Project Name: International Conservation GIS … · Web viewCapacity Building Partnership YEAR 1...

International Conservation GIS Capacity Building Partnership

YEAR 1 NARRATIVE STATUS REPORT

to theGordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Society for Conservation GISThe Nature Conservancy

Environmental Systems Research Institute

Report comprises 5 documents:MooreIntlGrantReport2005.doc (this file)MooreBudgetSummary2005.doc: (2005 Financial Report)MooreFinancials2005.xls (Excel Spreadsheet with financial details)MooreScholarAbstracts2005.doc: (2005 Scholar/Leader conference presentation abstracts)MooreSampleStories2005.doc: (Protoype draft stories as might be web and/or print published)

Prepared and Submitted by:Society for Conservation GIS International Committee and International Networks CommitteeCharles Convis & Sasha Yumakaev, Environmental Systems Research InstitutePrashant Hedao, Society for Conservation GIS India

2005 Annual Report: International Conservation GIS Capacity Building Partnership (Society for Conservation GIS/TNC/ESRI)

2005 Selected Program Participant Comments:

"Conservation is a collaborative effort that takes individual commitment"JG Nasser OLWERO, Mpala Research Centre, KENYA

" In my group there are people from Africa, Asia, South America and Europe. Each one has an interesting story to tell about his or her GIS work in conservation. I cannot stress enough the importance of this exchange of knowledge, technical tips and methodological approaches…. I’m always thinking of my own work with the Ethiopian wolves and frantically making notes. It’s so much clearer in my mind what I want to do and how to achieve it!"Jorgelina Marino, Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme

"The fact of meeting people of around the world and identifying that our activities are similar in many ways has been such a great relieve for me. So, now we are part of a virtual list on which each one of us have the chance to ask and help to solve problems about process, theories that we, the scholars, have. But also we share news around the globe about conservation practices that are happening in our countries."Patricia Polo Almeida, University of Ecuador

"Most importantly, I have learnt that sharing of information and presentation of work that has been completed through posters and other media is extremely essential for passing on the knowledge that is acquired through projects. My experiences in California have encouraged me to present more of the work at the Centre in the form of posters in order for a general population to be familiar with the research and its outcome"Nandita Mondal, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science

"…now we count (on) the support of all the professionals who work in this society and with my (new) companions and colleague of scholarship. The people who I knew were to me interesting, mainly in the passion that showed by their works and in the fact to try to work all together (in support of) conservation. I tell you that this is very unusual in Argentina, when one (tries to work) with other related groups of investigation (there arises) many distrusts, doubts and impediments"Claudia Manfredi, Mammal Behavioural Ecology Group (GECM), Argentina

"Immediately after my presentation I was surrounded by so many GIS experts some asking further details about my works but some offering free help on how I might improve especially on the automated GPS recording and Way Points management."Gaim James Lunkapis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia

"I even conducted a GIS demonstration with it while testifying in Court last October to show to the Judge the map that I produced for the community that is taking legal action against an oil palm company for encroaching and damaging their native customary land and forest."Mark Bujang, Borneo Resources Institute, Malaysia

"informal interactions during the training afforded a great deal of exchange of ideas, sharing of experiences"Francis Karanja, Kenya/University of New England, New South Wales.

"The experience of being among other scholars has been invaluable to me….Lately, during the training courses, I discovered that we do have a common language: GIS"Adriana Paese - Conservation International (CI- Brazil)


Program Goals The founding goal of the International Conservation GIS (Geographic Information Systems) Partnership is to "increase the capacity of conservation organizations, governments, and individuals to make effective use of geographic information systems to support biodiversity conservation, by developing and supporting a global community of conservation GIS practitioners." This partnership between The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Society for Conservation GIS (SCGIS) and the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) consist of 3 Outputs:

1) Conservation GIS Leadership Program will support a select group of international individuals with demonstrated leadership and technical skills who can assess needs and build GIS capacity and networks in their home countries.

2) Conservation GIS Training Scholarship Program brings dozens of individuals to the United States each summer to receive advanced GIS training and attend the Annual SCGIS and ESRI Conferences.

3) SCGIS International Support Program involves a range of activities needed to manage, support, and sustain the SCGIS Capacity Building Program.

The most directly measurable program benefit is the increase in the numbers of people who obtain annual conservation technology training and become part of a supportive community. Less directly measurable is the degree to which they stay active in that community over time, since some may become very active at a local level but not communicate as much internationally, making it harder to measure the program's local impact. An indirect benefit that has become increasingly important is the degree to which the increased students, leaders and support volunteers to what was previously a skeleton staff has enabled outreach and growth in related program areas critical to strategic growth. We are increasingly able to support more of the work of our many dedicated volunteers and supporters to make their contributions more efficient and more rewarding, arrange better donations from other in-kind supporters, and think in a longer time scale about the sustainability and impact of our program.

The following summarizes the 3 main program changes requested, then presents the status of all 3 output areas/programs, beginning with the most active area, the Scholarship Program.

Summary of Year 1 Corrections and Requests

Expense Category Corrections: Progress towards goals is on track to meet or exceed 3-year achievement estimates. We would like to correct some assignments of amounts to categories as allowed for in the agreement. In the Scholarship program, the Airfare Support category was originally intended as a catchall for all travel expenses. It makes more sense to change this to airfare only and move all miscellaneous travel expenses over to the Scholar Lodging Support category. This is just a swap between categories and does not change the overall expenses budget.

Expense Category Corrections:

1. Scholars Airfare Support: Annual budget was $30k, change to $10k for 2006 by combination of Moore funds and SCGIS match reassignments.


2. Scholars Lodging Support: Change title to “Scholars Lodging and Misc Travel Support.” Annual budget was $10k, change to $30k for 2006 by combination of Moore funds and SCGIS match reassignments.

3. Publications/Printing: Change title to “Publications/Printing and Web Services.” no change to budget.

4. Web Services & Misc fees: Change title to "Training & Misc fees" in order to properly account for the large amounts of in-kind training and conference fees being donated for which there is no current category. No change to budget.

Budget Increase Request: The changes above do not involve any change in the overall budget. In the “Hardware” sub-category budget outlined below we were able to leverage the $7,000 in Moore funding to obtain $95,000 in matching in-kind grants from hardware and software vendors. Even so we fell short of the urgently needed goal of providing every scholar and leader with a portable field platform capable of advanced GIS analysis. Because the importance of this need surfaced later in the program, we had to devote more time than was planned in order to achieve the leverage needed to reach our initial goals. We would like to request a supplementary grant of $8k on top of the current total annual budget of $105k, to expand the hardware funding budget for 2006 and 2007 to $15k annually. We feel this will permit the final critical improvement in machine capacity needed to assure functionality for GIS analysis rather than just data entry, and allow us to increase the number of machines and support hardware in keeping with the expected increase in scholars for 2006, when our training program will double the number of events and venues we plan to support.

Budget Increase Requested5. Hardware Sub-Category: Supplemental $7k grant to increase budget from $8K to $15k per year.

Report Scheduling & Deadline Corrections: The primary scheduling issues are: -Program staff are available to prepare annual reports for submittal to TNC only in November-January when the Scholarship and Leadership management tasks do not dominate. We are unable to prepare extensive reporting or evaluation outside of that time window due to being fully engaged in the program management, so proposed mid-term reports are not a possibility except for very short budget summaries. - Many annual grant and scholarship decisions seem to have settled into the January-February window so annual reviews are essential prior to this time. - Beginning in 2005, Scholars have an increasing number of ongoing responsibilities to support the SCGIS community and fulfill organizational duties and are less able to submit the 2-3 formal status reports initially envisioned. It is a better match to their capabilities to ask for just one formal status report at about the 6-month point after their training, suggesting a December due date. -Leaders appear to need a year or more in order to get good quality results and reports in, not the 6-9 months originally anticipated. -The scheduling requirements for coordinating with the conference parts of the training suggest a program year based on a February to February cycle. Accounting and mid-term Reporting to TNC for a prior year can be completed by December or January, and Scholarship and Leadership expenses do not begin until March. A mid-term draft accounting report can be submitted earlier to meet a fiscal calendar schedule if need be.

Report Deadline changes requested Reduce mid-term report to just a budget summary estimate sometime in September. Combine all other reports into single annual report due to TNC by Jan 31st with a draft submittal by Dec 31st. (Detailed feedback on each current milestone is in Appendix 4)


Conservation GIS Training Scholarship Program: 2005 Mid Term Status Report

-Overview37 finalist scholars attended our first year program, almost 3 times the number who were able to attend in years prior to Moore funding. Scholars represented 23 countries: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, DR Congo, Ecuador, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, UK, Zimbabwe. A custom training program was designed for each scholar with courses beginning in July and extending through August 2005.The increased program capacity and outreach ability allowed us to include 7 countries for the first time ever in our 10-year program history: Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Hungary, Poland, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.8 "domestic" scholars funded from the SCGIS Domestic Scholarship Program were also allowed to participate, including 2 Canadian “First Nations” scholars and 6 Americans from American and Global NGOs.The expanded size of the program meant that for the first time we had several scholars from the same region or country, which allowed significant, meaningful discussions to occur about starting local SCGIS chapters and communities. Normally only one scholar from a region is present each year and it therefore takes many years to build up the kind of excitement and motivation in enough people to get a local chapter off the ground. The following lists each activity proposed for this output, grouping them into related activity areas as in the original proposal. Detailed sub-activities, tasks and procedures are outlined for each activity, and progress within each of these subcategories is summarized.

Conservation GIS Training Scholarship Program 3-year goals as listed in the formal grant agreement, grouped into the "Activity" management areas as outlined in the proposal:

Activity Area 1: Design and execute Training Scholarship Program· Design program and organize annual logistics for Scholar visits to US · Recruit 75 SCGIS Scholars (average of 25 per year)· Host Scholars during annual visits to US· Deliver annual GIS training to Scholars

Activity Area 2:· Evaluate and improve Program Organize annual progress reports from Scholars Work with Leadership program grantees co-located with Scholars to monitor/support progress Evaluate Scholar work and improve/modify program Evaluate Scholar impact on local conservation NGOs

Conservation GIS Training Scholarship Program Progress towards 3-year goals, as of 12-2005:

Activity Area 1: Design and execute Training Scholarship Program

The design of a training scholarship program is 90% complete. The initial list of subactivities was expanded as part of the design. Some activities were able to be completed by reporting time. Other activities were not completed, often because a host of complex issues lay behind their being singled out. These sorts of issues, like data sharing, occupy thousands of minds in many years of argument and would require a program many times our size to properly address. They are anticipated to be ongoing design and implementation activities throughout the program, with regular status reports on our progress in struggling


with and addressing the issues with our grantees. The following details each subactivity in light of the activities included in it during Year 1 of the program.

