MC Terrestrial Measures Workshop - Global Islands · 2012-09-04 · MC Terrestrial Measures...

MC Terrestrial Measures Workshop

(3rd MC Regional Measures Working Group Meeting)

WORKSHOP REPORT

Co-organized by MCRO, MCT, PCS & TNC

June 27 – July 1, 2011 Blue Lagoon Resort, Chuuk, FSM

Photo by E. Eperiam

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....ii Suggested Citation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..v Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..v Acronyms ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….vi List of Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..vii Next Steps ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ix Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....x Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Workshop Purpose and Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………………….1 Purpose …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..….3 Outputs …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Process and Agenda ………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Workshop Report ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......7 DAY 1 Opening …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..7 Background Presentations (Summary)

Review of the results of the 1st and 2nd MC Measures Meetings

(Steven Victor, TNC)……………………………………………………………………………….8

Asia-Pacific Conservation Region Strategy Effectiveness Measures

- ongoing efforts (Dr. Matthew Durnin, TNC)…………………………………………10

The Micronesia Challenge: Why it matters and what’s our link to it?

(Charlene Mersai, Island-SEAS)………………………………………………………………13

Bird Monitoring Program in Palau (Alan Olsen, BNM)…………………………………………14

US Forest Services’ ongoing programs in Micronesia (Steven Victor, TNC

presenting for Patricia Manly, USDA Forest Service)………………………........17

MC Database Launch (Adelle Lukes Isechal, PICRC) …………………………………………….21

iii

MC Jurisdiction Presentations (overview of management and monitoring issues).............22 Day 2 – Indicators for terrestrial ecological monitoring……………………………………………………………..24 Day 3 – Monitoring methods for selected indicators………………………………………………………………….29 Day 4 – Capacity needs to implement the terrestrial monitoring methods & wrap up ………………34 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36 Closing …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36 Attachments

1. MC Jurisdiction Powerpoint Presentations

Attachment 1A: FSM Update

Attachment 1B: Chuuk Update

Attachment 1C: Pohnpei Update

Attachment 1D: Kosrae Update

Attachment 1E: RMI Update

Attachment 1F: Guam Update

Attachment 1G: Palau Update

2. Background Powerpoint Presentations

Attachment 2A: Review of the results of the 1st and 2nd MC Measures Meetings Attachment 2B: Asia-Pacific Conservation Region Strategy Effectiveness Measures – ongoing efforts Attachment 2C: The Micronesia Challenge: Why it matters and what’s our link to it?

Attachment 2D: US Forest Services’ ongoing programs in Micronesia

Attachment 2E: MC Database Launch

3. Reference materials provided during and after the workshop by participants

Attachment 3A: Best Practices in Sustainable Land Management Attachment 3B: Improving Conservation Practice by Investing in Monitoring Strategy Effectiveness Attachment 3C: Estimating Forest Plant Diversity Using GLM Attachment 3D: Prediction of Flow Duration Curves for Use in Hydropower Analysis at Ungaged Sites in Pohnpei, FSM. WERI Tech Rpt No. 129 Attachment 3E: Watershed Management for Enipein Watershed, Pohnpei, FSM Attachment 3F: FSM-RMI Marine Monitoring Effectiveness Report

iv

4. Alan Olsen’s reference materials Attachment 4A: COFA Birds v01a

Attachment 4B: EBM Aimeliik

Attachment 4C: EBM Koksai

Attachment 4D: EBM Long Island

Attachment 4E: EBM Ngardok

Attachment 4F: EBM Ngaremeskang

Attachment 4G: EBM Ngerchur

Attachment 4H: EBM W. Babaldaob

Attachment 4I: EBM_Summary_Jan2009

Attachment 4J: Olsen & Eberdong_Species Richness

Attachment 4K: Olsen Encyc of Islands - Palau

Attachment 4L: Olsen_reef ant

Attachment 4M: Pratt et al. New Bird Records

Attachment 4N: RKSreportrev

Attachment 4O: VanderWer2005birds

Attachment 4P: Wiles 2005 checklist

5. MC Regional Meeting Reports

Attachment 5A: 1st_MC Planning Meeting Report

Attachment 5B: 2nd_First MC Measures Meeting Report

Attachment 5C: 3rd_MC Climate Change Meeting Report

Attachment 5D: 4th_Second MC Measures Meeting Report

v

Suggested citation: PCS & TNC (2011). MC Terrestrial Measures Workshop (3rd MC Regional Measures Meeting). Chuuk, FSM, June 27 – July 1, 2011. Palau Conservation Society and The Nature Conservancy, Palau. Contacts: PCS contact: Ms. Umai Basilius, Director of Policy & Planning, Palau Conservation Society, PO Box 1186, Koror, Palau 96940. Tel: +680 488-3993; Email: [email protected]; [email protected] TNC contact: Mr. Umiich Sengebau, Deputy Director for Conservation, Palau Field Office. The Nature Conservancy, PO Box 1738, Koror, Palau 96940. Tel: +680 488-2017; Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements: The dedication and positive engagement by all the participants was greatly appreciated and inspirational. Special thanks go to Lorraine Rdiall (TNC) and Surech Hideos (MCRO) for providing logistical support; Umiich Sengebau (TNC), Steven Victor (TNC), Frank Isao (MCT), Roseo Marquez (MCT) and Umai Basilius (PCS) for facilitating both plenary and breakout group discussions; Dr. Matthew Durnin (TNC) for providing expert technical advice and facilitating group breakout sessions and of course, Chuuk State and local representatives for hosting the workshop. Funding support for this workshop was made possible by the generous support of The Nature Conservancy, Micronesia Conservation Trust, Palau Conservation Society and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

mailto:[email protected]



vi

Acronyms

BD Biodiversity MICS Marshall Islands Conservation Society

BNM Belau National Museum MIMRA Marshall Is. Marine Res. Authority

BWA Babeldaob Watershed Alliance MOH Ministry of Health

CAP Conservation Area Planning MRD Ministry of Resources & Development

CCS Chuuk Conservation Society NGO Non-government organization

CEPCRM Capacity Enhancement Project for Coral Reef Monitoring

PA Protected Area

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

PABITRA Pacific-Asia Biodiversity Transect Network

CSP Conservation Society of Pohnpei PALARIS Palau Automated Land and Resources Information System

CTI Coral Triangle Initiative PAN Protected Areas Network

DAWR Division of Aquatic & Wildlife Resources

PCS Palau Conservation Society

DBH Diameter at breast height PICRC Palau International Coral Reef Center

EPA Environmental Protection Agency PMRI Pacific Marine Resource Institute

EQPB Environmental Quality Protection Board

REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation & Forest Degradation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands

FSM Federated States of Micronesia SET Sediment Erosion Table

FSSLP Food Security & Sustainable Livelihoods Program

SOPAC Pacific Islands Applied GeoScience Commission

GIS Geographic Information System SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

GLM Generalized Linear Models TNC The Nature Conservancy

Island-SEAS

Island-Social & Ecological Applied Sciences

U&CF Urban & Community Forestry

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

UOG University of Guam

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

USDA US Department of Agriculture

KIRMA Kosrae Island Resources Management Authority

USFS US Forest Service

MC Micronesia Challenge USGS US Geological Survey

MCRO MC Regional Office WERI Water & Environment Research Institute

MCT Micronesia Conservation Trust YELA Yela Environment Landowners Authority

vii

List of Participants

No Name Position Agency Email

CNMI

Marianne Teregeyo (no show) Special Asst. to the Secretary DLNR [email protected]

FSM (National)

1 Marlyter Silbanuz Sustainable Ag. Specialist Nat’l Div. of R&D [email protected]

Chuuk State

2 Innocente Penno Director Chuuk Ag. Dept [email protected]

3 Wisney Nakayama Executive Director CCS [email protected]

4 Curtis Graham Marine Program Manager CCS [email protected]

5 Julita Albert Natural Resources Manager Chuuk EPA [email protected]

6 Jason Poll Acting Executive Director Chuuk EPA [email protected]

7 Brad Mori Technical Support Manager Chuuk EPA [email protected]

8 Sleeper Sared Invasive Species & Forest Health Coordinator

Chuuk Ag. Dept [email protected] (using Innocente’s email)

Kosrae State

9 Betty Sigrah U&CF Assistant Coordinator KIRMA [email protected]

10 William William Project Manager YELA [email protected] / [email protected]

Pohnpei State

11 Francisca S. Obispo Terrestrial Program Manager CSP [email protected]

12 Eugene Eperiam U&CF Assistant Coordinator Div. of Forestry & Marine Conservation

[email protected]

13 Saimon Lihpai Chief Div. of Forestry & Marine Conservation

[email protected]

Yap State

14 Berna Gorong MC Communications FP Yap Networker [email protected]

15 Francis Ruegorong Waab Wildlife Coordinator State Div. of Ag & Forestry (Dept. of R&D)

[email protected]

viii

RMI

16 Doreen DeBrum National Program Coordinator

MIMRA [email protected]

