Www.iabin.net IABIN-GEF PROJECT Lessons Learned in Four Years of Implementation Boris Ramírez and...

www.iabin.netwww.iabin.net

IABIN-GEF PROJECTLessons Learned in Four Years

of Implementation

Boris Ramírez and Rita BesanaIABIN Secretariat

IABIN Vision Meeting

Washington, DC, 28 – 29 October, 2008


Background and Objectives

The activities implemented have been based on the Project Implementation Plan (PIP)

How the PIP has been interpreted has greatly influenced how well the activities have addressed the needs

With this in mind we will highlight what went well and what could have been better


IABIN Is IABIN Necessary?

Fills gaps: Standards, tools, training, grants

Bridges DP – FP Bridges Regions Integration of different

type of data Is IABIN feasible?

Concept is proven Needs a lot of

coordination (general & national)

Needs Funds

Data

Providers

Thematic

Networks

Focal

Points

Coordination

Global

Networks


Project Planning

What Went Well Letters of support/co-financing to obtain GEF funding from 78 organizations


Project Planning

What Could Have Been Better Organizations who gave co-financing letters should have been informed of the responsibility they were acquiring to report on a semester basis on the co-financing they offered -- very few sent co-financing reports during implementation because it required work and they gained nothing from project

Too much time was allowed to pass between the obtaining of these letters and any communication with the organizations (2003 to 2005) – many of the people who signed them were no longer there


Project Planning

What Could Have Been Better Consultants who carried out the Regional Analysis in 2003 promised to send reports to the organizations but none were sent – this caused initial distrust in IABIN during project implementation. Final reports should have been sent to all participants.

Same thing happened with initial Consultant for Mid Term Review


Physical Host of the Secretariat

In City of Knowledge, Panama What Went Well

Support in facilities, utilities, equipment, administration of donations, introduction to potential donors, secretarial assistance Panama is centric and convenient in terms of travel, not too expensive CoK Hemispheric Hub for other organizations (UN, Red Cross, etc.) and offers many opportunities for networking Panama offers good quality of life for the Secretariat staff vis-à-vis the salaries paid


Physical Host of the Secretariat

In City of Knowledge, Panama

What Could Have Been Better Better choice of building/internet access provider other than CATHALAC


Project Implementation Plan (PIP)

What Went WellRequesting a 2:1 co-financing from CIs to implement the TNs – a first for a GEF Project



What Could Have Been BetterImplementation of pilot projects in selected countries would have achieved a greater involvement from at least some countries -- better results with the funds available instead of spreading thin among 34 countries



What Could Have Been Better The contractual relationship with the Coordinating Institutions should have been better thought out in the signing of the agreements given requirement that each CI contribute 2:1 funding

Implementation of Components was planned to happen at the same time while the results from Component 1 were needed to implement Component 2 and Component 3


Implementation Strategy

What Could Have Been Better The Hemisphere has Regions with different interests,

degree of development, integration and capacity – it would have been better to be able to target regions depending on their needs and the ability/resources of IABIN to respond to those (e.g. In the Caribbean there is a great technological obstacle which IABIN could have addressed)

It would have given better results in some countries to have identified the few/key data providers and target them directly


Implementation Strategy

What Could Have Been Better No funds earmarked in the PIP for outreach to

potential donors nor potential data providers

Naïve concept of how to achieve sustainability Requiring the Director to fundraise for his/her own salary

when there were no products yet ready to sell nor resources to cultivate donors

Expecting that requiring co-financing from CIs would cause these to become “owners” of the TN and to carry out their own fundraising to maintain it


Selection of a Technical Secretariat

What Went Well Good division of knowledge, skills and experience to

complement each other Multidisciplinary team Team work In-depth knowledge of IABIN, its stakeholders, the

implementation of the GEF Project Contacts in the global conservation and bioinformatics

community Main face of IABIN Oversight of the Thematic Networks Outreach to potential data providers Organizational memory Insights for IABIN´s future


