The "Building the European Biodiversity Observation Network" EU BON General Meeting took place between 30 March - 3 April 2014 in Heraklion on Crete, to present major project results and set objectives for the future. The meeting was preceeded by a review paper recently published in the open access journal Nature Conservation, to point out EU BON researchh interests and objectives for the future of biodiversity protection.

This is a group photo of the participants in the recent EU BON General Meeting in Crete, Greece.

The 2014 General Meeting brought together keynote speakers Jörg Freyhof (GEO BON, Executive Director), Marc Paganini (European Space Agency), Jerry Harrison (UNEP-WCMC) with the entire EU BON consortium to discuss collaborations between the project and other important initiatives in the areas of earth observation, particularly in remote sensing and in situ approaches to biodiversity data collection, as well as in the use and analysis of biodiversity data for forecasting and scenario building, and environmental policy.

"The high potential for satellite Earth Observations to support biodiversity monitoring is growing but is yet to be fully realised. The recent efforts of GEO BON, supported by the GEO Plenary and the CBD Conference of the Parties, to define a set of minimum essential observational requirements to monitor biodiversity trends will give considerable impetus for space agencies and for the remote sensing community to focus their work on a small set of well defined earth observations products that will serve the needs of the biodiversity community at large. In that context ESA is firmly engaged in supporting the development of these emerging Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs). EU BON together with ESA can be pioneers in the early development and demonstration." comments Marc Paganini, European Space Agency, on the future collaboration between the two initiatives.

The world's biodiversity is in an ongoing dramatic decline that despite conservation efforts remains unprecedented in its speed and predicted effects on global ecosystem functioning and services. The lack of available integrated biodiversity information for decisions in sectors other than nature conservation has been recognized as a main obstacle and the need to provide readily accessible data to support political decisions has been integrated into the CBD's "Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020" and the Aichi targets. The recently published EU BON review paper points out how the project will use its potential to improve the interaction between citizens, science and policy for a better future of biodiversity protection.

EU BON aims to enable decision makers at various levels to make use of integrated and relevant biodiversity information adapted to their specific requirements and scales. Disparate and unconnected databases and online information sources will be integrated to allow improved monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity and measures planned or taken at different spatial and temporal scales. This requires strong efforts not only with regard to technical harmonization between databases, models, and visualization tools, but also to improve the dialogue between scientific, political, and social networks, spanning across several scientific disciplines as well as a variety of civil science organizations and stakeholder groups.

The project is focusing mainly on the European continent but contributes at the same time to the globally oriented Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), which itself contributes to the Group of Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). EU BON will build on existing information infrastructures such as GBIF, LifeWatch and national biodiversity data centres in Europe, and will integrate relevant biodiversity data from on-ground observations to remote sensing information, covering terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats.

Original Source:

Hoffmann A, Penner J, Vohland K, Cramer W, Doubleday R, Henle K, Kõljalg U, Kühn I, Kunin WE, Negro JJ, Penev L, Rodríguez C, Saarenmaa H, Schmeller DS, Stoev P, Sutherland WJ, Ó Tuama É, Wetzel FT, Häuser CL (2014) Improved access to integrated biodiversity data for science, practice, and policy - the European Biodiversity Observation Network (EU BON). Nature Conservation 6: 49–65. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.6.6498

The European Space Agency (ESA) is Europe’s gateway to space. Its mission is to shape the development of Europe’s space capability and ensure that investment in space continues to deliver benefits to the citizens of Europe and the world.  ESA is an international organisation with 20 Member States.

How is EU BON connected to space research? As a speaker at the EU BON General Meeting, which took place on Crete between 30 March - 3 April 2014, Marc Paganini of the European Space Agency explains the collaboration between ESA and GEO BON, and how EU BON is involved.

In the following interview he continues the topic:

Marc Paganini (left) and Dirk Schmeller (right) at the EU BON General Meeting 2014

1) For most of the general public space and biodiversity research hardly have anything to do with each other, can you explain how the European Space Agency (ESA) and the idea of remote sensing communities make these two meet?

It is widely recognized that in-situ observations available on biological diversity are very scarce for most of the Earth’s ecosystems and are often insufficient for determining precisely the global status and trends of biodiversity worldwide. In most cases, satellite Earth Observations do not provide a direct measurement of biodiversity but, if properly used with ground collection of biodiversity data and species and habitat modeling, remote sensing can become an important and essential component of biodiversity monitoring systems. There are multiple cases where remote sensing is often the only instrument that can offer large scale monitoring, as for example in highly variable ecosystems such as wetlands or in remote areas that can hardly be monitored by field campaigns.

