TWENTY-YEAR
REVIEW OF GBIFEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2CODATA Twenty-year Review of GBIFThis independent report was requested from CODATA by the
GBIF Governing Board and leadership, who comprise the primary
intended audience. Government decision-makers and othersin the biodiversity community may want to read Chapter 9 of
the FULL REPORT, which contains the full conclusions andrecommendations, and the body of the report for the supporting
evidence and rationale. The report is also intended to provide the
GBIF team leaders and data Node managers with a neutral view of
GBIF by external experts.

Executive Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I

Introduction

5

II

Review Methodology

7

III

Summary of Conclusions

9

IV

Summary of Recommendations

12

The Twenty-Year Review of GBIF comprises two sections. The
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (this section) and the FULL REPORT.

Please cite this report as: CODATA, the Committee on Data of theInternational Science Council; Pfeiffenberger, Hans; Uhlir, Paul;
Twenty-Year Review of GBIF (CODATA, Paris, 2020)
https://doi.org/10.35035/ctzm-hz97This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License– Except where noted otherwise (images) –3

4

CODATA Twenty-year Review of GBIF

Photo by Niv Singer
on Unsplash

Executive SummaryI

INTRODUCTION

The past two decades of the new century have brought
into sharp relief many global trends, both positive
and negative, that put the current review of the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in a larger
context and inform action in the coming years. Societal
challenges provide important reasons for bold action.
Our planet is experiencing environmental degradation
on a massive scale—whether it is climate warming(IPCC 2018), the impacts on our lands and oceans1, or
the immense loss of biodiversity. The latter, which many
informed observers have referred to as the beginningof the 6th Great Extinction (Kolbert 2014), is theimmediate context for GBIF and this review. Although
we are aware of these huge negative trends, there is muchthat we do not know about biodiversity in many placeson the planet and thus are not well equipped to confront
the problems comprehensively, even if we mustered therequisite will to do so. And, of course, there are manyother forces that work against our ability to respondpositively to these crises and that need to be challenged
by broadly available factual information. Good
information, responsibly used, can be transforming andlead to appropriate decision-making.
These societal challenges provide a compelling rationale
and urgent need for data mobilization and collection to
support greater action by global information activities
such as GBIF. We believe it is the positive trends,
however, that increasingly provide the means to do

15

the biodiversity data work successfully. We therefore
focus here principally on the scientific and technicaldevelopments, as well as the social context in which theyoccurred, over the past twenty years.
From a scientific standpoint, there has been an explosionof data and information, and a concomitant paradigm
shift to data-driven research and specifically biodiversity
research and its myriad applications. Moreover,there are many new and “non-traditional” sourcesof information, such as meta-barcoding and remotesensing technologies, that are being integrated in thischanging paradigm. Novel and redesigned scientific data
organizations, including those supporting citizen scienceand integrating indigenous knowledge, are developing
approaches designed specifically to take advantage ofthe unprecedented data opportunities in a cooperative
framework. And innovative open data policies andstructures are proliferating.
The inexorable progress of information technologies
makes this scientific data revolution possible.
As a biodiversity information facility and global
infrastructure expressly set up as a focal point andinstitution to mediate such data, GBIF is uniquely
positioned to take advantage of these opportunities
and confront the challenges. This 20-year review andresulting report are intended to help GBIF and its large
network make that happen.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/SROCC_SPM_HeadlineStatements.pdf

