ࡱ> xzw Webjbj22 PkPk\A   '0'0'08_0<0D900(1111119999999;X>^9111119B3119B3B3B31119B319B3B3:8,%9OKD'02X8 A9D9098R>B3>%9B3%9111.d. {:    IOC-OBIS workshop on collaboration between IOC and OBIS towards the long-term management, archival and accessibility of ocean biogeographic data 24 - 26 November 2008, Oostende, Belgium Possible Scenarios for the Future 1. Introduction In 2010 the funding from the Sloan Foundation for the Census in general, also for OBIS, will cease to exist. Sustainability of OBIS beyond 2010 has been discussed during various meetings. One of the possible scenarios to make OBIS sustainable is to transform it into a programme of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. At the first meeting of the OBIS Governing Board (Rome, 2829 April 2008) the IOC Executive Secretary offered to provide an institutional framework for the continuation of OBIS. The OBIS Governing Board welcomed the offer, but recommended that this partnership should be further elaborated and a business model be presented to the IOC Assembly for consideration at its 25th Session, in 2009. The 2008 IOC Executive Council (June/July 2008) recognized the importance and value of CoML, the particular value of the OBIS component as a global repository for marine biological data, and the potential of a second phase of OBIS to expand data in this vital repository and to improve the interface for global access and exchange of marine biological data. The Executive Council considered OBIS a highly attractive future component or partner of IODE, and welcomed the wish of the OBIS Governing Board to investigate different scenarios for a close affiliation between IOC and OBIS, or the adoption of OBIS by the IOC. It requested the Executive Secretary and the IOC Data and Information Management Advisory Group to work together with the OBIS Secretariat to develop a document for submission to the 25th Session of the IOC Assembly in 2009. The Executive Council considered that the document should describe possible scenarios for collaboration between IOC and OBIS, concentrating on the possibility of the creation of an IOC-OBIS programme and an IOCOBIS Programme Office. It should, for different scenarios, investigate consequences for both IOC and OBIS, and should contain estimates of budgetary implications, and involve consultations, as appropriate, with potential donors and/or host organizations. 2. General Considerations The first question to be addressed is whether there exist any fundamental reasons why the suggested discussions of scenarios for closer affiliation between the IOC and OBIS should not go ahead. OBIS and the IOC are certainly two very different organizations The IOC is an established intergovernmental organization of the United Nations with functional autonomy within UNESCO. It has its own Statutes and Rules of Procedure that need to be satisfied. OBIS is an international organization established by the Census of Marine Life for a specific purpose, to integrate all data generated by the Census, and combining it with data from other sources. It is an evolving strategic alliance of people and organizations sharing a vision to make marine biogeographic data, from all over the world, freely available over the World Wide Web. The fundamental goals and objectives of OBIS need to be maintained and furthered. The IOC Statutes, clearly encompass the goals and objectives of OBIS within the statement of its purpose in Article 2.1 2.1 The purpose of the Commission is to promote international cooperation and to coordinate programmes in research, services and capacity-building, in order to learn more about the nature and resources of the ocean and coastal areas and to apply that knowledge for the improvement of management, sustainable development, the protection of the marine environment, and the decision-making processes of its Member States. With regard to an affiliation with OBIS, the Statutes also clearly encourage such collaboration within its purpose, Article 2.2 2.2 The Commission will collaborate with international organizations concerned with the work of the Commission, and especially with those organizations of the United Nations system which are willing and prepared to contribute to the purpose and functions of the Commission and/or to seek advice and cooperation in the field of ocean and coastal area scientific research, related services and capacity-building. and in Article 11 on Relations with other organizations. 11.1 The Commission may cooperate with Specialized Agencies of the United Nations and other international organizations whose interests and activities are related to its purpose, including signing memoranda of understanding with regard to cooperation. 