The recent and future evolution of the portfolio of EO satellites offers huge potential for increasing the use of EO products into biodiversity monitoring systems. The lack of data continuity has always been a barrier for the biodiversity community to invest in EO technology.  A commitment from Space Agencies to provide sustained observations on the long term is a strong incentive for the biodiversity community to invest in Space. The Sentinel series of the European Copernicus program, together with the freely available data from other space agencies such as the Landsat family of the US Geological Survey, will bring unprecedented long-term continuity of observations for the biodiversity community. In that context, free and open data policy to taxpayer-funded satellite remote sensing imagery is becoming a "de facto" standard amongst Space Agencies and a unique opportunity for the biodiversity community to use widely EO products to monitor biodiversity trends.

2) How is the ESA involved with the aims of EU BON, where do the two initiatives intersect?

ESA and many other Space Agencies are becoming more and more committed in helping the biodiversity community at large, in improving their capacity to use remote sensing data for monitoring biodiversity trends.

First there is a coordinated action from all Space Agencies through the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and its involvement in the Group of Earth Observation (GEO). The GEO is a voluntary partnership of governments and international organizations who engaged jointly in developing a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained system of observations of the Earth with the ultimate objective to enhance scientifically-sound decision making. Biodiversity is one of the primary societal benefit areas of GEO and is addressed by the GEO Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON). CEOS is actively involved in GEO BON, principally through the participation to its steering committee of the European, US and German Space Agencies, namely ESA, NASA and DLR. Since EU BON is the principal European contribution to GEO BON, and has, amongst its objectives, the aim to integrate biodiversity data from ground observations to remote sensing information, ESA is directly concerned by the EU BON development in using remote sensing for terrestrial, freshwater and marine realms.

Second, ESA has its own EO application development programs, and funds a wide range of Research & Development projects for biodiversity and ecosystem services. In that context, ESA has established close relationships with the European Environment Agency (EEA) but also with the secretariats and scientific bodies of major Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. The findings of the ESA-funded EO projects on biodiversity and ecosystem services are highly relevant to EU BON. It is therefore expected that the ESA and EU BON activities in relation to the use of RS for biodiversity monitoring will offer some convergence of evidence showcases for the whole biodiversity community.

3) How do you see the future of collaboration with EU BON?

The high potential for satellite Earth Observations to support biodiversity monitoring is growing but is yet to be fully realised. The recent efforts of GEO BON, supported by the GEO Plenary and the CBD Conference of the Parties, to define a set of minimum essential observational requirements to monitor biodiversity trends will give considerable impetus for space agencies and for the remote sensing community to focus their work on a small set of well defined EO products that will serve the needs of the biodiversity community at large. In that context ESA is firmly engaged in supporting the development of these emerging Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs). EU BON together with ESA can be pioneers in the early development and demonstration.

Hoffmann A, Penner J, Vohland K, Cramer W, Doubleday R, Henle K, Kõljalg U, Kühn I, Kunin WE, Negro JJ, Penev L, Rodríguez C, Saarenmaa H, Schmeller DS, Stoev P, Sutherland WJ, Tuama1 EO, Wetzel F, Häuser CL (2014) Improved access to integrated biodiversity data for science, practice, and policy - the European Biodiversity Observation Network (EU BON). Nature Conservation 6: 49–65. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.6.6498

The ASEAN-EU STI Days took place between 21-23 January 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand.  During the event a special workshop "Integration of biodiversity data recording and information management systems for environmental sustainability: a call for EU-ASEAN collaboration" has been organized to stimulate EU-ASEAN collaboration in research on biodiversity informatics and integrative environmental information management.

A special EU BON dedicated presentation was given by Dr. Christoph Häuser at the workshop, which took place on 22 January. As a regional component of the Group of Earth Observation Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), the EU BON project presented an innovative approach towards integration of biodiversity information systems from on-ground to remote sensing data, for addressing policy and information needs in a timely and customized manner.

Such an approach requires integration between social networks of science and policy, and technological networks of interoperating IT infrastructures. While focussing on Europe, EU BON is expected to connect and reach out globally, especially towards regions with many biodiversity hotspots such as SE-Asia.

