The implementing body was the Argentine Museum of Natural Sciences (MACN). The seed money and counterpart resources provided by partner institutions totaled US$500,000. Results of the project are the following:

• Darwinion Institute of Botany (DI): 95,150 records of four associated herbaria (the Darwinion collection istelf; the Multi-disciplinary Institute of Vegetal Biology; the Northeast Institute of Botany; and the BAB Herbarium of the National Institute of Farming and Livestock Raising Technology, INTA).
• Fundacion Miguel Lillo (FML): 49,932 records of four collections (Botany 13,932; Entomology, 11,000; Herpethology, 17,000; and Ornithology, 8,000).
• Argentine Museum of Natural Sciences (MACN): 40,292 records of three collections (Invertebrates, 22,000; Aracnology, 7,200; Foraminifers, 11,092);
• Faculty of Natural Sciences and Museum of La Plata (FMLP): 19,419 records of three collections (Snails, 11,445; Mastozoology, 5,560; and Helminthology, 1,250).
• Northeast National University (UNNE): 8,127 records of one collection (Herpethology).
• Centre of Applied Ecology (CECOAL): 7,251 records of two collections (Paleobotany and Paleozoology).
• Regional Centre of Scientific and Technological Research (IADIZA): 3,992 records of four collections (Botany, 1874; Ornithology, 678; Entomology, 1,270; and Herpethology, 170).
• Patagonian National Center (CENPAT): 3,051 records of four collections (Ichthiology, 1,386; Marine mammals, 662; Extra-andean Patagonian Herbarium, 859; and Endocast, 144)

• San Rafael Museum of Mendoza (MSR): 1,500 records of three collections (Herbarium; Herpethology; and Ornithology). This Museum will use the server of IADIZA to provide data to the GBIF and other networks.
• Herbarium of Jujuy (HJU): 2,000 records using the Iris database. It will use the server of the DI.
• National University of Misiones (UNAM): 2,700 records of the Lepidoptera collection. They developed their own datbase using Access.
• National University of El Litoral Santa Fe (UNL): 3,000 records corresponding to the Herbarium Ragonese. They developed their own database using Access.
• Moyano Museum of Mendoza (MM): 2,301 records of two collections (Ichtiology, 1,015; and Herpethology, 1,286). They developed their own database using Access and MySQL.
• Schulz Museum of Chaco (SCM): 1,291 records of two collections (Herbarium, 421; and Ornithology, 870).
• Ameghino Museum of Santa Fe (MAM): 2,000 records
• Natural Sciences Museum of the National University of Salta (MCNUNSa):
• Amado Bonpland Museum of Chaco (ABM):
• Natural Sciences Museum of Mar del Plata (MDPM):
• Herbarium BCRU of Bariloche (BCRU):
• End of the World Museum of Ushuaia (MFM):
• Invertebrates Collection of the National University of Cordoba (UNCor)

