    
|
|
| Access: secure | normal |
|
UIA InfoDev Proposal: Response to Reviewers
Activity-ID: #980327-267
PROPOSAL FOR infoDev ACTIVITY
INTERCEPT Interactive Contextual Environmental Planning Tool for Developing Countries
Submitted to the World Bank (Industry & Energy Department)
Response to Reviewers' Questions[see also full Proposal]
21 December 1998 Union of International Associations, Brussels Development Alternatives, Delhi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Note *
Notes
We found little need to clarify reviewers’ comments in the sections "Strengths of the Proposal", with which we largely agree. This document responds to comments in the sections "Weaknesses of the Proposal". The reviewers’ comments in original order are annexed. We have grouped and reordered the points in this response for ease of continuity. We are responding at some length to ensure we adequately cover the points raised. This does not imply an especial emphasis on our part in the particular content of these issues compared with others concerning the project that have gone unmentioned. We thank your reviewers for their valuable comments. Their questions have helped us refine and focus our project concept. Specifically, their comments have thrown light on some areas of unclarity and required us to be more explicit about programme activities, their need and their benefits as relate to infoDev development objectives. We have rewritten the proposal sections "Short Description of Activity" and "Abstract". These are annexed to this document. Online experience of the UIA databases can be had at http://www.uia.org/data.htm. This is the URL for a beta-test version of the dynamic delivery and user comment facility. Log in as Guest. Use of virtual reality as an alternative mode of access to this data is illustrated by experiments available from http://www.uia.org/uiademo/vrml/vrmldemo.htm.
Reviewer 1: Key concerns exist about the financial sustainability of this venture and how these can be reconciled with the development objectives of infoDev. It is not clear from the reviewer’s comments precisely why or how concerns about the financial sustainability of this venture and the development objectives of infoDev may need reconciliation. The concern over financial sustainability of the project is addressed later on. First we deal with compatibility of objectives. We understand that the development objectives of infoDev to be to:
The table below sets these infoDev objectives against stated features of the information service to be provided by the project. Note that some of these features are contributed by the complementary projects INFO2000 and DAINET.
Reviewer 1: While it is perhaps less critical to the success of INFO2000, a detailed business plan and marketing strategy which includes an assessment of user needs and "willingness-to-pay" are an essential prerequisite to technical implementation of the INTERCEPT project and should be given more emphasis. Other points in this comment are covered through the remainder of the document (see, in particular, the section "Economic Aspects"). Notably the marketing strategy and our approach to a business plan, are ***. Here we deal with user needs. User need for development organizations in India is undeniable. Most Indian organisations are starved of information that could support their sustainable development. They have little access to development innovations and project results in their own country, much less from outside it. The threshold of skill, effort and cost of acquisition is simply beyond them. There is a lack of timely, reliable and user friendly information on environment and development issues in India. What is available is not automated and thereby not accessible in the time required. Indian discussion groups have virtually no links with global electronic conferences on similar themes. Indian organizations are often dumped with foreign information because it is easily available. The information is either not inherently useful or not converted into a format in whereby it can be used effectively by most organizations in India. Substantive query response and customised information services on environment and development themes are very few in India. Here again, they operate through conventional means of communication with virtually no use of electronic communication systems. The case of need was argued to the Ford Foundation by DA and was annexed to the proposal. The case was made for independent sector organizations (ISOs) in India but a similar case could be made for certain government and commercial organisations, which this project would equally benefit. The case, in short, is that India has between 30,000 and 100,000 ISO or NGO-type organisations. Electronic connectivity is the lowest among ISOs when compared to other constituencies of society. Even those with connections are unable to use it to its potential. Currently 100 to 500 such organizations can use full Internet services (including multimedia), the minority using it frequently and fully; the remainder incompletely or infrequently. A further 1,000 use text-only Internet or email. Greater than 95% of NGO organisations still use postal services, hand delivery and word of mouth as their primary means of means of information recovery. Full internet service delivery for most ISOs is infeasible for at least ten years. Limiting factors are national infrastructure policy and costs (notably government as monopoly service provider), incomplete geographic access, bandwidth, and user charges. However, telephone services are already adequate for considerable expansion of email and fax services and, for those already using such basic automatic services, for a progressive increase in frequency of use and their facilitated interface with more automated systems such as the Internet. There are probably about 5,000 ISOs with computer and telephone connections, but not electronically connected due to non availability of