The main objectives of the workshop were to:

• Review and compare the situation regarding relevant biodiversity and Earth observation data and information sources/providers in EU and ASEAN;
• Examine linkages between regional/national ASEAN and EU efforts with international / global biodiversity information systems (in particular GBIF, GEO BON);
• Assess and discuss national vs. regional level priorities and needs with regard to integrated biodiversity information in ASEAN and Europe;
• Identify common challenges and needs towards further integration of different types, levels, and scopes of available data and information systems;
• To address how S&T cooperation between Europe and ASEAN in the area of biodiversity and Earth observation could be further developed to better serve policy needs (especially in light of IPBES), and to contribute to common goals towards sustainable economic development.

Five other presentations were given at the workshop on behalf of Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), FishBase Information and Research Group, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC), and Thailand Bioresource Research Center (TBRC). Presentations from the meeting are available to view below, or alternatively visit: http://www.stidays.net/?page_id=510

Presentations:

Christoph L. Häuser (EU BON) on "The EU BON approach for information integration" (introduction to the workshop)

Tim Hirsch (GBIF) on "The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) – collaborating to promote data access for research and policy"

Sheila G. Vergara (ACB) on "Knowledge sharing for biodiversity conservation in the ASEAN Region"

Christine Casal (FishBase) on "Using FishBase and AquaMaps to predict IAS establishment, species ranges and risk assessment"

Leng Guan Saw (FRIM) on "Herbarium Data and Plant Conservation in Malaysia"

Lily Eurwilaichitr (TBRC) on "TBRC as an online information intermediary: towards the sustainability of biological resources"

EU BON takes care to enhance the expertise of its consortium by affiliating associate partners, an approach the project is planning to continue with. EU BON is pleased to welcome the latest addition to our list of associate partners - HaMAARAG- The Israel National Program for Ecosystem Assessment.

HaMaarag was established in 2006, following a decade’s worth of research in Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) stations. Its main objective is to promotescience-based management of open landscapes and natural resources, for human well-being and for long-term sustainability of nature in Israel.

HaMaarag aims to:
•   Generate science-based knowledge about the state of ecosystems and biodiversity in Israel
•   Strengthen the relationship between scientific knowledge, management and policymaking, in the fields of natural resource and open landscape management, land use planning and nature conservation.
•   Improve accessibility of this knowledge to decision-makers and the general public.

By achieving these aims, HaMaarag promotes the development of a common language, knowledge base and perspective regarding ecosystems in Israel, thus facilitating efficiency of management and policy within the relevant organizations.

The official kick-off of the EU BON project WP6 Stakeholder engagement and science-policy dialogue and WP7 Implementation of GEO BON: strategies and solutions at European and global levels took place on 18-19 February 2014 in Leipzig, Germany. The two work packages are a crucial part of the project outlining the future actions towards ensuring the integration of the project with its global counterpart GEO BON, as well as paving the road towards successful stakeholder and policy engagement.

As a result of this first meeting further short-term and long-term steps were outlined for WP6 and WP7 towards the achievement of main project objectives. These steps include shaping the future EU BON GEO BON interactions and EU BON’s approach towards stakeholder engagement.

In the following interview Ilse Geijzendorffer gives an insight on the outcomes from the meeting.

This image shows the discussions during the WP6/WP7 kick-off meeting. Credit: Eugenie Regan

1) What are the project’s main stakeholders that you are planning to approach and interact with in the future?

EU BON aims to develop a blue print for a data infrastructure for data handling, storage, indicator computation and transfer of knowledge via a data portal available to knowledge seekers. This data infrastructure thus has to be useful to data holders who want their data to be used (e.g. citizen scientists, nature associations, scientists) and to those that seek knowledge (e.g. reporting bodies). EU BON reaches out to these stakeholders and to bodies that would be interested to host or have such a data infrastructure themselves. Our first stakeholder round table focused on European knowledge seekers and existing data portals. Our second stakeholder round table planned for this summer will focus on citizen scientists and the organisations that currently handle the citizen science data, to receive input on what these two stakeholder groups would like to see in such a data infrastructure blue print.

At the same time we reach out to ongoing platforms that consist of networks of knowledge and that have needs regarding their data flow. A very important partner in the data infrastructure development is GEO BON. The coordination of GEO BON has just changed and EU BON will reinforce the ties with GEO BON during the General Assembly in Crete coming in April.