17 Sophia Fowler Terrestrial Program Officer MICS [email protected]

18 Karness Kusto RMI Forester, Assistant Chief of Agriculture

Dept. of Agriculture [email protected]

GUAM

19 Jeffrey Quitugua Wildlife Biologist DAWR (Dept. of Ag) [email protected]

ROP

20 Adelle Lukes Isechal Researcher PICRC [email protected]

21 Pua Michael Palau Forester Forestry Office (Bureau of Agriculture)

[email protected]

22 Alan Olsen Head of Natural History Section

BNM [email protected]

SUPPORT TEAM

23 Dr. Matthew Durnin Lead Facilitator TNC [email protected]

24 Umiich Sengebau Facilitator/Planning Team TNC [email protected]

25 Umai Basilius Planning Team PCS [email protected]

26 Lorraine Rdiall Planning Team TNC [email protected]

27 Charlene Mersai Planning Team Island-SEAS [email protected]

28 Steven Victor Resource Team TNC [email protected]

29 Lisa R. Andon Resource Team MCT [email protected]

29 Roseo Marquez Resource Team MCT [email protected]

30 Frank Isao Resource Team MCT [email protected]

ix

Next Steps FSM (national) – presented by Saimon

1. Complete trainings identified from this workshop (e.g., FIA modifications, bird surveys, & water quality for biodiversity)- FSM R&D to ensure this happens (Marlyter)

2. Communicate step 1 to the state level – led by Focal Points and relevant partners (e.g., Chuuk-EPA, Pohnpei & Yap-R & D, Kosrae-KIRMA and DL & R)

FSM (state-level) - presented by Curtis

1. Increase outreach efforts 2. Secure financial assistance

- Carry out needs assessment - Identify funding gaps/possible sources of funding

3. Streamline reporting mechanism – assess MC progress at state level and communicate to state Focal Points and they, in turn, communicate to national level

RMI - presented by Sophie

1. Call a meeting with Office of the President and agencies involved in or contributing to the MC effort – R&D, EPA, MIMRA, MOH, NGOs, etc.

2. Report and share objectives of this measures mtg. – emphasize that it’s a national effort 3. Do awareness campaign to get agreement with landowners using the Reimaanlok process to

establish terrestrial protected areas.

Palau - presented by Umai

1. Incorporate these indicators/methods into current management plans in Palau 2. Get agreement on who should monitor/train – get right partners around one table 3. Identify needs and how to meet these needs 4. Communicate outcomes to Focal Pt (Mr. Sebastian Marino) 5. Institutionalized through our PAN 6. Celebrate!

Guam - presented by Jeff

1. Work with Guam Focal Pt. (Vangie Lujan) to work with partners to collaborate with other agencies currently working in these areas to get their buy-in into the MC. Important to get standard results.

2. Need to identify folks who are leading this work to be more focused on the MC. 3. Training – would like to go back (after getting notes from the workshop) and see the individuals who

are knowledgeable about the work so that we don’t have to go far to find expert assistance (they can help with training or doing work)

4. Recommendation from the whole group – work with Vangie to link our training program to University of Guam. Need to utilize UOG more. Perhaps tie it to the Young Champions Interns Program (MCT/MCRO program) as part of their education.

x

Executive Summary As part of the continued effort to achieve effective conservation of natural resources across Micronesia by 2020, the Micronesia Challenge (MC) jurisdictions have held a series of conservation measures workshops since 2006. These workshops sought to develop a regional strategy with which all MC jurisdictions, implementing and partner agencies, as well as resource owners can use collaboratively to ensure that the MC is achieving its goals to benefit local communities. A great and complex undertaking such as this can only be successfully accomplished if it’s handled gradually, comprehensively and involves all key stakeholders – precisely what these workshops have endeavored to do. The MC Terrestrial Measures Workshop (3rd Regional Measures Working Group Meeting) was held in Chuuk State, Federated States of Micronesia from June 27 – July 1, 2011. The purpose of the workshop was to define a proposed set of indicators, associated monitoring methods and needed capacity as a starting point towards developing a comprehensive region-wide terrestrial monitoring framework. The resulting monitoring framework will serve as a guide towards achieving effective conservation of the terrestrial portion of the Micronesia Challenge goals. The workshop employed a five-stage process to reach the desired goal of developing an initial outline of the MC terrestrial monitoring framework. The stages revolved around the 3 main themes or core components of the monitoring protocol (i.e., measurable indicators, relevant monitoring methods and needed capacity). The first stage consisted of plenary presentations and discussions focusing on background presentations and jurisdictional and state updates. The second stage focused on identifying a minimum set of terrestrial indicators; the third stage focused on determining the best methods to measure the selected indicators; and the fourth stage focused on identifying capacity needs. The fifth and final stage involved reviewing the results for these three areas to provide an opportunity for clarification, correction and further discussion before final approval. The workshop ended with the initial outline of the MC Terrestrial Monitoring Framework, identified next steps and individual leads from each jurisdiction to further develop this framework.

1

Background The Micronesia Challenge (MC) is a commitment by the Chief Executives of the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), the U.S. Territory of Guam and the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to “effectively conserve at least 30% of the near-shore marine resources and 20% of the terrestrial resources across Micronesia by 2020.” This ambitious endeavor was first announced at the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force held November 2005 in Palau; and signed by each of the five Chief Executives in early 2006.

In December 2006, the MC initiated its implementation by holding its first regional meeting in Palau. This MC Planning Meeting focused on institutionalization of the MC, including the establishment of a regional coordinating body/mechanism and process for regular review, regional financial mechanism(s), institutional support and outreach, and effective conservation. The effective conservation breakout group sought to provide guidance on the definition of “Effective conservation” which resulted in:

Effective conservation entails the social, traditional, political, biological, financial, and legal aspects of sustainable use of at least 30% of our marine resources and 20% of our terrestrial resources, keeping in mind the overall management of surrounding areas, and finding a right balance between resource utilization by communities to sustain their cultural values, socio-economic development and prosperity.”

From this definition, a set of broad indicator categories were identified as important for effective conservation. These categories are: 1) resource status, 2) threat reduction, 3) management effectiveness, and 4) spatial coverage.

In June 2008, at least 60 participants from the five MC states met in Pohnpei, FSM for the 2nd Regional Meeting of the Micronesia Challenge, which is referred to as the 1st MC Measures Meeting. This meeting actually encompassed three different, but inter-related meetings:

1) A technical workshop “Moving Toward Measuring Our Effectiveness: The 1st Meeting of

the MC Measures Working Group” to continue the discussion on regional indicators 2) A communications workshop “Moving Toward Communicating our Messages: the 1st

Meeting of the MC Communications Working Group” to develop a regional communications strategy; and

3) The 4th meeting of the MC Steering Committee.

The technical workshop, which became the first of a series of MC Measures Meetings, took place to define a proposed process and timeline for the periodic measurement and analysis of progress toward achieving the MC goals. The main outcomes of the technical working group meeting are:

1) Establishment of a technical working group focused on developing a process for and coordinating the periodic completion of measurement and analysis of progress made toward achieving the goals of the MC;

2

2) Identification of the regional overlaps and gaps associated with biological and social indicators related to natural resource management being collected across terrestrial and marine ecosystems by participating agencies and organizations operating within each of the participating jurisdictions;

3) Identification of a shared set of results chains that are related to the MC goals;

4) Consensus around a proposed set of relevant and useful categories of MC measures and a possible set of corresponding indicators to be collected across jurisdictions, as appropriate; and

5) Recommendations to the MC Communications Working Group on how the outputs of the

MC Measures Working Group could be used for messaging purposes.

In February 2010, the 2nd MC Measures Meeting was held with the intent on picking up from where the 1st MC Measures left off. In other words, this meeting was to take what had been collectively agreed to from the 1st Measures Meeting and fill in as many of the missing details as possible, given the available information, time and capacity to develop a regional monitoring framework (e.g., what should be measured; how should they be measured; who will be involved; and what level of capacity is needed to carry out this measures work) for the MC’s 30% near-shore and 20% terrestrial managed areas. The 2nd MC Measures Meeting coincided with a PICRC/JICA project, “Capacity Enhancement Project for Coral Reef Monitoring”, as they both shared a mutual objective, which is to produce a monitoring protocol that is realistic, relevant and achievable to be used by all five MC jurisdictions to measure conservation progress of the MC goals. Due to limited time and resources, this meeting excluded the terrestrial component of the MC. This sacrifice was made in order to ensure that enough time and attention are dedicated to getting as close as possible to finalizing the marine ecological and socio-economic indicators. Because the terrestrial component was missing during this 2nd MC Measures Meeting, it became necessary to hold a similar workshop to discuss and fill in the missing details needed to develop a region-wide terrestrial monitoring protocol for the MC.

3

WORKSHOP PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

PURPOSE The goal of this workshop is to define a proposed set of indicators, associated monitoring methods and needed capacity for each MC jurisdiction for the regular monitoring and evaluation of progress of conservation and management of terrestrial resources toward achieving the goals of the Micronesia Challenge. OBJECTIVES

1. To gain better understanding of:

management issues in different MC jurisdictions;

status of terrestrial protected areas in each jurisdiction; and

status of monitoring, including objectives of monitoring, indicators, limitations,

(strengths/weaknesses) and needs in each jurisdiction.