Technical Secretariat

What Could Have Been Better

Closer follow up with Coordinating Institutions


Project ImplementationProject Implementation

What Went Well OAS as a Convener

IABIN Member Countries respect the OAS and respond to its summons

Opened opportunities at Summits and other Fora

Good management of administrative processes


Project Implementation

What Could Have Been BetterDecision-making Process

OAS made almost all the decisions – conceptual, operational and administrative

Unclear Roles and Responsibilities between OAS and Secretariat

Stronger Involvement from the IEC would have made a difference



What Could Have Been Better Decision-making process

More communication between OAS Project Manager and Secretariat staff for purposes of coordination, planning

Face-to-face meetings for planning and/or supervision (none were carried out)



What Could Have Been Better Decision-making Process – how it

should be IEC – conceptual and overarching decisions

Secretariat – Operational decisions, day by day

OAS – Establishment of administrative systems, management of contracts and agreements, enforcement of procurement rules and payment of bills


OutreachOutreach

What Could Have Been Better Many people/organizations see IABIN as only the GEF

Project.

Initiatives that are not part of the GEF Project are not considered as important for the Secretariat to cultivate (FAO Panama, CIDES, DGF)

Participation of Secretariat in international initiatives would give IABIN a wider range (GBIF, GEOSS, etc.)


Procurement Process

What Could Have Been Better Contracting of some of the key players would have been easier without having to open up bids – the strong players in the Hemisphere were known and could have been approached directly

Data content grantees could have been approached directly for a more uniform distribution of data providers from all countries


Selecting a Consortium Led by a Coordinating Institution for Each Thematic

Network What Went Well

Powerful idea of synergy of a Consortium

Experts/Leaders in their area

Leveraging for IABIN – technically and financially

Diversifying the risks – requesting a 2:1 co-financing from each CI


Establishment of Thematic Working Groups

What Went Well Information Technology TWG made possible the interoperability of the TNs

Added synergy and great knowledge to each TN

Created and cultivated camaraderie among members of TNs and others (e.g. GBIF, UT, etc.)


Development of Long-lasting Bioinformatics infrastructure

What Went Well Standards and protocols for each TN

Software – Data interoperability and exchange, data digitizing, portals, web templates

Unique contribution – Ecosystems


Capacity Building

What Went Well Grants to make data accessible

Training in the use of data digitizing and other tools

Unique contribution – awareness of alien invasive species even among scientist

One-to-one proposal development (only with PATN data providers)


Focal Points

What Went Well

IABIN's main face in the country

Link to country's individual bioinformatics needs

Main point for dissemination of information at the national level


Focal PointsFocal Points What Could Have Been Better

Only a few Focal Points respond and get involved Many Focal Points attend meetings but rarely participate of

discussions. Other times they send a substitute who has no background on IABIN

Great amount of time spent in sending messages with no response from FPs

No notification to OAS/Secretariat when a Focal Point changes or when an email address, phone number or other contact information changes – Secretariat and OAS have difficulty in reaching Focal Points without current information


Focal PointFocal Point


IABIN is a low priority for some FPs – other initiatives take their time and attention

If FP is not interested and does not carry out follow up, trainings and other capacity building are wasted

Opportunities missed for countries


Project Administration


Contract process too slow (e.g. donations that were approved in December 2007 have not yet been signed)

Legal processes caused several contracts to fall off (e.g. Catalog, ETN) – flexibility should prevail

Extremely complex processes – OAS-Secretariat-CIs-WB. OAS has to convince WB, WB takes its time to respond (sometimes months).


In Spite of Everything…

All of Us Together have come far!

A recent review of Project Objectives Shows they will be achieved by end of

Project

Thank you for your attention

Www.iabin.net IABIN-GEF PROJECT Lessons Learned in Four Years of Implementation Boris Ramírez and...

Documents

Transcript of Www.iabin.net IABIN-GEF PROJECT Lessons Learned in Four Years of Implementation Boris Ramírez and...