2) Science-policy dialogue proves to be a crucial part for the success of large scale projects like EU BON, how are you tackle this challenge?

The objective of EU BON is a moving target in the sense that the blue print for data infrastructure will need to suit the needs for current and future monitoring. Additionally, the actual implementation, funding and hosting of such an infrastructure could be within a structure that may not yet exist in that form today. Changes in mission, coordination and targets occur constantly. To profit from lessons learned, we are in close contact with the Biodiversity Knowledge Project; a project that has already gained experience in the last four years in identifying the most important elements for handling data requests from knowledge seekers and in developing a suitable management plan.

For EU BON to achieve and reach its moving target, we keep in touch with the changes within the biodiversity knowledge landscape (e.g. progress in IPBES, CBD reporting, European targets ad evaluations); we explore multiple scenarios for the data infrastructure, the business plan and the implementation options; and we collaborate with a large range of stakeholders to include not only their ideas and needs, but also the transitions that they go through.

 

A joint EU BON WP3-WP4 meeting took place on 25-27 November 2013 in Solsona, Spain. The main aim of the meeting was to officially kick off WP3 and provide forum for discussion of the planned work. The two work packages were presented with their main aims, scope and objectives. The place of the two work packages in the broader framework of EU BON, and the cross-links between the two, were also discussed.

In the following interview Hannu Saarenmaa and Klaus Henle share insights from the meeting:

 

1) WP3 ‘Improving tools and methods for data analysis and interface’ and WP 4 ‘Link environment to biodiversity: analyses of patterns, processes and trends’ are two of the core work packages in EU BON that are expected to accumulate a lot of genuine data and develop new tools for data analysis and interface. Can you explain in short what will your main activities involve?

HS: I can contribute to the project and these WPs a large-scale modelling technology from the BioVeL project that can process hundreds of species. This would be an engine to compute the first real Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBV).

KH: Our main activities will involve an analysis how available effort is best allocated in time and space to optimize results from monitoring. We will further assess how different sources of uncertainty influence conclusions derived from the analysis of monitroing data

2) What were the main results of the meeting in terms of the planned work and WP management?

HS: It was proposed to set up an EBV Task Force across the EU BON project.  If we can do that, it would really give a thrust for the project. If we could pick up the Database of Monitoring Schemes from the EUMON project, as discussed, that would give us access to some large datasets.

KH: One main result was the identification of the concrete responsibilities (e.g. data provision, data analysis for terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity) within the workpackage and to identify explicitly links to other workpackages.

3) What novelty will the work in these two work packages bring and what will the major results be?

HS: If they can create a new Ecological Niche Modelling algorithm that can also deal with spatial patterns, that would be interesting.  Such a model actually exists in MigClim, but it is not yet widely used.

KH: We will get recommendations how monitoring can be optimized and a more comprehensive understanding of changes in biodiversity and their underlying causes

4) What are the immediate planned activities and when can the first results be expected?

KH: The most immediate planned activities it the screening of potentially available data needed for the analysis

5) How will the WP3/4 interact with GEO BON?

HS: The proposed EBV Task Force would need to interface very closely with GEO BON.

KH: We are engaged directly with key members of GEO-BON; e.g. we have regular meetings with Henrique Perreira.

The ASEAN-EU Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Days will take place between 21-23 January 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand.  As a part of the conference EU BON is  going to hold a workshop called "Integration of biodiversity data recording and information management systems for environmental sustainability: a call for EU-ASEAN collaboration" (22nd January).

The agenda of the EU BON workshop includes:

• Review and compare the situation regarding relevant biodiversity and Earth observation data and information sources/providers in EU and ASEAN;

• Examine linkages between regional/national ASEAN and EU efforts with international / global biodiversity information systems (in particular GBIF, GEO BON);

• Assess and discuss national vs. regional level priorities and needs with regard to integrated biodiversity information in ASEAN and Europe;

• Identify common challenges and needs towards further integration of different types, levels, and scopes of available data and information systems;

• To address how S&T cooperation between Europe and ASEAN in the area of biodiversity and Earth observation could be further developed to better serve policy needs (especially in light of IPBES), and to contribute to common goals towards sustainable economic development

The ASEAN-EU Science, Technology and Innovation Days serve as a visible forum for cooperation activities between the two regions in the field of STI. The event addresses researchers from most thematic areas – with a focus on the societal challenges with relevance to both regions – as well policy makers, research conducting companies and innovation managers. It takes place annually, alternating between an ASEAN and a European country. High-level policy makers as well as many research projects and companies seize the chance to network, discuss, exchange and inform themselves.