modems and other support services customised to meet their requirements. There are about 30,000 to 100,000 ISOs who are non-automated, who also require more systematic information support for their environment and development activities. Of these at least 5,000 have adequate working knowledge of English. This project aims to accelerate the transition of this significant market segment of telephone, fax and basic email users towards fully automated information services during a decade when most would not have this opportunity. It will increase access and exposure to networked communication services in India and build capacity for its use by NGO groups. Though endemic restrictions will limit most from having direct access to full internet, many will have the benefits of a lower-bandwidth facilitated interface with the internet. With respect to stakeholder needs in the future, it cannot be assumed that users are stationary targets on whose future information behaviour it is a simple matter to report with any confidence. Nor is it a matter of simply predicting movement of users in a particular direction (a first derivative) when it is their flexibility and manoeuverability which is changing -- as the past few years of internet usage have shown. If nothing else, the Web has demonstrated how users have become highly active and continue to develop new behaviours and needs in response to new facilities. This project’s "stakeholder-as-participant" approach encourages and taps the development of this phenomenon in a fully interactive manner.
It is further assumed that user needs will evolve as much with respect to information presentation as to content. In countries of the developed world (also in the predictable futures of the developing world), those accessing information are often overloaded. This challenge is evolving exponentially. This project assumes that there is/will be a backlash against information per se and a rapid call for meaningful patterning of such information over which users have some interactive control in the light of cultural and other preferences (eg for complexity, colour, sound, etc). This is one reason for increasing corporate investment in a new category of "information visualization" tools, which may also be understood as the need for knowledge, as opposed to information (or data). The INFO2000 dimension of the project specifically requires the development of multimedia tools in support of policy-making and these features will be integrated where practicable into the infoDev project. In this way emerging stakeholder needs in India will be anticipated, rather than simply followed, enabling some "leapfrogging" in sophistication of methods of use of information. The INFO2000 project consortium is currently designing and contracting out an independent stakeholder response and needs survey. The survey is intended to take place during the February – April 1999 inclusive. Participants will include academic institutions, NGOs and professional organizations. We could add some organizations from India and other developing and disadvantaged areas to complement this project. The results will enable refinement of the prototype interactive system and will guide infoDev project opportunities.
The project is designed to navigate the essentially uncharted transition between conventional information products, desired by known markets, to unconventional information services responding to the changing needs of emerging markets. In this context the "willingness-to-pay" of any particular, possibly as yet undefined, niche cannot be effectively determined in an economically uncertain environment. What degree of confidence it is possible to place in estimates of usage and payment five years hence for a service defined today? We believe an adaptive project or service would respond like an amoeba to marketing opportunities, pulling back from unsustainable interaction as appropriate. Our strategy relies on the demonstrated sustainability of a continuing core business, through established information publishing and delivery services within more stable economies, venturing wherever possible into more risky areas (see "Financial Sustainability" below). Given the nature of Web and email marketing, charges for the service could vary from zero to "what the market niche will bear" at the time. Charges may be varied also as a consequence of sectoral subsidies, introductory offers, scaled rates and other time or volume dependent devices (see "Multi-Tier Strategy" below) The process of payment, and "willingness to pay", will also be partially determined by continuing experiments to be undertaken with the use of "information credits" in the exchange between "users" who may also be "suppliers" of information. For Indian NGOs, credits may be provided for a bridging period by collaborating organizations or sponsors in other parts of the world. Another example would be where credits for use were given for information was gathered by Indian organizations but compiled or distributed by others. These experiments may reflect aspects of current investigations into LETS systems and their electronic equivalents. This is currently significant with the revelation of the extent of barter arrangements in countries such as Russia and is equally true of many developing economies such as India. Information has itself become a new unit of currency and the challenge is to integrate its exchange into determinations of system viability. Reviewer 2: If the commercial potential is really there, the proponents should be seeking a loan to finance this and not a grant from the World Bank (in fact, none of their funding comes from the private sector or from developing country governments which leads me to conclude it is supply-driven and not demand-driven). Our use of the word "commercial" in the proposal may have unintentionally misled the reader. If so, this is also reflective of the way in which the conventional distinctions between