2. Identify and agree on a set of essential indicators for both status and effectiveness

measures for the MC.

3. Gain knowledge of different methods available for ecological and social monitoring to:

assess the health status of resources; and

evaluate or measure the effectiveness of management strategies.

4. Identify specific capacity needs and strategies to fill these needs in order to implement

the protocol in each MC jurisdiction

5. Develop an initial outline of the MC Terrestrial Monitoring Protocol.

6. Establish a terrestrial technical working group (within the Measures Group) to lead the

process towards improvement of the initial outline of the Terrestrial Monitoring Protocol.

7. Enjoy ourselves in the company of the finest, most committed and most dedicated

conservation colleagues we could ever hope for (that’s us!).

OUTPUTS

1. Increased understanding of the status of protected areas in each jurisdiction.

2. Increased understanding of terrestrial protected areas’ management issues, including

associated strengths, weakness and capacity needs.

3. Increased understanding of different terrestrial ecological and social survey methods

which could be used to assess and measure management effectiveness of terrestrial

protected areas.

4. A set of indicators to measure and evaluate status and management effectiveness of

terrestrial protected areas.

5. A list of monitoring methods to measure the agreed set of indicators.

4

6. A list of identified capacity needs for each jurisdiction to implement the terrestrial

monitoring framework.

7. Production of an initial outline of the MC Terrestrial Monitoring Framework.

8. Identified follow-up activities towards the development of the MC Terrestrial Monitoring

Framework.

9. Summary report of the workshop.

PROCESS AND AGENDA Similar to the previous measures working group meetings, this workshop also used a combination of plenary presentations and discussions, as well as facilitated group breakout sessions. The presentations included jurisdictional update; FSM provided updates for both national and state governments. There were also general presentations on terrestrial monitoring methods, strategy effectiveness measures and an overview of MC’s past measures workshops to provide a backdrop for the group breakout sessions. In all, there were a total of six background presentations and eight jurisdictional/state updates (4 FSM states and 4 jurisdictions). Unfortunately, CNMI was not able to send a representative to provide their update, due to flight connection troubles. In an effort to streamline jurisdiction/state updates, presenters were asked to consider the following guidelines:

1. Current terrestrial protected areas (including mangrove areas)

2. Current monitoring efforts (includes efforts outside terrestrial PAs as well)

3. Challenges

4. Capacity needs

Results of these updates can be found on page 23. The group breakout sessions focused on identifying three key pieces needed to develop a comprehensive regional monitoring framework for terrestrial managed areas. These include:

1) Relevant indicators which will be tracked to measure the effectiveness of management

activities.

2) Relevant and realistically implementable monitoring methods for the selected indicators.

3) Capacity needs (and associated strategies to fill them) which should be filled in order to

carry out the selected monitoring methods and to sustain the long-term regional

monitoring program for the MC terrestrial sites.

Selection for breakout groups to identify indicators and monitoring methods focused on broad

representation - each group had to have a representative from each jurisdiction. This was to

ensure that the groups are able to discuss shared knowledge and experiences on the various

indicators and methods they have used in their islands.

5

The other breakout groups which focused on identifying capacity gaps (and strategies to fill these

gaps) were organized based on jurisdiction, as the focus was now on the specific needs of each

jurisdiction. Thus the FSM participants made up the largest group, while Guam had the smallest

group with only one member. Members of each group breakout session selected their reporter

who presented their results back to the plenary at the end of each session.

Key terms and definitions With the exception of “Effective conservation” which was defined during the MC Planning Meeting (2006), the terms below were defined during the 1st Measures Meeting (2008) and were revisited and reviewed in both plenary and small breakout group discussions during this workshop, as they served as guidelines in identifying indicators and defining the process for long-term measurement progress toward achieving the terrestrial MC goals:

Effective conservation:

“Effective Conservation entails the social, traditional, political, biological, financial and legal

aspects of sustainable use of at least 30% of our Marine Resources and 20% of our Terrestrial

Resources, keeping in mind the overall management of surrounding areas, and finding a right

balance between resource utilization by communities to sustain their cultural values,

socioeconomic development and prosperity.”

Terrestrial resources:

“Land areas composed of native forest and/or natural terrestrial communities, high biodiversity

value or provide an especially high level of ecosystem services.”

It was recommended that, as part of the MC, each jurisdiction aims to effectively conserve at least

20% of its total land area. As much as possible, the 20% should be distributed evenly among and

within the jurisdictions.

Target – an element of biodiversity, which can be a species, habitat/ecological system, or

ecological process.

Indicator – A measurable entity related to a specific information need, such as the status of a

target, factor, change in a threat, or progress toward an objective.

6

Criteria for selecting indicators:

1. Importance – how critical is it to the MC that this indicator be measured regionally and

communicated to target audiences?

2. Practicality – how doable/realistic is it for all (or most) jurisdictions to measure this

indicator at this point in time?

3. Cost – what level of human and financial resources will be required to measure the

indicator?

4. Sensitivity – will the indicator respond to and detect changes through time?

In summary, the agenda for the workshop was:

Day 1 (Monday, June 27): Overview of current status and issues of management and monitoring of terrestrial areas.

Opening address – Mr. Wilfred Robert, Chuuk State Chief of Staff for Governor Wesley

Simina

Welcome address by MCT and TNC; self- introductions by participants

Overview of the workshop objectives, agenda and procedures

Review of the results of the 1st and 2nd MC Measures Meetings, held in Pohnpei in 2008

and in Palau in 2010, respectively

Revisit the objectives of monitoring for the Micronesia Challenge

Presentations from jurisdictions/states – updates on management and monitoring issues

Welcoming reception co-hosted by PCS, MCT & TNC

Day 2 (Tuesday, June 28): What should be measured and how?

Overview of TNC’s strategy effectiveness measures developed for Asia Pacific region

Overview of the Micronesia Challenge

Summary of on-going US Forest Service programs in Micronesia, including research, forest

inventory and mapping

Case study - Belau National Museum’s Bird Monitoring Program in Palau

Brainstorming discussion on different monitoring methods and their respective strengths

and limitations

Introduction to breakout group discussion

Breakout group discussion 1: Selection of minimum set of terrestrial ecological indicators

Reporting on breakout group discussions

7

Day 3 (Wednesday, June 29): Planning for a doable monitoring


Breakout group discussion 2: Terrestrial ecological monitoring methods and scorecard

indicators


Day 4 (Thursday, June 30): Capacity assessment


Breakout group discussion 3: Capacity needs assessment


Next steps, recommendations & wrap up

Closing remarks

Farewell party co-hosted by TNC and MCT

Day 5 (Friday, July 1): Free - to provide an opportunity for participants to tour the island, go

diving or have side meetings with their colleagues from other islands. Field trip to JEEP Island

(optional).

8

WORKSHOP REPORT

Opening Mr. Wisney Nakayama, Executive Director of Chuuk Conservation Society, greeted the workshop participants and requested Ms. Julita Albert from Chuuk State Environmental Protection Agency to begin the workshop with an opening prayer. After the prayer, the guest speaker, Mr. Wilfred Robert, Chuuk State’s Chief of Staff, opened the meeting with an informative speech on Chuuk State’s environmental challenge - its small island mass with a great burden of providing for a comparatively large population of about 53,000, grouped into forty municipalities. “With mounting and persistent human pressures on our limited terrestrial resources, I want to emphasize what my grandfather used to say, ‘Don’t mess around with nature.’ The point here is that we simply cannot afford to disrespect nature because of our small land areas, which even if combined together, will still be small.” Mr. Robert ended his remarks with a request to the workshop participants to use their talents to assist Chuuk in improving management of its natural resources. Mr. Frank Isao, MIC/PIMPAC Coordinator, then emphasized that MCT’s participation in the workshop is essentially to provide support. He encouraged the participants to use the next few days to understand what types of support they can get from MCT. Mr. Umiich Sengebau thanked the Chuuk State partners for their assistance and support in hosting this workshop. Introduction of participants Participants were given an opportunity to introduce themselves. Although it was not originally planned to award the best introduction, Umiich decided to give one to Mr. Karness Kusto, from RMI, for his particularly exceptional (and entertaining) self-introduction. Background Presentations (summarized in the order they were presented)

I. Review of the results of the 1st and 2nd MC Measures Meeting in 2008 and

2010 - Steven Victor, TNC

Steven presented the first of the background presentations with a review of the general description of the Micronesia Challenge – history, scope and launch, as well as key terms which have been summarized earlier in the Process and Agenda section. The rest of his presentation is summarized below, beginning with an update on the status of protected/managed areas for each of the five jurisdictions. See Table 1 below.

9

Table 1. Current status of the percentage of spatial coverage of marine and terrestrial managed areas for each MC jurisdiction.

