INTRODUCTION
THE NEED FOR A BIODIVERSITY CLEARING HOUSE CONVENTION

Effective analysis, priority setting and action to protect the World's biodiversity requires the manipulation and integration of a vast range of scientific and socio-economic data into a form suitable for decision making. It is acknowledged that there is a pressing need for those countries (developed and developing) with particular knowledge of one aspect or another to share this information and know-how with others for mutual benefit.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in a number of its Articles requires or implies the need for facilities for the management and open exchange of biodiversity information. Articles 7d, 12c, 13b, 15(7) and 16, each identify information management and exchange requirements, and Article 17 explicitly indicates "access to and transfer of technology among Contracting Parties are essential elements for the attainment of the objectives of this Convention". Article 18(3), requires the establishment of "a clearing house mechanism to promote and facilitate technical and scientific cooperation". Some central focus through which exchange of information can take place is clearly both highly desirable for, and explicitly required by, the Convention.

The CBD identified three main categories of biodiversity information which will be required:

• ecosystems and habitats,

• species and communities, and

• described genomes and genes of social, scientific or economic importance.

To this basic list one must add:

• the scientific and technical information required to measure, assess and take decisions on appropriate action;

• bio-technology, its value and risks;

• local knowledge of traditional uses and values of biological resources;

• interrelationships between biodiversity, human actions, laws and conditions, economics and development.

One way of sub-dividing the information requirements under the CBD is in the following eight major categories which have some pragmatic appeal, as they align with the way in which national and international institutions are organised to manage information:

Conservation
encompassing information on species, habitats, protected areas, biodiversity indicators, wildlife, ...

Genetic Resources
encompassing agriculture, agricultural research, gene banks, use of genetic resources for benefit of mankind, traditional use, genetic threats, ...

Technology
encompassing information on the technology of biodiversity monitoring and assessment, such as data collection technology, computer systems and telecommunications, remote sensing, geographic information systems, databases techniques and standards, ...

Bio-technology
encompassing a forum for interchange of information on research and application of bio-technology, ...

Environmental Statistics/Economics
encompassing resource utilisation, value of biodiversity, land use, industrial outputs, natural resource utilisation, trade, economics, ...

Policy
encompassing policy development, modelling, decision support systems and technology, empowerment and public consultation techniques, ...

Human Factors
encompassing population, human health, social conditions, and their relationships to biodiversity, ...

Environmental Law
encompassing environmental legislation, conventions, protocols, regulation, standards, ...

The Report of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Meeting of Scientific Experts on Biological Diversity - Second Session (UNEP/CBD/IC/2/11) provides in the Annexes further indication of the scope of the information and technology of biodiversity. For instance, Annex II, relevant to the identification, characterisation and monitoring of ecosystems, species, and genetic resources, lists 6 major categories of technology (and related information), further subdivided into a large number of classes from "biogeography, through ecosystem function and traditional knowledge through to abundance, distribution and range (of species) and biotechnology".

With limited resources available, the setting of priorities for the types of information to be collected and exchanged is critical. These will vary according to needs and requirements, and must be subject to a thorough assessment of the costs and benefits involved. Before developing any new information management and exchange operation, it is essential to review what information already exists, who is collecting it and how, who is managing it and how, and so on to avoid duplication and facilitate cooperation.

In the past, there has been a tendency to assume that it is best to collect and manage all information in one central location so as to ensure its adequate integration and application. For various reasons this may not be the best solution. What is more important is the application of appropriate standards to data collection and management, custodianship by the appropriately qualified centre of excellence, good communications between information collectors and managers, and coordination of information collection and management effort.

THE NATURE OF THE ISSUE

National government policy, research, and resource management organisations, NGOs, researchers and international environmental agencies have been collecting information on various aspects of biodiversity for many years, and in the last few decades, with satellite technology, data volumes are exploding. In parallel, both the technology of data management and exploitation of biological resources ( bio-technology) have advanced enormously. As a result, a great deal of information currently exists - including detailed observational data, traditional experience and know-how, technology, and technical know-how.

Access and effective use of this information is hampered by:

• lack of shared knowledge of who has what information, technology or expertise, as it is held in a broad range of separate

• sectoral and regional institutions;

• lack of consistency in observational methodologies, classification standards, quality assurance methods and analytical models, so that inter-sectoral and cross-sectoral integration and comparison are very difficult; and

lack of equity of access due to varying levels of information technology infrastructure, and "information buying power".