organization types and their activities have blurred in the post-modern world. This proposal arises from non-profit organisations. These organisations do not have venture capital but they do have venture capability. The boards of these organisations consider this a worthwhile development project with good replication potential, and to which they are prepared to redirect (invest) their organisational resources and research capability. They do not see it in terms of a good investment risk in terms of financial gain. This is simply not the way their mandate requires they think. An interest-bearing loan would not be considered an appropriate funding mechanism by either of them. Our notion of "commercial" includes market-oriented, non-profit enterprise, which may otherwise be described as earned income of non-profit NGOs. The significant distinction is that any surplus "profit" is fully recycled into the business (as salaries, equipment, training and matching funds for projects such as this); none of it is creamed off. Very similar commercial activity may also be found, for example, in many for-profit eco-enterprises attached to non-profits, family businesses, small environmental consultancies, education institutions, foundations and the like. Indeed many SME’s are non-profits in the legal sense. Within the project partner group, the UIA is a non-profit publishing house; AgoraNet, a legal collective of which it is a member, is a commercial ISP; DA is a non-profit manufacturing company of alternative technologies, amongst its other business and service hats; WCMC is a non-profit information management and consulting company. To return to the reviewer’s point, this criticism raises the issue of whether the objective is "commercial viability" or "financial sustainability". This is a useful distinction to draw. The reviewers probably read "commercial viability" as return on investment typical of "for-profit" business ventures. As non-profit organizations, neither the proponents nor the project seek to make that kind of money. Reframing the question in this way, it is quite clear why commercial (for-profit) interests do not invest in the manner developed by the Grameem Bank (subsequently supported by the World Bank) -- they could not make the kind of return on investment characteristic of "commercial potential". This project has a similar set of financial ambitions. As non-profit organizations, the proponents are interested in "financial sustainability", namely the long-term survival of the project with minimal call on fresh funds other than as a feature of any partnership opportunities that would typically improve the quality of information in a sector of interest to the partner in question. We believe this project is financially viable -- as the partners have demonstrated in relation to their other initiatives. With respect to the point that "none of their funding comes from the private sector or from developing country governments", this loses sight of the range of databases integrated into the service. Without such a foundation provided by the major content-providing partners (UIA and WCMC), this infoDev project would be inconceivable. In the case of the UIA problems and strategies databases, these were originally developed with donated funds from the private sector and have been subsequently developed with advance payments for editorial costs from the commercial publisher (a Reed-Elsevier unit) of the last three hardcopy (and CD-ROM) editions. With respect to the organizations information, this is covered by advanced payment from the same publisher since the early 1980s. The French translation of this database has been largely subsidized by funding through ACCT, which is largely composed of developing country francophone governments. WCMC’s datasets have been prepared in part by funds from corporate sponsors such as oil companies and sporadic funds from developing countries. All this funding is "hidden" within the project, at least not moneterised. But without this long-term, multi-sectoral investment in content, the project would be an idea that could not take off. The key partners in the proposed enterprise have a long-established track record in the information business (UIA and WCMC) and in grass-roots, third-world development (DA) at its innovative and risky edge -- specifically with respect to the supply of new kinds of information and development tools into emergent markets. In responding to issues relating to financial sustainability, we make the following points: 1. The partner organisations are each already characterised by financial sustainability. infoDev funds are not sought to bolster existing operations but to extend economically sustainable operations into other domains. The distinction to be made is between establishing a new enterprise from scratch and building on a reasonably stable platform and existing initiatives that work. 2. At the broad level, the partners do not distinguish between the financial sustainability of this project and that of their ongoing concerns. This is because the work proposed for infoDev is essentially on their own development paths. They are prepared to contribute considerable matching funds and bring in other funds and partners to accelerate this process. They are also keen to share skills and technology and recognize that this project will enable joint approaches in the Indian context that would otherwise remain untested. 3. At the same time, the partners are keenly aware that the project must produce viable outcomes which survive beyond the term of startup funding. One criterion of its success is that the service provided at the termination of the project period has more or less independent financial sustainability. A key determinant of this measure of success is "willingness to pay" (see relevant paragraphs both above and below). Other indicators will be the startup of agency operations (already begun by DAINET) which themselves embody financial sustainability and the growth of users and their appreciation of the service. Both developments have strong potential to attract additional external sources of financial support to the project. 