Overview of the previous MC measures workshop goals, objectives and outputs: 1st Measures Workshop This was held in June 2008, a year and half after the MC Planning Meeting in December 2006. Being the first technical working group meeting, its goal was to define a proposed process and timeline for the regular measurement and evaluation of conservation and management efforts toward achieving the goals of the MC. Some of the discussions involved revisiting some key definitions and broad measurement criteria which were identified from the MC Planning Meeting. These included general areas to be tracked to gauge the progress of the MC (i.e., social/political, resource status, threat reduction, management effectiveness and spatial coverage). Generally labeled “scorecard”, these broad areas are those considered to be of value to Micronesians and therefore should be monitored to examine how successful is the MC in making positive contributions to Micronesia as a region. These are the general areas that must be considered whenever there is discussion on measuring progress of the MC. Key outputs of the 1st MC Measures Meeting

1) Establish a technical working group to develop a process for the periodic measurement

and analysis of progress made toward achieving the goals of the MC.

2) Identify regional overlaps and gaps associated with biological and social indicators related

to natural resource management being collected across terrestrial and marine

ecosystems.

3) Identify a shared set of results chains that are related to the MC goals.

4) Reach consensus around a proposed set of relevant and useful categories of MC

measures and a possible set of corresponding indicators to be collected across

jurisdictions, as appropriate.

5) Provide a set of recommendations to the MC Communications Working Group on how

the outputs of the MC Measures Working Group could be useful for messaging purposes.

2nd Measures Workshop This was a joint meeting between MC Measures Working Group and PICRC-JICA Coral Reef Monitoring Project, held in Palau in February 2010. The goal for this meeting was to develop a regional monitoring framework (e.g., what should be measured; how should it be measured; who will be involved; and what level of capacity is needed to carry out this measures work).

Jurisdiction Marine (30% goal)

Terrestrial (20% goal)

Palau 58% 19.6%

FSM 7% 15%

Guam 13% 23%

CNMI 8% 9%

RMI 18% 16%

10

Unfortunately, there was not enough time to reach consensus on some of the suggested monitoring indicators. Therefore, to ensure that participants would continue their discussion after the workshop, three small thematic working groups (i.e., Marine ecology, Scorecard and Socio-economics) were created and tasked to continue discussions and work out the details until consensus is reached by representatives of all five MC jurisdictions. Key outputs of the 2nd MC Measures Meeting

1) Agreement on 6 marine ecological indicators

2) Agreement on 3 socioeconomic indicators

3) Proposed methods for monitoring marine indicators

4) Establishment of small thematic working groups

5) Set of 14 indicators and methods for collecting data for Scorecard

6) Identify capacity needs to carry out marine monitoring

The presentation was ended with a quote by President Toribiong of Palau, “It is my hope that this conference will move the Micronesia Challenge and our challenge to preserve and protect our environment to the full realization of our goals and objectives.”

II. Asia-Pacific Conservation Region Strategy Effectiveness Measures – ongoing

efforts - Dr. Matthew Durnin, TNC

“Implementing measures across the Conservancy is more than simply getting the science right – it’s about becoming a more results-based organization and evolving the way we manage our set of strategies and projects.” TNC initially focused on CAPs and site-based projects, but this had to change when the focus was broadened to a global level. However, as focus on strategies that can be implemented became a priority, TNC had to think about how others in the Conservancy think and this resulted in the Business Plan, which was approved this year. “Measuring our success is business as usual – we need to prove that our strategies work because there is strong interest to measure the effectiveness of conservation strategies.” What is strategy? An activity or a suite of similar activities, that is undertaken in many places to achieve the same types of results. Example: a strategy such as releasing environmental flows from dams to provide fish access to floodplain habitats for feeding and spawning, resulting in larger fish populations and more productive fisheries. What are strategy effectiveness measures? Conservation measures are best defined by questions:

Status questions:

“Is the biodiversity (BD) we care about healthy?”

“Are the threats to BD changing?”

“What is the level of conservation management?”

Strategy effectiveness questions:

“Are our actions achieving their desired results?”

11

Thus, conservation measures are finding answers to these questions with evidence rather than intuition. How do we use status and effectiveness questions/information? Via adaptive management feedback loop: A B A. Basically, we’re asking the question, “Are our strategies making a difference?”

Adaptive Management Feedback loop Conservation Area Planning

1 Setting goals & priorities 1 Defining your project

2 Developing strategies 2 Developing strategies & measures

3 Taking action 3 Implementing strategies & measures

4 Measuring results 4 Use results to adapt & improve

The basics:

1. Clearly describe desired results

2. Explicitly link strategies to desired results

3. Identify indicators that will show progress (Items 1 – 3 are Results Chains)

4. Select study design & methods

5. Regularly track and report indicator status

6. Use results to adapt strategies and share lessons learned

Results Chain

A diagram with causal “if… then” statements

Explicitly states how we think a strategy will

work

Focuses on desired results – not activities

Defines assumptions that can be tested

(see Results Chain example for

Mackinaw River in ppt)

1) Use Situation Analysis (conceptual model of the big picture you’re looking at)

Key Factor Direct Threat Target 2) To construct an initial results chain Strategy Outcome (key factor) Outcome (direct threat) Impact (target)

Example of Situation Analysis for Mackinaw River in NE US: Target: headwater stream system (a large watershed)

Threat: identified to be poor water quality, due to agriculture runoff

Results Chain strategy: developed a strategy to educate by doing outreach on best

management practices (BMPs)

Anticipated result: increase in the use of the best management agriculture practices (this

would have more impact than improving the water quality), so had to simplify and revise

Because results sometimes take a while to happen (5-10 years), it’s important to start measuring some progress early on. This is critical as it will show you that you’re in the right direction, while

12

monitoring objectives at the same time. Thus, it is important to identify indicators for each objective.

In short, just focusing on BMP is not enough to achieve the target. For example, it is important to do experimental wetlands to act as filters before going into streams to improve water quality. So in addition to BMP, you need to also do something else to improve water quality. This is adaptive management and it’s based on evidence. Thus, we need to show ourselves that the strategies we use have impacts and we need proof for these.

After a couple of years of reassessing the Asia Pacific (AP) program, TNC came up with an overarching AP strategy to help track their efforts better. This strategy is essentially a rollup of the existing strategies with the MC and CTI (Coral Triangle Initiative).

Measuring Success of Marine Conservation in the Asia Pacific Region: Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) and Micronesia Challenge (MC) Establishing Parameters New goals aligned to the two initiatives

5-year timeline (to 2015)

A flat lined budget through FY12

The team/sub-strategies

3 Enabling sub-strategies

External Affairs (policy, sustainable finance and public funding)

Communication

Capacity Building

3 Conservation sub-strategies

Marine Protected Area (MPA)

Fisheries Management

Ecosystem Based Adaptation

Recent Socioeconomic Monitoring History in Asia Pacific:

Forests of Southeast Asia (FORSA): Key Conservation Strategies

1) Expansion of effectively managed protected areas

2) Sustainable management of forests outside protected areas

3) Clear policy and market signals (e.g., avoided deforestation via Forest Desertification &

REDD )

13

FORSA Example:

Begun the development of a common and integrated framework for planning, monitoring

and evaluating program delivery

Minimum set of linked plans across the region

A common planning language

Agreed contents and formats for key program plans and reports

What is the expenditure relative to the results and are we achieving those results?

The FORSA Proposed Planning Structure has different strategies for different scales. (See diagram ppt)

III. The Micronesia Challenge: Why it matters and what’s our link to it?

- Charlene Mersai, Island-SEAS

The simplest way to understand the MC is first, to recognize that it is an opportunity for Micronesians (not just an obligation) and second, to see it from different views or by asking different questions (e.g., its structure and organization, who are the key players and beneficiaries, what is its approach, what are the benefits and how are these benefits being distributed?). To further understand the MC, we need to also understand its general components, how they interact with one other and the context within which this interaction is taking place. General components of the MC Target - 20/30 effectively managed areas by 2020

Approach – PAN/Ecosystem-based managed areas and partnership

Players 1) Admin folks (Steering Committee & MC Regional Office)

2) Tech folks (Measures and Communications Working Groups)

To identify how we (at the individual level, agency level or national government level) fit into

these general components, it may help if we considered four dynamic factors to provide

contextual framework:

1) Subject – what are we working on (e.g., communications, policies, conservation

measures) and what is the issue, target or problem associated with the work at hand

2) Role - how are we involved in any of these components

3) Scale – every given involvement/role needs to be placed within an appropriate

geographical and political scale (i.e., local, national, regional or even international)

14

4) Time – roles and associated scales also vary over time

Another way to understand the MC is through the benefits we can get from it. As social beings, we have a natural tendency to want to know “what’s in it for me”.