6

CODATA Twenty-year Review of GBIF

Photo by Clint Adair
on Unsplash

Executive Summary

7

II REVIEW METHODOLOGYIn 1999, the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment’s (OECD) Working Group on Biological
Informatics of the Megascience Forum (now the Global
Science Forum) recommended the establishment of anorganization such as GBIF. The OECD report concluded
that “An international mechanism is needed to makebiodiversity data and information accessible worldwide”(OECD 1999).
GBIF was created to be both an intergovernmentalorganization governed by a nonbinding Memorandumof Understanding and an international network andresearch infrastructure. Funded by 40 governments asof January 20201, with supplementary support given
by other organizations, it is aimed at providing anyone,
anywhere, open access to data about all types of lifeon Earth. Details about the structure, organization,members, work, and the data that GBIF mediates may befound on its website at: www.gbif.org and in the body of
the review report that follows.
The OECD report also expected strong cooperation
on a worldwide basis, with a nimble GBIF Secretariat
in a coordinating role. However, present structuresof biodiversity information systems – which we try tocapture broadly in Chapter 2 on the landscape – are still
strongly influenced by nationally or topically focused
funding and organizational decisions of the past. A new
approach to such thematic coordination, the Alliancefor Biodiversity Knowledge2 (“the Alliance”), which
originated from a gathering of major players in thislandscape in 2018, deserves close observation.
GBIF has now existed for almost 20 years, so it is a goodtime to examine the past and to look forward. Therefore,
at the suggestion of the GBIF Secretariat, the governancebodies of GBIF have asked CODATA to review theorganization’s activities and accomplishments.

The statement of task given by the GBIF Governing
Board to the CODATA review team specified:
1. Review how effective GBIF has been since 2001
in meeting the expectations from the OECDworking group
2. Review the governance and sustainability of GBIF asa global network and organization (including hostingof the Secretariat3 in Denmark)3. Review the place of GBIF within the 2018 landscapeof biodiversity and research organisations
4. Review the technical aspects of GBIF’s delivery andits sustainability and trustworthiness (in particular,
to researchers) as a research infrastructure
5. Consider the challenges in the next 5-10 years that
GBIF needs to be prepared to meet
6. Provide recommendations on areas needingattention and improvement.
The body of the report comprises a mix of descriptive,
analytical, and advisory approaches in response to thistask statement. Fact finding was performed through desk
research, in-depth interviews with key members of the
GBIF Secretariat and Committees, and interviews witha global selection of 108 experts who focused on GBIF’s
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, andthreats (SWOT).
The Conclusion sections in Chapters 3 – 8 lead to theadvisory portion of the report: the summary of theconclusions and the resulting recommendations areproposed in Chapter 9.

1

The up-to-date Participation count can be tracked at https://www.gbif.org/the-gbif-network2

https://www.biodiversityinformatics.org/

3

Some terms, such as “Secretariat”, are capitalized when referring to GBIF-specific functions or agents, as further explained in section 1.6.

8

CODATA Twenty-year Review of GBIF

Photo by James Wainscoat
on Unsplash

Executive Summary

9

III SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONSSUCCESSES
First of all, our findings show that GBIF is the mostcomprehensive, openly available, application-agnostic(most unbiased), easiest-to-use, and modern accesspoint to known digital species occurrence data.
Consequently, as a global, distributed platform, GBIF
is viewed widely as being a major success and a great
improvement over alternative solutions; this relates
equally to the data it provides and to its capacity
building activities. There is now a broadening range ofapplications of GBIF-mediated data that matches theOECD expectations of 1999. This success would not havebeen possible without GBIF’s foundational principles offunctioning as a distributed organization and its pursuitof a dependable funding structure. Its 20-year existencealone – and the way it is funded – creates much of thetrust on which most of the current, extremely highexpectations depend. The organization has built andmaintains relations with a large and very heterogeneousarray of other actors in the fields of biodiversity
informatics and conservation, and at the sciencepolicy interface. It has established itself variously as amember, partner, and coordinator of biodiversity-related
activities.
The successes also would not have been possible without
the much-lauded staff at the Secretariat, which was
uniformly praised as competent, dedicated, responsive,and enthusiastic. We found the Secretariat and GBIF as awhole to be an agile, learning, and evolving organization.
Few of the SWOT comments will come as a surprise to
the Secretariat. In particular, its leadership, which is
fully aware at least of the most important issues raised,
has actually addressed many of them in the current
strategy and work program.
The governance of GBIF – its bodies and rules – hascontributed to the essential agility and evolution of
GBIF. While it is broadly inclusive of Participants andAffiliates, it has a core, consisting of the Executive
Committee and the standing committees supporting it,
which ensures that GBIF remains adaptable and flexible.
These broad measures and perception of success arebuilt on a range of abilities and systemic featuresdeveloped over the last 20 years, such as implementing
its Open Access data policy, building a geographically
inclusive organization, tracking the use of data, enabling
Nodes and data Publishers to do common work,
developing excellent technology and systems, and being
trusted as a neutral broker within the community.
Most experts interviewed appeared to see GBIF as able
to address or contribute to the solution to the challenges
identified, even the challenges that are beyond GBIF’s
current remit.