On 19 Nov 2013, a one-day EU BON workshop took place at the Leibniz-Association Headquarter in Berlin to further develop the strategy for citizen science in the project.  The workshop was a joint workshop of both work package 1 and work package 6 (organized by MfN and UTARTU) to bring together the partners from EU BON that work in the area of citizen science. Furthermore, the workshop aimed to discuss and plan the further activities regarding the next stakeholder roundtable on Citizen Science which is scheduled for 2014.

In the morning session, participants gave an overview of citizen science activities within Europe. Eight presentations from partners gave insight into citizen science initiatives and showed interesting approaches of how citizens can be involved and how datasets with information on biodiversity can be generated (please find the pdf of the presentations and minutes of the meeting below). Linda Davies, director and initiator of OPAL, one of the Europe’s most well-known citizen science initiatives, encouraged to emphasize not just data-value of citizen science, but to look for educational and awareness-rising aspects.

After an informative session there were discussions how to proceed with citizen science related tasks in EU BON. The workgroup was formed to take next steps for developing the concept of a European citizen science strategy within EU BON. It was decided that best practice examples will be used to outline the most efficient methods for incorporating citizen science in biodiversity research. Many other next steps were discussed for EU BON’s citizen science initiative (definition of the concrete role EU BON can and should play, technical solutions for citizen science data and projects, further involvement of Citizen Science stakeholders, identification of gaps).

EU BON will further intensify the dialogue between different groups related to citizen science, after a big step was done by this meeting. For example, in the next EU BON stakeholder roundtable, stakeholders such as the EEA, DG Research and Communication, ECSA, Eye on Earth and other users from political administration and scientists will be involved to discuss their needs and the contribution EU BON may provide.

For further questions please contact Katrin Vohland or Veljo Runnel

Presentations from the meeting:

Cristina Garilao - FishWatcher

Falko Glöckler - Anymals and Plants

Katrin Vohland - Citizen Science Germany

Katrin Vohland - Preparation of citizen science stakeholder meeting

Thanos Dailianis - Greece SC Project COMBER

Veljo Runnel - CS in EU BON

Veljo Runnel - CS Science in Estonia

Wouter Koch - Norway CS Project Artsobservasjoner

Israel Peer - CS Status in Israel - GlueCAD

 

Minutes of the Meeting - Citizen Science Workshop

 

 

Pollination and Land Degradation: Set as top Priorities for New Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) after the plenary

IPBES was established in April 2012, as an independent intergovernmental body open to all member countries of the United Nations. The members are committed to building IPBES as the leading intergovernmental body for assessing the state of the planet's biodiversity, its ecosystems, and the essential services they provide to society.

The second meeting of the Platform's Plenary (IPBES-2) took place in Antalya, Turkey, from 9 to 14 December 2013. Around 400 delegates from over 100 governments, scientific organizations, civil society and the private sector, attended the plenary. It was agreed to develop a set of assessments on pollination and food production, land degradation and invasive species aimed at providing policymakers with the tools to tackle pressing environmental challenges.

IPBES Member Governments present at the meeting adopted a very ambitious initial work programme for the Platform for the next five years, and demonstrated strong commitment to its implementation by already pledging more than half (US$ 25.4 million) of the total US$ 43.5 million required, in what will be remembered as the "Antalya consensus".

EU BON was represented by the project coordinator Christoph Häuser (Museum für Naturkunde, MfN), and colleagues Tim Hirsch (Danish Biodiversity information Facility, DanBIF), Dirk Schmeller (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ), Wolfgang Cramer and Ilse Geijzendorffer (National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS), Matthew Walpole (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UNEP) and Lluís Brotons (European Bird Census Council, EBCC).

EU BON group photo from left to right: Tim Hirsch (DanBIF), Christoph Häuser (MfN), Matthew Walpole (UNEP), Ilse Geijzendorffer (CNRS), Dirk Schmeller (UFZ), Wolfgang Cramer (CNRS) and Lucas Joppa (Microsoft Reseach). Photo: Dirk Schmeller

Here are their views and comments on the meeting:

1) How can EU BON contribute to the success of IPBES?

