6th AP-BON (2014)[6th AP-BON Workshop in Incheon Korea on 10-11 October 2014]
Day

Time

Agenda9:40-9:50

Opening

9:50-10:00

Welcoming

Speaker
Ryo Mabuchi (Secretariat of
AP-BON, MOEJ)

Byoung-Yoon Lee (Director of
Plant Resources Division, NIBR)

Session 1 : Tightening linkage of AP-BON and GEO BON
10:00-10:20

Achievements and challenges of AP-BON

Tetsukazu Yahara

10:20-10:40

Follow-up Measures for IUCN Resolution for AP-BON

Eun-Shik Kim

10:40-11:00

Developing AP-BON potential products

Sheila Vergara

11:10-11:40

Progress in GEO BON and Essential Biodiversity Variables

11:40-12:00

Discussion on GEO BON and Essential Biodiversity Variables

Break
Jörg Freyhof

Lunch

10/10 Session 2 : Contribution to Red List by tightening linkage of AP-BON with ESABII and GBIF
(Fri) 13:00-13:20
Progress in ESABIIFiliberto Pollisco (ACB)
13:20-13:40

Integration of a local checklists for conservation biological interest

Tsuyoshi Hosoya (NMNS) andYu-Huang Wang (TFRI)

13:40-14:00

GBIF and data publishing

Yu-Huang Wang (TFRI)

14:00-14:20

Redlisting of Asian Bryophytes

Benito Tan (UC Berkeley)

15:00-15:20

K-BON and Red List in Korea

Chan-Ho Park (NIBR)

15:20-15:40

Plant species database in Japan

Motomi Ito (U Tokyo)

15:40-16:00

Plant diversity observations in tropical Asia

Shuichiro Tagane (Kyushu U)

16:30-17:30

Discussion on Regional Red List and KBAs

18:00

Participants will leave NIBR and move to the hotel.

Break

Break

DinnerSession 3 : Developing AP-BON as a network of national BONs

10/11
(Sat)

9:00-10:00

Reports on national BON activities

Nepal: Mangal Man Shakya
Myanmar: San Thwin
K-BON web platform: Jongsun
Park (K-BON)

10:00-10:20

From CForBio to SinoBON

Keping Ma

10:30-10:50

Phillippines

Perry Ong

11:00-12:00

Discussion

Lunch

Session 4 : Contribution to IPBES regional assessment
13:00-13:20

Scoping of IPBES regional assessment

Tetsukazu Yahara

13:30-13:50

Networking observations of ecosystem

Tohru Nakashizuka

14:00-15:00

Discussion

1 / 306th AP-BON (2014)[6th AP-BON Workshop in Incheon Korea on 10-11 October 2014]
Day 1
The 6th Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network Meeting began with an introduction by Mr. Ryo
Mabuchi of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. He apologized for Ryuji Nakayama’s absence, and gave
the address in his absence.
Mr. Nakayama thanked the participants for his invitation, and apologized profusely for being unable to attend.
He first extended his gratitude to NIBR for providing accommodation, facilitation, and hospitality. He also
expressed his thanks to Mr. Lee Byoung-Yoon, and Dr. Park Chanho, NIBR, and the members of K-BON for
holding the workshop.
Second, he wished to express his gratitude to the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity for hosting the workshop
last year, which was a great success. Third, he expressed gratitude to all the participants at the event today,
especially for those who made the long journey and back to Pyeongchang the previous day. In particular, hewished to thank Dr. Kim Eun-Shik and Dr. Vergara, and everyone else for contributing their precious time.
AP-BON was expected to contribute to the activities of IPBES in the ASEAN region by providing technicalknowledge; one of the primary themes of the workshop. Furthermore, it was expected to develop further with
regional networks, such as K-BON. The Biodiversity Center of Japan was pleased to work with AP-BON andothers in the Asia-Pacific region to further develop biodiversity activities. He hoped the workshop would be
fruitful, and thanked them again for their invitation. With that, Mr. Mabuchi concluded Dr. Nakayama’s
message.
Next on the agenda was the welcoming address by Lee Byoung-Yoon. Dr. Lee welcomed all of the delegatesfrom Korea and overseas, welcoming all to his institute. GEO BON coordinated activities by nearly 100
organizations, and in Asia, the Government of Japan in particular opened their eyes to the importance of GEO
BON, and invited several specialists from neighboring countries, leading to the establishment of AP-BON. Dr.
Lee himself was invited to that meeting. They met now in Korea to consider further activities to conserve
biodiversity in Asia, and work on policy initiatives. GEO BON was recognized by the Convention on
Biodiversity, and its data was used to contribute to meeting the Aichi Targets for 2020. He hoped the meeting
today would further that agenda. With that, he concluded his address.
Session 1: Tightening Linkage of AP-BON and GEO BON
Mr. Tet Yahara began the session, briefly introducing the achievements and challenges of AP-BON. GEO
BON was organized in 2008 as a coordinated network of many global entities. On a global scale, there weremany international activities. In their first conference, they stressed avoiding competition, as they wished tofocus on conservation. CBD in the meantime focused on policy, and IPBES focused on assessment. There
were several global bodies involved. In the Asia-Pacific region, usually the same people were working inresearch, assessment, policy, and so on. In the research statement of AP-BON, they included not just research,
but also assessment.
AP-BON was organized under the core of GEO BON, and had held numerous meetings already. After the first
conference of GEO BON in 2008, not long afterwards they held the first AP-BON workshop. A very
important recent change was that IPBES was established in 2013 for regional assessment. Additionally, CBD
COP10 established the Aichi Targets; and they were now midway on the path to achieving compliance. Their
important achievements included the publishing of two AP-BON books. Those were The Biodiversity
Observation Network in the Asia-Pacific Region, and Integrative Observations and Assessments. They wereplanning to publish a third volume. In the second volume, they published on the challenges and assessments of
AP-BON.
The missions of AP-BON were mainly to facilitate linkages among many countries, organizations, andindividuals to contribute to global biodiversity. They had already made good progress in database structure
2 / 306th AP-BON (2014)

and data sharing, along with a network of programs, national BONs, and institutes. The next steps for
AP-BON were to establish better governance, and a stronger, collaborative secretariat mechanism. Japan madea great effort in this area, but budget allocations had diminished, and they hoped to garner more support. In
Japan, they were working on integrative observations and assessments of Asian biodiversity projects, andhoped to further observation projects throughout Asia. They held a workshop on freshwater biodiversity, and aworkshop on coastal marine habitats. Several suggestions for AP-BON in their 4th workshop included editing
and networking the national biodiversity outlook together, as in some countries they were published but notbased on good science. In the 5th workshop, they discussed potential products from 2014 onwards, which Dr.
Vergara would discuss.
Points to be discussed in the workshop included how to develop collaboration with GEO BON, GBIF, IUCN
and ILTER; coordinating national BONs, capacity building in collaboration with ESABII, compliance with
Aichi Targets, and contributing to IPBES. They would discuss at the end of the 6th workshop on how to further
those points, including publishing the AP-BON book. With that, Dr. Yahara concluded his presentation.
Afterward, Dr. Kim Eun-Shik spoke on follow-up measures for IUCN Resolution for AP-BON. He wasthrilled that the workshop was held in South Korea this time. Although this was the 6th meeting, he expectedthat NIBR could further contribute in the future. Although they had previous CBDs, such as that in COP10
where the Aichi Targets were formulated, he thought it was quite important they hold this meeting as well.
They hoped to work with Japan to promote AP-BON along with GEO BON as well, building up regionalbonds. First, they needed the structural aspect of a network based on regional bonds, and to be linked with
GEO BON in terms of function in order to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and conservation. He
tried to find ways to contribute to AP-BON, including his thoughts on how far they had progressed already.
Dr. Kim showed a timeline of major global events and issues on the environment. Most were kick-started in1972 with the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human and Environment. They had to figure out what kindof role they wanted to play in the future, given the events in the past. He pointed out the IBPES establishment
in 2012, and described its four functions. He mentioned major sponsors and co-sponsors of their initiative; theNature Policy Division, Ministry of Environment, Korea; the Ministry of the Environment, Japan; and manyothers. Key resolution items were that they urged state and government agency members of IUCN to support
currently existing biodiversity observation network activities, to encourage non-governmental organization
members of IUCN to actively participate, to encourage all governments to participate and support the
networks, and to request the director general to cooperate.
His questions for AP-BON were: were there national BONS with secretariats and relevant committees? Was
AP-BON a regional network of the national BONs with secretariats? Was GEO BON a network of regional
BONs? What was the niche of AP-BON in the conservation of biodiversity? Dr. Kim stressed that they needed
to clarify that. He thought they needed more structure, and to fully discuss roles. There were many gaps thatneeded to be filled that K-BON and J-BON alone could not cover. What should a national BON involve, whatkinds of activities? What inter-linkages could they create with other BONs, regional or otherwise? What were
the benefits of networking?
Governance and infrastructure was one of the points to stress, he thought; as well as their service to society(including communication to society). Potential partners for AP-BON included institutes like NIBR, theASEAN Biodiversity Center, GEO BON and regional BONs, IUCN members, headquarters, the Asia
Regional office; and more.
Dr. Kim said they should think of two things. First, which of the Aichi Targets did AP-BON aim for? What
was its contribution? Also, with the IPBES Work Programme, in which area should they contribute to?
Follow-up measures included finding the gaps that needed to be filled. That included a network of networks,
perhaps; key issues of governance, funding, and infrastructure; activities in research and science; and service
to society. He also discussed whether strong linkages would be important factors for success, and suggested
again to collaborate with governments. They discussed some of those issues at the side event at COP12, butneeded to discuss more.

