Day 03 01 Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making
Download
Report
Transcript Day 03 01 Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making
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
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
•
•
•
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 factorsrelevant to them- at small number
– Ad-hoc research driven monitoring at small
number of sites