11.2 The Commission shall give due attention to supporting the objectives of international organizations with which it collaborates. On the other hand, the Commission shall request these organizations to take its requirements into account in planning and executing their own programmes. Additionally, the ability of the IOC to act in the intergovernmental sphere would clearly offer the opportunity for the OBIS program to grow in stature and acceptability. For example from Statute 11: 11.3 The Commission may act also as a joint specialized mechanism of the organizations of the United Nations system that have agreed to use the Commission for discharging certain of their responsibilities in the fields of marine sciences and ocean services, and have agreed accordingly to sustain the work of the Commission. Another general consideration is the compatibility of data management policies between the IOC and OBIS. With any closer association between the two organizations differences in policy management must be minimal. The IOC Member States adopted an oceanographic data exchange policy at the XXII Assembly in 2003 and it is attached as Annex A. There doesn't appear to be any restrictionsthat would cause concern. If OBIS does become a program within the IOC in some form, then data generated from that program will be freely available.The meeting should however examine the policy and any similar statement from OBIS to eliminate any concerns. Finally the meeting should agree that IOC or OBIS have no technical requirements that are unacceptable to the other party or no other technical obstacles exists that may prohibit further discussion of obstacles. With no fundamental reasons why scenarios should not be developed and discussed, the prime consideration must be the satisfaction of the criteria developed to ensure the long-term security and access to the data. To avoid wasting time over options that are too extravagant or unwieldy, the question of feasibility should also be part of the initial considerations. In comparing options, the meeting must consider the benefits and weaknesses of proposals, administration, governance and management concerns and of course funding and staffing issues. Although very important, the resource question should not be paramount until the other factors are debated, as an attractive proposal would be more likely to attract the necessary support, even though it may be considerably more expensive than a less ambitious alternative. The following list of options should not be taken as a complete list for consideration. The purpose of the meeting is to investigate acceptable arrangements for the continuation of OBIS beyond its present mandate and all feasible proposals should be examined. This obviously includes new suggestions in addition to possible amendments or sub sets of the options listed below. The given examples of strengths and weaknesses of the options are also intended as starting texts only and amendments by the meeting are not only possible but expected. 3. Consideration of Options 3.1. Status Quo IODE and OBIS have shared interests and many their respective operations and objectives for biological data are very similar. Quite naturally a great deal of cooperation already exists and many joint activities have been carried out. IODE and OBIS were both involved in a series of three conferences on Ocean Biodiversity Informatics (held in Brussels, 2002, Hamburg 2004 and Halifax 2007). Representatives of OBIS have attended GE-BICH meetings. Joint training workshops on biodiversity informatics have been held. Data logging sessions, to assist African countries to generate data for ODINAfrica and AfrOBIS have been organized and, on a related front, OBIS collaborates with HAB on the development of HAIS. The organizational models of OBIS and IODE mesh very well. Both are distributed networks, with OBIS RONs equivalent to IODEs NODCs. Several RONs are actually operated by NODCs. Both OBIS and IOC are standards-based, and have been actively involved in developing internationally accepted standards. The harmonious relationship between IODE and OBIS justify the tabling of the status quo, however, as the future situation for OBIS demands change, it is not a viable option. The respective governing bodies have requested the investigation of new directions and the present valuable interaction between the IOC and OBIS can be used as a starting point for those future options. 