3 / 306th AP-BON (2014)

Many other items related to the status of AP-BON included assessment, policy support, capacity building, PR,
and more. He also suggested they link their activities to the Essential Biodiversity Variables, and as global
variables they would be more effective than regional. Biodiversity was so extremely complex and
unpredictable, so variables would be key in monitoring. In conclusion, he asked if they had specified thequestions and problems to address and solve by AP-BON. He suggested the ecological questions asked byWilliam J. Sutherland et al. by the British Ecological Society as a framework to follow, such as the 100
Ecological Questions of High Policy Relevance to the UK, one hundred questions to conserve global
biodiversity, and identification of 100 fundamental ecological questions. With that, he finished his
presentation.
Next up was Dr. Sheila Vergara, who presented on developing AP-BON potential products. She thanked NIBR
for hosting the meeting, and all of the participants who came from afar to attend. She hoped to build on thelast meeting held in the Philippines. She was to discuss AP-BON activities and challenges, as well as the
future. Suggestions included organizing a regional red list, identifying key biodiversity areas, establishingessential biodiversity variables, support for work on mosses, and amassing more data.
For a regional red list, they hoped to encourage more countries in the region to establish such lists andprioritize biodiversity conservation. The components of these included capacity building, with taxonomy,skills in data entry, and conservation assessment; monitoring conservation threats at the national level inparticular; having a common database, having national elected categories that included ‘rare’, and being
conservative in their efforts.
Key Biodiversity Areas were meant to encourage Asia Pacific countries to identify the KBAs with theirnational red lists, so as to identify other areas as a base of map-based site selection. They could constitute one
AP-BON contribution to IPBES, CBD, and GEO BON. They were a cost-effective means for AP countries to
identify special areas that need protection. The Centre was developing tools for plotting protected areas
already. They needed to agree on the methodology, and think about the mechanics of how to improve upon thecurrent process of monitoring to include KBAs at the national, sub-regional, and regional levels. Next, Dr.
Vergara showed a map of areas that had already adopted the KBA schema. The same process was
implemented in Malaysia. Terrestrial and marine KBAs had been identified, but there was still a need tooverlay more data on the ASEAN IBAs to further identify KBAs.
The next suggestion was to adopt the essential biodiversity variables. The purpose of implementing these wasto establish baselines to understand and document changes and impacts in the region, to be able to select six
clear variables which everyone could agree upon, to be an important AP-BON product to feed to IBPES; andso on. Challenges of implementing EBVs was that it was complex to implement, that there were somedifficulties in using global tools, that ecosystems were difficult to measure, among others. Suggestions
included having regional EBVs, and to network with developers of global EBVs to inform regional
identification processes through identifying AP-BON members to take charge of those discussions. Othersuggestions include monitoring the rate of species extinction, the rate of conservation threats, and the use ofsatellite images.
They also agreed to support work on mosses. Databases did already exist, but they wanted to emphasize theapplications of that work, in relation to indications of climate change. To provide an incentive for scientists toshare their work and contribute data, they also thought it was important to mobilize data paper preparation. It
was also emphasized to have AP-BON members collaborate on preparing data papers. There was initially asuggestion to have at least two data papers for 2014 as preparation for COP12, and also suggestions to publish
through GBIF’s global tools. Other suggestions included opening existing databases for access. They also
agreed on a timeline of implementation: work was to begin immediately on red lists until 2020. A subsequent
presentation would clarify the timeline even further. Dr. Vergara concluded her presentation there.
After a short break of ten minutes, they continued the presentations, beginning with Jorg Freyhof’spresentation on progress in GEO BON and Essential Biodiversity Variables. He discussed that the secretariat
of GEO BON had moved from South Africa to Leipzig, Germany. The German government supports GEO
BON financially and with Internet management, positioning them in a good spot to carry out its activities. He
4 / 306th AP-BON (2014)

found it difficult to present on EBVs, since they were described at the side event at COP12 already; but would
do his best.
The background of EBVs was clear: they needed solid data on biodiversity and ecosystem service status andchange. Previous data was very limited. The 2020 CBD goals were a major opportunity for biodiversity
monitoring: many countries were still only just starting up monitoring programs, still considering what
biodiversity areas they would study in the long run. Many countries, even, did not fully know what species
existed in their countries. CBD focused on biodiversity change, however, but for that to be fully studied, theyneeded a place to start from. Thus the BONs faced a major challenge in collecting data.
GEO BON was all about biodiversity change, not assessment. They asked what was changing, why was itchanging, and what were the impacts. In some cases, it was easy to tell, such as in the case of a particular
beetle in Southeast Asia, which spread out of control. However, many times it was not so clear, because
biodiversity change was a very complex topic; more complex than climate change. There were many
dimensions to biodiversity change. GEO BON’s key products included a global network of BO systems,
technologies that facilitated more cost-effective and powerful observations (BON in a Box), and the Essential
Biodiversity Variables. Linkages were a major part, helping to make biodiversity initiatives visible. BON in a
Box was an online toolkit for monitoring biodiversity, an easy way to contribute and start building up
monitoring.
Indicators for biodiversity change included the living planet index, the red list index, the wild bird index, andthe water bird population status index. Bird data was particularly effective for understanding biodiversity
change, and he provided data showing that. However, they still had a very limited knowledge of what was
happening on a global scale. Each of the data sets he provided was not a global trend; one was expert opinion,
one was data biased to popular regions, one was only North America and Europe. There was poor taxonomic
coverage of many regions around the world, like Southeast Asia and South America. If they had torecommend a biodiversity for a government to measure in the long term, the choices were genetic composition,
ecosystem structure/function, species population, species traits that could change, and community
composition.
What to measure, however? Which data was available, and should the measurements of biodiversity be driven
purely by available data? What was really essential for understanding biodiversity change—did we need tomeasure absolutely everything? Who was the data essential for?
In 2012, specialists gathered to discuss the issue, and came up with the Essential Biodiversity Variables: what
needed to be monitored to describe and analyze the different dimensions of biodiversity change. The questions
that EBVs had to help answer are: how was biodiversity changing, why was biodiversity changing, what werethe consequences for human well-being, were responses being taken effectively, and what was the future riskof harmful biodiversity? The characteristics of EBVs were that they covered the different levels of
biodiversity: genetic diversity, species populations, distributions, extinction risk, ecosystem functioning, andecosystem services. The key to these was that pressures are being monitored by other initiatives. EBVs needed
to detect change, quantifiable, repeatable, allow aggregation and disaggregation, biological, and withemphasis on state. Users of EBVs include policymakers, scientists, conservation professionals, and NGOs.
Mr. Freyhof then gave a list of the examples of candidate essential biodiversity variables, but they were still in
the phase of development. Everything was oriented to CBD and the Aichi Targets, which made it easy toconsider how to serve the Aichi Targets. EBVs were an intermediate layer between primary observations andhigh-level indicators. They needed to be globally developed, which was a great challenge. Mr. Freyhof gave
several examples of EBVs, such as time-lapse maps.
How far had EBV development come? The first steps were the GEO BON adequacy report in 2011, workshop
identifying the EBVs in 2012, and a paper with the concept in 2013. In 2014, the Darwin Core would bechanged to account for abundances developed by GBIF, to host trend data that could then be developed into
EBVs. Future milestones included invitations to communities to develop specific EBVs, a workshop on
remote sensing of EBVs, and analysis of Target 15 based on EBVs. Next, he discussed the data flow. Would
5 / 306th AP-BON (2014)