Matthew Walpole: Knowledge generation is a key pillar of IPBES. Mobilising data and information on biodiversity and ecosystem services is an important element of knowledge generation, and will be vital in underpinning rigorous, comprehensive assessments. In that regard, and in particular in the context of potential European regional assessments, EU BON as an integral part of GEO BON has a clear contribution to make.

Dirk S. Schmeller: IPBES assessments will base on available data and newly collected data from organisations contributing to IPBES. While there are some global biodiversity information providers, like GBIF, EU BON goes further in bridging data collection and data infrastructure and transforming the data in policy relevant reports. Much of the work by IPBES relies on such a system, and EU BON would be a major step forward and if put on a global scale (as a contribution to GEO BON) will be crucial for the work of IPBES. EU BON should aim to organise a side event at IPBES-3, maybe jointly with GEO BON.

Tim Hirsch: EU BON and all of its partners, including GBIF, have a vitally important role in providing the data and information foundations for the work IPBES will carry out to strengthen the science-policy interface. All through the IPBES process, countries have committed to build on existing initiatives, and it is encouraging to see that approach is being followed as the institutions of the new platform emerge. For example, the proposed IPBES task force on knowledge and data, based on strategic partnerships with relevant institutions, provides a space for our data mobilization and integration activities  to contribute to the assessment, knowledge generation, capacity building and policy support functions of the platform.

Ilse Geijzendorffer: By giving them the knowledge of what is required for successful assessment execution in terms of infrastructure, data management and governance. We can also provide demo results for them, for instance by computing an indicator required in one of the required assessments. Then they can start thinking of how they would like to communicate about these kinds of results and put in place the necessary procedures. We could also offer our services for a case study with a developing country on one of the identified assessments to show how their data and experts (including local and indigenous knowledge holders) could be included in the assessment.

Christoph Häuser: Yes, EU BON can and most certainly will significantly contribute to IPBES: Regardless of what the first thematic priorities for IPBES assessments and reviews will be , all assessments will ultimately depend on available, reliable and meaningful biodiversity data and information. Here, EU BON will be able to help by showing new and practical ways how to access integrated data layers and sources at various scales and for different interest and purposes. EU BON will also be able to help IPBES with its large and growing networks of institutions and experts, ranging from technical to socio-political areas.

2) How can IPBES participants best be made aware of EU BON and its relevance for IPBES?

Lluis Brotons: First of all, IPBES is a global, really ambitious initiative and EU BON faces a real challenge to effectively reach the audience currently developing the platform. EU BON should carefully select bridging channels between the work developed within the project and the IPBES priorities. Once these priorities have been identified, EU BON could easily become a key partner in providing valuable information, methods and concepts to be used in the IPBES assessments. It will be specially important to focus on the thematic assessments that IPBES plans to carry out in the first place such as pollination and food production or the methodological oriented assessment on support tools and methodologies for scenario analysis and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services that should be started during 2014. The main work ahead for EU BON on  making IPBES participants best aware of our work rests upon our ability to translate EU BON facilities, data and methods to the approaches and needs of the platform. We will need to be proactive here, we should not wait for IPBES to ask for help, we need to offer it in an attractive and adequate manner.

Matthew Walpole: Whilst GEO BON will be known to participants, and is mentioned in IPBES documentation, EU BON as a contributor to GEO BON is currently less visible. It's profile may be best raised in the context of GEO BON's role, with particular reference to its unique contributions, including (i) in a European context as (ii) a potential model for other regions.

Dirk S. Schmeller: One important possibility to make EU BON more visible is to show what the BON could look like, what possibilities in regard to reporting tools exist and how it could contribute to GEO BON.

Tim Hirsch: It will be important for EU BON and its partners to continue to engage actively in the various processes and procedures that are emerging from this plenary meeting: for example where we may contribute data and information to the various thematic and regional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services that will be carried out during the first IPBES Work Programme over the next five years.

Christoph Häuser: While IPBES is still struggling to become really operational, EU BON should strive to lead by example: it could provide concrete show cases of integrative approaches towards biodiversity information; for example, how to pull together data from different layers, such as GBIF point occurrence and habitat or land cover data for a given areas, or how to operationalise Essential Biodiversity Variables or meaningful indicators from existing data sources.
 

