Monitoring information for ceafm decision making reflections on lmma s learning
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 12

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

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

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

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

Caroline Vieux- SPREP

James Comley- USP

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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


  • Participation/stewardship


  • Ability of communities to count reliably

  • Opportunity monitoring presents for AM


  • Resourcing- remuneration?

  • High turnover

  • On going comittment to monitor

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

  • 60% of budget of some project countries spent on monitoring

  • CBEAFM (vis-a-vis CBAM) in purest form intended to be “learning by doing”

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

  • 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

  • Login