they go directly to GBIF, if it were even ready to accept data? Mr. Freyhof concluded his presentation at thatpoint.
Following his presentation, the participants began a discussion on the matters he raised. Dr. Kim thanked Mr.
Freyhof for his presentation first of all, and agreed that they needed to have some focus on the Aichi Targets.
He also agreed they had limited time to work, as they were witnessing biodiversity loss around the globe. Dr.
Kim thought that it would be prudent to analyze regions closer, instead of a global map; and national levels
had to be extremely precise. National BONs should work on local areas, creating even more detailed data. Dr.
Kim thought that ecosystems were flexible and difficult to define in precise borders, and thought that finding
bigger ecosystems (landscapes) were essential to understanding the functional and structural aspects of an
ecosystem.
In response, Mr. Freyhof responded to the question of scale. He wished that there would be a data set with alarge amount available, that there was one set that was global and could be scaled down locally. However, no
one was aware of such a data set that actually existed. Even in published papers, because of limitations in
actual data available there were gaps in information. As a first step, they had to take what was available andlink it to what was available, but even that was still a challenge. Most activities in biodiversity were nationalor regional, with huge amounts of data collected on that scale, but they were not made available globally.
For the second question, he agreed that the definitions of an ecosystem were very poor, very broad and not
specific enough. Those working on the ecosystem EBVs were quite eager to change this.
Next. Dr. Ma Keping asked about the organization of GEO BON at the global level. He understood that thepriority of GEO BON was to guide national or regional activities, such as to set up and select essential
activities to monitor biodiversity change. As a next step, compared to other international initiatives ororganizations, what would GEO BON do? Mr. Freyhof replied that it was admittedly a bit vague, as he noted
the rise of ‘grassroots’ BONs, such as Nepal BON. That was a sign to him that they were not linked enough.
Regional networks like AP-BON found their own ways somehow. He admitted he was not quite sure about thenext step, but that one of their key aims was to engage with regional and national BONs, but they had no real
structure until now about how to do it. They liked the idea of national BONs being closely related to national
governments, as governments develop strategic plans, and deliver data to CBDs. They still had to figure out
how to effectively link and share their projects. It was their wish and aim to engage with national BONs, andthey hoped to develop strategic framework soon to do so. Funding and incentives had not really come into thequestion yet.
Next was a question by Dr. Park Jongsun of K-BON, who first expressed his gratitude being invited to theworkshop. He was curious about how to interpret the diverse data, such as the data from the paper on EBVs.
How were they able to combine diverse data and interpret it coherently? Mr. Freyhof first replied that theyneed the data, and that for instance in genetic diversity analysis, it was not clear how to distinguish that data.
Dr. Yahara added that they had many discussions about linking genetic diversity with species diversity and soon, and that they would publish a consensus paper on that issue. It was not easy to summarize briefly, but they
already had a great deal of evidence linking genetic diversity with species diversity. The key challenge was todevelop models to describe the relationship between loss in genetic diversity and loss in habitat, etc. They had
a great deal of data, but relationships were not quite clear.
Dr. Park discussed models, that they still had limitations: that it was difficult and complex to compare twolayers, and that they ought to seek out the unexpected instead of looking for an orthodox answer. If there wasany chance to find new relationships, he hoped they would take it. Mr. Freyhof replied that they all, of course,come from a scientific background, and always interested in young scientists who were thinking of newthings.
Another question came from Mr. Mangal Man Shakya from Nepal regarding the evolution of GEO BON, andwondering if it had clear agendas like AP-BON. He also asked about links to the government. Government
was always claimed to be everywhere, but sometimes nowhere. That was why it was government. BONs
should not be part of governments, but supporting governments when necessary. Mr. Freyhof replied that he6 / 306th AP-BON (2014)

was of course aware of those issues. His impression from the trial was that there was a lot of data collected incountries by NGOs, and even those who came from outside to research, who went back with their researchdata and that it could possibly be available for a national BON, for a government to fulfill its needs, and so on.
However, there were no connections between any of these, and he hoped to avoid situations where data wascollected and never got where it needed to go. The structure of AP-BON and GEO BON was not so different,
mostly that they tackled different things; GEO BON had its own scientists and working groups, with its own
ideas. They focused on certain products, however, so as to make actual concrete progress instead of focusing alittle bit on everything.
On a closing note for the morning, Dr. Yahara closed the session and dismissed everyone for lunch.
Session 2: Contribution to Red List by tightening linkage of AP-BON with ESABII and GBIF
The afternoon began with a brief outline by Dr. Yahara, introducing the first session by Dr. Filiberto Polliscoof the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity on the progress in ESABII. He described the activities in Southeast
Asia in relation to ESABII, and how far those had come in advancing biodiversity initiatives.
He started off with a brief timeline with the Centre’s meeting with ESABII, which began in 2009 with theASEAN +3 Regional Meeting on Global Taxonomy Initiative. Five years afterward, he thought it was a good
opportunity to discuss those issues once again. In 2010, the Japan ASEAN Integration Fund Project on
Taxonomic Capacity Building, and the Inception Meeting in Manila with ESABII were held. Following thatmeeting was the Coral Taxonomy Training in Penang, Malaysia with ESABII; then in 2011 came the Dicot
Taxonomy Training in LIPI, in Bogor, Indonesia, with ESABII. Next in 2011 was the Training of Trainers
Course on wildlife trade and identification of CITES listed species in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, largely withJapan; and the database and mapping of taxonomic information in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. There wasno ESABII in the last event, but they did invite some to learn about taxonomy and how it related to the coding
they did for software.
Next was the internship programme for dicot taxonomy in Bangkok, Thailand. One thing they learned fromtaxonomy training was that ASEAN nationals had a very difficult time coming up with scientific articles,
because one of the outputs they had for the program was that participants should come up with scientificarticles; the participants found it difficult to overcome the language barrier to submit something in English,translated from their own language. That meant they had to change their approach to internship programmes.
In 2012, they got approval of the Y2 JAIF project on taxonomic capacity building; and the Monocot taxonomy
training in LIPI Bogor, Indonesia, with ESABII. After that was the GTI regional capacity building workshop
to address IAS and to reach the Aichi Targets, conducted with Japanese organizations. There was also the
freshwater and brackish water fish taxonomy in Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand, with ESABII and the Nagao
Natural Environment Foundation and the URU. They also had the ASEAN meeting workshop on
communication, education, and public awareness for taxonomy and biodiversity in partnership with UPH,
Surabaya, Indonesia. Those involved were communication specialists, because they wanted to demystify
taxonomy for the mass population. Next was the Monocot taxonomy internship programme in Queen Sirikit
Botanic Garden, Chiangmai, Thailand. They learned from the workshop in Bangkok, and aimed for theparticipants to just come out with a field-guide book; which worked out much better than scientific articles.
In 2013 there was no activity regarding taxonomy or ESABII, since they had to write the training manuals,
procedures, and all else. ESABII and Japan were also still in crisis due to the aftermath of the Tohoku
Earthquake. In 2014 was the bryophyte and pteridophyte training in LIPI, Bogor, Indonesia, now sponsoredby ESABII and MOE-Japan. Next came the approval of the Y3 JAIF Project on Taxonomic Capacity Building,and the taxonomy of beneficial and economically important insects. Remaining activities for 2014 included anadvance course on bryophytes and pteridophytes taxonomy back-to-back with databasing of taxonomic
information, which was to be joined by the same participants from the training in Bogor. The participants ofthe previous session would carry over and encode the information to the database themselves, instead ofsimply handing over the information to an IT team without any context.