COMPLETED PROCEDURES The following subactivities are now identified as distinct tasks with program management procedures that are now complete and operational:

Scholar Recruitment, Publicity and Marketing Scholar Selection

Scholar Preparation & Visa NegotiationsScholar Training ProgramScholar Conference ProgramTraining/Conference Equipment LogisticsScholar Travel logisticsScholar Food/Lodging logisticsScholar Technology Grants

OPEN ISSUES The following subactivities are now identified as distinct tasks with program management procedures and policies that are under discussion:

Scholar Agreements for sharing maps, data, photosScholar & Leader PublicationsManagement of Scholar Data LibrariesScholar e-community resources: listservers, groups, websites, skype accounts

COMPLETED PROCEDURES:

- Scholar Recruitment, Publicity and MarketingBeginning in November, 2004, scholarship announcements were sent out via dozens of discussion groups and affilliated websites. The announcements included mention of expanded Moore/TNC funding and the possible grant enhancements that would result. As a result, the incoming applications increased to 73, a 100% improvement over 2004, prior to Moore funding.

- Scholar SelectionDuring review it became apparent that the quality of the applications had increased dramatically, from a 30% rejection ratio in prior years to only 10% in 2005. (For a detailed description of how reviewing is done and quality assessed for scoring, acceptance or rejection, please see Appendix 1)

- Scholar Preparation & Visa Negotiations A significant source of loss of finalist scholars in prior years is visa problems. It is so difficult for conservationists from other countries to obtain USA visas that we normally lose about 15% of our accepted scholars to visa difficulties. Because of the Moore support however, ESRI allowed us to devote a full time ESRI staff person to assist scholars and as a direct result our visa failure rate dropped to just one person, or 2% of the applicants, and in fact that one person did finally get a visa 2 months after the conferences, his first success in 4 years of effort, and he will be attending the 2006 program.

-Scholar Training Program: A custom training program for each scholar was organized, based on their specific needs and capabilities. Thanks to extensive donations from ESRI of courses and trainers, worth $137.2k, we were able to provide a total of 385 student-days of GIS training in a wide variety of courses from basic to advanced (see appendix 2 for a list of courses) ESRI donated all of the course fees, representing an in-kind donation of $137.3k in the "Training & Misc Fees/Expenses" budget category

-Scholar Conference Program


Scholars were required to present their mapping and GIS work at 2 very different conferences. The annual SCGIS conference attracts about 300 Conservationists worldwide in a small conference with a focus on building communities of sharing, support and relationships. The annual ESRI User Conference attracts about 12,000 GIS practicioners worldwide for the largest software industry conference of it's kind. ESRI's conference focuses on advanced technical issues and user applications in GIS. Presenting at both conferences gave the scholars valuable experience and practical knowledge in how to represent their work in venues of differing challenges. In total, the scholars gave 59 paper presentations between the 2 conferences. (abstracts are listed in the doc file "ScholarAbstracts2005.doc") Presentation subjects covered topics from Indigenous Village Programs and Sustainable Development to National Conservation Policy to Patch Analyis, Endangered Species and Fire Ecology.

-Training/Conference Equipment Logistics The expanded size of the Scholar pool meant that we could not rely solely on the pro-bono training facilities used previously. We found pro-bono locations but had to organize all of our own training equipment and hardware for 3 different venues. That meant obtaining loaner training equipment pro-bono and finding systems engineers able to prepare equipment, travel to set it up and maintain it, and take it down. We were able to find 2 people who provided a total of 30 person/days of support, paid for in part by ESRI and in part from personal donations, for a total in-kind benefit of $40.7k. We were able to obtain equipment loan from ESRI for 35 computers and projectors for the entire month. ESRI also paid for shipping. The in-kind value of this portion from ESRI was $73.8k. There was no charge to Moore for any items or labor in this category.

-Scholar Travel logistics Following the guidelines of the review and qualification process, $6.2k in Airfare support was offered to the Scholars, an average of about 50% of what was requested. 100% of the scholars were able to attend from that grant, with the difference being made up by other donors including World Wildlife Fund EFN program, SCGIS itself, and personal donations. For Ground transportation, about 20 bus-van trips were organized to cover all of the airport, training and conference venue transportation needs. $5k of vehicle rentals and charter buses was donated by ESRI, amounting to about 14 bus & van trips. Volunteer Drivers from SCGIS covered all of the driving needs but that still left about $2k in fuel, van rental and travel expenses that were assigned to Moore.

-Scholar Food/Lodging logistics Again, following the guidelines of the review and qualification process, $41.6k in food and lodging was distributed for the 6 weeks program, representing 586 paid person-nights of lodging at courses and conferences and 201 donated person-nights of lodging with SCGIS volunteers. The $10k from Moore and $13.2k from SCGIS met about half of this amount, with the remainder coming from the Airfare category surplus. We have asked to reallocate between these 2 budgets to better reflect the actual costs. The 201 donated person-nights of lodging with ESRI and SCGIS volunteers represents an $8.6k value if these students had to be housed within walking distance of the ESRI courses they attended. Lodging (not food) was also donated by the University of California, Riverside, for the use of the James Reserve for 2 weeks.

-Scholar Technology Grants (Hardware and Software) This became a large activity. It includes both Hardware and Software budget line items as listed in the initial proposal because the two must be managed together to best assess and meet grantee needs, skills and resources. Because of changing global economic stresses, we expanded our technology vision beyond just the leaders, to aim to supply ALL participants in all 3 program areas with current technology from a $7k budget that would have barely sufficed for a few leadership participants.

The key to expanding the hardware grant program was the negotiation of $91,700 in matching grants of hardware and software from ESRI and vendors, that allowed us to donate 36 laptops with peripherals, 80


field GPS units, and over 200 GIS books. ( The procedure we followed to best and most fairly allocate these grants according to scholars needs and resources is outlined in Appendix 3.)

$7000 budgeted by Moore to support hardware:$1250 of critically needed laptop upgrade costs covered by Moore$6042 of remaining Moore hardware funds for purchase of GPS units and other external drives & peripherals

36 laptops with peripherals donated by ESRI, street value $500 each, total $18,00025 new software bundles donated by ESRI, avg. $2500 each, total value $187,000 (remaining scholars already had prior donations)over 200 GIS books donated by ESRI, avg. $40 each, total value $8,000$88,500 total ESRI in-kind contributions for Hardware and Software80 Garmin GPS units distributed, discount of $40/unit, or total Garmin in-kind subsidy of $3,200

$91,700 Total industry vendor matching hardware contributions

As originally outlined this was going to just support a few machines each year for the leaders, as we requested in our proposal: "Based on our experience, most volunteers working on GIS support to NGOs cannot afford and do not possess adequate hardware. We propose a $7k budget to be able to supplement vendor grants and other donations so we can equip each of the Leadership program grantees with a current-generation, moderate-level laptop, plus any peripherals and supplies essential for support that might be hard to get or overly costly back home. We would appreciate any help or contacts GBMF might have in locating hardware discounts or donations."

However, our initial goal of providing needed hardware to each of 4-6 leadership grantees for $7k each year expanded in the face of urgent global necessity to needing hardware for each of 36 scholars as well. As you can see, we were able to leverage the $7,000 Moore Hardware budget to obtain a total of $91,700 in matching hardware & software grants from ESRI and Garmin. Even so, these were barely adequate machines and we know we can and must do better in 2006. We would like to ask for an $8k increase in this budget to make the new annual hardware total $15k. We think that we will be able to leverage this amount even further than before so as to give an excellent return, and we urge you to review the narratives from our scholars about their use of the initial hardware grants. This is our first time ever attempting to provide hardware to every scholar and so far, their use of and need for the equipment justifies as much additional effort in this area as we can muster. It was our mistake to make the common American assumption that modern hardware is just a commodity and not worth spending much time on as a grant activity since it's cheaper just to buy it. This assumption negates many other pressing and vital issues in many biodiversity-rich developing countries, ranging from currency exchange to parts and repair availability, that add up to make adequate hardware in these locations extremely difficult to obtain, maintain or afford. Finally, it would entail a budget more than double our entire overall budget just even to buy domestically the specific kinds of hardware that these conservationists need. We'd like to keep trying our high-leverage approach for now to see how far we can push it with just a little more budget.

OPEN ISSUES

Scholar Agreements for sharing maps, data, photosManagement of Scholar Data Libraries

Data is central to what GIS represents for conservation groups, it is a core concern for many multinational institutions, and it can be a fundamental source of support, survival and conflict for many groups. The issue of data sharing is therefore a complicated one that involves most of the issues relevant to an NGO's existence. In the same way that you cannot make a map until you know what it is for, you cannot


understand the issue of data sharing until you know what the sharing is for. If the intent of a data sharing program is enhance the efficiency of conservationists and make the best use of limited data collection funding, it is too limiting to focus only on data as a means to this end. As this discussion will point out, any data set incorporates many assumptions and limitations based on what it was originally collected for. These are typically not well explained. Conversely, much of the value of a data set may instead lie in the increased understanding and experience of the organization or individuals who conducted the data exercise. A program that seeks to most directly enhance the efficiency of conservationists should focus more on promoting the sharing of experiences and knowledge among conservationists, and less on the data sets themselves, which in some contexts can almost be seen as byproducts of a more important knowledge-gaining exercise.

If instead the intent of a data sharing exercise is to collect a centralized store of information from local conservationists then the issue of purpose becomes even more important, because now the local data sets are being removed from the organizations and settings that created them, posing greater risk of misinterpretation or misuse. If the intent of such an exercise is to measure and evaluate the work of conservationists, it is inadequate by itself because data is only one of many factors in conservation action. If scientific data alone were enough to achieve conservation, the USA would be the most progressive nation in the world in energy efficiency and global warming, rather than the least. As we will discuss below, the task of measuring and evaluating the changing capabilities of conservationists worldwide is complex and must be based as much on sociological assessment methods as on technological assessments.

