Summary Report
AP-BON Working Group at 9th GEOSS Asia-Pacific Symposium (GEOSS-AP)
The WG of AP-BON was held as one of working group of the parallel session of 9th GEOSS (GlobalEarth Observation System of Systems）Asia-Pacific Symposium.
Outline of the meeting
Date: 12 January, 2017
Venue: Heisei Plaza, Tokyo International Exchange Center, Tokyo, Japan
Co-Chairs:
Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara (Kyushu University, Japan)
Dr. Sheila Vergara (ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, Philippines)
Dr. Eun-Shik Kim (Kookmin University, Korea)
Participants: 31persons and 13 nationalities

Objectives:-To share the current status and vision of biodiversity and ecosystem observations of APBON and other networks-To discuss ways to contribute to one of the Societal Benefit Areas (SBAs) in GEO StrategicPlan (SP) 2016-2025: Implementing GEOSS, “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Sustainability”,
as well as to a few of targets involved in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Outline of the proceedings

Welcome remarks: Mr. Hisashi Kawagoe (Biodiversity Center of Japan, MOE)
Session 1: Overview of regional and national BON activities
Moderator: Dr. Tohru Nakashizuka and Dr. Reiichiro Ishii① AP-BONDr. Tetsukazu Yahara (Kyushu University, Japan)

He presented overview and achievement of AP-BON including its history. He explained thenetworking of monitoring sites and then presented the results on spatial variation of plant species
richness along elevation based on data from monitoring sites in South East Asia.

② Sino BON and ABCDNet

Dr. Keping Ma (Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

He introduced progress and achievement of Sino BON and ABCDNet. In his talks, he introducedcamera trapping network and application of LiDAR to monitoring of forest dynamics. He alsointroduced the project “Mapping Asia Plants”.
(Discussions)Dr. Chu: What is data policy of ABCDNet?
Dr. Ma: We don’t release data policy yet. But we prefer to have open policy in which data isshared with neighboring countries.
③ Achievements of GBIF in Asia

Dr. Sheila Vergara (ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity)

She presented summary statistics of biodiversity data of Asian countries mediated by GBIF. She
also presented the workshops for managers of ASEAN Heritage Parks which are related tocapacity-building on biodiversity informatics.
(Discussions)Dr. Ma: What kind of analysis was conducted to get the statistics presented in the table? And whatis the contribution of regional network to international contexts?
Dr. Vergara: These statistics are from the main GBIF web sites. It would mean that the statistics
is based on the same analysis as the GBIF.
④ Freshwater fish database in Asia

Dr. Yuichi Kano (Kyushu University)

He presented contribution of fish database to local problems in South-East Asia such as dam
construction and publication of scientific papers. He reported that, for contribution of the database,distribution data contributed to impact assessment of dam construction in the Mekong riverwatershed and global warming. His report included that the database also contributed to identify
piscifauna in Inle lake in Myanmar and revealed that 35% of fish species were exotic. Heemphasized the importance of its inclusion of stakeholder in production process of the scientificpaper.
(Discussions)Dr. Ma: Do you have any idea about total number of fish in South Asia area?
Dr. Kano: I think there are about 700 fish species in Mekong region. In the entire area of Asia, I guess
there would be 10,000 species, however there might be some unidentified species.

Dr. Navarro: How did you initially implement fish project?
Dr. Kano: I directly met them and communicate them.

⑤ Reports from other countriesa) Indonesian BON: toward the establishment
Dr. Dedy Darnaedi (Indonesian Institute of Sciences)
His presentation covered progress toward establishment of Indonesian BON. The presentation
includes explanation about current situation of ecological monitoring in Indonesia.
b) Activities of K-BON with Civil Scientist
Dr. Chan-Ho Park (NIBR, Korea)
He introduced overview and achievement of K-BON. He presented informatic system, which
integrates citizen science into biodiversity data, collection. He also reported that K-BON junior
had been established to develop capacity of young scientists.
(Discussions)Dr. Kim: It is important to think how to make connections between K-BON and AP-BON as wellas among the initiatives and organizations presented in the last slide.
c) Nepal BON Update
Dr. Mangal Man Shakya (Wildlife Watch Group and Nepal-BON)
He presented achievement of Nepal Bon as well as its contribution at policy and field levels
including the one to the initiatives “Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities(EPIC)”.
Session 2: GEO Strategic Plan 2016-2025 and GEO Work Programme 2017-2019
Moderator: Dr. Eun-Shik Kim① Challenges and opportunities of in-situ observations in GEO Work Programme 2017-2019

Dr. Hiroyuki Muraoka (Gifu University, Japan)
He introduced overview of GEO and its implementation mechanisms. His presentation covered
cross-scale and multidisciplinary observation system as well as relationship with the SDGs. He
reported to review in situ observation of terrestrial biodiversity as well.
(Discussions)Dr. Kim: Do you think that regional ILTER is ready to promote GEO? I had discussion on
engagement of ILTER communities to GEO community. It seems that they do not haveclear idea about this point.
Dr. Muraoka: I think dialog is not enough to link the communities and also dialog on how todeliver data to GEO community is necessary.