7 / 306th AP-BON (2014)

Remaining activity of the Y3 JAIF project for 2015 would be the January internship programme for thetaxonomy of bryophytes and pteridophytes in Queen Sirikit Botanic Garden. They wanted to do more, but
could not squeeze out any more events. Dr. Pollisco showed some of the publications they put out in 2013, put
out mostly by the participants themselves. Some were already uploaded onto their website, and he encouraged
the participants in the 6th meeting to take a look. Another recent project in 2014 was the Japan-ASEAN
Integration Fund-approved project, for ASEAN Heritage Parks Development through Capacity Building andInformation Management. They were targeting park rangers and workers in particular to better be able tocollect information.
Activities for 2015 would include the inception meeting with the AHP committee members and management,
updating management plans of selected AHPs, information management and database building capacity,
assessment methodologies and data gathering in AHPs, and communication, education, and public awareness.
That concluded Dr. Pollisco’s presentation.
Next up to present was Dr. Hosoya Tsuyoshi, discussing the integration of local checklists for conservation
biological interest. Dr. Hosoya elaborated on the background of the talk, and the progress they made since
their last meeting. They identified several challenges and made proposals on how to overcome them. He also
hoped to discuss future plans.
GBIF, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, was an international organization focused on making
biodiversity data available through the Internet. Membership was open to countries, internationalorganizations; and a fee was charged for members. Regions were separated into nodes. Recently, GBIF was
engaged in regionalization procedures, because of a rapid increase in participants and regionalization
becoming necessary as a result of limited manpower. Some of the regions were making their own strategicplans, working along with GBIF’s. They mainly paid attention to two things: making a species checklist at thenational level for invasive, red list, endemic species. They needed national checklists, but integrated checklists
required time and it was almost impossible. Some countries did not even have a checklist. Thus they started
from a species list of conversation biological interest, such as with a red list or invasive species.
At the same time they noticed ESABII, the East and Southeast Asia Biodiversity Information Initiative. They
found that other initiatives were moving in the same directions regarding information gathering and taxonomy
databases. Thus GBIF Japan began working on integrating the checklists, first with red lists and invasive alien
species. They held a workshop in Tsukuba, Japan to promote understanding of the checklists, to survey current
status of each of these in East Asia, and to determine strategies for integrations of the red lists and more in
East Asia. Some countries had their own lists, but they were not at all uniform in their format; some were in
Excel, some PDF, some even in print. They had to figure out the required elements and decide on a format.
To ensure compatibility, they discussed minimum elements in the same format. Those elements included
taxonomy, with scientific name, kingdom, family, common name; their red list status; and their invasive alien
species list. Since their last meeting, they identified some of the challenges that were posed to their work.
GBIF had already collected the fundamental data for the materials. They needed clearance from each region
for integration. Data integration was already finished, largely through outsourcing funded by ESABII.
However, problematic data was revealed. The range of red lists was extremely vast and vague, often times
simply ‘animals and plants’. Larger, higher rank groups needed to be a matter of discussion.
The procedure was rather simple. They made an OCR/manual into Excel data, converted PDFs into Excel as
well, and combined them into a single integrated spreadsheet. Some countries gave higher taxonomy in eachdata, but they did not always follow the same system. Based on that, they eliminated synonyms to standardize
names. However, they needed to develop protocols (SOPs, guidelines, or manual) for future applications.
Problematic data included simple typos, abbreviations, different taxonomic systems, “all species of the genus(IAS),” and particular regional population of the species. They corrected names referring to a source, changed
the systems to more common ones, but struggled to delineate red lists for particular regional populations. For
taxonomy, they used taxa matching services. They settled on the IRMNG Taxamatch, which offered fuzzy
8 / 306th AP-BON (2014)matching that was quite handy. He introduced their homepage, and demonstrated how to use the service.
Surprisingly, even more than exactly spelled species, they had far more many items that had no match to
species in the database. The cause of no match might have depended on spelling. They had to examine thenames individually, finding that names had sometimes been published and did not match official taxonomy.
How did that happen? Names had to go through a nomenclature filter, confirming Latin usage, and validity;
however, whether that taxonomy was acceptable or not was the question. If the names were published and the
database was intended for nomenclature, it should be included, but for taxonomy it might not be. Evennomenclatural databases did not include all Asian species. There were several reasons for that, because of alack of attention, the information was not yet reviewed, taxonomic ambiguity, or taxonomic novelty. In any
case, that caused a lack of recognition for Asian species. They needed a proposal for inclusion of Asian
species. They expected a single textbook, authorized database for the nomenclature where all validly
published names were included; however there was no such database, despite the importance of important
Asian species. They still needed a tool to check and spell the name. Dr. Hosoya said they should develop a list
containing at least the important species from Asia with the help of experts, and provide it to GBIF and
IRNMG. With that, he concluded his presentation.
Mr. Freyhof had a comment, that in all the red list stories, he did not mention the IUCN red list. He wondered
how interoperable all of the ‘national’ red lists really were, since European countries generally just made theirown. There had been efforts to update Asian lists into the IUCN red lists, but the formats and criteria did notmatch, particularly with Japan. Dr. Hosoya replied that in Japan they had no direct contact with the IUCN, but
he heard that they needed their own criteria. Mr. Freyhof wondered if it wouldn’t be a useful step to engage
the IUCN, thus their efforts would translate globally. Dr. Hosoya replied they wanted to, but they had noconnection. Mr. Freyhof said the hurdle to translate data was not high. Dr. Yahara mentioned that in Japan, in
most cases, they had some incompatibilities with the IUCN red list. They still needed some negotiation on
how to incorporate global and local needs.
Mr. Ong had a comment, that the IUCN red list was now quantifiable and not so subjective, but it still posed a
problem at the local level, where they evaluated species in the Philippines. Some criteria judged particularanimals as endangered, but locally were considered pests. If you used wrong criteria, you were misallocating
resources, he thought. He did not want threatened species simply because they fell under a category; rather hethought they had to be judged locally. Practical implications were essential.
The next presentation was Mr. Yu-Huang Wang from the Taiwan Forestry Research Institute. He reminded theaudience that some issues on Biodiversity/Ecological or Biological/Environmental Big Open Linked Data (BEBOLD) had been presented during the 5th APBON meeting in 2013. However, in this talk, he further discussed
essential elements for data publishing: incentives, culture, standards, tools, and platforms for sharing data.
Incentives included academic credit and rewards, like citations. That could be built up through data papers,
dataset DOI, and Data Citation Index (DCI), and financial support. In recent years, governmental and private
funding agencies have also started to ask researchers to open datasets from funded projects to public. For
culture, open and shared data and information are essential for creating open knowledge and networked
sciences. He suggested the book Reinventing Discovery by Michael Nielsen for more on the topic. Data arevaluable; thus, datasets from projects being funded by public resources should become public domain assets.
On managing assets, data management and curation also should become an essential part of research. The US
and Australian governments have already implemented data management policy on funding projects.
Data standards also are crucial for open data. Existing controlled vocabularies, e.g., the Darwin Core forbiodiversity, the CUHASI hydrological controlled vocabulary for hydrology, and the EARTh forenvironmental research, will facilitate data sharing on the Web. Tools and platforms included IPT of GBIF
Asia nodes and GBIF portal for publishing checklists and occurrence data; Morpho and Metacat of ILTER or
JaLTER for publishing ecological observation data. The GEOSS portal or CKAN can be platforms for genericdata management. Mr. Wang provided a vision and listed existing ontologies, e.g., the Ecological Observation
Ontology (OBOE), Semantic Sensor Network (SSN), Darwin Semantic Web (DSW), and PO & OBO for BE
BOLD. Those ontologies could be fused to describe and interlink datasets of biodiversity and ecological
9 / 306th AP-BON (2014)