3) Which IPBES members/participants/stakeholders do you see as key partners for EU BON, and which ones have you contacted?

Lluis Brotons: IPBES is still shaping itself and one of the challenges ahead for the platform is the participation of stakeholders in the different processes required to complete and analyse the planned thematic assessments.  In this line, in the second IPBES plenary, different EU BON partners have been teaming up with a number of other international stakeholders (IUCN, ICSU amongst others) to ensure that the scientific community and other knowledge holders directly contribute to the key parts of process. This is essential for the credibility of the assessments and the discussions in the meetings in Turkey have strongly revolved around the forms this participation may finally take. I would stress at this point that I do not clearly see key partners in IPBES, but more of a need to be also here proactive and work with other proactive stakeholders to articulate mechanisms by which non-governmental organisations are able to feed into the process. These mechanisms are likely to be critical in the future work of EU BON.

Matthew Walpole: There are various networks, initiatives and organisations promoting better biodiversity/environmental data mobilisation, integration, management and use (such as 'Eye on Earth' convened by the Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (AGEDI)). GEO BON/EU BON members (including GBIF and UNEP-WCMC) participate in such networks and it would be beneficial to forge stronger collaborative links. Other obvious partners include regional/national biodiversity centres beyond Europe with which EU BON might share/compare approaches as part of regional exchange and capacity development.

Tim Hirsch: It will particularly important to engage with the members of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) elected from each region to guide the scientific priorities of the platform's work, based on requests from governments, as well as the many scientific bodies, civil society groups and of course governments involved in the new platform - I have contacted a good proportion of them!

Ilse Geijzendorffer: Firstly, the stakeholder representation (our infrastructure could be included in the end as in kind contribution by an institute or network). Secondly, delegates favourable of scientific IPBES involvement (e.g. Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Germany). I have not talked to Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Christoph Häuser: During IPBES2, I had the opportunity to make contacts with NatureServe, a prime organization and big player focusing on biodiversity information in the Western Hemisphere. It is these kinds of regional or global organizations with significant experiences and substantial assets in the area of biodiversity information generation and management, which EU BON should be liaising with more. With the (current) IPBES plenary being very much dominated by governments, it will remain a good forum for scientific initiatives and projects, such as EU BON, to build links to the political level, practically from all regions.

Dirk S. Schmeller: I agree with Christoph that EU BON needs to identify key players, such as Nature Serve, Earth Watch, dataONE and others. I had the pleasure to talk to the lead scientist of Nature Serve here in Antalya, Healy Hamilton, who expressed her interest in EU BON and GEO BON to allow an exchange of experiences and technologies. Such a collaboration will likely be beneficial for both projects/organisations. My interactions with MEP members from the different UN regions as well as delegates from different countries, which were much facilitated by IPBES, also did show the huge interest of these peers in an observation system to inform policy, but also the gaps in making known EU BON and GEO BON in some regions (e.g. Caribbean were unaware of GEO BON).

4) Which will be the emerging/new areas/challenges/questions regarding biodiversity data and monitoring coming from IPBES which EU BON needs to consider / take on board?

Lluis Brotons: Since IPBES it is in its early stages it is still difficult to identify specific questions or challenges regarding biodiversity data needs for this process. However, the advice I can give to EU BON partners is that they become familiar as early as possible with the scoping of the thematic assessments planned within the context of IPBES in the forthcoming years. The information provided in the initial scoping of these assessments may be a useful tool for EU BON allowing the different groups to move their developments in line that anticipate the needs that the assessments are likely to face in the near future. Explore the scoping for the thematic assessments (amongst other IPBES documents) here (http://ipbes.net/plenary/ipbes-2-documents.html)

Matthew Walpole: EU BON could usefully consider and articulate which parts of the IPBES conceptual framework it can provide information for, as well as thinking about how it connects to regional (European), and global, assessment processes within the IPBES programme of work. Equally, given the importance within IPBES placed upon outreach and communication to decision-makers across multiple sectors, EU BON could usefully consider innovative visualisation approaches for its data products and outputs.

Tim Hirsch: One of the strong themes that has run through this IPBES meeting is the need to incorporate and recognize multiple knowledge systems, including indigenous and traditional knowledge, when carrying out assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services. There are many challenges and opportunities arising out of this for EU BON and its partners, for example the development of community-based monitoring programmes that can contribute valuable data and information for the science-policy interface, but must be handled with due respect and sensitivity to build trust in participating communities.