If the purpose of a centralized store of local conservation data is instead to create a global data set of the conservation and biodiversity conditions of the earth’s surface, there are much better ways to accomplish this, and several influential organizations already working on the problem.

The focus of the ESRI Conservation Program has always been to increase and enhance the development and public use of conservation data worldwide. Many institutions who share this goal feel that the true value in this mission is the data itself, and a great deal of money is spent acquiring pre-existing data from scientists and cooperators around the world into centralized data stores. In our opinion, this approach suffers from the fact that pre-existing data is often understood properly only by the scientists who designed the effort, and taken out of the context of the original goals of the data collection effort, data can be misapplied and lead to incorrect conclusions. That's not to say that building data centers is misguided, just that the context, assumptions, limitations and other "metadata" that can guide the correct and appropriate use of a data set are typically incomplete, poorly funded or ignored outright.

An alternative approach to conservation data is less centralized and acquisitive, more decentralized and supportive. It starts with the assumption that the people best qualified to understand, apply and gain value from local conservation data are the local citizens and activists themselves. To best "increase and enhance the development and public use of conservation data" you would therefore teach and support those local citizens and activists how to better collect, analyze and apply conservation data. Being able to encourage supportive communities around these teaching programs has proven to be key in making them sustainable and persistent over time. Moreover, when this approach is taken, we have found that participants are much more willing to share data and collaborate on their own, as their abilities to do so improve. The disadvantage to this approach is the kinds of data you will be able to obtain will be those that local people deemed most important to their local conservation struggles. These are not likely to be the same kinds of data as a centralized program might deem most important for it's mission. As one example, local conservation struggles often focus on sites or locations of conflict, so that new data obtained may be very detailed for small areas of land. It's less common for conservation NGO's to work at a national or regional scale and when they do they tend to use pre-existing data from others rather than develop new data sets.

The last issue to address in this discussion about data and how people use it is to distinguish between the newer Remote Sensing/Satellite data and the more traditional data collected by people on the ground. Satellite data is rapidly improving in resolution and sensitivity, and finer and finer levels of investigation and classification are possible using highly trained and experienced remote sensing specialists. One key problem is the tremendous shortage of such specialists, especially within the non-profit Conservation


community. Another problem is the commercialization of most of the recent and therefore useful data, making it unaffordable to non-profit groups for anything beyond a very local project. One outcome of this is the primary use of Satellite data by most NGO's is as simple hardcopy photographs in the field, mainly because hardcopy outputs do not have the usage or reproduction restrictions on them that the source raw commercial data does, allowing some supporting organizations to obtain one digital license but make hundreds of pro-bono hardcopy products from it.

A second problem is the utility of satellite data is limited to what a "remote visual" perspective allows. Forest loss is one obvious example. More fundamental to most conservation work, however, is the human observer in the field, collecting data according to specific designs and protocols, whether it be citizen interviews, mark & recapture census, or plots, quadrats and transects. At best, satellite data can show "what" is happening on the landscape, but it cannot elicit the "how and why" essential for taking conservation action. GIS is the fundamental tool for dealing with these latter issues, and a person can become competent in it without the need for years of specialized image classification training required for competence in the remote sensing fields. As a result, we feel GIS is a more appropriate tool to be training struggling conservationists in. We feel the most appropriate way to handle the need for Satellite data is to negotiate with providers to donate recent imagery and teach the use of it as a digital background for more specialized GIS data collection efforts, within the limits of image provider licensing.

Data and it's acquisition and sharing can be addressed within the Scholarship & Leadership program in 2 ways. The core notion of the Scholarship and Leadership program is to provide GIS skills in the context of building a close community. In areas where this is farther along, such as Kenya, Colombia, Madagascar and Russia, there is already a lot of data sharing and collaboration that happens naturally between Society members as they work together. The first task therefore is to decide how to quantify and document this. It seems to work well enough at the informal level that there is some concern the the introduction of legal agreements and obligations may result in more suspicion and protectiveness and therefore less sharing, than the current informal state. It is felt that the approach to this question must therefore be done with patience and care and allowed to evolve over time. Our standard language to date in any data requests to communities therefore includes "Only those data which are approved for publication and distribution"

The second relevant notion is that the program pays cash for which scholars and leaders owe products and services. This is the stripped-down economic model of what a scholarship program is. The conventional "service" is simply a scholar's attendance at training and proof that they are doing coursework and making progress. The additional "service" expected by our program is that a scholar must prove that the training enhanced conservation back in their home country. The "products" are the reports formally required which document scholar experiences in training and back home. It is appropriate in this context to ask for data which demonstrates capability or enhanced conservation effectiveness to be include in the list of "products" expected. Unfortunately, the level of effort required to properly map and document conservation effectiveness even in a limited context is out of range of what most scholars are capable of so we are still trying to define what kinds of measures or mappable indicators we need, which scholars are willing to try to measure. This also introduces the problem raised earlier of the distinction between training scholars so they can best apply their own judgement and wisdom to conservation problems at home, and inventing some new method that we require them to follow so they can help service our more centralized demands. Imposing a system of conservation measures from above that we feel needs to be collected may simply not be as efficient or sustainable an approach as allowing the evolution of shared concepts of what scholars most need to be effective. We intend to proceed with this question with sensitivity and care.

Data is already requested during the application procedure to help show existing capacity. Data is requested formally to be part of the final status reports from Scholars. Thus far, because final report deadlines are still pending, only about 5% of scholars have submitted data. For the reasons mentioned above, much of it is very local in extent.

-Scholar & Leader Publications Closely related to the previous discussion is the issue of Scholar and Leader publications. These are the stories, maps, photos and reports that need to be published and disseminated to help tell the stories of the different program participants and their conservation struggles back home. However, the primary reason


this task is open is the lack of finished products to begin assembling into stories for print or web. A rough draft of how these might look with very raw materials from a couple of scholars is provided in the file "MooreSampleStories2005.doc"

-Scholar e-community resources: listservers, groups, websites, skype accounts Scholars have spontaneously set up internet discussion groups, internet messaging groups, and internet phone (skype) groups, which appear to be getting steady use in the 6 months following the program. Depending on how these are able to persist and be useful to the local groups we are considering several forms of support, such as: -Hosting of group specific websites -Paying for the extra cost for a skype account to connect to a land-line phone where needed -Participating on a regular basis in formal internet, IM or skype meetings.

Conservation GIS Training Scholarship Program Progress towards 3-year goals, as of 12-2005:

Activity 2:· Evaluate and improve Program

Activity 2:· Evaluate and improve Program Organize annual progress reports from Scholars Work with Leadership program grantees co-located with Scholars to monitor/support progress Evaluate Scholar work and improve/modify program Evaluate Scholar impact on local conservation NGOs

The design of an evaluation and improvement program is 5% complete. As of the 12/2005 reporting date, there had only been 3-5 months since the first training program, which was not enough time to get final status reports from either the scholars or leaders. What we have are raw diaries and logs, and some mid-term reports that reflect very early experiences from scholars returning home.

The initial list of subactivities was revised and expanded as part of the design. The following details each subactivity in light of the activities included in it during Year 1 of the program.

The following subactivities are now identified as distinct tasks with program management procedures and policies that are under discussion:

Scholar Status ReportsScholar Achievement ReviewLeadership program grantees support to ScholarsEvaluate and Modify programScholar to Leader eligibility and transitionScholar to Chapter Formation

Scholar Status ReportsThis issue is closely related to Scholar Achievement Review, because an assessment of conservation and GIS advancement as a result of the program is what must guide the design and requirements of the status reports. The ESRI Conservation Program has had 15 years of experience in working with status reports from conservation GIS grants and developed the following guidelines for status reporting for the Moore Program: In the preliminary designs for this program, guidance was also sought from the University of Redlands to determine how they and their donors evaluate and monitor their own scholarship programs. They indicated that in the university scholarship community, a very important measure of success was


when your program caused an individual to make a fundamental change in life direction, causing them to devote the rest of their lives to the mission or goals that the specific scholarship program sought to promote. They explained that a program is lucky to achieve this level of change once every few years, or once out of every 50 scholars, and that donors accept that as a good result. Because a devotion to conservation seems to be a very fundamental and deeply rooted belief in the people who hold to it, we felt that this was an appropriate goal for us to include, even though our program is tenfold smaller and shorter than an academic scholarship program. Unfortunately, the university had no guidance in how you measure and evaluate beliefs up front, their documentation of a major life change was based solely on anecdotal evidence over many decades following a scholarship. We felt that getting some feeling for a person’s beliefs and goals was worth trying, and so we included several opportunities for our scholars to talk about this before, during and after the program.

The following are the resulting guidelines for Scholar reporting that were developed:

1. Always ask a little more than what people are capable of so they can be challenged, but be sure to quickly recognize, honor and respect whatever they turn in so they can appreciate the great value our community places on communication.

2. Try to collect scholar experiences, thoughts, feelings, discoveries as close to the event as possible, using some sort of daily diary requirement that won’t take too much time out of the day.

3. Try to collect each scholar’s vision of their next year as it exists prior to program participation, in the application itself. About 6 months after the training, enough time for them to incorporate their new ideas with the hard realities of home, have them re-describe what they think the next year will bring.

4. Try to collect both personal & professional goals of each scholar as an individual, as well as their program goals within their institution. The primary expression of change due to a program based on training and community is likely to first appear in personal and career changes.

5. Scholar and leader assessment will be mostly similar in quality, just different in level. A key difference is the institutional goals of a leader will always be SCGIS rather than their “day job”, and leaders will have the specific responsibility of reporting on financial disposition of program funds in their care.

6. Try to allow for a wide variety of reporting styles and options. Some individuals and/or cultures may be more comfortable presenting only a written paper rather than a live presentation, some may prefer a map composition to a narrative report. For the sake of training, try to encourage or require all scholars to try their hands at all forms of expression, but be prepared to gracefully accept that some may only be comfortable in one form.

6. Request photographs of scholars at work. Photographs often offer a view of conservation work that is hard to put into words, and they are an important component of any report that seeks to qualitatively describe what conservationists do and how it may be changing.