3.2. A partnership agreement between OBIS and the IOC This option is of course very flexible and could cover a wide variety of topics. For example: Agreement, use and maintenance of common standards and formats Free exchange and access amongst IODE/OBIS centres Encouragement for OBIS RONs to become part of the IODE/NODC network at any time, where such moves improve the security and stability of the data holdings Joint meetings Ex officio representation at respective management meetings A partnership agreement would be the least intrusive option on present arrangements. Administration and operation of the two organizations would remain separate and the agreement could formalize and strengthen the present informal collaboration. A formal partnership arrangement would be agreed and signed by the respective governing bodies. Action by the IOC would be covered through a Resolution at the Assembly approving a formal partnership arrangement and the OBIS Board would do the same. There is room for flexibility within a formal partnership agreement. In addition to the present cooperation, the IOC could commit additional support at both the national and intergovernmental levels; it could also assist with training, expert meetings, symposia and improving links between OBIS and other intergovernmental and global organizations. It could be possible for such an arrangement to include a commitment for financial support. This option does not address the fundamental reason that was foremost in the minds of the governing bodies. It would not resolve the uncertainties in the future of OBIS. The OBIS Board would need to seek other partners for the resources and support necessary to ensure the future stability of its archives, network and operation. This arrangement would not promote an organizational structure that would link OBIS to a closely related intergovernmental organization with a mature and stable record. The meeting may wish to consider whether a formal agreement between the two organizations could be an intermediate step before a more substantial action, In such a case the agreement would need to include a schedule and milestones for the agreed organizational changes that would allow for present plans to come to fruition and future resources to be found and committed. 3. OBIS becomes part of the IODE programme As noted in the description of the status quo, OBIS and IODE operate in a similar fashion and several of the regional centres are already linked organizationally. The organizational changes could take place rather smoothly. For example: The OBIS RONs would become IODE NODCs, or part of their distributed network. The Heads of the RONs would become members of the IODE Committee. The technical/scientific committee of OBIS would become an IODE Group of Experts (GEs deal with issues assigned to it by the Committee), or Steering Group (SGs coordinate and oversee projects). The OBIS Executive Director would become an IOC programme specialist (P-4 or P-5). The OBIS secretariat could remain in Rutgers, move to Oostende or find another suitable host location. In this case, the oversight of the OBIS operation would be governed by the Member States of the IOC. Recommendations, developed with the guidance of the OBIS technical/scientific experts and/or Heads of the RONs, would be brought to the IOC Assembly and Executive Council through the action of the IODE Committee. Difficulties for OBIS may exist in the individual transfer of RONs from their present affiliation to a national or governmental status. As stated above, in some instances this is already the case; however negotiations may be required for other centres. These difficulties should not prove insurmountable, but may require some extended schedule for OBIS to complete. For the IOC the main issue will be a resource question. Such an important programme will necessitate the allocation of permanent personnel positions, at least for the programme head and the direct and in-kind financial resources needed to support the new Group of Experts or Steering Group. The availability of resources has been a continuing struggle at the IOC, which also has to justify its budget at the UNESCO level. However because of the close links of the OBIS objectives to the main thrusts of UNESCO itself (oceans, biodiversity, MAB etc) and in particular the relevance of OBIS to the new UNESCO priority programme climate change, requests for additional resources may be successful. The IOC also has its own IOC Special Account supported by direct donations from Member States and an ability to have in-kind contributions towards programme operations. For example a commitment from the USA to operate the Rutgers centre for an extended period, or a similar offer from another Member State, would facilitate the acceptance of this option. The adoption of a