CHALLENGES
Nonetheless, our analysis also indicates that major
challenges lie ahead and that proceeding as before may
not be an option for the continued success of GBIF. Someof the challenges are fundamental and will certainly
need a decade to be resolved. Other challenges arepractical in nature and can be realistically addressedin the short term, i.e., within one to three years at thecurrent core budget levels. The overarching challenges
that have been distilled from the organization’s
weaknesses, many opportunities, and some threats, aredescribed below. The Conclusion sections of chapters 3
to 8 contain much more detail.

In the data and technologies domain, two major
issues loom large. First, the fitness for purpose of current
GBIF-mediated data needs to be made even moretransparent and further improved. Transparency relates
to indications of accuracy and best practices in the usageof data. Improvement depends strongly on improved
and more effective and efficient quality assurance
methods, in particular, employing and engaging user
and community feedbacks, which may be addressable inthe short term, and on closing taxonomic and geographic
gaps, which is a longer-term task, mostly outside GBIF’s
direct control.

10

CODATA Twenty-year Review of GBIF

Species occurrences, www.gbif.org

The second major issue is the expected rise in thequantity and importance of non-traditional biodiversity
data, such as from remote sensing, genomic analysis
methods, other automated observations, andcontributions by citizens. Some of these developments
appear to accelerate dramatically through the recent
application of machine learning technologies and thepervasive availability of networks of people and smart
devices. Here, the question cannot be whether, butrather how and how deeply GBIF should be engaged.
Many of the interviewees and the Secretariat consider
any of a number of engagements necessary for GBIF
to remain relevant, while other interviewees warn
about “scope creep” or quality issues with specific data
sources. Consequently, GBIF will need to make somewell-considered choices when further increasing its data
holdings, which has been a persistent and crucial goal
since GBIF’s inception.
Other major issues to be addressed are in the domain of
GBIF’s organization and community. The weaknessof biodiversity data gaps is not specific to GBIF, but it
can, in GBIF’s context, partially be attributed to thefirst major issue: gaps in formal Participation frombiodiversity-rich countries and, particularly, from
Asia as a whole. But the identified strengths as well
as opportunities indicate that GBIF is structurally
better positioned than most to close this gap “on the
ground”: GBIF has been rather successful in Latin

America and newly in Africa, the latter mainly based ona specific capacity-enhancement program, Biodiversity
Information for Development (BID). Here in particular
the principle of regional networks of Nodes has
demonstrated opportunities, but also limits, which
are mainly due to the shortfalls in funding (see below).
In Asia, there is no disagreement in principle on thestrengths of GBIF, but the expectation that a much better
communication of a cost-benefit analysis would help
build formal Participation.
The second major issue in this domain is that even theconcept of national Nodes (or national Biodiversity
Information Facilities) is limited. There are 20 national
Nodes in Europe, serving it well. But there is generalskepticism about the Nodes concept in the comparably
sized US, with just one Node serving it. A number ofwell-funded national Nodes show that the GBIF concept
can be implemented. However, in most countries theNodes are not staffed to achieve full functionality. Thiscan be compensated to some extent by a strong hosting
institution, but institutions in most countries outside
Europe lack such resources. In Asia, a fundamental
principle of GBIF funding currently precludes a dense
Nodes network to be built at all, as Nodes are tied toformal Participation. In all GBIF regions except in North
America and western Europe, the language barrier
appears to be a real impediment to capacity building andalso in the ability of GBIF’s Publishers to contribute data.