4. We hold no illusions about the challenges of financial sustainability in a financially stretched market. Some of our models and guidelines for creating success are (1) food market vendors in India have flourishing businesses despite the "poverty" of many of their customers; information, we argue, is also a basic necessity; (2) systems of micropayments and credits, such as the Grameen Bank and Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS), administration of micropayments are more realistic in countries with ample labour resources; (3) shared facilities and costs, with wealthy users paying for the backbone of the service + own use charges, poorer users simply for their use (this applies not only within India, but worldwide, because the major part of the data will be globally available and is of global relevance; more on this aspect is provided below); (4) sponsorship and other support, eg any future project of the UIA or WCMC that results in data enrichment will indirectly benefit future users of the service. 5. Because aspects of this project are (1) modular (additive in content to long managed databases; additive in coverage to already funded iniatiatives) and (2) interwoven with information developments funded by other parties in other domains (eg internet and e-commence initiatives), this project has built in a considerable degree of shared risk with other "non-project partners". The immediate circle of partners is INFO2000, Ford Foundation and the Spinning the Web consortium. 6. At the very least, the project will reliably make available in the longer term the substantial corpus of information that has been accumulated over a couple of decades. It will deliver back to NGOs material that they themselves in large part have provided. This information will be more or less continually updated by other ongoing projects within the partners’ domains and those of other hyperlinked domains. This level of service is essentially passive and costless. The additional cost component increases with increasing interactivity. This aspect of the project is also dealt with under "Ongoing Costs" (below).
Reviewer 2: Mixing commercial and non-commercial goals may perhaps be plausible but I personally feel such an approach is doomed to fail. The document notes that almost all commercial ventures on the Web are currently failing - it would be even more complicated to marry this with non-commercial uses. We disagree. The mixture affords flexibility which is of advantage to "risky" and "enduring" ventures alike, ie any project whose survival is subject to the whims of fashion and the marketplace, as information projects currently are. The UIA has long demonstrated its capacity to mix the commercial objectives of its publisher with its own non-commercial objectives -- to the considerable satisfaction of both parties. Whilst it may be "complicated" to marry such contrasting philosophies in a Web environment, the proponents believe they have a credible strategy for doing so -- as well as a variety of credible fall-back positions if any particular tactic proves unsuccessful. Reviewer 1: In particular, it would be useful to see a breakdown of the estimated costs of service provision over the medium to long-term which clearly distinguishes these from the operating costs/overheads of the agencies involved. For the strategy described above to be viable, it is assumed that the greater part of the costs of this service would be absorbed into the ongoing operational costs/overheads. In this sense the objective is to benefit maximally from the publishing advantages of the Web. Once provision is made for stakeholder access to data, by covering server operation and maintenance costs, the core costs then relate to processing information resulting from user interaction with the information and service providers. This is personnel time. We are anticipating a continuing additional requirement of between 1 and 2 persons to deal with the specific person-to-person requirements of this service. The people will be Indian staff of DA employed at TA or PA level. The estimated ongoing cost is $US 30-40,000 annually and will be built into the annual budget requirements of the organization. After completion of the project, the UIA role in India will be advisory, currently envisaged as a cost that can either be absorbed by UIA and/or is within the external consulting budget of DA. In a worst case "pull-back" scenario, the person-to-person services can be completely automated or severely cut back (as current experiments have determined). Under optimal conditions (an "expansion" scenario), ongoing costs relate to the continuing editorial/research development of information profiles and linkages -- together with the continuing development of the interfaces through which users interact with that information (including new visualization techniques). We see these being funded by a combination of DA/UIA/WCMC surplus funds, some of which will be user charges, and complementary new contracts or direct sponsorships. Multi-tier strategy Reviewer 1: Further, more detail is required on the proposed multi-tier strategy. The nature of the multi-tier strategy would be based on a combination of willingness to pay and ability to pay (as indicated in the following table) -- further modified by the amount of information supplied in response to the query of a particular category of user (ie inclusion/exclusion of some data elements for particular databases). The details of the multi-tier economic and marketing strategy would be a matter for continuing review and innovation in the light of the development of e-commerce possibilities, loss-leader marketing opportunities, exercises in LETS-type interaction with user-suppliers, as well as sectoral subsidies or sponsorship.