observations.
To promote open data in Asia, he suggested workshops on data publishing and writing data papers,
encouraging masters and Ph.D. students to submit their research datasets to open archives before they were
granted a degree. Providing challenging events, like the GEOSS hackathon or the Ebbe Nielsen challenging of
GBIF, also will stimulate innovative ways of reusing and publishing data.
Dr. Kim had a comment on linking oncologies, and thought it was an intriguing idea. He asked if it had thecapacity to integrate observations and synthesis. Mr. Wang replied that for the time being, he did not know. If
they wanted to link data sets, at the moment they could use the Darwin Core, but they would need a true
expert to help them generate a model to follow as the first step.
Dr. Benito Tan gave the next presentation on the red listing of world endangered bryophytes. He described his
work with Asian organizations on studying bryophytes, and his work as a member of the IUCN-Species
Survival Committee (SSC) on Bryophyta. First he explained on the organization of IUCN, the International
Union for Conservation of Nature, which has helped over 75 countries plan conservation strategies. The IUCN
had put out several publications on the topic. The IUCN in 2001 created categories to judge the presence of a
species, concentrating particularly on threatened species.
How to red list bryophytes? The IUCN-SSC on Bryophyta suggested to first make a checklist of the local
bryophytes, which included a proper assessment of actual population size data, but that information was
seldom available for bryophytes. They thus had to use indirect data, such as the decline of old-growth forest
naturally correlating to a decline in bryophytes; and how habitats were exploited by man, as well as pollution
and air and water quality. Next was to exclude species with far too little knowledge to be evaluated, as well as
those with unclear taxonomy; species with a high certainty of survival were also excluded, and the remaining
species were evaluated according to the red list criteria.
Some of the IUCN requirements were extremely difficult to apply to bryophytes, simply because they were agroup of small plants. It was impossible to count individual specimens, and the length of generation time of a
species was another problem. Measuring the area size of distribution was also an issue. But that did not mean
it was impossible. For species dependent on trees, the number of colonized trees could be counted. Each entity
growing on a boulder or rock could be an entity. For species on the ground, the area size could be measured bycounting the grids that have a fixed measurement; and so on. For generation time, as it was very difficult tomeasure how long moss lived, they proposed different lengths of life: short time of 1-3 years, medium of 4-7
years, long of 8-20 years, and ultra long-lived for time beyond that.
Next was measuring the fragmented size. Populations of a species of bryophytes, within a one kilometer
distance from each other, that have frequent production of small and light spores were not consideredfragmented; and populations more than 5 km apart with large sized spores and poor dispersal were thought ofas fragmented populations.
Their first test case was done with Chinese endangered bryophytes. He elaborated on a three-day meeting in
2004 held in Shanghai, attended by 16 resident Chinese bryologists and 6 invited foreign experts. They cameup with a total of 82 species, including 50 mosses, 31 liverworts, and one hornwort. Out of the 82, 8 species
were included in the IUCN, and today that red list contains 103 species. In Asia today, only China, Japan,
Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines had red lists for bryophytes.
Dr. Benito C. Tan and his colleagues from the IUCN-SSC on Bryophyta also did a test case for the red-listingof bryophytes in East, Southeast and South Asia, conducted in the Singapore Botanic Gardens in 2008,attended by 18 well-known bryologists. Using the same criteria, the group came up with two separate lists ofendangered bryophytes in Asia, including 137 species of mosses, 186 species of hornworts and liverworts. Outof those, 7 mosses and 16 hornwort species were accepted by the IUCN.
Next, Dr. Tan discussed the organizational chart of the IUCN-SSC Bryophyte Specialist Group. The 2014
Steering Committee of the SSC group was headed by Dr. Tomas Hallingback, Dr. Irene Bisang, and Dr. Ariel
10 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

Bergamini; and consisted of 25 bryologists from all over the world. They were tasked with reviewing the casepresentation for the acceptance or rejection of a bryophyte species nominated, and to determine its proper
placement in a category of species endangerment.
In 2010, an action plan was formulated by Dr. T. Hallingback and Dr. B.C. Tan to conserve the world
bryophyte diversity, with three approaches: increase knowledge on bryophyte species diversity and identify
site of bryophyte hotspots, develop more regional red lists, and to train local specialists in taxonomy. The
approach also had to increase public awareness of the ecological presence and economic importance ofbryophytes, and to implement all possible practical conservation measures with the available funding provided
by the national government and international organizations; essentially a ‘beggar’ attitude. Following that, theIUCN SSC on Bryophyta wanted to increase two-fold the red list assessments prepared at the national andregional levels. To close his presentation, he showed some pictures of endangered bryophytes in Asia.
Dr. Park Jongsun asked about population size, and was curious about whether the scientists tried to figure out
the genetic diversity of the bryophytes. Dr. Tan replied that the species at present in the IUCN red list werechosen due to their endangered habitat mostly; he did not believe genetic diversity was a factor. Mr. Park also
asked what they could do when they found bryophytes in Korea or elsewhere. Dr. Tan replied he would bevery thankful for any new data on Korean moss diversity, as any data he could receive would be appreciated.
The next step, he asserted, was simply getting funding for their research, and promote better understanding of
Korean bryophytes.
Dr. Kim asked why bryophytes might not have been included in the NIBR books; the response was that thisrelies on the knowledge of the authors of the Korean red lists, for which bryophytes were not included. With
that, Dr. Yahara announced a short break of ten minutes.
The session started up again, beginning with a presentation by Mr. Tagane Shuichiro, discussing plant
diversity observations in tropical Asia. He first discussed biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities, with
Southeast Asia at particularly high risk. The problem was that there was a lack of reliable data, particularly
with plant species. To overcome this problem, Dr. Yahara started a new program with the Ministry of theEnvironment, of integrative observations and assessments of Asian biodiversity, split into five themes. To getdata for his group, he used specimen-based, plot-based, and transect-based approaches to gather data.
Specimen-based meant that past records were available, but the collection area was limited; plot-based meant
they could observe long-term but only for tree species, and the standards were mismatched. Transect-based
meant that they collected all plant species, and understand distribution of plants on a local scale. They could
finish and collect data quickly with that method; Mr. Tagane mostly worked with the transect-based approach.
The belt-transact method was to record all species within a 100m x 5m scale, where they recorded height andDBH for trees over 4m high, building up a species accumulation logarithmic curve. They gathered nearly
17,300 samples, which could then be used to create taxonomical, ecological and phylogenic studies; picture
guides; databases and more, sharing their data over Dropbox. He showed some examples of the species theycollected. They worked with numerous partners to collect samples all over Southeast Asia. Borneo had themost species richness, followed by Sumatra. Many more species were found near the equator, decreasing thefurther away. They used their data to demonstrate the relationship between species richness and altitude invarious locations.
Next, he introduced a case study in Bokor National Park, Cambodia, where they performed 21 transects. Theycollected 3,099 specimens, and identified 770 woody plant species in 108 families. They found 22 new
species, 120 new records for Cambodia, and 45 species endemic to Bokor. That showed that plant diversity in
Cambodia was widely underestimated. To observe plant diversity accurately, they had to make more effort,
particularly in basic taxonomical work. As an example of the diversity, he showed a graph comparing the
proportion of undescribed species (candidate new species) of Lauracae at each location.
Mr. Tagane went on to the key message of his presentation. A standardized transect survey was an effective
way to describe local flora rapidly. In collecting more than 17,000 records with precise GPS data and images,
they better enabled staff of protected areas to develop plans for better conservation management. He thanked
11 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

the members of his team for their support, and concluded his presentation.
Mr. Mangal Man Shakya from Nepal asked about the plants they collected during the observation, and if they
photographed them and examined the different aspects of the plant in that place, or if they brought it to Japanand studied it there. Mr. Tagane replied they collected three duplications of specimens, keeping one set in theirspot and bringing two sets to Japan. Dr. Tan asked if they included bryophytes—Dr. Yahara suggested he lookat the database and identify them himself.
Next, Mr. Darnaedi from Indonesia asked about the graph showing the relationship between species richness
and altitude, commenting on the various altitude peaks correlating with altitude; Mr. Tagane replied that it
would depend on climate, landscape, and any number of factors. Rainy areas tended to have many more, but
drier areas had fewer. Mr. Ong commented on the first slide, about biodiversity hotspots, wondering why thePhilippines were not selected. Mr. Tagane replied that they did not have a connection with the Philippines andcould not select a site. Dr. Yahara added to that, that they were visiting particular locations where historical
specimens were available so as to speculate on change.
Next, Mr. Darnaedi from Indonesia asked about the graph showing the relationship between species richness
and altitude, commenting on the various altitude peaks correlating with altitude; Mr. Tanage replied that it
would depend on climate, landscape, and any number of factors. Rainy areas tended to have many more, but
drier areas had fewer. Mr. Ong commented on the first slide, about biodiversity hotspots, wondering why thePhilippines were not selected. Mr. Tanage replied that they did not have a connection with the Philippines andcould not select a site. Dr. Yahara added to that, that they were visiting particular locations where historical
specimens were available so as to speculate on change.
After that, Dr. Ito Motomi spoke on plant observation data and fit-for-use biodiversity trends. Generally
getting data, standardizing it, creating a database was the final goal; but now they want to be able to optimizethat database for actual use. As a member of GBIF, he showed the vast number of materials they had amassed,
and showed a statistic showing the affiliation of authors and papers; the United States had the most, followedby the United Kingdom. He elaborated on a data pathway, and how to extend GBIF for sample-based data. It
was important for GBIF because in using those data sets, they could compare different data sets and times.
Thus, fit-for-use biodiversity surveys: data could be cherry-picked to monitor change.
Next, he introduced two examples of Japanese data. One was the Red Data Book and List, published every ten
years; the next update would be in five years. He also displayed a ‘green list’ of Japanese native plants,
already completed and compiled. It was a checklist of Japanese angiosperms species, to survey for endangered
species, and to confirm their most recent scientific name. It included 6,345 native taxa, excluding forma andhybrids. Next, he displayed the IUCN criteria for establishing endangered species, and compared that against
the Japanese plant red list, performing a quantitative analysis as a means to estimate future population change
in population numbers. He also showed an example of a census sheet for a species, which included locality,
number of population, and number of mature individuals, reduction rate, and main reason of reduction. It wasa taxing survey to complete, and most scientists who relied on it were themselves almost ‘extinct’, so it was
not used often. He described Japanese mesh categories, and displayed the result of expected extinction overten years and compared that to species data.
Examining the data of endangered species in Japan was crucial for conservation purposes, but was sensitive
for one good reason: the data could be stolen and exploited. Thus it was only available for academic use. If
conservation efforts were made, then most endangered species in Japan could be conserved well.
Next, Dr. Ito moved on to introduce the GRENE, Green Network of Excellence, which examinedenvironmental informatics, biodiversity, and ecosystem. It worked on the collection and standardization ofplant community information, using plant community census data by the Ministry of the Environment, andvegetation of Japan recorded by Miyawaki Akira, plus the Darwin Core and extensions, allowing for very richdata. He showed an example of that in action, an analysis of a predicted species distribution by ecologicalniche monitoring. Using that data, they could extrapolate it to estimate past and present distribution toestimate future distribution. He demonstrated another example, comparing the level of species changes in the
12 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