1. Lessons learned documented: see document annexed to the present report.
2. II and III plenary meetings of the RNCB: more than 50 museums, herbaria, botanic gardens and other scientific and technical institutions participated in these two meetings. Raul Jimenez, Chief of Bio-informatics of CONABIO participated in the II Meeting (September 2003), and María Auxiliadora Mora, Database Manager of INBio participated in the III Meeting (October 2004). A series of three one-day workshops targeted at professionals working on bio-informatic issues were carried out during 2004 (May, July and October). The number of people attending these meetings and workshops exceeded 150.
3. Continuation strategy: RNCB plenary and SC meetings, and workshops produced a series of recommendations to continue with the digitisation effort in a harmonised way across the country. Capacity-building in information management was considered a key issue, and so a mentoring proposal was submitted and approved by GBIF in November 2004. A team of three people – two from RNCB institutions, and one from APN (the National Parks Administration), participated in a five-day workshop at INBio (Costa Rica) between 14 and 18 March. A new proposal relating with the consolidation of the informatisation process is under preparation, and would be presented to potential sources, both at the national and international level. The focus of the proposal would be consolidating the process of standardised informatisation, promoting the integration of data providers at regional scale. Involving other non-RNCB actors would be encouraged with the view to establishing a National Biodiversity Network as soon as it is possible.
4. Involvement of RNCB member institutions: this was one of the most possitive aspects of the project. Participation of museums, herbaria, botanic gardens, and other institutions belonging to the Network was very active, particularly during RNCB plenary meetings, and training sessions and workshops. As a result, there is an enhanced perception that modernising the way in which institutions manage information is now prioritary, if they expect to rise their capacity of scientific production. It is also a pre-requisite to identify existing gaps in their collections. But most importantly, it will permit to identify areas where institutional collaboration, and sinergic use of available resources are both desirable and possible.
5. Small grants to herbaria and museums: they are listed in point 1 above. The convenience of giving this small support to institutions which did not receive the major grant was decided by the RNCB-SC in early January 2004. The fund distributed was small, and so it was the established digitisation target (1,000 records). Nevertheless, all institutions surpased this number and also started to develop mechanisms to become a part of a data provider network.
6. Involvement of non-RNCB institutions: this is an ongoing process. The RNCB has been very successful in promoting the participation of other national organisations currently working in information management. These comprise the APN, which is managing a GEF-funded Biodiversity Information System (SIB); and the Secretary for the Environment and Sustainable Development (SAyDS), which is in charge of administering the national Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM). This process is particularly important as a basis for the definitive establishment of a National Biodiversity Network (ReNaBio).
7. Regional cooperation: the participation of CONABIO and INBio in the two RNCB plenary meetings and training workshops was extremely possitive. These institutions showed clear willingness to share some of their notable experience on the area of biodiversity-related knowledge management. Both Maria and Raul were extremely generous and left the doors opened to further regional cooperation. One example of this is the mentoring project at INBio.

Overall, the RNCB was successful in fulfilling the goals described in the original proposal. As a result, participant institutions made substantial progress in the level of informatisation of biological collections using database software accepted at the international level.

Lack of resources, and the diversity of approaches to data management existing in participant institutions precluded any attempt to develop a harmonised RNCB-wide database software for data capture and processing. This idea was dropped at the beginning of the project, but it might be reconsidered in the future.

A delay in the process of registration of data sources did occur (the 210K target was reached in January 2005 instead of August 2004), and this was a direct result of the lack of familiarity with the use of the schemes and protocols that are accepted by the GBIF. The delay in registering was the main reason why the RNCB-SC decided to postpone the termination of the project until the end of December 2004, and to extend the contract of the project coordinator (MSc. Javier Beltran) until then. Such an alternative was possible because of the way in which resources were used.

Criteria for selecting the pilot collections did not result in a balanced representation of taxonomic groups. Some gaps of good quality collections within institutions not fulfilling selection criteria occurred. This will gradually be solved by promoting the transfer of experience between pilot and other institutions residing in the same area. The decision of giving some funding to collections not selected in the first term was reasonable as a strategy to remedy this gap.

Distribution of money received: the grant awarded by GBIF to the RNCB was used in the following way:

• US$8,500 salary of Project Coordinator (17 months @ US$500). The work period of the Project Coordinator extended from August 2003 to December 2004. Its extension was agreed by the RNCB-SC as a way of ensuring the definitive completion of the data registration process.
• US$8,667 corresponding to 13 grants of US$667 awarded to selected small collections;
• US$30,940 corresponding to 10 major grants awarded to selected pilot institutions, and payed in three successive instalments (October 2003, January and July 2004);
• US$415 to cover transaction costs;
• US$1,978 to cover costs of RNCB plenary meetings (September 2003 and October 2004).

The commitment made in the original proposal did not change substantially in terms of numbers. The amount of records made available over the Internet reached 227K in February 2005. A further xx records of small collections were also digitised and will be incorporated to the data pool as soon as possible.

Briefly discuss any unforeseen problems or barriers that your project has encountered.

They were already described in the section on short falls above.