7. Request finished map compositions that scholars produce, to evaluate both their raw GIS and geographic abilities, and their abilities to tell their story and communicate their mission on the printed page.

To implement these guidelines, we required and requested a great deal of reporting from our scholars, both before, during and after their training experiences. We have had varying levels of success with Scholars meeting these requests, but overall the response this year has been better than in prior years, primarily because we can devote Sasha Yumakaev full-time to Scholar communications and coordination.

At this point in Year 1, the following are the program reporting products to have been received thus far:

1. Live conference paper presentations from 100% of the Scholars and Leaders (abstracts are listed in the separate doc file "ScholarAbstracts2005.doc")


2. Scholar diaries from about 80% of the scholar participants3. Scholar 6-month status reports from about 5% of the participants4. Leader mid-term status reports from about 50% of the participants.

Scholar Achievement Review The complexity of this task, much more than the current lack of final status reports, will make this an open issue throughout the program. Unfortunately, we have not yet had the opportunity to begin the planned-for discussions between ESRI, GBMF, TNC and SCGIS to design ways to use GIS to address the issues of sociopolitical context, biodiversity metrics, and individual achievement that must be understood before an assessment of Scholar and Leader achievement can be quantitatively based. As we outlined in the proposal, we are convinced that GIS is a potent tool for analyzing and understanding the many complex political and scientific factors that bear on conservation success. We had hoped that the design and guidance of that tool and possible analytical methods could be conducted as a joint activity between the major players who have thought the most about this issue and how one makes use of the findings.

Leadership program grantees support to Scholars Leadership program support to Scholars is happening naturally because every area where a Leadership grantee came from also already has other conservation GIS users and past, present and future scholars. There is an important issue, however, in how this particular task is addressed. Most leaders have a very strong loyalty to their local community and their colleagues. That's why we choose them. That loyalty and strong identification with their colleagues makes most of them uncomfortable being singled out for special funding over and above that which is given to their colleagues. This makes the reporting of "Leadership" support to "Scholars" problematic, because most of the leaders feel that ALL members of their local community help and contribute and play a part in leadership. This sort of Facilitative rather than Authoritative style of leadership is what we are hoping to promote, but it does present complications in how to report on it in a way that encourages cooperative communities. We plan to resolve these issues as we gather more varied types of materials on how the communities as a whole are doing.

In the short term, a specific Leadership grantee support need for the summer Scholars was identified. Finalists in the leadership grant program were all encouraged to attend the conference so that they could obtain leadership experience with the scholars, learn how to organize training and conference events, and meet with the grant program management for detailed consultation and planning on their various leadership and chapter-building proposals. Most of them were also in advanced GIS training courses so in total this placed a very stringent time demand upon them that excluded any other activity outside sleep and meals. Nevertheless, it was dedication and a strong work ethic that we were hoping to see demonstrated in our leadership finalists and we were not disappointed. 4 of the 5 finalists for 2005 attended and supported the program in various ways.

Evaluate and Modify program This status report is the first formal evaluation of program results. It contains both preliminary evaluations of program work as well as preliminary requests for modification based on the still-incomplete first year results.

Scholar to Leader eligibility and transitionScholar to Chapter FormationThis relationship between the leadership trainees and the scholars is very close. In 2005, one elder conservationist from the Philippines, Dr. Abe Padilla, Jr., proved devoted and enthusiastic in his involvement, and consistently played a leaderships role as well for the other scholars. Accordingly, he was invited to participate in the leadership program and has since submitted a strong proposal for SCGIS Chapter building in the Philippines.


Conservation GIS LeadershipProgram 2005 Mid Term Status Report

3-year goals as listed in the formal grant agreement:

Activity 1:· Design and execute Conservation GIS Leadership Program· Design Conservation GIS Leadership Program· Recruit Conservation GIS Leadership Candidates (number TBD)· Develop work plan, timeline and deliverables for each grantee Administer work plan

Activity 2:· Evaluate and improve Program Evaluate grantee work and improve/modify program Evaluate impact on local conservation NGOs

Conservation GIS Leadership Program: Progress towards 3-year goals, as of 12-2005:

Activity 1:· Design and execute Conservation GIS Leadership Program

The design and execution of a Leadership program is 50% complete. The initial list of subactivities needed expansion. Some activities were able to be completed by reporting time. Other activities were not completed, mainly because the leadership program didn't officially begin until August 2005, so tasks based on reports and evaluation have not had the time or materials needed for design completion. As with the Scholars, some evaluation issues are anticipated to be ongoing design and review activities throughout the program, with regular status reports on our progress. The following details each subactivity in light of the activities included in it during Year 1 of the program.


Recruit Conservation GIS Leadership Candidates (number TBD(Leader SelectionLeader work plan, timeline and deliverablesLeader Training ProgramLeader support to Scholarship Program


Stage 2 Leader Program fund disbursementInternational Funds Transfer direct to Leadership Program Accounts

COMPLETED PROCEDURES

-Recruit Conservation GIS Leadership Candidates (number TBD(Beginning in 2004, 20 leadership candidates were identified from previous SCGIS scholarship recipients who had been active since their scholarship in GIS leadership and SCGIS community building activities. These candidates were given a general description of the potential new TNC/SCGIS/Moore Leadership


program and invited to submit specific proposals describing how they might best advance conservation GIS in their home countries or areas. Very few guidelines were provided as we specifically wanted to see how our candidates would do creating structure from a mostly creative, unstructured exercise. We felt best reflected the circumstances they would face in trying to build a new program in their home areas, and was a more accurate reflection of their initiative and independence.

-Leader Selection We received back about 12 proposals, defining activities in the following 3 general areas: Direct GIS community building: workshops, conferences, meetings, fundraising and classes in Conservation GIS for local NGO's and scientists Indirect GIS community building: Focussed Technical Activities that would support a worldwide community but not specific to local Conservation GIS users. Direct Conservation: Focussed Conservation Programs that work with specific local communities or stakeholders, but which do not have a primary goal of supporting other Conservation GIS users in the area generally.

Because the first area was closest to the main focus of the The International Conservation GIS Partnership, the 4 candidates who submitted proposals in this area were selected to be the recipients for the first year of the program. We felt that as we developed experience working with this first group of grantees in an area we felt well qualified to evaluate, it would give us the benchmarks and guidelines needed to refine and adjust the remaining proposals as needed into something we felt more confident in supporting (more detailed proposal summaries, with complete goals and objectives, are provided in Appendix 5) Conservation GIS: Information for Conservation in the Northwest of México.Project Lead: Pronatura A.C. Noroeste, Jose M. Beltran, GIS Manager for PNOProject Budget Total $20,000 Initial Grant Awarded: $5,000

GIS support for Biological and Cultural Diversity Conservation in Altai-Sayan EcoregionProject Lead: Mikhail Paltsyn, ARKHAR NGO, Altai Republic, Russia. Project Budget Total: $15,000 Initial Grant Awarded: $4,000

Promoting Application Of GIS To Conservation In KenyaProject Lead: JG Nasser OLWERO & SCGIS Kenya, Mpala Research CentreProvisional Budget $7,995 Initial Grant Awarded: $2,000Provisional Chapter Budget $8,000 Chapter Grant Awarded: $4,000

A Proposal to Establish the Society for Conservation GISProject Lead: Sabino Padilla and the Philippine Chapter: SCGIS PilipinasProject Budget Total: $29, 233.21 Initial Grant Awarded: $2,000

Leader work plan, timeline and deliverables Every proposal was required to provide a timeline and budget. In meetings with each finalist leader, proposal activities were identified and prioritized for the initial funding phase. Because the initial funding provided to each was less than requested, each grantee had to modify their initial budget and timeline to reflect the 2-phase funding process. Budget and timeline revision also resulted from other circumstances, such as when proposed program staff were no longer available. Finally, a midterm status report detailing the progress made with the initial funding stage and presenting a new revised budget, timeline and formal request for second phase funding is due from each leadership grantee by Dec 31st.


Leader Training Program All 4 of the finalist leaders were able to attend the 2005 scholarship training program and fully participate in the advanced GIS courses they required. Frequent additional meetings with partnership staff helped to train them on the documentation, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, as well as resolving specific political and social issues about formation of a new organization in their countries. Email and Instant Messaging communications with the program managers have continued on a daily basis since then, with plans to expand this to conference calls and/or Skype conferences.

Leader support to Scholarship Program All 4 leader worked closely with the 2005 Scholars, serving in formally-designated positions of responsibility according to their abilities and interests. This inluded living with them at the reserves, serving as food coordinators, hardware coordinators, on-site liasons, and conference & workshop coordinators. They gained valuable experience in the specifics of managing a training and support program. More importantly, they gained socialization about SCGIS community values and principles, and how to behave in a way that exemplifies the support, competence and inclusiveness that SCGIS strives for.

OPEN ISSUES

-Stage 2 Leader Program fund disbursement-International Funds Transfer direct to Leadership Program Accounts Most of the first 4 leadership grantees have established local bank accounts already. There are no central procedures yet defined for how to do this because countries differ in how non-profits are defined and how bank accounts are set up. We had to rely on each leader to use their best judgement. The first round of funding was disbursed to each leader in person, in cash, so as to allow maximum flexibility while maintaining the security of direct contact. USA-based support organizations exist for the purpose of supporting and simplifying cash grants to non-profit conservation groups in other countries without the need for bank charges but with full security and accountability. Many of these are US-based offices of existing country-based conservation support groups. We plan to find more of these and work with them as partners to help set up no-cost secure funding disbursement mechanisms for other countries.

Conservation GIS Leadership Program: Progress towards 3-year goals, as of 12-2005:

Activity 2:· Evaluate and improve Program

Activity 2:· Evaluate and improve Program Evaluate grantee work and improve/modify program Evaluate impact on local conservation NGOs

The design of an evaluation and improvement program is 5% complete. As of the 12/2005 reporting date, there had only been 3 months since the first leadership disbursement, which was not enough time to get status reports.

The initial list of subactivities was revised and expanded as part of the design. The following details each subactivity in light of the activities included in it during Year 1 of the program.