General Benefits of the MC Conservation - fast forwarded because

not only elevates scale, physically and

politically, it also brings in various

resources which would not normally be

available to single jurisdiction

Sustainable Funding

Regional level – MC endowment

National level – national

sustainable finance mechanism

(e.g., Palau’s Green Fee)

Realized Benefits of the MC

1. Micronesia Biosecurity Plan – originally went

to Guam, but MC’s framework enabled this

opportunity to go to the other jurisdictions

2. MC Young Champions Interns Program –

originally went to FSM but again, because of

MC’s framework, it became accessible to the

other jurisdictions

3. More funding opportunities:

a) GEF - $6M

b) TNC/CI Pledge - $6M

c) Private donors (e.g., Packard

Foundation) - $3M

MC Challenges 1. MC still not well understood at local

level

2. Communication needs improvement,

both at local and regional level

3. Effective conservation measures difficult

to identify

4. Sustainable financing mechanisms also

difficult to set up based on current

available information, capacity and

options

Why MC matters and how to make it work for us It is an opportunity that can ensure a

worthy inheritance of functional and intact

ecosystems for Micronesians tomorrow

Needs all of our combined efforts to make it

work.

This opportunity is here NOW – what we need to do is ask ourselves how best to contribute to it through our respective agencies’ and jurisdictions’ goals and priorities. The more successful it is, the more we benefit from it.

15

IV. The Evolution of Palau’s National Program for Monitoring Forest and Coastal

Birds - Alan Olsen, Natural History Section, BNM

“The ‘holy grail’ of science is whenever you can, count. Science boils down to counting stuff.”

Gen. info on Palau’s

bird diversity

Resident species – 51

o Res. land birds- 38

o Res. sea birds – 13

Migratory species- 111

General overview of surveys in Palau

over 500 bird counts done by end of year

counting indicator species

counting for species richness

control points (important to have them)

baseline database – also needed to maintain framework and

context, even if new things come up

Received funding for a station on central Babeldaob, but now have

95 stations.

Milestones

1. A law was passed to designate Ngarmeskang Preserve after we gave a presentation to the chiefs in

Ngaremlengui State

2. EQPB Protocol 2010 – made it a requirement to do a bird survey as part of their building permit

process good balance between conservation and development

3. Executive Order No. 280 – National Program for Monitoring Forest and Coastal Birds (May 6, 2010)

4. 1st bird count training for conservation officers from BWA

5. “State of Palau’s Birds” (new book by BNM, published in 2010). Few copies to the workshop.

Question that has been repeatedly asked is, “Why didn’t you do the same transect as PCS and

USDA?” My answer: We’re counting different things.

We were shooting for species diversity, because it’s about biodiversity (BD). The earlier studies

were focusing on relative abundance and only on a few species (e.g., how many starlings) and

we can’t do that because starlings are difficult to count. We were trying to get a good handle of

what the diversity was out there and then move to indicator species and count them.

16

Chapter 1 – Background

Bird Survey Tools (Indicators, Methods & Statistics)

1. Population surveys

2. Species diversity/richness – good indicator of BD (birds, ants, bugs, etc.); not only for bird

population but also as indicator for overall ecosystem diversity. However, this survey is

in-depth and quite comprehensive, so if you can find someone to do it, let them do it.

3. Rank relative richness – Hot Spot - The birds will alert you to that with relative ease.

4. Site specific checklist – diversity inventories (inventory of the species on each spot).

5. Species richness statistics – learned that you don’t need to survey for 2 years, but only 6

months with a statistical estimator. Can help us to estimate hot spots (and non-hot

spots), which can help us determine which areas should be set aside for the 20% of the

terrestrial component of the MC. With statistics, the numbers are less important than

the trend (bird numbers going up, down, no change) and frequency to know what went

on in between the surveys.

Chapter 2 – Terrestrial Indicator Species Canopy frugivores and understory omnivores (keystone species)

Estimated appropriate sample size, movement patterns, trend analysis

Did trial runs before determining which method to use (learned that best method was 8

counts starting at around 7:30am).

Some indicator species are listed in IUCN with Near-threatened status, because they have

restricted range.

Chapter 3 – Coastal Bird Indicator Species The point is if you are doing ridge to reef, the birds are definitely ridge to reef – they go to the sea to catch food and come back to their homes in the forest. Migratory Birds – they provide a global perspective. We’re in the “Pacific Gap” – the

migratory fly-ways. All the continents have groups that track migratory birds, but the Pacific

area is a big blank spot, even though we’re at the edge of Asia (where there is hi BD) so it’s

important to keep track of these migratory birds. We’re already getting some extra benefits -

we get Noteworthy Migratory Birds (e.g., Glossy Ibis is rarely seen anywhere but found here).

17

Chapter 4 – Other Applications Aimeliik Forest Inventory Area (CAP observation criterion – 5 pigeons per site)

Lake Ngardok Reforestation Project – return of indicator species, seed dispersers and

pollinators

Establishing buffer zones/boundaries – convinced Ngaremlengui State that they should

extend the boundary and have the buffer zone at the bottom because there are pigeons.

The buffer zone is privately owned, and the owner actually offered it to be used for this

purpose. North is a bit disturbed (from the Japanese pineapple farms in the early 1900s),

but south is good. At north, we established buffer zones nearer the water trough.

Important to report big results, but just as important to report little results.

Chapter 5 – Epiphany Birds not only give us good data, but everyone loves birds so it also has a psychological effect

on people.

Birds provide context for terrestrial monitoring.

The passing of Executive Order No. 280 in May 2010 (See Milestones above).

Bird Indicators

1. Forest bird (see slide w/ categories) a) canopy frugivores (doves & pigeons) b) understory omnivores

Territorial vs. Flock

2. Coastal birds (Predator) a) shallow waders b) deep waders c) divers

3. Ants in leaf litter

4. Aquatic macro-invertebrates

5. Keystone tree species a) Fern forest b) Endangered tree (e.g., kmekumer- tallest tree on hill slopes and an endangered sp.)

6. Sometimes you don’t have ‘normal’ indicator species: a) Invasive ants – This ant cannot survive where there is leaf cover, because it can’t dig so

need to nest in open space. While invasive, this one has a Palauan name, and thus they have been in Palau for some time and not much of a threat anymore. Can be used as a negative indicator (if present = the area is disturbed; if absent = healed habitat (e.g., one that was damaged earlier from pigs).

b) Littoral ant – This is a specialist predator with a bad sting (malignus ant). Lives on the

inter-tidal zone (it’s out when the tide is low but hides when the tide is high). Never been seen above the high tide mark. Can be used to show if the zone in which they live moves climate change impacts.

18

Survey Methods

1. Grid Survey – time-consuming (need to identify tree height, diameter, seedlings, etc.)

2. Transect Survey - intensive

3. Broad-Scale Transect Survey - 1km apart – Advantage is you can cover a lot of area and if

you hit an obstacle, simply go around it.

4. Fine-Scale Transect Survey (zigzag) – you pick the direction and the biggest tree in that

direction and you go and survey that spot; then you pick another big tree and you go and

survey around there. Easier to do than others, such a random straight transect

5. Fine-Scale Transect Survey (species accumulation curves) – there are AM birds and PM birds.

More time-consuming, but gives you more detail.

6. Point Count Monitoring of Indicators – if you have a good point to go to, go there, count and

go home.

V. US Forest Service’s Ongoing Programs in Micronesia - Steven Victor (TNC)

presenting for Patricia Manly, USDA Forest Service

Water is the most important resource on Pacific Islands and native cloud forests play a vital role in trapping water from clouds or rain. This water then enters streams and groundwater where it is used for human consumption and agriculture. Water is not only important for humans, it also supports high levels of biodiversity on tropical islands. Inputs of cool freshwater to coastal areas are thought to regulate water temperatures, protecting our coral reefs from disease and coral bleaching. Water also provides habitat for unique assemblages of endemic stream animals, such as native gobies, shrimps and snails. These animals are not only unique in that they are only found on certain islands or island chains, but they also have unique life cycles. They have amphidromous life cycles in which they require a connection between streams and the ocean. Adults live and reproduce in upper stream reaches. When eggs hatch larval fish/shrimp/snails are flushed out to the oceans where they develop into juveniles. Juveniles eventually migrate back upstream, and some species can even scale waterfalls that are over 1000 ft. tall. Freshwater ecosystems and mangroves have been placed under terrestrial portion of the Micronesia Challenge and what follows are metrics that can be used to develop a consistent monitoring plan throughout Micronesia. These metrics can be used to either identify stand-alone mechanisms that should be set aside for conservation. Alternatively, these metrics can be

19

monitored in steams/river/wetlands/ mangroves that are within forested areas that have been identified as potential conservation areas. The tight and important connection between forests and aquatic ecosystems suggests that the latter option may be better and will allow you to identify watersheds that have diverse and productive forests and aquatic ecosystems. For example, if you have two forests and you are trying to decide which one should be included as the terrestrial portion of the MC, you would select the forest that had the most “healthy”, flowing and diverse streams. Table 1. Potential metrics used to determine status of aquatic ecosystems.

STREAMS & RIVERS

No Indicator & description Pros Cons

1 Flow rates – how fast water is moving in a stream or river. Discharge (or yield) is more informative – tells you amount of water flowing out of a watershed (or forest) over a known period of time. This metric would tell which streams are producing the most water. (USGS, USDA Forest Service and UOG-WERI already have some of this data)

Easy to measure over long periods of time; relatively inexpensive

Monitoring discharge overtime can also provide info on how climate change is altering island water resources (changes in amount and timing)

Streams have to be revisited over various flows (low flow, storm flow) to determine the relationships between stream height and discharge.