Those deemed "able to pay" would be designated as Category A users and charged "what the market would bear". Typically Category A would include corporations, governments and universities of industrialized countries. The requirement for payment may be accompanied by an explanation that this not only supports work to maintain the quality of the information content but supports access of financially disadvantaged users. Nonetheless, it is expected that even Category A users would get some level information for free, notably "data", eg names, addresses, URLs, raw statistics and the like; essentially any simple, unprocessed materials that would be considered by their "owners" as public information. Factors certainly likely to trigger user charges are access to multiple records, formatted records, or lengthy texts of professionally edited documentation, extensive searches, analyses or downloads that heavily consume server time, and the like. Those deemed "unable to pay", or to engage in any kind of LETS-type exchange, would be designated at Category D and would be allowed some form of free use of the system. This might include a range of users from developing countries (or their equivalent in industrialized countries). Note, however, that guest users of all types might be initially accorded this freedom as part of the marketing strategy. A strong encouragement would be given to all such users that contribution of information in return for use would be valued. Those willing to engage in some LETS-type non-financial exchange in return for information supply would be allocated to Category C. Typically this would include certain kinds of advocacy groups and other non-commercial "power users". Certain academics have expressed a desire to work in this way. Other organizations in this category would be current collaborating partners in information banking of UIA, DA and WCMC. Category B would be for users that it was considered appropriate to support to some degree in the interests of development objectives, notably those of the World Bank. This would include some bodies with limited ability to pay, whether in developing or industrialized countries. It would include some important development NGOs, for example. In working with the above scheme, the intention would be to shift users into a progressively higher category, Category A where possible, but without denying them the service if it was possible to include them in one of the other categories. Users could, for example, be allocated to Category B if some sectoral services were subsidized by interested third parties. Reviewer 1: To what extent can the needs of the poorest (commonly those with most need) be offset by charges to commercial organizations and other partners? Have WCMC or others investigated this aspect of service provision? WCMC employs various options to meet the needs of the poorest; it does this routinely as part of its service provision for research, information design and capacity building. Firstly it charges at different rates (discounted, standard, commercial) and ploughs surplus income back into service management and development. Secondly it tends to be rather more flexible over services to those who are not in a position to pay. Thirdly, it has in the past managed to attract funds for providing information services to those less able to pay. As will have been noted, these WCMC procedures are similar to the guidelines for equitable redistribution of resources that we have proposed for the infoDev project. Ironically, best intentions in this regard can be foiled. Making unsold copies of UIA reference books available to users in developing countries at zero cost price turns out to be significantly inhibited by transportation costs as well as customs charges (to the destinee), especially when secure forms of delivery are considered necessary. As a result very few copies are distributed in this way and unsold publications are simply pulped (despite consultation with Unesco concerning alternatives that would not undercut commercial sales). This is a cause for regret for both UIA as owner and Saur as publisher. Distribution of outdated CD’s poses fewer problems and is being reviewed. In a Web context the inhibiting factors are largely absent. As the above table indicates, users can be allocated into Categories B through D to the extent that the service costs permit. In this way costly reference information can be provided in inexpensive formats and those with greater monetary resources can subsidize the needs of the poorest.