Ilse Geijzendorffer: Fast track assessments, need their answers fast! Additionally, transparency of the analysis maybe not appreciated by some regional hubs or Members of the platform. This maybe posing problems for the willingness to use a shared data transfer system. Finally, if 80% of the experts will be nominated by the Members of the Platform, this can pose problems for the willingness of some expert to use transparent analysis methods. This has to be endorsed in the current protocol development.

Christoph Häuser: This remains a largely open question, as IPBES is still much preoccupied with procedural and organizational issues. With the regional approach towards assessments built into IPBES, however, it is already clear that a regional perspective towards biodiversity information and interpretation, such as an integrated European biodiversity data portal, will be a major asset to offer. As IPBES furthermore stresses the incorporation of other forms of knowledge, a focus on linking with and incorporating citizen science initiatives seems a logical follow up for EU BON.

The 2013 International Conference on Open Data in Biodiversity and Ecological Research took place between 20 - 22 Nov 2013, hosted by Academia Sinica in Taipei, Taiwan. With the aim to promote open data in science twelve foreign speakers introduced relevant projects and initiatives in the sphere of biodiversity informatics: AP-BON, DataONE, Ecological Research, EU-BON, Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Japan Biodiversity Information Facility (JBIF), linked open data, National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), Pensoft, and Thomson Reuters.

Dirk Schmeller (UFZ) and Lyubomir Penev (Pensoft), who presented EU BON at the conference, share their experience in a recent interview:

Lyubomir Penev (Pensoft)

What are the aims and main outcomes from this meeting?

LP: Taiwan has an impressive national policy with regard to data management in biodiversity sciences. The meeting summarised years of effort of Taiwanese scientists and especially of Academia Sinica to integrate data and make them publicly available. It is sufficient to mention that Taiwan has established four national nodes of the largest international biodiversity platforms, that is TaiBIF (of GBIF), TaiCOL (of Catalogue of Lige), TaiEOL (of EOL) and TaiBOL (of Barcode of Life).

Were there any biodiversity data integration models presented at the meeting that can be adopted and implemented in EUBON?

LP: Perhaps not directly, however the impressive amount and quality of work and the accumulated experience of the Taiwanese and Japanese colleagues would certainly be of value for EU BON. In addition, there are well established contacts already between the FP7 project SCALES and the National University of Taiwan which could serve as a stepping stone as well, because two of the SCALES partners participate in EU BON and at the meeting (UFZ and Pensoft).

The interest to the EU BON presentation by Dirk was great. An indicator for that was that more  than 120  EU BON leaflets have been picked up by the participants from the information desk.

Did you discuss any opportunities for partnership with organizations and initiatives from Asia and America, which deal with biodiversity data integration and accessibility?

LP: Yes, there were a lot of discussions how to mobilize and publish biodiversity data and most probably several data publishing projects will appear as a result of the discussions. These pilots could be used for the EU BON goals.

Dirk Schmeller (UFZ)

US National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) has activities similar to those planned by WP4 Link environment to biodiversity: analyses of patterns, processes and trends. Is there something that EU BON can learn from the experience of its American colleagues?

DS: It is important to keep a close link with Brian Wee and NEON, as they have a head start in comparison to EU BON. I am sure that a collaboration would benefit EU BON to work efficiently.

What is your prognosis for the successful establishment of the data publishing model in scholarly literature, and more specifically in spheres such as Ecology, Genetics, Physiology and Paleontology?

DS: Most research is financed by taxpayer money and should become publicly available once the analyses a researchers has intended are completed. I see a huge potential to publish this data in scholarly literature. I, however, see also quite some difficulties to recombine relevant datasets across different sources for further going analyses. I also see difficulties in the willingness of researchers to share data, as in many cases they see these as their own.

Linked Open Data (LOD) is a new and prominent technology to publish and share data on the web. Could you please explain what exactly hides behind this concept, and how could EU BON benefit from it?

LP: The meeting in Taiwan was impressive also in the wide representation of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) technologies in integration of biodiversity data, especially from a group from the National Museum of Japan and the University of Tokyo. RDF and the OWL Web Ontology Language are definitely the way to go if we want to make diverse data sets interoperable; the implementation of RDF in a pilot phase would be of primary importance for the success of EU BON.