Kanto area of Japan during its period of high economic growth, showing how drastically species declined.
To conclude, they needed to compile many independent data for wider coverage of space and time, that
establishing databases was not the final goal, for fit-for-use they would use GBIF-defined Darwin Core
extension for sample based data, and use sample-based monitoring to further reach more conclusions.
Mr. Freyhof thanked him for his presentation, and commended him on his decision to use Darwin Core. Dr.
Ito replied that they were using a database very similar to their plant community data and it was easy to adapt.
Mr. Ong asked if the predictions they had made had actually been evaluated and compared in real time. Dr. Itoanswered that there was some mismatch between prediction and reality, such as their models predicting morediversity in western Hokkaido than there really was. Mr. Shakya commented on the University of Tokyo
collecting specimens from Nepal, and how that would build a database; Dr. Yahara replied that it should bemade available.
Finally, Dr. Park Chanho discussed the Korean red list and K-BON. They started their initiative five years ago,
with a first publication two years later.
The number of native species in Korea was estimated to be almost 100,000; a total of 41,483 were known,
including 2,177 endemic species, which showed a high degree of endemism in the Korean biota. Most of these
species were insects, over 15,000; and 527 species were vascular plants. The Korean peninsula served as a
migration route during glacial periods, and thus was blessed with a variety of species. Dr. Park showed a tabledisplaying the number of species according to major taxa from 2002 to 2013 in the Republic of Korea.
In the process of preparing the 2014 National Red List, they used the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria,
and the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria at Regional Levels. The species included were mammals, birds,
amphibians, reptiles, fish, vascular plants, and mollusks. Some taxa belonging to insects were included; but
invertebrates, algae, and fungi were not included. Only inland indigenous species to Korea were evaluated;
and alien species were not assessed.
As a result of the evaluation, 1,021 species were classified on the red list. More than 90% of taxa were
estimated on the IUCN criteria B. Out of Korea’s 41,500 species, 8,150 were evaluated for the red list. Next,
Dr. Park showed another table for the number of species evaluated for the red list, and another one displaying
the endangered status of animals and plants species evaluated in the red list. The total number of threatened
species in Korea came to 517, about 7.1% of all species; 113 species were endemic to Korea. The Total
number of unthreatened species numbered 6,786. Therefore, more than 90% of taxa should be estimated uponcriteria B, and he listed statistics showing how many species fit that criteria.
Next, Dr. Park discussed K-BON, and how it gathered information on the red list. Their solution was to createa mobile app for smartphones that allowed for community input to the K-BON server farm. With that, heconcluded his presentation.
Mr. Freyhof asked about the remarkably high level of threatened vascular plants. Dr. Park replied that their
biological resource situation was not just surveying plants, but many species besides. Dr. Yahara added thatthe number of threatened vascular plants in Japan was twice the number, and thought maybe even that Korea
was more threatened than they thought. Dr. Ma commented on China’s assessment of species, finding that
their threatened margin was about 12%, similar to Korea’s. Mr. Ong asked about the table from 2002-2013,
and asked what the reason was for the increase in numbers over the decade. Dr. Park replied that they had
been able to identify more species. Dr. Tan asked about one graph where 43 species of amphibians and reptiles
were all listed as endangered; Dr. Yahara clarified that the species were candidates for the red list, not those of
all the species in Korea itself. Mr. Freyhof expressed confusion about the classification. Dr. Yahara announced
a short break before discussion commenced.
Discussion commenced regarding the topics brought up during the discussion, particularly the EBVs and thecriteria for listing threatened species, which was defined by the IUCN, although with variations on national
levels. They began from the level of species, considering the linkage between EBV and the red list. Even in
13 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

the standardized level of species, names were a problem. One idea was to develop a standardized checklist of
species, and then develop a regional red list that could be used for further studies. AP-BON could take on thatproject. Mr. Freyhof asked if they had ever considered working with DOI so that they could keep contact
between the old and new names. Dr. Ito responded that GBIF was creating a local checklist first and thenaligning with the accepted names, keeping both original name and accepted name.
Mr. Wang added that the database indicates a space for identification, so that they could still trace it back inprior publications. Dr. Hosoya said that they should work on securing the traceability of the names. Dr. Park
Jongsun added that sometimes many species were merged into one, and then were suddenly split into two or
three species, which made it impossible to trace back since that took extensive time. He said they still had toconsider a practical way of processing it in some way. Dr. Yahara brought up rice as an example, as well as a
shrub, as one species whose differences were clearly documented and the other which was not. Locality was
helpful, of course.
Mr. Shakya wanted to give a different perspective on fauna, on the possibility of delisting a species from the
red list. He described the case of the wild rhinoceros in Nepal, whose numbers had rebounded. If they wereconfident the number had reached its target, could it be delisted from a country independently, but not fromthe world status? Dr. Tan thought that to delist a name from the IUCN was not difficult, just that they had toappeal to the IUCN to do so.
Dr. Tan then asked about if in Japan or Korea, if they had found an area that had many endangered species,
and what the process would be to declare that area protected by the government. Dr. Kim replied that in Korea,
they have different ministries that protect the areas by law, making it difficult to get development for thoseareas. Second, they would ask the EIA, for Environmental Impact Assessment, to make sure it was okay. He
supposed it was rather strict in Korea, and that they would need to get a law passed. The President could
sometimes modify the procedures to push it through quickly. In Japan, they promoted biodiversity quite a bitand contacted the Ministry of the Environment to suggest potential sites. They used algorithms to identify
areas to be protected, and the Ministry handles that data on their own. The next step would be consideration of
cost. They would likely need to submit a cost-benefit analysis to convince the Ministry.
Dr. Darnaedi shared his experience in Indonesia. They had many protected areas, with many different
classifications. The Forest Ministry made those decisions in Indonesia, but there were huge conflicts between
mining and conservation. The government in Indonesia preferred conservation, but it was difficult to reserve
an area if it held potential value in that area; it becomes a national and regional issue. If there was no conflictof interest, it was not an issue, since they were required to have a certain amount of land set aside forconservation anyway.
Mr. Freyhof thought that led back to discussion of KBAs, and what led special sites to be red listed due toneeds for biodiversity conservation. Dr. Vergara said they already had a map for the Philippines, though it was
old. They needed more information for plant species and amphibians too. They would need the efforts of GEO
BON to manage their data and gather more information, as the organizations she contacted for data declined toshare it. When they looked into protected area assessment in Indonesia, they easily surpassed the 10%protected area target.
Dr. Kim first thanked the Ministry of Environment in Japan for supporting their activities and getting
everything started. Common themes and common goals were the target they had to think about. They had tofigure out what AP-BON did as a network, and, what kind of network they were. He described gaps in the
network, first being their strategy to work with GEO BON and promoting regional BONs. He also said they
did not have bylaws that specifically state the qualification of member nations, that they did not have a close
relationship with government; and they also had no strategies to promote national BON systems. They alsoneeded a way to promote their members, as well.
Second, he wanted to say that while they discussed data quite a bit, they had to settle on what that data would
be used for. Data was useful for making knowledge, but also for policymaking and scientific contribution,