Reviewer 1: Surprisingly, the proposal doesn't attempt to overcome the financial paradox described above by fully addressing the potential role of partnerships with international organizations (e.g. The World Bank) which have a responsibility (albeit a newly-defined one) to provide knowledge-based services to their clients. The partners in this project are alike with the World Bank, and certain other international organizations, in holding a responsibility to provide knowledge-based services. Each organization recognising this as its mandate must find their own economic means to do so. It is not immediately apparent from the reviewer’s comment how partnership with the World Bank, for example, would overcome the financial paradox dealt with above -- other than by seeking project funding through appropriate Bank channels, as is happening. Is the reviewer suggesting we are coy or have a blind spot in our approach to the World Bank or other international organizations? If so, we may need more pointed suggestions. We would be delighted to consider offers of World Bank partnership other than funding. In support of this we are prepared to send our personnel to Washington to meet with Bank staff and advisers. Our past experiences with partnerships account for a strategic approach for this project that is not dependent on particular partnerships, however "logical" in principle, but rather on partnership building wherever and whenever it proves possible in practice. The degree of "partnership collaboration" within the project frame could also vary in practice in the light of experience and need. The Web environment is ideal in that it offers the possibility of rapid partnership formation (and dissolution) in response to changing needs and priorities -- without requiring the administrative overhead traditionally associated with information exchange with intergovernmental bodies that are often subject to momentary political pressures that undermine the integrity of longer-term projects. It is in this sense that the UIA has a long record of "collaborating" minimally with some 20,000 international organizations by requesting and receiving information on their organization profiles and on the problems and strategies that engage them. Such "minimalist partnership" is in fact vital to information collection in circumstances in an information society increasingly riven by mutual suspicion (this is not a generalization, but certainly true of some of UIA’s more problematic exchanges). Reviewer 1: The synergies of such relationships (Client-NGO/Service Provider-International Organization) are potentially significant, and include: (i) improved dialogue on sustainable development between users, (ii) improved policy relevance of data / services provided, (iii) advice/assistance to international organizations in mobilization of knowledge resources, (iv) identification of data gaps, if these exist, (v) coordination with in country development activities and, (v) offset of costs to poorest countries - to ensure accessibility. This is certainly correct in principle. Such synergies inspire us to venture this proposal. Reviewer 1: There is a persistent view of international organizations (WHO, WB UNEP, UNESCO) as funding sources, rather than partners with significant bodies of knowledge on sustainable development which should be mobilized. It is certainly the case that the majority of those seeking partnerships with such bodies lead off with a dollar request. Unfortunately this view is also held to a high degree within such intergovernmental bodies which consequently have considerable difficulty in envisaging or discussing any form of collaboration that is not directly attached to a budget line with a dollar value attached. There is no understanding of the potential of "zero-cost projects" or budget lines and no study has been made of such opportunities. A specific instance of this is that UIA collaboration with UNESCO, along some of the lines discussed in this proposal, has been "under discussion" for two years with no conclusion in sight despite explicit approval from its DG. In addition to systemic blocks regarding non-financial collaborations, there may be considerable difficulty in producing a coherent approach to "transversal" projects that feed into departmental rivalries, as again from our experience seems to be true for UNESCO. As an aside, for a balanced view of the possibilities, a franker articulation is required of what tends to undermine ideal and logical partnership schemes, whether it be personality issues, greed, or institutional empire building. The recently publicized instance of the European Commission withholding scheduled payments to NGOs for political reasons is an example of the prevailing mind-set and calls for strategic wariness in the case of partnerships with intergovernmental institutions – if an NGO is to be dependent upon such funding for its survival. It is probable that the situation may become a great deal more flexible when the issues become "electronic" rather than "administrative" and political. Reviewer 1: A similar concern relates to the organizations participating in the project. Given the large number of conservation / biodiversity information networks which exist, it is surprising that the proposal doesn't explicitly include some of the major data providers in the proposal. The project is designed to build on existing strengths. WCMC, for example, has a wide range of operational links and partnerships with agencies in conservation/biodiversity networks in which it participates. UIA has relationships with some of the same such organizations, and some others in addition. DA has established links with over 2,000 Indian organizations and so extends this combined network into the national, regional and local