Dr. Ma: Ecosystem monitoring network has much longer history and therefore has huge amountof data exists. I think challenge is to promote data sharing. Do have any other challenges
and solutions for them?
Dr. Muraoka: At first, we need to list questions. Each community has their own database or metadatabase. We need to identity what kind of data is required and then we should promote
data sharing.
Dr. Chu: GEO has data sharing principles. On usability and accessibility, implementation
guideline explains terminology and provides cases for conservation. I’ll be happy tofollow this as GEO community. Three workshops will be hosted in Africa and otherregions.
② BON development: National needs and approaches

Dr. Laetitia Navarro (GEO BON Executive Secretary)
Her talks focused on supporting the development of Biodiversity Observation Networks. She
introduced her experience on establishing network of Columbian Biodiversity Observation
systems.
(Discussions)
Dr. Vergara: What is the distinction between National GBIF and BON in the context of CBD
CHM?
Dr. Navarro: In practice, I don’t know how to deal with this issue.
Dr. Ma: Two imitative has different works. GBIF focus on spatial distribution and GEO BON
focus on dynamics.
Dr. Navarro: I think it the best things for each country to have their own systems. However, there
are too many initiatives and the data are scattered. And why is not the data from J-BON
as well as K-BON appeared on GEO BON?
Dr. Yahara: We had discussion two years ago. I did not agree with endorsement to GEO because
it is not easy to standardize. And it requires freedom. GEO BON activities are different
from national BON and therefore GEO BON is better to allow freedom of national BON.
And a very important point is missing. We need to find leader to sustain network.
Session 3: Development of broader observation network
Moderators: Dr. Shin-ichi Nakano and Dr. Hiroyuki Muraoka① National Survey on the Natural Environment of Japan

Dr. Hajime Hirosawa (Biodiversity Center of Japan, Ministry of the Environment)
He presented overview of Biodiversity Center of Japan as well as its functions. His presentationtouched on Monitoring Sites 1000 project and the achievement of the project. In the context ofdata collection, he introduced the Ikimono Log as one of the data collection and data sharing
system currently operated in Japan.
(Discussions)Dr. Park: Do you check if information from general public is correct? I asked this question
because misidentification of species could be included.
Dr. Hirosawa: We have support system on species identification with experts, as well as
Biological Name Database.
② Long-term Forest Observation, Data Sharing and Future Extensions in Japan

Dr. Masae Ishihara (Kyoto University, Japan)
Dr. Tsutomu Enoki (Kyushu University, Japan)
She presented the Monitoring Sites 1000 and ReSIN projects in Japan and the results obtained
through the projects as well as their achievements. She also presented current situation andprogress of the project and its future perspective.
(Discussions)Dr. Chu: I have a question regarding “uniform protocol”. Is uniform protocol applicable to othercountries in similar social contexts?
Dr. Ishihara: The detail would be different but the basic is same. The protocol itself follows theone from Smithsonian.
Dr. Kim: Regarding gray literature, gray literature would provide baseline of long term research.
③ ILTER East Asia and Pacific Regional Network

Dr. Yongyut Trisurat (Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Thailand)
He introduced mission and goal of the ILTER, outlines of ILTER East Asia, Pacific Regional
network as well as networks such as JaLTER, Thailand ILTER, Super Site network of Australia.
He argued that next challenges of ILTER East Asia and Pacific region network included capacitybuilding on survey techniques as well as increase of number of monitoring sites. Its achievement
and challenges were also presented.
(Discussions)Dr. Darnaedi: (Regarding monitoring plot distribution) I think it is important to have plots inPapua New Guinea region for continuous plotting distribution.
Dr. Kim: We need to detect changes in ecosystems and their functions. This is important role ofILTER.

④ From biodiversity prediction to ecosystem service evaluation: marine case studies in Japan

Dr. Takehisa Yamakita (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology)
He presented result of gap analysis, conducted in the S9 project, between predicted distributionof Sea glass along the Japan coast and current MPA distribution. He mentioned that the project
tentatively indentified potential EBSA in Asia and the result indicated that only 45 % of thepotential EBSA were overlapped with current MPA. He introduced marine ecosystem service
evaluation in the PANCES project launched in 2016.
(Discussions)Dr. Navarro: Interesting topics. You have used cruiser report in your analysis. Is any formalprocedure or guidance applied to cruiser report?
Dr. Yamakita: Scientists collect reports from cruiser. The procedure depends on cruiser.
⑤ Status and trends of mangroves in SE Asia