2 Fish surveys – used to estimate densities and diversities of fish, shrimp and snails in a stream reach a) Visual surveys (5-20 cross

sections) - depending on the width of the stream – the wider the stream the more cross section) are randomly established in a stream. (illustration provided in ppt )

Simple – only requires mask & snorkel

Many experts in this field who can help identify: fish – Patricia Manly,

Brent Tibbats, Brian Lynch snails - Alison Haynes,

Barry Smith shrimp (colleagues

from Aus and Japan)

Same headwater reaches are difficult to access

Can miss some species that are elusive (e.g., Eleotris spp).

b) Electric shocker – can be used to study an entire reach (as opposed to cross sections in visual surveys)

Can be a quick, but thorough survey. Allows you to capture and identify cryptic species that are not observed in visual surveys

Many experts in this field that can help identify: fish - Brent Tibbats, snails - Alison Haynes,

Barry Smith

very heavy – hard to haul up to headwater reaches

expensive and somewhat dangerous

20

shrimp (colleagues from Aus and Japan)

3 Water quality – measure of nutrient or sediments in stream water, used to access the quality of the water

nutrients are easy to sample and measure

need machines & equipment to analyze water samples. If sending off-island, need to keep water frozen. Nutrient analysis can also be costly ($5 per nutrient – adds up quickly)

Sediment loads need to be measured across low and high flows. Most of the sediments are moved at high flows, so need special equipment to sample this can be costly

4 Invertebrate monitoring – density and diversity of invertebrates can tell us the quality of the stream habitat. There are many ways to sample invertebrates, either their larval stage in the water (hester-dendy, surber samplers, drift nets, kick nets) or their adult forms that have emerged from the water column and are flying around (sweep nets).

Invertebrates are easy to sample and can be used to indicate the status of a stream

Regional expertise is a available (e.g., Don Buden, Ron Englund, Patricia Manly)

Invertebrates difficult to process

Invertebrates difficult to identify. Many are new species that need to be identified and require expertise that may not be available locally

Invertebrate community changes over time; may require intensive temporal sampling to fully document the diversity of a stream

Mangrove forest monitoring protocol outline – see ppt for detailed description with

illustrations. These protocols can also be used for fresh and brackish marsh ecosystems.

Transect and sample plot description: Each plot consists of 10 m radius, with a smaller 3 m radius in its center called the ‘subplot’.

All live and dead trees > than 5 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) are measured and

identified within the 10 m radius plot.

Within the subplot, all saplings (trees reaching breast height [1.3 m], but having a DBH <5 cm)

will also be measured

A sediment core and sediment profiles are also measured from subplot. These plots have

already been installed in 6 forests on Babeldaob (Palau) and some in Yap and Kosrae.

21

Two potential monitoring methods for transect and sample plots

1. Parallel transects 2. Systematic grid

Other indicators for mangrove, fresh and brackish marsh ecosystems:

1. Understory vegetation and litter 2. Soil Carbon 3. Fish and Crab surveys 4. Sediment accretion

The data collected from freshwater and mangroves described here, as well as the data that will be collected from the forest monitoring, will not only help identify areas for the Micronesia Challenge, but can also be used to: a) Develop an easily accessible, user friendly decision management tool that will provide

resource managers across the tropics with an understanding of how exotic species and

climate change will impact a particular watershed of interest.

b) Provide the knowledge required for making decisions about how to allocate limited

management resources to exotic species control, ecosystem restoration, development of

best management practices for maintaining watershed function, & education of a larger

audience about exotic species invasion, climate and land-use impacts on water resources.

c) Provide education materials for a larger audience about exotic species invasion, climate

change and land-use impacts on our precious water resources.

DSTs have already been developed by the Forest Service for other regions of the US. Using an ArcGIS based toolkit, maps are created from integrated databases that identify how various impacts such as erosion, roads, and changes in wood/sediment supply affect various parameters of aquatic ecosystems such as salmonid habitat. We would like to build a similar tool specific for tropical watersheds. We plan to take our DHSVM model and then plug it into a similar DST that will identify at-risk areas in need or resource management (e.g., reforestation, invasive species control) as well as model how various activities (or lack thereof) will influence watershed function. This tool will ultimately allow resource managers to increase or maintain hydrological inputs in the face of a changing climate, increased development/deforestation, and increased spread of invasive species. Our DST will be ground-truthed at sites along the Hamakua, as well as watersheds on Kauai and Oahu under various climate change, invasive species, and land-use/restoration scenarios. We are in the process of developing this decision support tool for Hawaii and plan to test it in Pohnpei in 2012. The DST would help identify areas for the Micronesia Challenge, but won’t be available for at least two years. However, if the first step of the terrestrial portion of the MC is to monitor all forests, freshwater ecosystems, and mangroves on an island, then by the time this data is collected, our DST may be ready to use and could help identify the best areas on an island for conservation.

22

VI. Micronesia Challenge Database Launch - Lukes Isechal, PICRC

Many organizations and agencies in Micronesia have been collecting (and will continue to collect) coral reef data, resulting in many data sets that have accumulated over many years. Unfortunately, these data sets have not been easy to find or acquire, which is an issue that this database project aims to improve.

Need - Data sets are in accessible due to the following reasons:

1. Haven’t been entered into a

spreadsheet (still on data sheets)

2. Lost

3. Stored in Excel (limited capacity &

capabilities) or in personal computers

4. Indecipherable to everyone, except

for the person who entered them

Goal

1. Central repository - to establish a

central repository of monitoring data

2. Quality - incorporates the necessary

quality controls

3. Security – provides enough security to

protect integrity of the data

4. Standardized – to ensure consistency

of data

5. Simple – easy data entry and

generates simple reports

6. Access – convenient, obtainable and

manageable

Hope

1. Access funding

to begin developing a central

management system

to support training of staff

to introduce database to

potential users

2. Secure partnership with someone (or

agency) that has expertise and

experience with managing data

3. Reach consensus on monitoring

indicators and methods

Current status of project – not yet completed and still need to:

1. Ensure that all the formulas which support the queries are

right

2. Enhance analysis capabilities to generate more useful reports

3. “chop” up the database into smaller linked pieces to enable

sharing of data via email

4. Tighten security and backup protocols

5. Other design issues

6. Get users to try it out

What we really

want:

Data

vs.

Information

(data vs. trends)

Acknowledgement

Micronesia

Conservation

Trust

German LifeWeb

PICRC/JICA

CEPCRM

PALARIS

Dr. Peter Houk – PMRI

Franck Magron – SPC

Dwayne Minton – TNC

23

During the afternoon of Day 1, all jurisdictions and FSM states were asked to present an update report covering four main areas:

1. Current terrestrial protected areas (including mangrove areas)

2. Current monitoring efforts (includes efforts outside terrestrial PAs as well)

3. Challenges

4. Capacity needs

Jurisdiction/State Updates Jurisdiction/State

Protected Areas (PA)

Current monitoring activities Challenges Capacity Needs

Chuuk

- 16 total PAs - 11 terr

- Interview w/ comm. resource users - Site visits to PAs - Periodically obtain photos of sites - Forest surveys - Water quality (fresh water & marine) - Collaboration among relevant agencies regarding community consultation results

- All monitoring efforts only within PAs

- Limited land mass compared to other FSM states

- Increased population – more pressure on limited resources

- Defining indicators that define qualitative assessments with empirical evidence

Individual

- Continuous professional development

- Training (survey methods, database management, etc.) Resource Agencies

- Capable staff - Equipment (GIS) to

collect info/data necessary to ID location of terrestrial PAs

Kosrae - 4 total PAs (all have terr components)

- KIRMA permitting process - Comm Conservation Officers/Park Rangers/Power Rangers

- Tripartite MOU between YELA, KIRMA & KCSO - Beach Profiling - US Forest Service Reporting Systems (PMAS, CARS, SFSR, FLIS)

- SET (Sediment Erosion Table) - Canopy Gap Survey - Invasives (detection, plotting,mapping)

- Overlapping resource management mandates

- Overlapping uses and development agenda

- Limited technical and financial resources

- Lack of monitoring tools and protocols

- Funding - Training - Human resources

Pohnpei - ? total PAs (11 terr)

- Invasives - Bird survey

- WFR delineation & demarcation stopped in Kitti in 2003

- Next step: training for locals

24

- Ethnobotany (biodiversity) - Sediment monitoring - Water quality (source of pollutants) - Encroachment (sakau clearing & other

activities within watershed boundaries)

- Co-management partnership - Forest clearing due to economic

livelihoods (alternative income) - Water quality degradation

- Forest inventory (identify ecological/soil attributes)

- Technical experts (bird survey/ID)

- Data analysis

Yap - 4 total PAs

- FIA and attached dev. surveys, forest health indicators, timber

- Fruit bat, birds - Invasives

- Human resources (3 staff) - Funding , economic usefulness of PAs - Land tenure system

