Several initiatives aim to map the diversity of Natural History (NH) collections and standardise their descriptions. The Global Registry of Biodiversity Repositories (GRBio) is the most recent global registry. Unfortunately the server has been down since mid-2018 but the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) recently "rescued" this data. In addition to this, the One World Collection exercise is a set of high-level collection descriptors (size, group coverage and geographic distribution) supporting a common strategy between the largest world institutions. Despite these efforts, a large part of the NH collections remains digitally unavailable and digitisation at the specimen level will take several decades. A new NH collections dashboard is needed in order to harmonise the efforts of the institutions. The Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) is a good place to introduce this excercise. CETAFʼs members hold over half of the worldʼs NH collections, representing 80\% of the world's bio- and geo-diversity. Most of these collections are now engaged in the preparation for the common process of the Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo, European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructure). Additionally in Belgium, the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS), Royal Museum of Central Africa (RMCA), Meise Botanic Garden (MBG) and CETAF have joined efforts to set up a common research portal (Natural Heritage, BRAIN-be project). The goal is to link together several collection management systems (CMS) and to (re)create links between isolated collection items. The CETAF collections dashboard splits the information into small metadata units related to topics relevant to the collections (taxonomy, geographic distribution, digitisation strategy and coverage, stratigraphy, etc.). The model allows for the creation of new units without a complete modification of the database structure. All units are defined by the Dublin Core and by fields derived from the Innovation and consolidation for large scale digitisation of natural heritage (ICEDIG) d2.3 deliverable (van Egmond et al. 2019). The object hierarchy allows for the creation of sub-collections and preserves the unity of the information. The CMS has an internal object database with a full index and a faceted search interface. It also has web services and XLS (Microsoft®Excel®)$~$import/export functionalities. The collection dashboard also includes a complete workflow and access rights management at the object level. This is important for the information that is protected by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The dashboard is now being evaluated with the collections hosted by the partners of Natural Heritage. The system will be proposed to CETAF members and connections will be established with the international portals such as the GBIF or the future DiSSCo portal.
Located in
Library
/
RBINS Staff Publications 2019
The implementation of the EU Regulation n°1143/2014 on IAS requires sound scientific input to design adequate actions of prevention, early warning and rapid response and management. The role of scientists is important to advise authorities on the way they should prioritize their efforts and to provide necessary evidence, e.g. when choosing management methods. An efficient collaboration between environmental agencies and scientific experts is therefore needed. In Belgium, the National Scientific Secretariat on Invasive Alien Species has been created to act as a science-policy interface, compile the required data and perform appropriate analysis to feed into the policy making process. Using three case studies as an example, we will present the opportunities and challenges of providing evidence based scientific advice to environmental authorities. The first case study deals with the identification of priority pathways of unintentional spread and introduction of IAS for which preventative measures should be devised. Based on an assessment of the number of species that are being transported along the pathways, and the impact of those species, we advised authorities on the pathways that should be tackled by actions plans. The second example deals with support to the border control agencies in the enforcement of Article 15 on border controls. To this end, we advised which plant and animal consignments should be prioritised for identity checks. This analysis serves as the basis for a first coordinated national campaign of inspections at borders and in shops. Finally, the third example is the production of an assessment of the feasibility of management of Union list species, to inform future management strategies of the environmental agencies. These assessments highlight the need of increased data quality and quantity (on interceptions, imports or management of species). It also stresses the challenge of adapting the analyses to the reality and priorities of environmental authorities.
Located in
Library
/
RBINS Staff Publications 2024