14 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

where he thought they could do better in finding more gaps. He also said that they should make it clear that
AP-BON was related to the Aichi Targets, with five strategic areas: causes of biodiversity loss, loweringpressure, improving the status, benefitting and increasing biodiversity. He thought they should have aconsensus about what area they place on their activities, and that it was the gap in their activities.
Dr. Yahara replied, commenting on strategies first. He said he started from the GEO BON conference in
Potsdam for starting AP-BON. There, many people emphasized that it was a network, not a project, in order toavoid competition with other bodies. GEO BON was not a network to provide products originally, but now it
was being asked to deliver products. Since then, he thought that GEO BON has thought about projects.
AP-BON, working with GEO BON, thought its main role was providing opportunities for discussion andcommunication; but they needed to identify some particular goals to achieve. In the prior workshop in thePhilippines, they discussed some candidate products, including regional EBVs and red lists. He thought thosewere tentative strategies for AP-BON activities. He asked Dr. Kim if he thought they needed to identify theirgoals more, or concentrate on other issues like membership. Dr. Kim simply thought they needed to havebylaws to make it clear.
Mr. Freyhof added that GEO BON matured over the years, and the still-developing network should be able toanswer questions and deliver products. Working groups had many more products and they were free todevelop them—it was not competitive—but he expected from a national or regional BON was to reallycoordinate the available or developing observation systems. What was there, what data was collected, how tomake the data operable, how to make it available in a way such as metadata so that it could be applied within a
global network? A national BON was the national coordinator of national activities within the frame of GEO
BON, which were able to produce output that could then be integrated on the local level.
Dr. Yahara added that they were working under the form of GEO BON, but were also working with otherdatabases, because human resources were limited on a national level; the same person could be working withmany entities. One role of AP-BON or national BON was to coordinate activities with many international
bodies or universities, not only with GEO BON, but others; a small but important difference. As for the effort
to link from national to global levels, he referenced Dr. Hosoya’s talk. If they considered regional risk, thenthey needed a great deal of effort to adjust their data. They had potentially a huge amount of data, but it wasdifficult to merge. One way to change the ownership to the public was to publish a data paper, which was why
they were considering a workshop on publishing data papers. For instance, they could invite several scientists
working on plots in Asia to discuss how they could publish their data, and how that data could be openly
accessed. If they could identify particular core sites where they could observe many variables over time, itwould be very helpful for GEO BON.
Dr. Vergara understood the difficulties in collecting and summarizing data, but she thought they should
consider the suggestions of Dr. Kim to be able to distribute their work in the region. Most were doing thework based on the mandates of their institutions and AP-BON, but nothing had been signed, really. AP-BON
was a loose network, but since they wanted governments to consider their recommendations, there had to be a
way to tell them that AP-BON contributions were legitimate. Only GEO BON was recognized; not thenational BONs, because there were no formal links. She thought they should see how they could work thatout.
Dr. Darnaedi added that Aichi biodiversity targets had to be reached by country, so national responsibility wasvery important to hit the targets. Every country would have to identify in a midterm review what they had
done to meet those goals. National BONs had to contribute to government, suggest policies, and that they
could monitor what has actually been changed, done, or what has not been done. Governments were notparticularly aware of any issue related to the CBD. Any activity on the regional level, if there were somethingof value for the target that could be implemented in every country, would be very important. He wondered if
AP-BON could strengthen national BONs to help them reach their targets, and strengthen awareness of their
network.
Mr. Freyhof thought that definitely there were more things outside than what was assessed nationally. He citedan example of deforestation in Indonesia that was done by Americans; so the data was already out, but there
15 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

still had to be a way to get downscale from major data sets. There was already globally available data (such as
the satellite pictures of Indonesian deforestry), which could then be fed into AP-BON or national BONs. Mr.
Wang added that their mission in the session was to solve the problem about KBAs, and currently they had red
lists, but checklists alone were not useful. Besides checklists, they also needed location and occurrence data;
so why not data for identifying species? They needed a way to identify key variables for generating EBA or
EBV, and understand the kind of input they needed to have. Dr. Kim agreed with that approach, saying thatthey should identify the issues and the steps forward to go. He also mentioned Global Forest Watch to Mr.
Freyhof, which was generated by Google, and stressed that they had that kind of access to data and should
identify opportunities it grants. Additionally, he thought they should be in some sense functional in terms of
AP-BON.
Dr. Yahara said that the next day, they would discuss their contributions to IPBES, discussing theircontributions to biodiversity services, as they were very relevant to their activity. He thought the next volumeof AP-BON book three would be collecting papers on biodiversity services in the AP region. Dr. Hosoya
quickly advertised the GBIO, and asked everyone to take a look, as some of the issues they discussed would
be incorporated.
The first day’s discussion came to a close at 17:32.

16 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

Day 2
Dr. Yahara began the morning, announcing the agenda for the day, and Dr. Vergara headed the morning
session with a brief series of exercises.
Session 3: Developing AP-BON as a network of national BONs
First to present was Dr. Henrique M. Pereira on GEO BON: A Strategic Vision for 2014-2016. GEO BON had
been going through transition. It had been around for a long time, and with supporters like Dr. Yahara and Dr.
Kim, it had been going on steadily. Now, it had grown to have a bigger secretariat, which meant a few changes
for the organization.
The vision for GEO BON was that it was a coordinated global network that gathered and shared information
on biodiversity, combining in-situ and remote sensing data, and more. Over the past six years, AP-BON, under
the guidance of Dr. Yahara, had come a very long way; Dr. Pereira was happy to see all of the activities
happening on the regional level, saying that AP-BON was the most advanced one he had seen. He thought that
GEO BON has been successful in getting organizations to harmonize and improve biodiversity observations.
They also supported the CBD in identifying data gaps and raised the visibility of biodiversity monitoring,helping to sort and organize the data. They also were working hard on the implementation plan for 2015, andhad established working groups towards this: to show that GEO BON has created products that exemplify its
mission. Finally, they established the essential biodiversity variables to assist in monitoring.
He elaborated on the governance of GEO BON, and its reorganization. They wanted to make national andregional BONs the central aspect. Most of the work so far had been in thematic working groups, but they now
split their main core into an implementation committee, a management committee, and an advisory board. The
management committee was a subgroup of the implementation committee, which now had a secretariat and an
IT specialist. The implementation committee’s responsibilities consisted of implementing the deliverables andimplementation plan of GEO BON, budget, and executive function (although most tasks were delegated to the
management committee). Next was the advisory board that met once a year to provide strategic direction, andelects the management committee every three years. The working groups’ responsibilities were to develop andimplement specific thematic aspects of GEO BON and plan out how to carry out its plans and objectives forthe next few years. Responsibilities of national and regional BONs included implementing and coordinating
activities on their respective levels. Thematic BONs however had to go through a formal approval process to
become affiliated with GEO BON, and were composed by regional and national networks.
Priorities for the next three years were to continue developing the Essential Biodiversity Variables. They werepreparing criteria to assign development of the EBVs to particular communities, and were creating Wikis foreach EBV on the new GEO BON web page. EBV development would focus first on criteria, be createdaccording to sub-discipline, with some being under development for longer than others. Next they would
undergo a selection process, with GEO BON coming to a final EBV set, whereupon they could now head to abroad buy-in, endorsement and investment.
GEO BON also wanted to increase strategic engagement with national governments and organizations. They
had their new tool, BON in a Box, which would help with that initiative. It was a bottom-up capacity building
approach to improve global biodiversity observations, and lowered the threshold for a region to develop its
own monitoring network. It was meant to be a digital, downloadable product that any organization could use
to set up monitoring of their own.
The third priority for GEO BON was to support the development of regional and national BONs. They wanted
to engage all of them in developing the criteria to approve national and regional BONs, as they did not want toimpose criteria on all of the regions at once.
How did they see it coming together? They saw the core of GEO BON, with South America BON, AP-BON,
and Arctic BON becoming regional hubs, each with their own national BONs. Fourth, they had to develop
monitoring-based products relevant to users. For many years he had urged this in GEO BON, but it was not
17 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