- Staff development - Monitoring

FSM National

Nat’l gov’t doesn’t own land resources

- Policy, geographic landscape, & climate change

- Human resources

RMI - 46 total PAs - 11 MOs or traditional conservation sites - 6 atolls

- Biological assessments, invasive species

- Major coastal development activities

- Source of water contaminants

- Illegal pesticides

- Solid waste monitoring

- Vulnerability assessment

- Geographic isolation, transportation to outer islands, increased energy costs - Enforcement, awareness - Land tenure, loss of trad. knowledge - Need for improved nat’l coordination - Funding - Reconnect people with the forest

- human resource dev. & management

National level & site specific capacity needs

Guam - 14 total PAs (9 terr)

- Reforestation - Ungulate control, brown tree snake control - Fire control, erosion control - T & E species surveys - Assessments

- Ungulates, invasive species - Access - Development - Unlawful take - Fires, erosion

- Personnel - Personnel support - Rules & regulations - Prosecutions - Funding - Professional training

Palau - 40 total PAs (16 terr) - All have completed or working on their mgmt plans

- Trees - Water quality - Aquatic macro-invertebrates, birds & ants

- ID a suite of indicators to be used by all PAN sites; protocols like PABITRA too intensive; others don’t translate well to island context

- not enough people with needed capacity to do the work

- no money – Green Fund hasn’t filtered down to on-the-ground work

(End of Day 1)

25

Breakout Group Sessions – DAY 2

Objectives for 1st Breakout Session Indicators - agree on minimum set of indicators (What needs to be measured) Methods – how will you measure these indicators Capacity Needs – Who will measure and what capacity is needed to carry out the terrestrial

monitoring protocol

Criteria for indicators: Importance, cost, practicality, sensitivity

Although the initial plan was to determine indicators and discuss associated monitoring methods and needed capacity, after some discussion the group felt that it might be best to just focus on indicators for the first breakout session. Thus, while discussion touched on methods and capacity needs, the main goal here was to identify most appropriate terrestrial monitoring indicators. To identifying the minimum set of indicators for the terrestrial component of the MC, the groups began their discussion with the four terrestrial targets and their respective indicators that were identified during the 1st Measures Meeting (see table below). From this list, the groups were to decide which ones are still relevant, and thus should remain, and which ones should be dropped. Furthermore, the groups were also asked to add new indicators if necessary. Each group already had a designated facilitator and were asked select their scribe and reporter. List of terrestrial targets and their respective indicators identified during the 1st Measures Meeting.

No Targets Indicators

1 Mangroves Water Quality Sediment accretion Level of harvest/extraction % native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)

2 Native Forest % native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)

3 Fresh Water Ecosystems

Flow rates Density, size, diversity of fauna Water quality

4 Native Forest Birds

For specific important bird species – population density and abundance Age class structure (including # of breeding pairs) Geographic distribution of habitats and nesting areas

The summary tables of the results from the three breakout groups are found on the following pages. Note: Red fonts indicate changes and/or insertions from the discussions.

26

Breakout 1 (Tuesday) – Selection of Indicators Group 1 Roseo, Matt & Betty Presenter, Pua

No Targets Indicators from 1st Measures (original indicators)

Method & WHO Capacity needs

1 Mangroves Ecosystems

Water Quality Sediment accretion Level of harvest/extraction % native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)

Secchi disk (sedimentation) - EPA E.coli - EPA Turbidity – EPA & AGRI Fish surveys/crustaceans - AGRI Plants - AGRI Satellite imagery – USFS, SOPAC

Training for fish & crustacean surveys GIS Remote sensing

2 Native/Viable Forest

% native forest cover (including areal extent)/species diversity Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)

Satellite imagery analysis-SOPAC Remote sensing - SOPAC FIAUSFS - SOPAC

GIS Remote sensing



E.coli-EPA Turbidity , using secchi disc-EPA Fish survey/crustaceans – AGRI Plants - AGRI


% native forest cover (including aerial extent) Species diversity & abundance population density and abundance Forest structure - age class structure (including # of breeding pairs) Geographic distribution of habitats and nesting areas

Satellite imagery and remote sensing – Local GIS office, SOPAC, USFS FIA survey – all local agencies, with assistance from USFS

27

Breakout 1 (Tuesday) – Selection of Indicators Group 2 Frank& Doreen Presenter, Eugene

No Targets Indicators from 1st Measures

(original indicators) Method & WHO Capacity Needs

1 Mangroves Water Quality - turbidity

Sediment accretion Level of harvest/extraction % native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class) Peat Depth (added indicator)

Secchi disk SET Plots Plots


Plots Plots Plots


Flow rates (quantity)- added quantity to accommodate RMI which has no rivers and streams but only water lenses Density, size, diversity of fauna Water quality Biological indicators

- Diversity - Fish - Inverts

algae

Quantity Quality Salinity turbidity E-coli

Measure flow rate Size (river, stream lens) Salinometer Secchi disk EPA standards & methods


For specific important bird species – population density and abundance Age class structure (including # of breeding pairs) Geographic distribution of habitats and nesting areas Native Forest was removed as a target and made an indicator for native forest

28

Breakout 1 (Tuesday) – Selection of Indicators Group 3 Umai & Alan Presenter, William


Method & WHO Capacity Needs


FIA (5 yrs)





For specific important bird species – population density and abundance Age class structure (including # of breeding pairs) Geographic distribution of habitats and nesting areas

Background – looked at the current ongoing work (e.g., EPA is doing this and they have protocol). The FIA method can be used to do inventory every 5 years, but every 6 months need to go out and look at pests, diseases, etc., using existing capacity.

And with the Mangroves, we realized that different jurisdictions were at diff levels (e.g., Chuuk having lots of indiscriminate harvesting) so may be before we monitor, we need to do policies. Otherwise, you monitor today and next month your site is gone.

As for birds, if we can focus on endemics in our region/state and then after that, may be Alan’s protocol can work and if not, may be someone else can do it. So at the outset, this is the capacity we have and so this is what we can do. Some jurisdictions can’t even be at the primary method.

29

Following the group reports, areas that still needed further discussion were covered at plenary. Below is a summary of these discussions.

Plenary discussions at end of Day 2: FIA is too complicated to understand so may not be a realistic method. Or maybe the method is

OK, but its timeline is too long. Unfortunately, cannot do more frequently because expensive.

Also this method is more appropriate for a longer time-frame, but 10 years is too long.

Definitely need to do it more frequently than every 10 years. Management is usually 1 or 2 yrs,

so need to fit this in to the monitoring program. Plus, in Micronesia, PAs will be smaller, unlike

the Amazon which can lose 100ha and be able to absorb this loss – not so in Micronesia. With

these small areas, you will miss the little changes if you do it in 10 yrs.

May be can do monthly surveys with Landsat, which is freely available – it’s the analysis part of it

that is time-consuming.

Frequency should be one of the factors, in addition to indicators and methods. For some

indicators we don’t need to measure it every time we go out so this may also address cost in

finance and time. Need to think about level of inference you are trying to achieve to meet your

MC goals. For example, to convince people to set aside an area for watershed, what do you need

to measure to provide the needed information to get this decision to be made? These are the

things to discuss relative to cost and importance - so think of who is the main audience – the

forester that tells you it’s enough to survey every 5-10 years or some other scientist.

Also replication was left out of group discussion. If you have a small mangrove area, perhaps you

don’t need 5 plots – one or two may be enough.

Steven said that he deliberately left the design discussion out because experienced problems

with the marine groups who confused the design with methods. So wanted to just focus on the

methods and the design will be provided with assistance by others.

One group made a distinction between what you should count and what you can count. I think

in Micronesia we still need to figure out what we need to measure before we can talk about how

to measure it.

If you’re talking scientific, you need some statistical level of accuracy. But if you’re a manager,

you don’t need this level of certainty. Also you’re interactive so you can change things quickly.

Our community has set up a mangrove sanctuary. The idea is to protect it but if they need to use

it, they can use it for traditional purposes. These indicators don’t mean anything to them. And,

due to the small land mass on our island, we cannot afford to have no take PAs. So for us, when

we have PAs, we tend to think that it is also allowed to be used. This is why we wanted the

groups to define “native forest’.

(END OF DAY 2)

30

Day 3 (Morning)

The day began with an impromptu breakout group session to finalize discussion from yesterday (e.g., dropping birds as a target, adding peat depth as a mangrove indicator, and whether or not we need all indicators that were identified from the 1st Measures Mtg. It was suggested that the groups will be divided based on jurisdiction. The jurisdiction groups were given 45 minutes to discuss and make their decisions on these issues.

Summary of impromptu jurisdictional group breakout to finalize discussion from Day 2:

1. Birds - removal of birds as a target

all agreed

2. Mangrove - adding peat depth as new indicator– in mangrove ecosystems, there is accretion but

also subsidence (gain or loss of mangrove mud). This tells you the net so it can help you to

determine the structure of the mangrove forest. It gets at the viability issue (eg., if you want to

replant mangroves, you need a certain depth of peat).

mangroves really need to be treated and tended to by both terr and marine folks. (e.g.,

marine folks would look at fish life cycles).

perhaps that is not what you need – what would be needed is an expert on mangrove

systems.

tabled for following day, because couldn’t decide to add or not

3. Do we need to have all of these indicators that have been proposed in order for us to have an

accurate picture of the targets? Some groups kept all of them and when asked this question,

they said we can keep all because they can be determined by using the same method (plots).

