monitoring information for ceafm decision making reflections on lmma s learning
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on

Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning. Caroline Vieux- SPREP James Comley- USP. Previous experience- purpose of monitoring-J. Community/stakeholder involvement: Adaptive management Community/stakeholder learning for management

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning' - azure


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
monitoring information for ceafm decision making reflections on lmma s learning

Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning

Caroline Vieux- SPREP

James Comley- USP

previous experience purpose of monitoring j
Previous experience- purpose of monitoring-J
  • Community/stakeholder involvement:
  • Adaptive management
    • Community/stakeholder learning for management
    • Project or organizational learning for management
  • Stock assessment
  • Project/donor M&E
  • Network or portfolio learning
  • Global or academic learning
  • Advocacy
previous experience what has been monitored and how has it been done c
Previous experience- what has been monitored- and how has it been done-C
  • Species population status – UVC, belt transects, CPUE, interviews..
  • Ecological processes e.g. SPAGs - UVC
  • Habitat health indicators – point intercept transects, photo, videotransects
  • Socio-economic status including governance and compliance – Household surveys, Key informant/focus group interviews
  • Physical conditions (temperature) - loggers
  • Water quality – sampling and analysis
previous experience who has been involved in monitoring j
Previous experience- who has been involved in monitoring - J
  • Community unaided and unsupported by outside agencies
  • Community assisted directly by outside agency/NGO
  • Outside agency assisted by community
  • Outside researchers
lessons learned purpose of monitoring j
Lessons learned- purpose of monitoring- J
  • LMMA network set out an ambitious framework
  • Need to define purpose of monitoring- ensure fit for purpose
  • Monitoring tied to objectives of management plan
  • Standardisation unlikely to equate to primary motivations/interest of individual sites
lessons learnt biological monitoring results c
Lessons learnt – biological monitoring results - C

Methodology issues- not surveyor

  • Many lessons for the biological monitoring, the main one being:

In all the studies reviewed statistical power is not sufficient to detect changes, SD are too high:

    • Differences in the implementation of the methodologies (number and length of transects varie from site to site) = ?? ( do we really know what is the effort needed?)
    • Variation of transects needed between sites and species (ex from Fiji LMMA: number of transects needed to detect changes, within the tabu area: Lutjanus gibbus=153, Naso unicornis=200, Scarus ghobban:4, within the control site: Lg=38, Nu=60, Sg=5)
    • Not enough transects done, wrong placement
    • Current design not suited for most invertebrates that are too patchily distributed
    • Analysis done at the species level, if fish assemblage are looked at through multivariate analysis, results are more robust
slide7

Lessons learnt – Socio-Economic monitoring results - C

  • Socioeconomic monitoring:
    • still very new in most cases,
    • not many lessons to date except for LMMA network where data have been of a very poor quality.
    • Development of SEM-Pasifika, training conducted and funds allocated through NOAA and accessible by all PICs but interest has been quite limited so far…is it really needed?
    • More one-point in time socioeconomic surveys than monitoring
  • Perceptions: varies quite a lot from the biological surveys
  • CPUE: low cost and low tech compared to Uderwater Visual Census but sampling effort has to be done over a sufficient amount of time to be relevant
the role of communities in monitoring j
The role of communities in monitoring - J

Motivations

  • Participation/stewardship

Successes

  • Ability of communities to count reliably
  • Opportunity monitoring presents for AM

Challenges

  • Resourcing- remuneration?
  • High turnover
  • On going comittment to monitor
have monitoring results been used for management c
Have monitoring results been used for management? C
  • Some instances of it being used- though generally results have not be widely used for adaptive management
  • In Fiji, PNG, 25% of the sites used the results of monitoring for adaptive management
  • Reasons:
    • Communities do not understand the results (no training on data interpretation)
    • Data are not significant
    • Other factors drive the decision-making
    • Adaptive management is taking place without the results of monitoring
    • The data are not relevant to management questions
      • Certain species are not accurately assessed
      • Data collected do not inform on resource stocks
has it been worth it what information is needed j
Has it been worth it? What information is needed-J
  • 60% of budget of some project countries spent on monitoring
  • CBEAFM (vis-a-vis CBAM) in purest form intended to be “learning by doing”
slide11

Key questions/issues of concern-J

  • What information is needed for CEAFM
  • Who has responsibility for monitoring?
  • Who should pay for monitoring- and how much of the total budget should be spent on monitoring?
  • What methods are most cost effective and appropriate?
direction in fiji j
Direction in Fiji-J
  • Responsive to community needs
  • Re-Tired approach
    • Less-data monitoring at all sites
    • Community monitoring on specific factors- relevant to them- at small number
    • Ad-hoc research driven monitoring at small number of sites
ad