Current Best Practices for Generalizing Sensitive Species Occurrence Data. Version 1.

Abstract

The unprotected distribution of Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data (for example the exact localities of rare, endangered or commercially valuable taxa) was a concern of GBIF [https://www.gbif.org] – the Global Biodiversity Information Facility – from its beginning. The GBIF Secretariat has a vested interest in making data available via its portals, but at the same time respecting the wishes of data providers to restrict information on sensitive taxa. In early 2006, GBIF initiated a process to address this issue, especially in relation to data to be shared through the GBIF network and made visible through GBIF.org [https://www.gbif.org] and other data aggregating initiatives. This resulted in the Guide to Best Practices for Generalising Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data [https://doi.org/10.15468/doc-b02j-gt10]. That document relied heavily on the results of an online survey conducted through Survey Monkey [https://www.surveymonkey.com] and subsequent workshops whose reports were originally made available on the GBIF website (Chapman 2006 [https://doi.org/10.35035/ vs84-0p13]). A final report on Dealing with Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data was developed following these processes and discussions, and was presented to GBIF in April 2007 (Chapman 2007 [https://doi.org/10.35035/rajc-t668]). This report made a number of recommendations, and many of these have been included in this document. The final step in that process was to develop a Guide to Best Practices for Primary Species Occurrence Data. That document was proposed as an overriding guideline for institutions, data providers and GBIF Nodes to use to develop their own in-house guidelines. Organizations and institutions were encouraged to produce their own internal documents that incorporated the practices outlined in the Guide and related documents such as the Guide to Best Practices for Georeferencing [https://doi.org/ 10.15468/doc-2zpf-zf42] (Chapman and Wieczorek 2006) and incorporate them into their own working environment. Unfortunately, not as many institutions have taken up the challenge and produced their own internal documents as we had hoped. Two key agencies that have done so, however, are SANBI in South Africa (SANBI 2010 [http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SANBIBiodiversity- Information-Policy-Series-Digital-Access-to-Sensitive-Taxon.pdf]) and the Atlas of Living Australia (Tann and Flemons 2009 [https://www.ala.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ALA-sensitive-data-report-andproposed- policy-v1.1.pdf], ALA 2018a [https://support.ala.org.au/support/solutions/articles/6000195500-what-issensitive- data-]) (see Implementations). It is also important to understand the possible impact that approaches for restricting sensitive data may have on biodiversity science and, while restricting the availability or resolution of certain data, not overly restricting the uses to which the data may be put. For that reason, a set of principles are elucidated below. Key among these is the need to make biodiversity information freely available wherever possible, in the interests of science, the environment and biodiversity itself.