Executive Summary

The major challenges in the previous domains inevitably
lead to a consideration of the domain of funding. Herethe first major issue is that the current level of GBIF
funding – including the national funding of Nodes andsupplementary funds – is barely sufficient to perform its
activities at the current scope of its strategy and work
programs. An increase in formal Participation may help,
but it definitely would not be sufficient to undertake big
strategic moves, if they are determined to be necessary
in the long term. Still, the mostly hidden cost ofadequately staffing Nodes may need the most attention.
National funding for additional staffing is, and may
remain, unavailable in most countries.
Due to developments in the political realm, someobservers expect a second major funding issue that
GBIF may face over the coming years will be increased
instability of core funding1. However, GBIF is prepared
to absorb major funding fluctuations. Some major
successes have been achieved using supplementary
funding, but GBIF’s governance functions are largely
adapted to managing these as moderate contributions to

its existing work programs. Consequently, substantial
third-party funding, for example by philanthropic
organizations or industry, cannot bolster the coreof GBIF’s work program without major changes ingovernance and possibly strategy.
The final major challenge lies in the managementof expectations2 . The weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats brought forward in interviews reflect the
expectations of GBIF’s stakeholders. The fact thatits community assumes that GBIF could meet great
expectations, is, above all, a very good sign about its
reputation, but it reveals in many cases fundamental
misconceptions about GBIF’s resources or the effort
required. Consequently, while addressing thosechallenges that are in fact within its remit and its
limits of resources, GBIF will urgently need to manage
expectations about what it can achieve and when. If
the organization allows overoptimistic expectations tostand, it might experience an unnecessary decrease in
its reputation.

1

Throughout the report, “core funding” is the GBIF term for Voting Participants’ (long-term) contributions.

2”management of expectations“ is a technical term used in software development with an aim to reduce unrealistic expectations ofcostumer or users about what can be achieved and when it can be achieved.

11

12

CODATA Twenty-year Review of GBIFIV SUMMARY OFRECOMMENDATIONSThe high expectations on GBIF as well as the technicaland scientific challenges ahead strongly suggest that,while GBIF is well positioned to meet them, a scenario
of “business as usual” may fail to preserve GBIF’s
relevance. Strong growth should be considered seriously,with implications for GBIF’s technology, services,
organization, and funding.
Our specific recommendations are generally ordered ina sequence that reflects a plausible phasing of related
activities. Thus, we present our recommendations inthree sub-sections. The first one sets forth genericguidelines mainly formulated to maintain a focus
on what we have identified as the main factors in
GBIF’s success and reputation. Specific short-term

recommendations in the second section aim toencourage progress on the most urgent challenges,
which could be achieved at the current funding leveland structure, and without revising the organization’s
strategy. The third section provides recommendations
related to all of the challenges, but which probably
can only be approached by a longer-term activity or
by a substantial expansion of funding in the next two
funding cycles (of five years, each). That third setof recommendations thus might require an explicit
expression in strategy, organization, or even governance.
The recommendations that follow are cross-referenced
to pages in the FULL REPORT.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONSIn order to maintain and strengthen GBIF’s relevanceand standing, we recommend the consideration of
growth paths in a number of dimensions. Such growth
will enable GBIF to support biodiversity researchbroadly in the future. To do so, the organization willprobably also need to participate in and contribute to
the rapid development of its scientific data methods andstandards.
R1a, Data Quality and Quantity (p.121): GBIF needs
to build on and maintain its reputation as the mostcomprehensive source of openly available global
occurrence data. This means that it should continue
the trajectory of growth of the data that it mediates,in quantity as in quality, by extending and deepening
relations within its network, and by supporting nontraditional types of biodiversity data.

R1b, Technology and standards (p.121): GBIF
needs to maintain or attain leadership in essential
technological and standardization areas related tobiodiversity informatics. In order to do so, it should
continue to work actively with other stakeholders in the“landscape”, such as the researchers at the forefrontof such fields as metagenomics, remote sensing, andobservation and cloud technologies, to keep abreast ofdeveloping data sources, standards, and technologies.
GBIF should add a long-term focus on IT security.
R2, Networking (p.121): GBIF should maintainand even strengthen its capabilities to network its
stakeholders and to lead them to cooperate and build
consensus. GBIF, and particularly the Secretariat,
should continue to be seen as a neutral broker.