However, just because you can do more in one place, doesn’t mean it’s the same price – it is

time-consuming so those things add up. Therefore, need to consider all of these – just because

you can count things, doesn’t mean you should, especially if it involves money.

A proposal was made for the jurisdictions to vote on which indicators they consider

should remain, including consideration of new proposed indicators (e.g., peat depth)

4. What about social indicators? The groups unanimously agreed that these are needed, but that

they don’t have the capacity to tackle this task. Also unanimously agreed that that these should

be left to the socioeconomic folks (e.g., the SE group that was formed after the 2nd Measures

Mtg. to lead the SE component of the MC).

Social indicators and scorecard indicators were considered to be best handled by a more

appropriate group.

31

5. Defining ‘native forest’ – each jurisdiction was asked to define this to provide the foundation of

the regional MC definition. This resulted in a new definition that was shaped after the four

jurisdictional definitions.

MC definition for ‘Native Forest’: A functional forest with representation of indigenous and/or naturalized species of plants and wildlife, which include:

1. Upland forest 2. Native savannah 3. Freshwater

swamp

4. Marsh 5. Riparian forest 6. Mangrove

7. Atoll forest 8. Limestone

forest 9. Coastal beach

strand

10. Secondary forest 11. Agroforest 12. Rehabilitated

forest

Results of votes by jurisdictions to determine which indicators to keep (& which ones to drop).

Freshwater Ecosystems (rivers, streams) CNMI FSM Guam Palau RMI

Flow rates X X

Density

Size X

Diversity of fauna

Water quality X X X

- Turbidity X X X X

- E.coli X X

- Salinity X X

Fish/crustaceans X X

Water quantity

Native Forest CNMI FSM Guam Palau RMI

% native forest cover (incl. areal extent) X X X X

Species diversity X X X

Species abundance X X

Birds diversity/abundance (bird counts) X X X X

Forest structure (age class)

Invasive species X X

Human disturbance X X X X

32

Results of votes by jurisdictions (continued)

Mangroves CNMI FSM Guam Palau RMI

Water quality X

- turbidity X X

Sediment accretion

Level of harvest/extraction

% native forest cover (incl. areal extent) (GIS) X X X

Species diversity X X X X

Species abundance X X X X

Forest structure (age class)

Peat depth X X

Native forest birds CNMI FSM Guam Palau RMI

Population density (for specific species)

Population abundance (for specific species)

Age class structure (incl. # of breeding pairs)

Geographic distribution habitat & nesting areas

Occurrence X X

In summary:

Native forest birds target was removed as a target as the group felt it was more appropriate as

an indicator.

Peat depth did not get added on as a new indicator for mangroves.

A definition of ‘native forest’ was created by the group during plenary

Social indicators and scorecard indicators were deferred to the socio-economic group.

- Prior to having the next major breakout group sessions to discuss methods and capacity needs,

there was a plenary discussion on these two areas and it appears that all the jurisdictions have

received training on FIA methods. FIA covers indicators such as abundance, species diversity,

forest structure.

- Essentially involves a simple 24’ radius plot with 6’ sub-plot and we measure 3”thick or more

trees; 6.5’ radius to the east sub-plot. It was also expressed that Palau, as well as other

jurisdictions, made some modifications to the FIA method. Therefore, the FIA method cannot be

used for the MC measures as is until the jurisdictions identify their own standardized sets of

modifications.

33

Breakout Group Sessions – DAY 3

Breakout 2 (Wednesday) -- Methods & Capacity Discussions Group 1 Roseo, Matt & Betty Presenter, Pua


Method & WHO Capacity needs

1 Mangrove Water Quality Sediment accretion Level of harvest/extraction % native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)

Secchi disk (sedimentation) - EPA E.coli - EPA Turbidity – EPA & AGRI Fish surveys/crustaceans - AGRI Plants - AGRI Satellite imagery – USFS, SOPAC

Training for fish & crustacean surveys GIS Remote sensing


Satellite imagery analysis-SOPAC Remote sensing - SOPAC FIAUSFS - SOPAC

GIS Remote sensing



E.coli-EPA Turbidity , using secchi disc-EPA Fish survey/crustaceans AGRI Plants - AGRI

34

Breakout 2 (Wednesday) -- Methods & Capacity Discussions Group 2 Frank& Doreen Presenter, Eugene



1 Mangroves Water Quality turbidity Sediment accretion Level of harvest/extraction % native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)

Secchi disk SET Plots Plots

2 Native Forest

% native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)

Plots Plots Plots


Flow rates Flow rate discharge Water quality E-coli Density, size, diversity of fauna Biological indicators

Diversity Fish Inverts

Algae

measure flow rate Size (river, stream lens) Salinometer Secchi disk EPA standards & methods

35

Breakout 2 (Wednesday) -- Methods & Capacity Discussions Group 3 Umai & Alan Presenter, William (word doc report – need to get copy)

(END OF DAY 3 )

Day 4 (Morning)

Although all the main themes for the workshop (i.e., indicators, methods, who will monitor and needed capacity) have been discussed throughout the week, it was still unclear which areas were actually done; which were still incomplete (or did not receive enough attention); and whether or not the group as a whole had already reached consensus on every indicator, method and capacity needs that have been identified. Thus the last anticipated group breakout session was cancelled to allow everyone to review everything together so that there is a common understanding and consensus on what gets to be in the initial outline of the MC Terrestrial Monitoring Framework.

Summary result of the plenary review: 1. Review, revision and confirmation of final list of minimum set of indicators, associated

monitoring methods, who/what agency will lead each monitoring program; and needed capacity to carry out the monitoring program.

2. Next steps to further define the monitoring framework.




2 Native Forest

% native forest cover (including areal extent) Species diversity and abundance Forest structure (age class)



36

Initial MC Terrestrial Monitoring Framework Outline NATIVE FOREST

Jurisdiction votes

Indicators Methods Who Capacity needs

4 % forest cover (incl. areal extent) Satellite imagery & remote sensing SOPAC to assist

3 Species diversity FIA (modified)

3 Species abundance FIA (modified)

4 Bird diversity Standard Point Count BNM, CSP

4 Human disturbance

2 Invasive species

Received 0 votes: Forest structure

MANGROVES

Jurisdiction votes


3 % native forest cover (incl. areal extent) Satellite imagery & remote sensing

4 Species diversity FIA (modified) Dept of Ag

4 Species abundance FIA (modified) Dept of Ag

2 Water quality –-- turbidity Secchi disc

2 Peat depth

Received 0 votes: Forest structure, Sediment accretion, Level of harvest/extraction

FRESH WATER ECOSYSTEMS

(Rivers, streams & water lenses)

Jurisdiction votes


2 Flow rates

1 Size

4 Turbidity Secchi disc

2 Coliform EPA method

2 Salinity EPA method

2 Fish/crustaceans

Received 0 votes: Diversity of fauna, Density

37

Recommendations

1. Formation of the Terrestrial Working Group - there is a need for a small group that will take a

lead in moving this effort forward. All foresters from the region were considered ideal

candidates to form this group and were nominated to take the lead in organizing it.

2. Terrestrial Working Group meeting - there was agreement that the Terrestrial Working Group

members need to have a meeting to further develop the current terrestrial monitoring outline,

as working on it remotely will most likely take a while to get anywhere.

3. MC Regional Socio-economic Workshop - strong recommendation to have another workshop

dedicated to the social component of the MC (covering both marine and terrestrial) to identify

and finalize indicators to be incorporated into the marine and terrestrial monitoring protocols.

4. Someone needs to lead the socio-economic component – an appropriate group with knowledge

and experience about socio-economic work needs to take a lead on this. Perhaps should start

with the existing group that was formed during the 2nd MC Measures Meeting held in Palau in

2010.

5. Scorecard indicators to be handled by socio-economic group - most of the indicators for this

involve socio-economic indicators so it should be led by the socioeconomic group.

6. FIA Database to be used as starting point - there is already a database for vegetation survey

done by FIA for all jurisdictions. May be best to build on this database by adding bird surveys and

water quality monitoring data.

7. Standardization of modifications for FIA methods - the FIA method, while used throughout the

MC jurisdictions cannot be used for the MC monitoring program until the jurisdictions agree to a

standardized set of modifications, to ensure consistency throughout the region.

Closing Remarks

Umiich thanked the participants and facilitators for a successful workshop and acknowledging how everyone must be very tired by this time, he suggested that we end the day early and save final remarks for the farewell dinner.

MC Terrestrial Measures Workshop - Global Islands · 2012-09-04 · MC Terrestrial Measures...

Documents

Transcript of MC Terrestrial Measures Workshop - Global Islands · 2012-09-04 · MC Terrestrial Measures...