The following subactivities are now identified as distinct tasks with program management procedures and policies that are under discussion:



(None as of 12/2005 reporting date)


Leader Status Reports Midterm Leader Program evaluations

Leadership Program Risk Assessment and Mitigation proceduresLeader Agreements for sharing maps, data, photos

-Leader Status Reports-Midterm Leader Program evaluations

Lessons Learned re Project Reporting Timelines:From Section III of the GBMF Proposal, "Dissemination of results, data storage and availability""Status reports that describe both the successes and the challenges at each stage of each Leader's program will be required of all Leadership grantees and will fulfill the need of the partnership for internal evaluation and course corrections, as necessary. We will summarize and share these documents among grantees and related partners, and may post parts of them to the SCGIS website for public download. "

Initial results indicate that it will take much longer to get reports and materials back from grantees than initially thought. The problems associated with starting new programs in developing countries indicate that it is more reasonable to expect initial materials about 9-12 months after startup funding rather than the 3-6 months we had originally assumed. Because these grants are being made to people with whom we already enjoy a strong, long-term relationship, we feel that the risk of non-performance is minimal. Because each program is a custom proposal reflecting what each leader most wants to do in their country and feels most qualified to do, we are confident that the risk of non-performance due to grant administration decisions or lack of effort from the leadership grantee is minimized.

-Leadership Program Risk Assessment and Mitigation procedures

Lessons Learned re project risk assessment strategies:"Risk 1. Providing money to Leaders who do not accomplish the intended program goalsRisk 2. Funding a Leader who does not positively benefit local NGOsRisk 3. Funding a Leader who takes much longer than anticipated to achieve a result"

In our initial meetings with leaders and our initial selections, it became clear that most of the projects we are looking at are by necessity multiple-year projects. We will need to account for some sort of ongoing funding to help these projects continue to move along. Fortunately, the amount of this ongoing funding islow so we expect to be able to still support the same number of startup programs each year, with a fraction of the overall grant budget being devoted to continuation funds of already-started programs.

Lessons Learned from the Conditional Funding Schedule proposed:From Section I: "Grant Budget Plan "


"Budget Note: To mitigate performance risk, we plan to distribute the funds to each Leadership program grantee according to basic program milestones, as follows:20% upon acceptance of their initial proposal so they can begin planning and prep50% upon receipt of their formal budget and work plan to pay for initial costsFinal 30% upon receipt of final project report"

In practice, each leadership grant was based on each candidate submitting a formal proposal to fund specific projects in their home area related to building SCGIS capacity. The proposal had widely varying needs and schedules for funding, so it was not possible to apply a specific % distribution rule. Instead for most grants it worked best to allocate about 1/3d of the grant amount as startup funds, with a report on startup activities and a revised, specifically focussed proposal needed to complete the first year's work due by approximately Dec 31st, but again this date may vary depending on each grantee's specific proposal, timelines and other local conditions. It has turned out that none of them have the spare funds needed to pay for the projects themselves, so the idea of giving the final 50% at the end of the project won't work.

-Leader Agreements for sharing maps, data, photos Data sharing issues for Leaders are the same as for Scholars, please see detailed discussion under Scholar Data Sharing issues discussion.


SCGIS International Support Program: 2005 Mid Term Status Report

3-year goals as listed in the formal grant agreement:

Activity 1:· Support and strengthen SCGIS operations, coordination and International training Increase SCGIS Membership by 50%· Increase membership renewals by 50%

Activity 2:· Raise additional $100,000 (or FTE equivalent) to support SCGIS capacity building programs

SCGIS International Support Program: Progress towards 3-year goals, as of 12-2005:

Activity 1:· Support and Strengthen SCGIS Operations

The primary focus of this area was in finding formal logistical support for the annual SCGIS international conference. This conference has grown from 30 to 300 people relying solely on one volunteer coordinator. A change in that volunteer's employment meant they could only function as an advisor, but SCGIS was unsuccessful at finding any new volunteers able to take on the many months of full-time work required to coordinate the conference. For some time it was in doubt if we could even have a conference any more. Some way to donate professional conference management services had to be found. In it's role as a co-sponsor of this grant, ESRI stepped forward and agreed to donate whatever hours, services and equipment would be needed to organize the SCGIS annual conference from 2005 onward.. is currently no category to account for this in the current grant but the value to SCGIS is around $60k A secondary focus was supporting Prashant Hedao, the SCGIS international networks coordinator, to take advantage of any strategic conference presentation and chapter networking opportunities that might be appropriate. This was difficult because Mr. Hedao is playing a lead role in local village planning and recovery in both the Katrina-impacted areas of India and the earthquake-damaged areas of Pakistan, so his availability to travel in 2005 was severely limited. Nevertheless, the first ever GIS user group meeting in Mainland China was held in late 2005. One of the organizers of this conference was a very early SCGIS scholar, before it was even called SCGIS, and was keen to make Conservation GIS an important theme of this first meeting. Because there had only been one Chinese SCGIS scholar before and given the global importance of this country it was deemed essential that Prashant participate in this conference. His full report is due in Spring of 2006 and will be included in the next annual report. A third area was the support for Conservation GIS training at the Society for Conservation Biology annual meeting in Brazil. With help from the Society for Conservation GIS, trainers were arranged to teach GIS classes at this meeting, and SCGIS materials were handed out. ESRI donated all of the support costs in this case, at an estimated value of $12k

Activity 1:· Support and strengthen SCGIS operations, coordination and International training Increase SCGIS Membership by 50%· Increase membership renewals by 50%

From Jan 1 to July 1, 2005, SCGIS had 294 membersAccording to the credit card transactions alone we had 200 new or renewing members from January 1-December 31, 2005. Add to this 73 from ESRI site and then add to this 21 cheques. So 294 new or renewing members in 2005.


Right now the SCGIS database and website lists 1406 members, which reflects the tremendous backlog of work that needs to be done to update both, which has so far proven beyond the abilities of SCGIS's all-volunteer workforce. Helping and supporting with the membership data and website is one of the eventual goals of this program activity. From July 26-August 2 (Conference time) there were 74 credit card transactions on our own web site plus the 73 from the ESRI site: 147 of these renewals were related to Conference time either ESRI or SCGIS.

Activity 2· Raise Additional $100k or EquivalentThe ESRI staff managing this program pro-bono are professional grantmakers and scholarship support staff. We are not primarily proposal writers and some of the time and resources that would be devoted to new proposals would come at the expense of our existing grant and support programs. In addition, we feel that the distinctive part of this program is the partnership it represents between a traditional grantmaker and a philanthropically-oriented commercial firm and feel that there is a strong justification for deepening and refining that partnership as a priority rather than arbitrarily looking for new donors per se. As a corollary, time that other non-profits might invest in new proposals we find more efficient to devote to building support agreements within ESRI itself, a 4,000-person institute with considerable in-kind resources to offer if one can negotiate the proper agreements. The agreement to donate conference management services above is one example. We are not avoiding new proposals, we are just carefully evaluating the time needed to build new proposals and relationships with the anticipated short and long term rewards and carefully prioritizing our time so that it can be used most efficiently and productively. As of Dec, 2005, we had secured a commitment from one other Scholarship donor to provide an additional $18,000 in funding. This is from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and is earmarked for Latin American scholars to be jointly selected by SCGIS and USFWS. We anticipate making similar arrangements with Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

Activity 2:· Raise additional $100,000 (or FTE equivalent) to support SCGIS capacity building programs

As of Dec, 2005:ESRI Logistical Support: 19.6k ESRI Conference Management Support $21.1kESRI Equipment rental and travel support: $20kUSFWS Grant Agreement: $18k

The total value is around $80k. With $100k as our 3-year goal we are doing well. Because there will be 2 different scholarship programs and venues in 2006 we anticipate that year's total support to exceed $100k for 2006 alone and be close to $200k overall.


Appendix 1: Scholarship Program Application: International Review Procedure

Application review is a 2-step process designed to maximize efficiency and allow the greatest time to be spent on the most challenging or complex applicants. This is done by a fixed scoring regime applied to each applicant by at least 3 reviewers, at least one of whom does an in-depth "detailed" review on just a few applicants, while the remaining reviewers cover many or all of the applicants on a country or sector-specific basis. The pool of reviewers consists of GIS experts in many different disciplines from 18 different countries covering a complete range of circumstances, challenges and considerations in resources, technology and biodiversity. For 2005, the countries included: Cambodia, Colombia, India, Italy, Madagascar, Mexico, Russia, U.K. and U.S.A. The 3 SCGIS Program heads review and score all applications as a quality control. Any applicant who obtains a consensus between all 3-4 independent reviews of either "excellent" or "rejected" is automatically accepted or rejected accordingly. The actual review meetings and detailed discussions may therefore concentrate on only those reviews where there was controversy. In previous years, the fractions in these 3 categories are normally about 30% accepted, 30% rejected, 30% to discuss. Out of the over 70 applicants in 2005, the ratios instead were more like 45% accepted, 45% discuss, and only 10% rejected outright.

Appendix 2: List of ESRI-Donated GIS Courses taken by Scholars and Leaders Advanced Analysis with ArcGISArcIMS AdministrationArcSDE Administration for SQL ServerBuilding Geodatabases IBuilding Geodatabases IICartography with ArcGISGeodatabase Design ConceptsIntroduction to ArcGIS IIntroduction to ArcGIS IIIntroduction to ArcIMSIntroduction to Geoprocessing Scripts Using PythonIntroduction to Programming ArcObjects with VBAProgramming MapObjects with Visual BasicWorking with ArcGIS Spatial Analyst


Appendix 3: Technology Granting Program Review and Allocation Procedure

Technology grants were developed and allocated according to a points system, which took into account the following criteria: 1. Each candidate's own rankings in the original scholarship/leadership review 2. Their stated preferences and priorities 3. The specific needs, program and resources of the candidate 4. Consultation with developing country hardware experts regarding the best hardware strategies for cost-effectiveness, reliability and overall cost of ownership.

