Suchergebnisse

The service model of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is being implemented in an increasing number of national biodiversity (BD) data services. While GBIF already shares >109 data points, national initiatives are an essential component: increase in GBIF-mediated data relies on national data mobilisation and GBIF is not optimised to support local use. The Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility (FinBIF), initiated in 2012 and operational since late 2016, is one of the more recent examples of national BD research infrastructures (RIs) – and arguably among the most comprehensive. Here, we describe FinBIF's development and service integration, and provide a model approach for the construction of all-inclusive national BD RIs. FinBIF integrates a wide array of BD RI approaches under the same umbrella. These include large-scale and multi-technology digitisation of natural history collections; building a national DNA barcode reference library and linking it to species occurrence data; citizen science platforms enabling recording, managing and sharing of observation data; management and sharing of restricted data among authorities; community-driven species identification support; an e-learning environment for species identification; and IUCN Red Listing (Fig. 1). FinBIF's aims are to accelerate digitisation, mobilisation, and distribution of biodiversity data and to boost their use in research and education, environmental administration, and the private sector. The core functionalities of FinBIF were built in a 3.5-year project (01/2015–06/2018) by a consortium of four university-based natural history collection facilities led by the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus. Close to 30% of the total funding was granted through the Finnish Research Infrastructures programme (FIRI) governed by the national research council and based on scientific excellence. Government funds for productivity enhancement in state administration covered c.40 % of the development and the rest was self-financed by the ...

The service model of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is being implemented in an increasing number of national biodiversity (BD) data services. While GBIF already shares >109 data points, national initiatives are an essential component: increase in GBIF-mediated data relies on national data mobilisation and GBIF is not optimised to support local use. The Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility (FinBIF), initiated in 2012 and operational since late 2016, is one of the more recent examples of national BD research infrastructures (RIs) – and arguably among the most comprehensive. Here, we describe FinBIF's development and service integration, and provide a model approach for the construction of all-inclusive national BD RIs. FinBIF integrates a wide array of BD RI approaches under the same umbrella. These include large-scale and multi-technology digitisation of natural history collections; building a national DNA barcode reference library and linking it to species occurrence data; citizen science platforms enabling recording, managing and sharing of observation data; management and sharing of restricted data among authorities; community-driven species identification support; an e-learning environment for species identification; and IUCN Red Listing (Fig. 1). FinBIF's aims are to accelerate digitisation, mobilisation, and distribution of biodiversity data and to boost their use in research and education, environmental administration, and the private sector. The core functionalities of FinBIF were built in a 3.5-year project (01/2015–06/2018) by a consortium of four university-based natural history collection facilities led by the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus. Close to 30% of the total funding was granted through the Finnish Research Infrastructures programme (FIRI) governed by the national research council and based on scientific excellence. Government funds for productivity enhancement in state administration covered c.40 % of the development and the rest was self-financed by the implementing consortium of organisations that have both a research and an education mission. The cross-sectoral scope of FinBIF has led to rapid uptake and a broad user base of its functionalities and services. Not only researchers but also administrative authorities, various enterprises and a large number of private citizens show a significant interest in the RI (Table 1). FinBIF is now in its second construction cycle (2019–2022), funded through the FIRI programme and, thus, focused on researcher services. The work programme includes integration of tools for data management in ecological restoration and e-Lab tools for spatial analyses, morphometric analysis of 3D images, species identification from sound recordings, and metagenomics analyses.

The Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility FinBIF receives, stores and manages biodiversity data mobilised in Finland, and shares the data through its own portal (species.fi) and through Global Biodiversity Information Facility GBIF. FinBIF's data policy (data policy) embraces the European FAIR data principles (FAIR - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable; Wilkinson (2016)) but also incorporates specific restrictions stemming from national legislation, researchers' needs, and data owners' requirements. Here, we describe how the necessary, due to various reasons from sensitivity of the data to research embargo, restrictions to openness have been defined and implemented on the policy level and in technical data infrastructure solutions. We hope to contribute to an improvement of data management in the international biodiversity data infrastructures. In Finland, the law prohibits public authorities from distributing occurrence data if this causes increased threat to endangered species. However, neither the definition of 'endangered species' nor guidelines for the evaluation of potential risk by openness of data are formulated. To enable mobilisation of datasets containing information on endangered species, FinBIF convened a task force commissioned to set rules on data distribution, which respect the spirit of the law. The task force consisted of representatives of relevant data holding authorities and it consulted a wide group of taxon experts and the species information community. First, a list of species, judged to be among those targeted by the spirit of the law, was created (sensitive species data). Then the rules of restriction were decided on for each of the species. Measures of restriction ranged from complete non-disclosure of data to temporal and spatial restrictions. The identified safeguards concerning the sensitive data management in all use cases led us to create a series of innovative solutions Researchers often wish to restrict the openness of data they have gathered for research purposes ...

The Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility FinBIF receives, stores and manages biodiversity data mobilised in Finland, and shares the data through its own portal (species.fi) and through Global Biodiversity Information Facility GBIF. FinBIF's data policy (data policy) embraces the European FAIR data principles (FAIR - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable; Wilkinson (2016)) but also incorporates specific restrictions stemming from national legislation, researchers' needs, and data owners' requirements. Here, we describe how the necessary, due to various reasons from sensitivity of the data to research embargo, restrictions to openness have been defined and implemented on the policy level and in technical data infrastructure solutions. We hope to contribute to an improvement of data management in the international biodiversity data infrastructures. In Finland, the law prohibits public authorities from distributing occurrence data if this causes increased threat to endangered species. However, neither the definition of 'endangered species' nor guidelines for the evaluation of potential risk by openness of data are formulated. To enable mobilisation of datasets containing information on endangered species, FinBIF convened a task force commissioned to set rules on data distribution, which respect the spirit of the law. The task force consisted of representatives of relevant data holding authorities and it consulted a wide group of taxon experts and the species information community. First, a list of species, judged to be among those targeted by the spirit of the law, was created (sensitive species data). Then the rules of restriction were decided on for each of the species. Measures of restriction ranged from complete non-disclosure of data to temporal and spatial restrictions. The identified safeguards concerning the sensitive data management in all use cases led us to create a series of innovative solutions Researchers often wish to restrict the openness of data they have gathered for research purposes These restrictions include embargo periods, limitations on the precision of data and controls on how the data is used. In many cases, however, researchers are willing to allow unrestricted official use of their data in certain cases such as for conservation management or land use planning. In these cases they will often allow storage and restricted use of exact data without an embargo. The same may be true for other data owners, such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or private citizens. To support restrictions to openness, while simultaneously securing mobilisation of valuable datasets, FinBIF applies data sharing contracts including, as a rule, a precondition to share the original data with the public authorities for official use under the Creative Commons 4.0 BY -licence (CC 4.0 BY). The technical solution to enabling the rather complex data policy is that FinBIF stores the collated data in two separate data warehouses: a public one for the distribution of fully open data and temporally and spatially coarsened sensitive data, alongside another containing all data but with restricted access to authorised users. In addition, to allow case-by-case release of restricted data, FinBIF has developed a data request function (Fig. 1). When users of the open data retrieve a dataset using, e.g., taxonomic and spatial filtering, they receive a search result stating whether there are restricted data available based on the filters used. In these cases a user can issue a data request, automatically distributed to all owners of data contained in the collated data batch. Agreeing on the principles about how to apply restrictions to data openness and how to define authoritative use, has not been easy given the lack of precedents. It has required thorough and inclusive consultation with both state administration, conservation practitioners, scientific specialists and lawyers. The two main cultural constraints to overcome have been (1) embracing the FAIR principles of truly 'as open as possible' and only 'as closed as (absolutely) necessary (European Commission 2016); and, perhaps surprisingly, (2) figuring out novel ways to work across different state administrative sectors to share data.

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find amodus vivendithat promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress.

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find amodus vivendithat promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress. ; Peer reviewed

The Nagoya Protocol (NP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity requires that genetic resource holders and users obtain, preserve and keep relevant documentation. Users and third parties need to be informed on terms of access, which utilisation is allowed, and which benefits need to be shared when respective genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge is utilised in the meaning of the NP. Following the recommendations in the Code of Conduct & Best Practices of the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) CETAF Legislations and Regulations Liaison Group 2019, institutions should implement appropriate data management systems to support compliance with the protocol and keep records on acquisition of biological material, utilization of genetic resources, transfers to third parties, benefits derived and shared, and deaccessioning of specimens or disposal of consumed samples. Here we describe how we have implemented the first set of tools to meet the NP requirements in the Kotka Collection Management System (CMS), which is used by eleven Natural History Museums in Finland. The Kotka CMS is used for storing and managing specimen data and for handling material transactions (loans, exchanges, donations and consumptive loans). Users can enter and store all necessary documentation for both incoming and outgoing material as material transactions, which hold information on e.g., the transaction type, description of the material, important dates, correspondent organization and contact person. Specimens are linked to transactions by their unique identifiers and each transaction also has a unique stable identifier. The first version of the tools for meeting the requirements of the Nagoya protocol on both in situ and ex situ accession of genetic resources have been integrated into the transaction section of the system. For genetic resource users to be able to enter, save and provide all the required information about an incoming genetic resource, we have implemented a set of fields to be completed in ...

