √     √        √             √
         17.3 Financial mechanism                                     √                            √




                                                           37

				
DOCUMENT INFO