$7k was requested and provided from the Moore grant funds to help obtain hardware for the scholars and interns. Clearly the challenge would be to leverage this amount to support the needs of nearly 40 scholars. At only $175 per scholar it was not sufficient by itself to do anything meaningful. In addition, many scholars came from countries where hardware conditions were poor and repair services unavailable, so hardware chosen needed to be tough and flexible, able to fulfill different needs and maintain usefulness in spite of failures. Finally, we couldn't pay the normally exorbitant costs required by shippers who can safely and reliably get computers into tropical countries so we had to pick items scholars could hand-carry back on the plane. This is about as mutually exclusive a set of requirements as you can find. After extensive consultations with the scholars themselves regarding the most critical hardware needs and discussions with other developing country technology support experts, it was decided to seek out donors of used laptop computers who adopted equipment policies favoring reliability, and to carefully plan upgrades to ensure the maximum extended useable life per upgrade dollar spent. This approach favored items like external hard drives that could easily be used on other machines, and made expensive, single function RAM upgrades subject to intense scrutiny. GPS grants were very easy to justify in these policies but nearly all sub-$500 GPS units are notoriously unreliable in forest settings. An international canvass of field GPS users for the best, most reliable field unit resulted in the consensus agreement on the Garmin GPS 12 and 12XL. Unfortunately, Garmin does not donate so it took weeks of negotiation with them to arrange a bulk purchase of 80 GPS units at a 40% discount from retail, which made the units affordable within our limits. ESRI agreed to donate about 40 secondhand Compaq laptops for the scholars. Only about half of these had the requisite 512mb Ram needed to run GIS properly, and drive space was limiting. Finally, a points system was set up that allowed each scholar to prioritize among the different hardware grant core options and accessories so that a customized hardware grant could be set up for them. Because we were able to stretch our hardware budget more than initially anticipated, we were able to increase every scholar's hardware grant late in the program and add on their next most requested item for every scholar.

The actual hardware options that were finally offered to the scholars were: 512mb or more RAM laptop suitable for normal current GIS functions 256mb or less RAM laptop suitable for office functions and rudimentary GIS Garmin GPS 12 Garmin GPS 12 XL with External Amplified Antenna (indicated as the best GIS for internationalwork in tropical forest canopy by many experienced researchers) 80 GB external USB drive, of the most reliable type available RAM upgrade to bring a 256 Laptop to 512mb 1gb external USB pen drive

Depending upon our cost for item and the points "cost", the scholar's own needs, their indicated preferences, and their final review score, up to 4 of the items on the list might be offered to them as part of their grant. About 5 scholars elected to purchase additional hardware using additional funds from their home countries, the largest of which was 30 GPS units to equip all of the wildlife rangers of the Kenya Wildlife Service. Many software grants were distributed directly to grantees in their home countries prior to arrival for training. For those who can qualify this is preferred, since the practical experience helps get much more value from the training courses. As a result, only 25 new software grant bundles were prepared and distributed directly during the training. The value of those 25 software grants was $187k. An additional 200 GIS textbooks were distributed during the training, with a value of $8k. The value of the software and textbook grants that were distributed to scholars both before arrival and in the months following their return home was another $75k


Appendix 4: Analysis of issues with existing deadlines

All 3 grant programs are currently operating on a June-June annual cycle, and the initial Moore grant funding corresponded with that schedule. With a first-year reporting deadline in December, some program areas are only half-complete and therefore can only provide partial results. Because of scheduling constraints and a shortened first-year reporting cycle, the Scholarship Area was the only one to complete it's year 1 program by reporting time. The Leadership area is 50% complete and the support area is 0% complete.

List of current annual milestones, with requested changes IN RED:

September 30th : mid-year reports compiled from each Scholarship and Leadership recipient. This date is too soon after the summer conferences to allow either scholars or leaders time to respond or to conduct any activities from which to report. The best we've been able to do is to get Scholars to submit a single status report by December 1st. We request changing this reporting date to December 31st for SCGIS to TNC and combining mid-term and final reports into one submittal. We require this deadline because decisions about phase II Leadership grant disbursements as well as Scholarship reviews and awards all begin immediately after this date, so we have to go with whatever we can get from the prior summer scholars by that time. Leadership grant reports are less bound to a specific date because they are initiated all year long so any date is as good or bad as any other. However, because of the goal of involving leaders in the summer programs as well it is important to get leader reports concurrent with scholar reports for those leaders who were present during the summer.

March 15th Submit annual narrative reports describing progress and challenges in implementing capacity building programs. The report should include lessons learned and changes in strategic decisions and approaches. REQUEST to include this submittal as part of the Dec 31st report from SCGIS to TNC.

March 30th Submit annual financial reports describing expenditures of TNC funds. The financial reports will include an analysis of budget versus actual spending by outcome or output at the expense category level (e.g. salaries, contract fees, expenses). Where the variance exceeds 10 percent, a narrative explanation of such variances between the two should be provided. The financial report shall include total project spending, in addition to TNC-funded spending. THERE IS NEED FOR A FINANCIAL REPORT TO ALLOW SCGIS BOOKKEEPERS MEET THEIR FISCAL YEAR OBLIGATIONS. THIS SCGIS FINANCIAL REPORT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO SCGIS BY DECEMBER 1. WE propose that this financial report also serve as the annual report, allowing TNC 3 months processing time to include their figures and get it ready for submittal to Moore

April 30th Submit annual program plans and budgets describing SCGIS capacity building programs.BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO PUBLICIZE EACH YEAR'S PROGRAM BY DECEMBER OF THE YEAR PRIOR, INTERIM DECISIONS WILL HAVE TO BE MADE ABOUT THESE CHANGES BY NOVEMBER 30TH. IF DESIRED THEREFORE, AN INTERIM REPORT ON PROPOSED PLAN AND BUDGET CHANGES CAN BE SUBMITTED BY NOV 30TH ALONG WITH THE MID-YEAR REPORT.


Appendix 5: Summaries of 2005 Conservation GIS Leadership Proposals FundedBelow is a summary of each proposal accepted, listing it's primary proposed activities. After each activity is a short summary of the current status of that activity. Since most of these were not funded until August, there is little to report only 2 months after funding.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Conservation GIS: Information for Conservation in the Northwest of México.

A proposal from:PRONATURA A.C. NOROESTE

Project title Conservation GIS: Information for Conservation in the Northwest of México.Project goals To promote and support data sharing and information, provide GIS support and expertise to external NGO’s, to work closely with the local community and to communicate GIS best practices of data management to support the conservation of biodiversity and ecological process by hands on training workshops.Pronatura A.C. NoroesteJose M. Beltran, GIS Manager for PNO

Project Budget Total $20,000

Pronatura is the oldest and largest Mexican non- governmental nonprofit organization dedicated to the

conservation of Mexico's natural areas and resources. It was created in 1981 by a group of prominent

Mexican entrepreneurs concerned about the rapid degradation of habitats and natural resources in Mexico.

In 2001 Pronatura Península de Baja California was granted by the Conservation Technology Support

Program- CTSP (Grant ID # 2001-079) to support the creation of a "Center of Information for

Conservation" (CPIC) in Baja California. Since that date the CPIC has grow to become one of the three

regional programs of PNO playing a key role in the GIS Conservation providing with with GIS field work

& GIS analysis and GIS implementation to projects carried out by Pronatura in Baja California and

providing cartographic and GIS support to external NGO’s.

The CPIC GIS capacity and leadership to provide reliable and useful information has been a primary

component of the Private Lands Conservation Program who has achieved the legal protection of near 14

thousand hectares by creating community development alternatives.

To take the advantage of the regional integration of PNO of having a total geographic coverage in the

Northwest area, the CPIC needs to rescue valuable data from its 4 regional offices that is held in text files,

word tables, excel files or in an unshared or proprietary fashion and to integrate this data into standard GIS

database that allow the publication on Internet for public access. The financial support of the Conservation

GIS Leadership Program would allows us to visit the 4 regional offices in four states, rescue the data and

work in the integration of the conservation GIS databases.

...In the local community the CPIC has been participating with a team of secondary school educators as guest

team in the Ocean Explorers Project (OEP) carried out by the Center for Image Processing in Education

(CIPE) in California. The Ocean Explorers Project propose to explore technology while immersing teachers


and their students in the beauty and science of their local marine environment, introducing them to

professional visualization tools—geographic information systems (GIS) and image processing and analysis

(IPA)—that can be used to study the anthropology, biology, chemistry, ecology, economy, meteorology,

physiography, and sociology of southern California’s coastal waters and the Pacific Ocean.

Our Ocean Explorers Baja Team is lack of financial support to carry out the activities to develop the

community atlas project and to attend the meetings and workshops held in California because the OEP only

supports California schools and teachers. The support that the GIS Conservation Leadership Program could

provide us would be used as seed money to start our community atlas project and to raise more funds to be

able to attend the meetings and workshops in California.

Project objectives and activities.

1) Local GIS Support: To provide GIS support and expertise to minimum of three external NGO’s or

local organizations that work in conservation projects in the region and need urgent help to

manage, analyze and present their data into a GIS. We will deliver the products in an Arc Explorer

compatible format using the Arc Publisher extension so each organization would be able to make

simple queries or print their maps every time they want. All the information generated by this

support would be available in our website for public access.

2) GIS strong roots: To create and maintain a spatial data "clearing-house" or "library” with data

provided by the 4 regional offices of Pronatura in the Northwest, rescuing in this phase surveys of

bird counts and element occurrences of endangered or threatened species following the

methodology of the Natural Heritage Programs, for standardization purposes. Non sensitive data

would be available in our website for public access to provide information about important

habitats, wildlife corridors, status and location of rare and threatened species moving the regional

vision to a national and international knowledge.

3) GIS in the Community: To provide support to the Baja Ocean Explorers Teams (one elementary

school and one secondary school) to work in their community atlas project and to keep attending

the meetings and workshops of the Ocean Explorers Project that are held in California.

4) GIS communication: To prepare and organize 3 hands on training GIS workshops, with focus on

best practices of data management to support the conservation of biodiversity and ecological

process in Mexico. All the materials elaborated for the workshops would be public available in our

website.

5) GIS fun science and methodologies: To research new methods of wetlands field monitoring and

data acquisition by taking air photos by ballons and kites using conventional camera. The kite


aerial photography has been proved to obtain great high resolution images for small areas. We

would like to make a scientific research to prove the usefulness of this technology for monitoring

medium to small wetlands and integrate this info into a GIS.