Executive Summary

13

SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Most major challenges are not resolvable by GBIF on
its own or by simple measures. Therefore, many of
those can only be solved in the long term. Still, it isnecessary to address them even in the short-term, if
only to reassure stakeholders of GBIF’s awareness and of
progress that the organization is making. GBIF should
demonstrate that it is working on them or even provide
what could be seen as short-term workarounds.
Many of our short-term recommendations are related to
improved communication and GBIF’s visibility and to
managing stakeholders’ expectations. Most of this could
and should be done in the next two to three years:
R3, Visibility (p.122): Establish greater visibility among
decision-makers and the policy community in thebiodiversity arena, as well as throughout the scientificcommunity.
R4a, Value Proposition (p.122): Develop compelling
value propositions, especially as a tool for GBIF
champions and the Nodes.
R4b, Grand Challenge (p.122): Choose a “grand” butdoable real-world challenge (i.e., low-hanging fruit). In
this regard, GBIF should identify associated data gaps
and focus community effort on filling those gaps, workwith scientists to perform the analysis, and actively
disseminate how the collections, countries, and GBIF arecoordinated to solve or contribute to the solution of sucha significant real-world problem.
R5, Eastern Participation (p.122): Build Participationin the East. This is a long-term activity, but flexibility
and creativity should be employed through short-term
measures, which would show progress and build good
will for full Participation in GBIF, particularly in Asia.
R6, Strengthen Nodes (p.123): Make the full Nodesconcept work in all regions. Each GBIF region has
different needs and issues – therefore, each needs its
own engagement strategy.

R7, Communicate Successes (p.123): Discuss withstakeholders and show prominently and appealingly
what has and can be done with GBIF-mediated data in ascientifically sound way. Focus on high-value products(see R4).
R8, Improve Data Fitness (p.123): Develop criteria
and metrics to measure data quality and demonstrate
improvements in the short term.
R9, Publish Methods and Applications (p.124):
Continue exploring and publish information on how eachnew type of biodiversity data is relevant in the context
of “traditional” data and vice versa, and explain the
problems and compromises involved.
R10a, Manage Expectations (p.124): In managing
expectations about what GBIF can or cannot deliver, theorganization’s leaders should do more to communicate
its mission, the magnitude of its funding, as well as
scalability issues in general.
R10b, Leverage the Network (p.124): GBIF should
identify in a strategic planning process where it could
leverage its network and could succeed in brokering
support for urgently requested activities.
To be able to execute some or all of the medium-term tolong-term recommendations below, we recommend thefollowing action in the short-term:
R11, Urgent Deliberations and Decisions of theGoverning Board (p.124): The Governing Board needs
to discuss and establish guidelines regarding the role ofnational Nodes within the GBIF structure, the staffingof Nodes, the (co-)funding of GBIF work programs byintergovernmental or governmental third parties andby philanthropic organizations or industry, and explore
how core funding from Participants could be increased.

14

CODATA Twenty-year Review of GBIFLONGER-TERM RECOMMENDATIONSIn the following, we use “medium term” to mean nolonger than the next 5-year GBIF funding interval and“long term” to mean up to 10 or more years. Note thatsome of the recommendations, particularly R15 to R20,
may need significant additional funding.

There are and certainly will continue to be many issues
to resolve. Currently, the most promising approach
appears to be through the emerging Alliance ofBiodiversity Knowledge (the Alliance). We therefore
recommend that:

Because we see major challenges and consequential
decisions ahead for the organization’s leadership werecommend a strengthening of observation, advice, andsupport with views provided both from the outside andthe inside on a regular basis:

R14, Leadership (p.126): GBIF should assume, as
requested by major voices in the community, leadershipof the Alliance in order to create consensus andcollaboration at a much broader scale.

R12, Create Advisory Board (p.125): The Executive
Committee should create a small, but inclusive, highlevel advisory body consisting of external experts toadvise the Governing Board on strategies, particularly
on matters of fundamental importance to the mission,organizational principles, governance, and fundingof GBIF.
R13, Foresight and Monitoring (p.125): The Executive
Committee should, with the support of the Secretariat
and its standing committees, develop an explicit,
strategic foresight and monitoring process, including
landscape analysis updates and estimates of thepenetration of the potential user base, with the aim toadjust priorities within the work programs and suggest
the timely adaptation of strategic approaches anddirections to the Governing Board.