The Nagoya Protocol (NP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity requires that genetic resource holders and users obtain, preserve and keep relevant documentation. Users and third parties need to be informed on terms of access, which utilisation is allowed, and which benefits need to be shared when respective genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge is utilised in the meaning of the NP. Following the recommendations in the Code of Conduct & Best Practices of the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) CETAF Legislations and Regulations Liaison Group 2019, institutions should implement appropriate data management systems to support compliance with the protocol and keep records on acquisition of biological material, utilization of genetic resources, transfers to third parties, benefits derived and shared, and deaccessioning of specimens or disposal of consumed samples. Here we describe how we have implemented the first set of tools to meet the NP requirements in the Kotka Collection Management System (CMS), which is used by eleven Natural History Museums in Finland. The Kotka CMS is used for storing and managing specimen data and for handling material transactions (loans, exchanges, donations and consumptive loans). Users can enter and store all necessary documentation for both incoming and outgoing material as material transactions, which hold information on e.g., the transaction type, description of the material, important dates, correspondent organization and contact person. Specimens are linked to transactions by their unique identifiers and each transaction also has a unique stable identifier. The first version of the tools for meeting the requirements of the Nagoya protocol on both in situ and ex situ accession of genetic resources have been integrated into the transaction section of the system. For genetic resource users to be able to enter, save and provide all the required information about an incoming genetic resource, we have implemented a set of fields to be completed in the transactions in Kotka CMS (Fig. 1). Users can record, for example, a possible IRCC number (Internationally Recognized Certificate of Compliance), acquisition date and providing country, description of the material, information on Prior Informed Consent, Mutually Agreed Terms, Material Transfer Agreement and other possible permits. The Finnish genomic resource legislation requires a notification within one month of acquisition to the Competent National Authority (CNA; The Finnish Environment Institute and Natural Resources Institute Finland) for any imported genetic resources. The required data for the notification is compiled in Kotka CMS and then sent to the CNA. All the documentation and conditions regulating the utilisation of each specimen and derived samples must follow with the specimen data at all times. To accomplish this all the necessary information and documents are linked from the material transactions to the relevant specimens by unique specimen or sample identifiers. In the specimen view page, links to the full transaction details and history are given, as a single specimen or a derived sample can be part of several different types of transactions. Users also see a summary of the transaction information directly in the specimen view, most importantly whether the specimen is available for genetic research or has any restrictions for use. The Kotka CMS transaction section makes use of the Application Programming Interface (API) provided by the Access and Benefit Sharing Clearing House (ABS-CH). Using the API, Kotka CMS validates the IRCC number if given and provides links to the ABS-CH, for example to the relevant country profile page, the contact details of the CNA, and specific requirements for access to genetic resources when applicable. This way, we provide Kotka CMS users up-to-date information from the original source to support their genetic resource management. We will further improve and develop the tools during the years 2019-2020. Now that the first version is in use, we will make adjustments according to user feedback. We also have a few changes planned, for example, the tools for transferring the necessary information on permits and other details with outgoing specimens to a user in another institution abroad will be updated. All users in Finnish natural history institutions have access to all the information directly in Kotka CMS, as it is a national system. Additionally, both specimen and transaction information searchability will be refined.