Dr. Faridah-Hanum Ibrahim (Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia)
Her presentation gave much focus on temporal dynamics of mangrove in Southeast Asia. In thepresentation, it is mentioned that mangrove area generally decreased over time in all countries inSoutheast Asia. She explained its drives of the reduction.
(Discussions)
Dr. Vergara: For Timor Leste, mangrove decline is due to salt making. Mangrove is used to getfire power.
Dr. Ibrahim: GEO and AP-BON have monitored many things but no monitoring for mangrove
has been implemented. We would like you to include mangrove in monitoring network.
Dr. Navarro: Global Mangrove Watch is one of the monitoring systems for mangrove.
⑥ Global Ecosystems and Environment Observation: Annual Report from China (GEOARC)

Dr. Liao Xiaohan (National Remote Sensing Center of China)
He introduced earth observation systems in Chine and its achievement. His talks had much focus
on results from satellite or airplane-based monitoring system rather than ground-based techniquesuch as camera trapping.
Discussion towards broader engagement of observation and user communities
Moderator: Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara, Dr. Sheila Vergara, and Dr. Eun-Shik Kim① Vision of multiple observatory networks

Dr. Shin-ichi Nakano (Kyoto University - Centre for Ecological Research)
He introduced future perspectives of monitoring on biodiversity and ecosystem services in thecontext of the Master Plan published from Science Council of Japan (SCJ). His talks focused onexpansion of monitoring networks within the Asian Green belt. (In discussion, Dr. Kim
appreciated contribution of Dr Nakano to developing AP-Bon books.)② Data-Knowledge-Information chain: Japan Biodiversity Outlook 2Dr. Tohru Nakashizuka (Tohoku University)
He introduced results described in Japan Biodiversity Outlook 2. His presentation contained
identified challenges as well as contribution of J-BON to JBO2.
③ ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook and data sharing

Dr. Sheila Vergara (ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, Philippines)
She introduced results described in ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook 2 and also presented proposed
implementation framework to address the Aichi Targets. The ABO2 indicated that progress
toward the Aichi Target were evaluated at the entire ASEAN level and only for the Target 11, all
ASEAN member states took effective actions.
(Discussions)Dr. Ma: What attitude is shown toward ABO 2 by ASEAN member states? Is there any different
response to it?
Dr. Vergara: ABO2 is the decision prepared by ASEAN member state. Therefore, they are awareof the contents in ABO2. In some points, we have not reached agreement yet.
Discussion items for the new work plan of AP-BON toward 2020
Moderators: Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara, Dr. Sheila Vergara, and Dr. Eun-Shik Kim
At first, co-chair Dr. Yahara has introduced 5 topics of discussion as follows;*Mission and plans of AP-BON, by broadening its network.
* Promotion of data sharing: motivation and mechanisms* In-situ and satellite observations*Contribution to SBA from AP-BON to GEO toward SDG; Tokyo Statement*AP-BON Action Plan 2017-2020 (which has discussed from last year. Drafting group needs todevelop.)(Discussions)Dr. Muraoka: One idea is to enhance more communication opportunities like this workshop. We
need more dialogs to know gaps. Other communities have data as well. Broadening toGEO community is important.

Dr. Ma: I would like to explore possibility to promote further communication.
Dr. Yahara: I have no objection to enhance communication opportunities. The point is to improve
operation and data. Inviting many people from communities is good but it would becomplicated. I’m neutral to the idea.
Dr. Shakya: Outreach is general people. Horizontal link is important to make sure better bridge.
I’m happy to have more opportunities in future meeting.
Dr. Yahara: Mission of AP-BON and GEO BON is to link activities each country and tocoordinate integrated observations. Systematic conservation of China, S9 project of Japan,and K-BON are very well but we need effort to develop national BONs and nationalactivities. One idea is to promote integrated observation activities in each country until
next symposium.
Dr. Ma: If possible, I would like to add to promote communication and collaboration withinitiatives and network outside of AP-BON in general.
Dr. Yahara: That would be interesting. A genetic diversity is quite simple but, including morevariable, will be complicated. Plus, I don’t agree with standardization. Continuity is importantfor biodiversity observation and thus it is not preferable to change method. I think it isimportant to promote participation of ecosystem researcher. Is there any idea?
Dr. Muraoka: One effective key is to talk on one table by having common scientific questions andmotivation. Also, it is important to try to link them with scientific communities. I would
like to suggest opening this information to scientific committee to get their advice.
Dr. Ma: Important to encourage participation of colleagues of ecosystem level research.
Dr. Navarro: For data sharing, the sentence should not be limited to data but should include
practice and experience as well. These elements are also important.
Dr. Ishihara: I would like to propose establishing young scientific working group to let young
scientist to analyze available data.
Dr. Yahara and Dr. Trisura: Positive about proposal.
Dr. Ma: Interest in young WG group. It is important to think about how to promote participationfrom Asian countries other than Southeast Asia and East Asia.
Closing Remarks: Mr. Naohisa Okuda (Biodiversity Strategy Office, MOE)