We offer the following three specific recommendations to
be implemented by GBIF in the medium term, informedby previous explorations and, as far as possible, byoutputs of the work of the Alliance, but not waiting for
its conclusion:
R15, Feedback and Quality Assurance (p.126):
GBIF should speed up the work on feedback and quality
assurance, and their implementation, so that major
results are shown in the medium term.
R16, Full-Service Portal (p.127): Prototype anddemonstrate a concept for a “full service” portal, which
would provide additional types of data and services.
R17, Long-Term Strategy (p.127): Formulate strategicplans for the long term, underpinned by cost estimates.
These need to resolve whether to host data other thanoccurrences, how to link them, whether and how to
perform standard analytics or to offer a platform to
execute user analytics, and how to host GBIF services
in the future.

Executive Summary

In order to address the full range of challenges, werecommend that:
R18, Asian Participation (p.127): To establish apermanent foothold in Asia, GBIF should consider abranch office in an Asian country which is, like Denmark,small but wealthy enough to support hosting, politically(relatively) neutral, multilingual, and safe.
R19, Staffing Increase (p.128): Staffing at the
Secretariat in support of the various biodiversity
communities’ engagement should be doubled in themedium term.
R20, Organization and Funding of Nodes (p.128):
If success in implementing fully functional Nodes in
most, if not all, of the Participant countries or developing
their sustainable funding cannot be achieved in themedium term, a major adaptation of either the fundingof Nodes or the organizational concept of GBIF should
be considered by the Governing Board, supported by its
newly established high-level advisory board.
R21a, Funding Guidelines and Ability to Execute(p.128): GBIF should be prepared with guidelines fromthe Governing Board to fund new strategic initiatives
and be organizationally able to absorb the workload or
distribute it to reliable partners.
R21b, Increased Core Funding (p.128): The Governing
Board should work to increase core funding, perhaps
doubling it in the medium term (the next funding periodof 5 years). For the longer term – the following 5 years– we confirm the recommendation of a previous review(CODATA 2005) to arrive at 12 million EUR per year, in2019 Euros (which would constitute another doubling).

15

If this increased level of funding cannot be achieved by
the collection of reasonable and fair dues from national
Participants, our last two recommendations are about
seeking other funding sources:
R21c, Core Funding Sources (p.128): The Governing
Board should consider whether to invite third parties(non-Participants) to contribute to the funding of
the core program. Such funding should involve
predominantly longer-term commitments, i.e., for aminimum of 5 years.
R21d, Node Funding Sources (p.128): The longterm funding of many Nodes will very likely need to besupplemented by third parties. Both this and eventual
third-party contributions to the core funding should bestrictly monitored, however, to exclude undue influence
on Nodes or on GBIF as a whole.
In summary, we see the organization as being able
to rise to the challenges and today’s expectations.
To succeed, it must be enabled – financially,
structurally, and with good leadership – to continue
to perform the requisite exploratory work andimplement the necessary steps in a timely manner.
We hope to have provided some recommendations
that will enable GBIF to sustain its high standing
in the biodiversity informatics landscape andto further continue to improve its support ofbiodiversity research and societal welfare. These
recommendations should help GBIF face thechallenges of as yet unforeseeable demands fromthe science-policy interface, or applications in thehealth, agricultural, or commercial domains. Suchdeveloping expectations require the ability to adapt
strategies and technologies flexibly and quickly,
particularly as methods of systematic biodiversity
data acquisition and scientific analysis may undergo
some radical changes in the near future, and thepace of technological development for informatics
and biotechnology accelerates.

CODATAThe Committee on Data of theInternational Science Council
Connect with us at:www.codata.org
simon@codata.org

International Science Council
5 rue Auguste Vacquerie
75016 Paris, France
www.twitter.com/CODATANews
www.facebook.com/codata.org

Cover image: Species occurrences,www.gbif.org