Project Budget :Local GIS Support $6,000GIS strong roots $6,000GIS in the Community $3,000GIS communication $2,000GIS fun science and methodologies $3,000Total $20,000

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++PROMOTING APPLICATION OF GIS TO CONSERVATION IN KENYA

JG Nasser OLWEROMpala Research CentreP. O. Box 555, Nanyuki 10400, KENYAPhone: +254 (0) 62-32758/1Fax: +254 (0) 62-32750Website: www.mpala.org

Provisional Budget TOTAL $7,995

GIS is a multidisciplinary tool. For this reason, applications are varied and only limited by users’ imagination. Consequently, an association of GIS users can very quickly lack direction and focus unless there is a strong bond of discipline tying it together. Past efforts to bring together GIS users in Kenya have faced a lot of challenges due to lack of commitment of members and organisation for reasons that can best be explained by the varied nature of the organisations interests. It may be sufficient to argue that software is not reason enough to have cohesive grouping in a setting where users are few. Efforts to bring the desired unity and synergy are more likely to succeed with smaller groups brought together by interest of applications coupled with the technology. Such grouping would snugly fit in as important sub groups of umbrella groups such as the Kenya ESRI user group. Conservation, as a subject of great concern in Kenya would benefit greatly by having the players come together under the umbrella of GIS as an additional factor to their already common interest of managing Kenya’s resources. Such success can be extrapolated by the overwhelming success of the Society for Conservation GIS. Lessons can be learnt from the above organization and applicable activities replicated. It is worth mentioning that participation would be limited to persons and organisations directly participating in any manner of conservation effort to help prevent loss of focus.

OBJECTIVES

Following are the objectives of the proposal:

1. Develop a GIS conservation community in Kenya.2. Promote use of GIS for conservation in Kenya.


3. Develop a collective bargaining strategy for Conservation GIS Users.4. Showcase success of GIS as a tool for conservation.5. Create a link between Conservation GIS users in Kenya and other parts of the

world, Create a link to SCGIS and other broader groups.6. Facilitate exchange of ideas and technology between conservation organizations

in Kenya.7. Publish a periodic conservation GIS newsletter.

Following are some of the organizations that are targeted for this initiative:

Mpala Research Centre (www.mpala.org)Ogiek Campaign (www.ogiek.org)Friends of conservation (www.friendsofconservation.org [email protected])tembo.org [email protected] Wildlife service (www.kws.org)Forests, Trees and People Programme (www.fanworld.org/ftppesa/ftpp.htm) Lewa Wildlife Conservancy (www.lewa.org)LUCID(www.lucideastafrica.org)MARA Count (www.maasaimaracount.org)African Conservation Centre (www.conservationafrica.org)Laikipia Wildlife Forum(www.laikipia.org)Nature Kenya (www.naturekenya.org)Kipepeo Project (www.kipepeo.org)The Wildlife Trust (www.the-wildlife-trust.org)National Museums of Kenya(www.museums.or.ke)A Rocha(en.arocha.org)Forest Action Network http://www.fanworld.org/fan/aboutfan.htmSave the Elephants (www.save-the-elephants.org)Rhino Arc (www.rhinoark.org)William Holden Wildlife Foundation (www.whwf.org)IUCN (www.iucn.org)

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

In order to realize the above rather ambitious goals, the following activities are proposed:-

1. Baseline data survey

It is proposed that a baseline survey be done in all (or a good representative sample) conservation organizations in the country.

2. Familiarization workshop

The ability to work together will heavily depend on having personal and organizational commitment. This can only be achieved by bringing conservationist round a table to discuss and identify the need to work together and support each other.

2. Web site

Computing and Internet in Kenya is growing fast. This has encouraged the development of internet and email in Kenya. A web site is seen as a good common

http://www.iucn.org/

http://www.whwf.org/

http://www.rhinoark.org/

http://www.save-the-elephants.org/

http://www.fanworld.org/fan/aboutfan.htm

http://www.arocha.org/

http://en.arocha.org/home

http://www.museums.or.ke/

http://www.the-wildlife-trust.org/

http://www.kipepeo.org/

http://www.naturekenya.org/

http://www.laikipia.org/

http://www.conservationafrica.org/

http://www.maasaimaracount.org/

http://www.lucideastafrica.org/

http://www.lewa.org/

http://www.kws.org/

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.friendsofconservation.org/

http://www.ogiek.org/

http://www.mpala.org/


ground for members to publicise their work and obtain information that may be useful to them.

3. Email list serv

Email list servs have proved very useful tools for communication and discussion between interest groups. This list serv would be dedicated to discussion of issues unique to conservation in Kenya and specifically with respect to GIS and to spread new ideas.

4. Newsletter

In order to cater for the general public and conservationists who do not have access to the web, a newsletter is proposed that would carry reports on activities and other news.

5. Presentation Workshop

As a means of sharing work done and encouraging personal networking, it is proposed that presentation workshops are held initially twice a year.

5. Free Conservation GIS Training

In order to take care of organizations that are not well developed in GIS or those that have no GIS set up, free GIS courses will be organized periodically. Such courses will be designed to give good introduction to GIS and to demonstrate practical applications to GIS.

PROVISIONAL BUDGET (SEPT 2005-SEPT 2006)1. Stationery $2002. Postage $1002. Familiarization Workshop

a) Accomodation & food ($33 x 20 people x 3 days) $1980b) Transport $600c) Communication $200

3. Domain Registration $154. Web Design (one time) $4005. Web Hosting $1206. List Serv Hosting $4807. Newsletter (Design and printing – 2 issues) $15008. Presentation Workshop (One workshop) $3009. GIS Training (One session mid 2006)

a. Honoraria for instructor $200b. Hire of 10 computers 2 days $1000c. Hire of training room $400

10. Travel (for organizer 6 trips to Nairobi) $40011. Telephone $100

TOTAL $7,995


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++GIS support for Biological and Cultural Diversity Conservation in Altai-Sayan

Ecoregion

Project Author: Mikhail Paltsyn, ARKHAR NGO, Altai Republic, Russia. Phone: (38822)-226-17. E-mail: [email protected]

Project Location: South Siberia (Krasnoyarsky Kray, Altai and Tuva Republics), Russia; Eastern Kazakhstan; Western Mongolia.

Initial Phase Duration: 4,5 months (August 15th – December 31st 2005)

Initial Phase budget: $2,000

Abstract, project description and goal: see general proposal GIS support for Biological and Cultural Diversity Conservation in Altai-Sayan Ecoregion

Objectives of the initial phase are following:

1. Initiating Conservation GIS projects in 4 Nature Reserves of Altai-Sayan Ecoregion (Sayano-Shushensky Zapovednik, “Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina” Zapovednik, Administration for PAs of Mongol Altai and Administration for PAs of Uvs Lake Basin)

2. Starting construction of GIS databases for protection and management of the Nature Reserves

3. Starting International Altai argali and Snow Leopard Monitoring Program in Russia and Mongolia.

Outputs of the project:

1. 4 Nature Reserves in Altai-Sayan Ecoregion are involved in Conservation GIS development. Their staff is provided with additional GIS and GPS training. Necessary spatial data are found and used. Conservation projects, which require GIS support, are identified.

2. 4 Nature Reserves in Altai-Sayan started to construct GIS databases for protection and management of their areas. Sets of necessary database layers are identified, topographic base for the Nature Reserves’ clusters is made. Outline of a guidebook for GIS development in Nature Reserves is created.

3. First version of GIS database for Altai argali and snow leopard monitoring is installed at 4 Nature Reserves in Russia and Mongolia. Additional data on argali and snow leopard distribution in Western Mongolia are collected and entered into the database. These data are used for conservation project development.

Total budget: $15,000Outputs of the project:

4. Spatial databases for monitoring of snow leopard and Altai argali are built for the whole Altai-Sayan Ecoregion, distributed and set to work at proposed monitoring



centers. International monitoring system for these endangered species is put to action and helpful for their protection.

5. 4 more Zapovedniks in Altai-Sayan has working GIS databases for protection and management of their areas and actively use GIS to support conservation and research in the region.

6. Spatial database and catalog of all accessible GIS data for Altai-Sayan Ecoregion are built. Catalog is distributed among conservation groups in Altai-Sayan. These groups have free access to the data and use them to support conservation projects.

7. SC GIS has new active members in Central Asia and results of their conservation work are presented at annual SC GIS conference and published in ESRI press.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++A Proposal to Establish the Society for Conservation GIS

Philippine Chapter: SCGIS PilipinasProposed 2005-2006 Budget: $29, 233.21

Main Objective:

The purpose of this document is to seek financial assistance to support the establishment of the Society for Conservation GIS Chapter in the Philippines, which will be locally known as SCGIS Pilipinas, and to support the promotion and implementation of its activities in the preservation of the country’s natural resources and cultural heritage.

I Introduction:

The Society for Conservation Geographic Information Systems (SCGIS) Pilipinas is a non-profit, volunteer organization in the Philippines currently being established in response to the growing need of promoting the use geospatial technologies in the conservation of culture and the environment. It aims to assists conservationists nationwide in using GIS through communication, networking, training, scholarships, and data sharing.

The SCGIS Pilipinas will provide the following main services to its members: (1) an annual SCGIS Conference held in tandem with GIS day worldwide, (2) scholarships and fee waivers to the SCGIS Pilipinas Conferences, (3) trainings, and (4) networking and mentorship services, including the SCGIS Pilipinas e-group, SCGIS Pilipinas website, electronic newsletters, campaigns and publications. In addition, as a Chapter of the SCGIS in the United States, members will have the opportunity of participating at the SCGIS Annual Conference held in tandem with the ESRI User Conference in the US.

Goals and Objectives:

Goal 1: Provide professional development opportunities by assisting individuals and institution in acquiring GIS skills through trinings and via-internet turorials and mentorships.

Objective 1A: Provide at least 5 scholarships to enable under-represented and underprivileged conservationists to use GIS and participate in SCGIS Pilipinas trainings and other events. Scholarships can include airfare, accommodation and meals along with the waiving of SCGIS Pilipinas training fees and conference registration fees.


Objective 1B: Design and conduct GIS trainings and programs with emphasis on participatory/community mapping, and enhancing the conservation of local cultural heritage and natural resources using GIS tools.