Resolution by the IOC Assembly to approve the merger between OBIS and IODE with commitment of the necessary resources would be required. The objectives of the merger would reflect those of OBIS and be stated specifically in the Resolution as would the Terms of Reference for the Group of Experts or Steering Group. For a change to the IODE of this magnitude, the Terms of Reference of the IODE itself may also need some adjustment. Prior discussions with Member States of the IOC and with UNESCO would be necessary to eliminate some of the concerns over resource issues. The IOC will gain a prestigious program that will enhance its global data programme and reflect its own objectives for the assimilation of biological ocean data. There may be some opportunities to consolidate the present IODE programmes, for example GE-BICH, with the new OBIS initiative. For OBIS there may be a concern of diminished identity and visibility. This is a concern that needs to be addressed and respected by the IOC. Within the realm of IODE there exist many activities and projects that all have established and maintained their own own identity but while highlighting their parentage. A similar approach could be taken by OBIS, whereby IODE will be an organizational umbrella that exists to strengthen links between national and international data management activities. For the OBIS Board, this option would require discussion with, and approval from, their regional centres and other main partners. The OBIS Board would seek approval from all these, and to decide whether unanimity would be required or, if necessary, whether some exceptions could be accommodated The Board will also need to be satisfied that the new programme within the IOC/IODE would maintain the stated objectives of OBIS, that continuity be maintained and the future direction assured. 4. OBIS becomes an IOC programme Many of the factors discussed in the previous option would be the same. The recognition of OBIS as a separate programme within the Commission could enhance its stature and visibility. It is possible that other organizations outside the IOC with links to OBIS would prefer a more recognizable reflection of OBIS within the Commission. On the other hand the acceptance of a separate OBIS programme by the IOC would undoubtedly have many difficulties. It would be more expensive. Such an arrangement may necessitate the formation of an OBIS Intergovernmental Working Committee (similar to IODE), together with its technical/expert support groups. It would not be seen to assist with the development with the integration of biological data into IODE or with their long-term requirements for an eventual system of systems. In budgetary matters, an OBIS programme would be competing against the IODE for funds and resources and there would be an inevitable confusion regarding responsibilities for biological data within the Commission. OBIS becomes a UNESCO programme This option would seem to be a possibility, but would need to be further explored. Many of the objectives of OBIS would find a reflection in the UNESCO programmes of MAB, Diversitas etc. especially the scientific research and background surrounding the OBIS data set. Another advantage would be the linkage to a more substantial financial base and potential access to a wider audience of interests. A major disadvantage would be the lack of operational data management experience within the UNESCO programs, in particular the on-line archival and exchange capabilities. It is possible that this arrangement would be feasible if it is taken in connection with a partnership arrangement within UNESCO linking an internal UNESCO OBIS programme with the IOC/IODE, together with a commitment of the necessary resources. This may seem an overly complicated way of achieving the same result as Options 3 or 4. Annex A IOC OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA EXCHANGE POLICY (IOC-XXII/3, 2003) Preamble The timely, free and unrestricted international exchange of oceanographic data is essential for the efficient acquisition, integration and use of ocean observations gathered by the countries of the world for a wide variety of purposes including the prediction of weather and climate, the operational forecasting of the marine environment, the preservation of life, the mitigation of human-induced changes in the marine and coastal environment, as well as for the advancement of scientific understanding that makes this possible. Recognising the vital importance of these purposes to all humankind and the role of IOC and its programmes in this regard, the Member States of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission agree that the following clauses shall frame the IOC policy for the international exchange of oceanographic data and its associated metadata. Clause 1 Member States shall provide timely, free and unrestricted access to all data, associate metadata and products generated under the auspices of IOC programmes. Clause 2 Member States are encouraged to provide timely, free and unrestricted access to relevant data and associated metadata from non-IOC programmes that are essential for application to the preservation of life, beneficial public use and protection of the ocean environment, the forecasting of weather, the operational forecasting of the marine environment, the monitoring and modelling of climate and sustainable development in the marine environment. Clause 3 Member States are encouraged to provide timely, free and unrestricted access to oceanographic data and associated metadata, as referred to in Clauses 1 and 2 above, for non-commercial use by the research and education communities, provided that any products or results of such use shall be published in the open literature without delay or restriction. Clause 4 With the objective of encouraging the participation of governmental and non-governmental marine data-gathering bodies in international oceanographic data exchange and maximising the contribution of oceanographic data from all sources, this Policy acknowledges the right of Member States and data originators to determine the terms of such exchange, in a manner consistent with international conventions, where applicable. Clause 5 Member States shall, to the best practicable degree, use data centres linked to IODEs NODC and WDC network as long-term repositories for oceanographic data and associated metadata. IOC programmes will co-operate with data contributors to ensure that data can be accepted into the appropriate systems and can meet quality requirements. Clause 6 Member States shall enhance the capacity in developing countries to obtain and manage oceanographic data and information and assist them to benefit fully from the exchange of oceanographic data, associated metadata and products. This shall be achieved through the nondiscriminatory transfer of technology and knowledge using appropriate means, including IOCs Training Education and Mutual Assistance (TEMA) programme and through other relevant IOC programmes. Definitions Free and unrestricted means non-discriminatory and without charge. Without charge, in the context of this resolution means at no more than the cost of reproduction and delivery, without charge for the data and products themselves. Data consists of oceanographic observation data, derived data and gridded fields. Metadata is data about data describing the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data. Non-commercial means not conducted for profit, cost-recovery or re-sale. Timely in this context means the distribution of data and/or products sufficiently rapidly to be of value for a given application. Product means a value-added enhancement of data applied to a particular application. ANNEX B List of Acronyms (taken from OBIS proposal) ATOL Assembling the Tree of Life CBOL Consortium for the Barcode of Life CoL Catalogue of Life CoML Census of Marine Life DMAC Data Management and Acquisition EOL Encyclopedia of Life EurOBIS European node of OBIS FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation FGDC Federal Government Data Committee FMAP Future of Marine Animal Populations GB Governing Board (of OBIS) GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility GCMD Global Change Master Directory GODAR Global Oceanography Data Archaeology and Rescue HMAP History of Marine Animal Populations iOBIS International Secretariat and Portal for the Ocean Biogeographic Information Network (based at Rutgers University Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences) IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission IODE International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange programme IOOS Integrated Ocean Observing System ITIS Integrated Taxonomic Information System IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature LME Large Marine Ecosystems MC Managers Committee (of OBIS RONs) NODC National Oceanographic Data Center (of the US) NRIC National and Regional Implementation Committees (of CoML) NSF National Science Foundation (of the US) OBI Ocean Biodiversity Informatics OBIS Ocean Biogeographic Information System OBIS SEAMAP OBIS Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations OGC Open GIS Consortium RON Regional OBIS Node SOA Service oriented architecture TDWG Taxonomic Database Working Group WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre WCS web cover services WFS Web Feature Services WMS Web mapping services WoRMS World Register of Marine Species WSAOBIS Western South Atlantic node of OBIS  IODE promotes the development of distributed national networks of data centres and the present definition of an NODC reflects this change. WS IOC-OBIS/3 Page  PAGE 2 WS IOC-OBIS/4 Page  PAGE 1 -"8˻{n{`{`U`{h$BL6OJQJaJh+Yh$BL6OJQJaJh$,lh$BLOJQJaJh$BLOJQJaJh$,lh$BLOJQJh$BL>*OJQJh$BLOJQJhkUh$BL5OJQJhkUh$BL5>*OJQJh%h$BL5CJOJQJaJh$BL5>*CJOJQJaJh%h$BL5CJOJQJh%h%5CJ$OJQJhF&H5OJQJ89 $^a$gd$BL$a$gd$BL & 0` P@$ & 0` P@a$gd$BLgd$BL$a$gd$BL89>.0@ABCac]^CH]  % G H } ~ ö訚pdpdh$BLOJQJmHsHh_:h$BLOJQJmHsHh$BLOJQJmH sH h_:h$BLOJQJmH sH h$BLCJOJQJ^JaJhVh$BL6OJQJaJhVh$BLOJQJaJh$BLOJQJaJh$,lh$BLOJQJaJh+Yh$BL6OJQJaJh$BL6OJQJaJh+Yh$BLOJQJaJ'/0BC ""##&&0&+$ & 0` P@a$gd$BL$a$gd$BL $7$8$H$a$gd$BL $^a$gd$BL ##&&0&++++4&566<6=6f6g666660717E7F7i7j7k7m7n777(8)8TFUFwFFJJJJ8Nᤙᙕ؂whEh$BLOJQJh2h$BLOJQJhX?h$BL5h$BLh|h$BLOJQJhMh$BL5OJQJjh$BL0JOJQJUhX?h$BL5OJQJhkUh$BL5>*OJQJh$BL5OJQJh$BLOJQJh_:h$BLOJQJh$BLOJQJmH sH -+9,,`---.1133444&566gd$BL$a$gd$BL & 0` P@gd$BL$ & 0` P@a$gd$BL 0^`0gd$BL & 0` P@6g66n77)8*8e9f9::>>JAKAmBnBeDfDSFTFUFvFwFGGII$a$gd$BLgd$BL & Fgd$BLIJJJ6N7N8N:N*CJ OJQJaJ h$BL5>*CJ OJQJaJ *OJQJaJ"h7k#h$BL5>*CJOJQJaJh$BL5>*CJOJQJaJ hh$BLhh$BL5mH sH hh$BL5 h$BL5hh$BLmH sH h$BLmH sH ;]]]b3cdddddeeee(e)e/e0e1e2e3e5eBeHeIeOeڽveXeIevAveXh$BLOJQJh$BL0JOJQJmHnHuh%h$BL0JOJQJ!jh%h$BL0JOJQJUh%h$BLOJQJh$BLhS^h$BLh~yOJQJhS^h$BLh|[OJQJhS^h$BLOJQJ!jhS^h$BL0JOJQJUh7k#h$BL5>*OJQJaJh9Vdh$BLCJ^JaJh$BLCJ^JaJh$BL5>*OJQJaJh7k#h$BL>*OJQJaJ] ^#^@^g^^^^^_>_n____``aAapaaaa%bfbbbb4cNcgd$BLNcgcccccd.dWdddee#e3e4e5eCeSeTeUeVeWe$a$gd$BLgd$BLddgd$BLOePeQeReSeVeWeh7k#h$BL5>*OJQJaJh$BLh%h$BLOJQJh$BL0JOJQJmHnHu!jh%h$BL0JOJQJU/ =!"#$% 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH H`H Normal CJOJPJQJ_HmH sH tH ^^ _: Heading 1$<@&"5CJ KH PJ\^JaJ mH sH `@` _: Heading 2$<@&$56CJPJ\]^JaJmH sH DA`D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List L/@L _:List^`OJPJQJaJmH sH JB@J _: Body TextxOJPJQJaJmH sH B'B ]k0Comment ReferenceCJaJ8@"8 ]k0 Comment TextaJN1N ]k0Comment Text CharCJOJPJQJaJHj@!"H ]k0Comment Subject5CJ\aJF2QF ]k0Comment Subject Char5\DbD ]k0 Balloon TextCJOJQJaJNqN ]k0Balloon Text CharCJOJPJQJaJ:@: 6U0 Footnote TextaJPP 6U0Footnote Text CharCJOJPJQJaJ@&@@ 6U0Footnote ReferenceH*4@4 %0Header  !>/> %0 Header CharCJOJPJQJ4 4 %0Footer  !>/> %0 Footer CharCJOJPJQJ.)`. %0 Page NumberPK!K[Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢]yl#!MB;BQޏaLSWyҟ^@ Lz]__CdR{`L=r85v&mQ뉑8ICX=H"Z=&JCjwA`.Â?U~YkG/̷x3%o3t\&@w!H'"v0PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!\theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOoE#F{o'NDuر i-q;N3' G$$DAč*iEP~wq4;{o?g^;N:$BR64Mvsi-@R4Œ mUb V*XX! cyg$w.Q "@oWL8*Bycjđ0蠦r,[LC9VbX*x_yuoBL͐u_. DKfN1엓:+ۥ~`jn[Zp֖zg,tV@bW/Oټl6Ws[R?S֒7 _כ[֪7 _w]ŌShN'^Bxk_[dC]zOլ\K=.:@MgdCf/o\ycB95B24S CEL|gO'sקo>W=n#p̰ZN|ӪV:8z1f؃k;ڇcp7#z8]Y / \{t\}}spķ=ʠoRVL3N(B<|ݥuK>P.EMLhɦM .co;əmr"*0#̡=6Kր0i1;$P0!YݩjbiXJB5IgAФ޲a6{P g֢)҉-Ìq8RmcWyXg/u]6Q_Ê5H Z2PU]Ǽ"GGFbCSOD%,p 6ޚwq̲R_gJSbj9)ed(w:/ak;6jAq11_xzG~F<:ɮ>O&kNa4dht\?J&l O٠NRpwhpse)tp)af] 27n}mk]\S,+a2g^Az )˙>E G鿰L7)'PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-!K[Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 1_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!\theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] <.W]W]   89/0BC0#9$$`%%%&))++,,,&-..g..n//)0*0e1f12266J9K9m:n:e<f<S>T>U>v>w>??AABBB6F7F8F:FWnWWWWXXYAYpYYYY%ZfZZZZ4[N[g[[[[[\.\W\\\]]#]3]4]5]C]S]T]U]X]000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0S8T@0@0 @0DDD @0@0 @0t*t*t*  S8T& ]#]3]C]S]X]JP HP HP J!H!H!aJ!H!H!aaJ!H!H!a0`5# H!H!ecaJP HP HP JP HP HP JP HP HP JP HP HP   @@@@@C8 8NW]OeWe79;?ABE+6IU]NcWe8:<=>@CD3:<C!!8@0(  B S  ?\\[]s;v;EEHH LLpNzNOO VV#V'VVVVVWW3X@X`ZdZZZ['[.\3\\]U]X]%E'EWW\]U]X]::::Q);,4vR.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHhh^h`5o(. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. xLx^x`LhH. HH^H`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.Q),4v         U        $BL\\]]3]S]X]@W]@UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial] GaramondBE-RegularCambriaCLucida Grande? Courier New;Wingdings!qhQ&bf$b JL ' ,N (!24d][ 3qH?t01HollandPeter Pissierssens   Oh+'0|  8 D P\dlt'1Holland Normal.dotmPeter Pissierssens4Microsoft Macintosh Word@u@QB@D b JL ՜.+,0 hp  ' 2WE Associates Consulting Ltd.'] 1 Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefhijklmnpqrstuvyRoot Entry F-LND{1TableG>WordDocumentSummaryInformation(gDocumentSummaryInformation8oCompObj` F Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8