levels of India. It is a characteristic of the international information business that there is a radical difference between "vapourware" and operational services. We believe that potential partners are wise to avoid extensive discussions ahead of a concrete basis for partnering. Before any agreement is reached for InfoDev support, this project will have a very extensive range of interlinked databases operational on-line with the aid of INFO2000 funding -- and integrating stakeholder contributions. It is in this concrete form that meaningful discussions can be undertaken with new potential partners. The project itself is not seen as requiring extensive partnerships to take off. It is a fact that many potential partners are currently highly active in forming their own coalitions, in support of, or in competition with, one another. This is a characteristic of the information business. It is not our intention to add to this phenomenon or strain already straightened resources of other organizations for no good reason other than claim to shared interest. As indicated above, the project will form (and dissolve) partnerships throughout its existence in response to concrete mutual information needs and priorities. Reviewer 1: Surely, these agencies (e.g. IUCN, WRI, UNEP), which are presumably the source of much of the data to be provided through the system, should be explicitly represented in the governance structure of the service (which also needs clarification). This would also improve buy-in by these agencies, provide access to existing in-country networks (e.g. InfoTERRA) and provide some insurance against financial risk. This project, and the integration of databases between UIA and WCMC (an affiliate of IUCN, WWF and UNEP), is dependent on being "light" on governance and administration (and their associated costs) and "heavy" on operational links between data elements that are of value to users. This philosophy would be extended to partnerships with other institutions. Potential partners, especially if they have their own databases, tend to be understandably reluctant to constrain their own data strategies in response to others. However, by the use of hyperlinks (and especially query links between such databases), real "operational partnership" can be achieved without the requirement for extensive "administrative partnership". This approach does not preclude greater involvement in governance as practical issues emerge -- but again it would be hoped that most such issues could be articulated, discussed and handled electronically. We envisage a shared governance structure with a light hand, mainly for coordination purposes. This is possible because the project proponents are already embarked upon activities that are precursors to this project. They know their next steps. There is no foreseeable requirement for rulemaking and protocols. The association between UIA and DA goes back 20 years, both in professional project work and governance (DA is represented on the board of UIA). It is worth noting that the relatively limited funds requested for administration of this project, notably for travel to meetings, is because it is light on governance. Face-to-face meetings will be devoted to technical exchanges and learning, rather than reporting and governance. On the issue of "buy-in" by intergovernmental agencies and others, we would rather take the route of building on existing partnerships and demonstrating capability to potential new partners before seeking further involvement. As explained in "Financial Sustainability" above, through synergistic support of related projects, the financial risk of this project has already be spread. Any new partnerships must be a quid pro quo arrangement that makes sense first in terms of service delivery, second in terms of injecting funds. This approach enables us to keep our financial risk low and focus on doing the work rather than raising money. The infoDev funds would be sufficient for us now to bridge the development gap between where INFO2000 leaves off and testing and building capability in the Indian context. The linkup with in-country data sources is not a specific objective of this proposal. This will be done where appropriate, but we see this as the role of others. We note that INFOTERRA is proposing to adopt a decentralized multi-sector approach at the national level, to enable greater stakeholder participation in the provision of an integrated environmental information service. This would be accomplished through the establishment of a networking partnership of major environmental information service providers and stakeholder groups (perhaps we would be a part of this new partnership). According to the programme's Advisory Committee, "a radical re-invention of INFOTERRA … is needed if it is to meet the public demand for better access to global environmental information in the new millennium." We believe that projects such as our will provide valuable inputs to this process. Some input will inevitably happen as a result of staff members of our partner organizations already being advisors INFOTERRA. Reviewer 1: Indeed, following the line of these arguments, the proposal clearly demonstrates the tensions which exist between financial sustainability of information services in a cash-strapped environment, and the responsibility of these same agencies to deliver on their development objectives. Clearly the best possible world would include a comprehensive partnering of technical service providers, scientific experts / data gatherers, development agencies and commercial organizations, with all bringing their resources to bear on the issues of sustainable development. This proposal is an attempt to address a small component of this problem. It may be that this proposal represents a |