Intentional moving of species threatened by climate change is actively being discussed as a conservation approach. The debate, empirical studies, and policy development, however, are impeded by an inconsistent articulation of the idea. The discrepancy is demonstrated by the varying use of terms, such as assisted migration, assisted colonisation, or managed relocation, and their multiple definitions. Since this conservation approach is novel, and may for instance lead to legislative changes, it is important to aim for terminological consistency. The objective of this study is to analyse the suitability of terms and definitions used when discussing the moving of organisms as a response to climate change. An extensive literature search and review of the material (868 scientific publications) was conducted for finding hitherto used terms (N = 40) and definitions (N = 75), and these were analysed for their suitability. Based on the findings, it is argued that an appropriate term for a conservation approach relating to aiding the movement of organisms harmed by climate change is assisted migration defined as follows: Assisted migration means safeguarding biological diversity through the translocation of representatives of a species or population harmed by climate change to an area outside the indigenous range of that unit where it would be predicted to move as climate changes, were it not for anthropogenic dispersal barriers or lack of time. The differences between assisted migration and other conservation translocations are also discussed. A wide adoption of the clear and distinctive term and definition provided would allow more focused research on the topic and enable consistent implementation as practitioners could have the same understanding of the concept. ; Peer reviewed

The Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) Research Infrastructure (RI) is presently in its preparatory phase. DiSSCo is developing a new distributed RI to operate as a one-stop-shop for the envisaged European Natural Science Collection (NSC) and all its derived information. Through mass digitisation, DiSSCo will transform the fragmented landscape of NSCs, including an estimated 1.5 billion specimens, into an integrated knowledge base that will provide interconnected evidence of the natural world. Data derived from European NSCs underpin countless discoveries and innovations, including tens of thousands of scholarly publications and official reports annually (supporting legislative and regulatory processes on sustainability, environmental change, land use, societal infrastructure, health, food, security, etc.); base-line biodiversity data; inventions and products essential to bio-economy; databases, maps and descriptions of scientific observations; educational material for students; and instructive and informative resources for the public. To expand the user community, DiSSCo will strengthen capacity building across Europe for maximum engagement of stakeholders in the biodiversity-related field and beyond, including industry and the private sector, but also policy-driving entities. Hence, it is opportune to reach out to relevant stakeholders in the European environmental policy domain represented by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The EEA aims to support sustainable development by helping to achieve significant and measurable improvement in Europe's environment, through the provision of timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to policy-making agents and the public. The EEA provides information through the European Environment Information and Observation System (Eionet). The aim of this white paper is to open the discussion between DiSSCo and the EEA and identify the common service interests that are relevant for the European environmental policy domain. The first section ...

The Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) Research Infrastructure (RI) is presently in its preparatory phase. DiSSCo is developing a new distributed RI to operate as a one-stop-shop for the envisaged European Natural Science Collection (NSC) and all its derived information. Through mass digitisation, DiSSCo will transform the fragmented landscape of NSCs, including an estimated 1.5 billion specimens, into an integrated knowledge base that will provide interconnected evidence of the natural world. Data derived from European NSCs underpin countless discoveries and innovations, including tens of thousands of scholarly publications and official reports annually (supporting legislative and regulatory processes on sustainability, environmental change, land use, societal infrastructure, health, food, security, etc.); base-line biodiversity data; inventions and products essential to bio-economy; databases, maps and descriptions of scientific observations; educational material for students; and instructive and informative resources for the public. To expand the user community, DiSSCo will strengthen capacity building across Europe for maximum engagement of stakeholders in the biodiversity-related field and beyond, including industry and the private sector, but also policy-driving entities. Hence, it is opportune to reach out to relevant stakeholders in the European environmental policy domain represented by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The EEA aims to support sustainable development by helping to achieve significant and measurable improvement in Europe's environment, through the provision of timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to policy-making agents and the public. The EEA provides information through the European Environment Information and Observation System (Eionet). The aim of this white paper is to open the discussion between DiSSCo and the EEA and identify the common service interests that are relevant for the European environmental policy domain. The first section describes the significance of (digital) Natural Science Collections (NHCs). Section two describes the DiSSCo programme with all DiSSCo aligned projects. Section three provides background information on the EEA and the biodiversity infrastructures that are developed and maintained by the EEA. The fourth section illustrates a number of use cases where the DiSSCo consortium sees opportunities for interaction between the DiSSCo RI and the Eionet portal of the EEA. Opening the discussion with the EEA in this phase of maturity of DiSSCo will ensure that the infrastructural design of DiSSCo and the development of e-Services accommodate the present and future needs of the EEA and assure data interoperability between the two infrastructures.The aim of this white paper is to present benefits from identifying the common service interests of DiSSCo and the EEA. A brief introduction to natural science collections as well as the two actors is given to facilitate the understanding of the needs and possibilities in the alignment of DiSSCo with the EEA.