Objective 1C: Coordinate with strategic partners, such as the ESRI Conservation Program, the Society for Conservation GIS, and the local ESRI distributor to provide any financial, technical and logistics assistance and support for conservation GIS short courses, seminars and workshops.

Goal 2: Promote free flow of data and technology in the country.

Objective 2A: Promote low cost or free access to publicly available GIS data. Build up a repository of GIS data and/or coordinate with data centers to serve conservation GIS data over the Internet.

Objective 2B: Link, support and assists agencies, institutions and peoples’ organizations with GIS capacities to support at low cost or pro bono local communities, agencies, and NGOs with no GIS capacity or access to basic mapping technology and data.

Objective 2C: Provide conservation maps, data, and information available to support pro bono members and local communities who have no access to maps or GIS technology.

Objective 2D: Promote Conservation GIS science, tools and methodologies applicable to local needs and settings.

Objective 2E: Disseminate the applications of GIS in conservation research and advocacy.

Objective 2F: Promote an efficient and effective usage of different spatial information though data sharing.

Goal 3: Build partnerships and create a network of conservation GIS users and agencies to promote networking, mentoring relationships and the use of GIS tools in conservation.

Objective 3A: Host an annual conference to promote information and technology exchange and to develop a network of GIS specialists to support conservation efforts nationwide.

Objective 3B: Serve as mentors, resource persons and facilitators in seminars, conferences, and workshops related to mapping technologies and its applications to various conservation issues. Train a pool of speakers and develop presentations promoting the GIS in conservation.

Objective 3C: Establish a SCGIS Pilipinas e-group to strengthen networking and to provide an active discussion forum for each member’s GIS activities and SCGIS events.

Objective 3D: Create an SCGIS Pilipinas website to provide the latest GIS conservation information to current and potential members.

Objective 3E: Publish electronic newsletters to SCGIS Pilipinas members at least twice a year.

Objective 3F: Promote GIS Conservation campaigns and distribute publications, GIS-related materials, and other goods to current and potential members at least once a year.

Objective 3G: Participate in GIS exhibitions, as well as design and create exhibits promoting SCGIS and the use of GIS in various conservation activities nationwide.

Goal 4: Establish standards for conservation data interchange. Objective 4A: Develop a set of guidelines for responsible production and dissemination of conservation GIS data, map products and services for SCGIS members.


Goal 5: Strengthen SCGIS Pilipinas as an organization through increased membership and improved organizational procedures.

Objective 5A: Attain legal identity as an organization through the acquisition of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration certificate by November 2005.

Objective 5B: Implement the SCGIS Adhoc Committee to act as an advisory council to the society and to handle overall planning, policy development and project implementation.

Objective 5C: Maintain a membership base with 75% renewing members and 10% increase per annum. Target 10 new members through the SCGIS Pilipinas Annual conference each year. Promote memberships through T-shirt sales, scholarships and other incentives.

Objective 5D: Develop a marketing and fundraising plan by October 2006. This plan will include the organization’s fundraising strategy and marketing tools used to increase membership and ensure the organization achieves its goals and objectives.

Objective 5E: Submit mid-term reports detailing the progress made on tasks and projects outlined in the main proposal to SCGIS. First report is due December 31st, 2005. This report will include tasks pending and accomplished, any revisions to the proposal, staff time support as provided by volunteers and the Adhoc Committee, the results of the time and grant funds expended or financial statements, and the funding and support needed for the next steps.

Objective 5F: Submit Final reports to SCGIS on the grant provided after one-year from date of acceptance. Details of the report will be determined during the mid-term report review and assessment.

V. Strategies

Summary: This section contains the main activities, as well as the standard operating procedures associated with the SCGIS Pilipinas annual conference, distribution of SCGIS Pilipinas scholarships, the design and conduct of trainings, popularizing GIS, sharing of spatial data, and other SCGIS Pilipinas organizational development issues.

A. Annual Conference

1. The annual SCGIS Pilipinas conference will be the venue for individuals, groups or organizations using GIS for the conservation of the environment and culture to come together. It will be an opportunity of sharing and learning about the conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage through geospatial technologies. Furthermore, the conference will provide forums, workshops and trainings for the attendees.

2. The conference objectives are: (1) to promote SCGIS Pilipinas and its mission; (2) to expand SCGIS Pilipinas membership; (3) to provide networking opportunities for SCGIS Pilipinas members; and (4) to provide a sense of community for conservation users.

3. The conference will provide a forum for users to provide paper presentations, present posters or map presentations, network with other conservation organizations, participate in trainings, forums, and workshops.


4. The conference will stress the theme of conservation of natural resources and cultural heritage in the country.

5. The conference fee structure will be based on the facilities charged to SCGIS Pilipinas. SCGIS Pilipinas will strive to keep the registration fees for the annual conference at an affordable level and will provide fee waivers upon review of requests from the membership. Registration fee waivers will not be granted to non-members.

6. Conference fees will consist of the following costs: (1) catering; (2) venue rentals; (3) lodging (optional); (4) logistical support and fees such as transportation costs, audio-visual equipment, computer rentals; (5) subsidized transportation to conference site; (6) conference kits and (7) 15% contingency fund to cover scholarships, waived registration fees, and other expenses.

B. Scholarships

1. Establish credible application and selection process for scholarship recipients. Each member or organization will nominate individuals and final selection will be approved by the core members/officers.

2. Formalize grantee-tracking program for all scholarship recipients. For instance, grant recipients may be required to publish a short article in the e-newsletter and/or website.

C. Training

1. Training designs will be contextualized based on local settings and current situations in the country. Training modules in the form of powerpoint presentations and exercise book materials will address local needs using existing digital spatial data for processing and analysis.

2. Local materials similar to the ESRI’s Tool Guide and “Georeferencing Scanned Maps Guide” will be designed and produced to set local standards such as common datum for the Philippines to minimize confusion among local users. This will be made available through the website.

3. The strategy in conducting training will be the establishment of ‘GIS learning cells’ throughout the country through its members. Since the current core members have projects in different regions of the country, they will be encouraged to develop a local ‘GIS learning cell’. Members are expected to introduce SCGIS Pilipinas in their respective project sites, assist in assessing the local GIS needs, and arrange for appropriate training courses in the area. Training expenses will be paid for by SCGIS Pilipinas, however, organizations or individuals are encouraged to provide counterpart contributions (cash or kind) for this particular activity.

4. For its first year of operations, SCGIS is committed to providing two 1-week trainings for the Visayas and Mindanao Island regions. The number of trainings conducted by the society is expected to increase annually, particularly after the refinement of the training processes and the increase in memberships.

D. Popularization of GIS

1. This strategy is intended towards the general public particularly the secondary students, college and university students, academic institutions, grassroots communities and officials of local government units (LGUs) in the country. This is in recognition of GIS technology as an essential


tool enabling diverse groups to integrate information on the environment, resources and human activities through the availability of digital base maps and various thematic maps. Its application in the Philippines is limited to commercial and government institutions, the academe, and a few NGOs but its potential for data integration, academic collaboration, and sharing of resources is somewhat neglected.

2. The objectives are: (1) To address the spatial literacy of Filipinos, (2) Convince and persuade LGU officials on the importance of geospatial information and databases in policy and decision-making; and (3) Encourage collaborative and participatory approach in any GIS undertakings.

3. This strategy will be addressed through the following activities: the development of the website, distribution of publications, exhibits, and production of SCGIS goods or promotional materials (shirts, stickers, posters).

4. The official website can be accessed at www.scgispilipinas.org. The site will provide information about the Society (vision, mission, goals), its current activities, and the resources available (training modules, tool guides, etc.). E-forums will handle discussions on GIS-related issues, as well as a venue for seeking advices on GIS methodologies and analytical processes. Links to other important sites relevant to the Philippines will also be provided.

5. Publications are going to be in the form of poster maps and articles prepared by its members. Poster maps will feature conservation work in various regions of the country, while articles will be published in the website and e-newsletter.

6. Exhibits will be conducted in various schools and in conservation-related conferences held in different regions throughout the country.

E. Data Sharing

1. This strategy seeks to promote free access to existing digital spatial data from organizations with significant spatial data holdings and who are willing to share data to the public. It aims to democratize data access and supply data and information to where it is really needed.

2. Under this strategy, SCGIS Pilipinas will develop, together with the University of the Philippines- Department of Geography, an internet-based spatial data center. The center will be managed by the Department of Geography and will provide downloadable digital spatial data, reports and publications from various organizations concerned with Philippine culture and the environment. By providing conservation GIS data on-line, redundancy and duplication of efforts in digitizing data are minimized, saving a lot of time, energy and money.

F. Networking

1. This strategy aims to collaborate and establish a local GIS network with various institutions with GIS capacity, located in various regions of the country, and are willing to share their GIS resources (plotter, GPS, scanner, etc). Such is the case with Anthrowatch in Manila, wherein their partner institutions are allowed free access to their wide area scanner.

2. Given the lack of Internet access in some areas, the local GIS network will act as nodes for receiving and distributing available digital spatial data to its circle of users.

http://www.scgispilipinas.org/


3. Decentralize knowledge and skills in GIS from Manila center towards other urban centers and/or provinces nationwide.

4. Collaborate with SCGIS Borneo and SCGIS Indonesia to establish the SCGIS Southeast Asia Network.

G. Organization Development

V. Timeline of Proposed Activities for 2005-2006

Date Main Activities

October 2005

Submission of main proposal to SCGIS US

SEC Registration

Development of SCGIS Pilipinas Website

Promotion of SCGIS Pilipinas at the Philippine ESRI Users Conference in Manila (poster and brochures)Promotion of SCGIS Pilipinas at the National Marine Symposium in Palawan (poster and promotional materials)

November 2005 First SCGIS Pilipinas Annual Conference and Launching Event

December 2005 Submission of Mid-term Progress Report to SCGIS-USJanuary 2006 Settting-up of the Spatial Data Center in Dept of Geography-

University of the PhilippinesGIS training for Visayas

February 2006 GIS training for MindanaoMarch 2006 Operationalization of Spatial Data Center

Project Name: International Conservation GIS … · Web viewCapacity Building Partnership YEAR 1...

Documents

Transcript of Project Name: International Conservation GIS … · Web viewCapacity Building Partnership YEAR 1...