enough to get resources mobilized; they have to demonstrate what improved monitoring could do. They had
certain products, Deliverables, which they had to deliver by 2015 to show what they could do.
One product was an analysis of Target 15. There were two steps to this: identifying degraded ecosystems, andto analyze EBVs from 2000-2015 on those ecosystems, identifying population abundances, habitat extent, andNPP.
Two conceptual paths for GEO BON included a mostly guided path and a mostly opportunistic path; Dr.
Pereira thought the guided path was better, likening it to putting together a puzzle of a structure that had tocome together. With that, he concluded his presentation.
Mr. Perry Ong asked if the BONs would be government sanctioned. Dr. Pereira replied yes, but not fully. They
did not need the Ministry of Environment to formally sign a letter in that regard or anything, but the BON
could say that the government endorsed them; no direct link was necessary. Mr. Ong also asked about EBVs,
about restoring ecosystems and species, wondering if those were part of the agenda as well. Dr. Pereira
responded that it was another way to use the EBVs. For instance, one could look up the living plant index andcompare numbers, and find out if an ecosystem was being restored.
Dr. Kim said that one of the major issues they had was promoting their initiatives. He thought one way might
be to use the EBVs, since AP-BON was a rather loose network, and by using the variables they could
strengthen their network further. He also brought up the guided and opportunistic pathway, but thought theyshould pick the path that allows for the most support for regional and national BONs to meet their potential.
Dr. Pereira agreed that developing national BONS was the way to go, along with identifying opportunities.
The EBVs might allow for the more opportunistic goals to be more solidified and guided. The main thing wasthat they really wanted to emphasize the national and regional BONs as the main core of GEO BON in the
coming years.
Dr. Park Jongsun asked if he had considered genetic diversity in his examples. Dr. Pereira replied that he had
not, because they did not have the resources to do it globally yet. Dr. Darnaedi brought up the issue ofdifferent priorities for different countries, and thought national BONs could be well-designed to complement
those targets. He thought they were still in the stage of reorganizing and evaluating what capacity they
actually had, and what thematic issues they could tackle. He asked if they could design BON in a Box toaddress that kind of national problem. Dr. Pereira acknowledged it was challenging, as different BONs wouldof course want to emphasize different aspects of monitoring. He was not sure yet on how to address those yet,but he emphasized that they had to be flexible to allow for different priorities. One thing was that countries
that had already implemented the system could give good feedback, which other countries could build offthemselves; that doubly emphasized its bottom-up approach.
Mr. Freyhof added that all kinds of biodiversity monitoring time initiatives were available. They could becompiled from the AP-BON countries, and put online with a description of the initiative.
Dr. Yahara thought an important part of BONs was that they facilitated a network and communication between
scientists, who often worked independently. For instance in Japan, taxonomists had been isolated from
ecologists, ecologists were isolated from botanists, and so on, spurring collaboration. Next, he invited
speakers from each country to discuss their activities.
Dr. Vergara introduced the next presentation by Mr. Mangal Man Shakya from Nepal, speaking on the
promotion of the network activities for the biodiversity observation in Nepal and the South Asia region. He
introduced his organization, the Wildlife Watch Group. Established in 1993 as an informal group, it was
registered as an NGO in 2002, and became a non-profit organization in 2011. It was a member of IUCN, SSN,
ITC, GTI, IPPL, and the Satoyama Initiative. It was a watchdog in the context of biodiversity conservation,
and was Nepal’s first wildlife trade-related NGO that monitors the implementation of CITES. Their mission
was the demystification of science, so that common people could understand what scientists did in their fieldor in the lab.

18 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

WWG proposed to become N-BON during the Preparatory Workshop for 2012 Jeju World Conservation
Congress in Seoul, Korea, which was held by Dr. Kim, and became interested in AP-BON initiatives. Later, amotion, ‘Establishment and Promotion of the AP-BON,’ successfully passed the AP-BON, of which WWG
was a co-sponsor. Mr. Shakya was a speaker in an AP-BON side event in IUCN WCC in Jeju, in 2012, as
N-BON (Nepal-BON) leader.
Next, he highlighted key points of the motion: acknowledging that biodiversity was important for economic,
social and sustainable development; that observation and monitoring the status of biodiversity in nature wereamong key tools in designing and implementing successful interventions toward sustainability;
acknowledging integration of current activities on biodiversity observation in the AP region as key to valuing
biodiversity; and understanding that regional BONs were being integrated from national level BON activities,
and that other BON initiatives were being encouraged.
Next, he described WWG’s N-BON activities. They performed, along with IUCN Asia regional office and theMinistry of Forest and Soil Conservation of Nepal, biodiversity observation in assessing climate change
impact on flora and fauna in Nepal’s Langtang Himalayan range. There they found a decrease in crop
production up to 75%, native plants displaced, and more. Based on those observations, they proposed
protected areas, such as international convention enlisted sites like Ramsar sites and World Heritage sites, tocarry out extensive studies in the remaining protected areas in Nepal and in other countries as well.
In 2012, Dr. Kim visited Nepal, where he discussed extension of AP-BON and promotion of N-BON, andprepared a draft proposal on Promotion of the Network Activities for the Biodiversity Observation in the
Asia-Pacific region. They proposed having sub-regional meetings of AP-BON, such as for the central Asia sub
region in Kazakhstan, for the East Asia sub region in Mongolia, for the West Asia sub region in Jordan, andfor the Pacific region sub region in Papua New Guinea. The Asia-Pacific region consists of more than fifty
countries, making it necessary to observe biodiversity by country and by sub-region level. Major activities hesuggested were a gap analysis for the AP-BON countries and evaluation of current status in activities, andnetworking of AP-BON by sub-region and by country. Also, they could have AP-BON reports by sub-region
and by country, as well as a strategic action plan and roadmap and promotion of AP-BON activities based onthese.
With that, he concluded his presentation, but followed it up with a short introduction to the purposed bylawsof AP-BON. The 5th AP-BON meeting in Los Banos in Philippines decided to draft the bylaws, where Mr.
Shakya was given consent to prepare the draft. He said he wanted to propose two things: the venue of the 7th
meeting, to be considered in Kathmandu along with other potential cities; and to let the 7th meeting of
AP-BON be the place to thoroughly discuss and approve the bylaws of AP-BON. He would make apresentation there for a draft of the bylaws for the consensus and consent.
Dr. Vergara opened the floor to questions and comments. Dr. Kim clarified a bit more on his role in the trip to
Nepal. He thought his role might be how to promote AP-BON and how to develop closer ties to the Korean
government.
The next presentation was given by Dr. San Thwin, of the University of Forestry in Yezin, Myanmar,
discussing the biodiversity concentration in Myanmar. The country was endowed with rich diversity of habitat
types, and was 47% natural forces. It was highly interested in protecting and conserving its diverse biologicalresources on a sustainable basis and the resources of vital importance. He gave statistics on the vast number of
species to be found in Myanmar. He highlighted selected new species recorded in the country since 2009, suchas flowers, plants, and the snub-nosed monkey. Next, he gave statistics on their natural forest resources.
Their Forest Department carried out out forest inventory annually within its capacity to establish the forest
database such as stand tables, stock stables, species composition and status of natural regeneration in the
country’s forest. The Forest Inventory Section and Computer Section of Planning and Statistics Division were
responsible for conducting forest inventory and developing databases. The Forest Resource Assessment wasundertaken mainly based on digital classification of Landsat AT data with a combination of various surveys.
19 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

Their fifth such survey in 2005 was compiled by updating the 2000 data with complete coverage of the borderarea. Dr. Thwin showed further statistics concerning forest cover status and land use, and how that hadchanged compared from 2001 to 2010. Next, he presented numbers regarding the change in forest cover from1990-2010. The numbers showed clear loss from overexploitation, repeated logging in accessible areas, illegal
logging, the fuel wood crisis, expansion of agricultural lands, urban expansion and infrastructure development,
and shifting cultivation, and population increase.
Next, he discussed protected areas management. They had 36 wildlife sanctuaries and 7 parks, constitution
about 6% of Myanmar’s total land. They hoped to increase protected areas to be up to 10% of total land area.
He also introduced ASEAN heritage sites, like the Alaungdaw Kathapa National Park, Hkakaborazi,
Natmataung, Lampi Marine National Park, Inlay Lake wetland bird sanctuary, and more. He also introduced
the wetlands of Myanmar, and national biodiversity strategies for conservation, management, and utilizing
with sustainability regarding them. The conservation was conducted together with Norway, Germany, Japan,
and others.
Dr. Thwin then focused on the Inlay lake conservation, and the conservation and rehabilitation activities
taking place there: watershed conservation, maintaining stream flows, and preserving areas of opening water
bodies. They also worked on preventing soil erosion and sedimentation, activities for extension, capacity
building, and technical cooperation. They also performed activities to improve the socioeconomic status of
local communities. Together with the UN-Habitat and Institute for Biological Development they were working
to preserve the wetland environments and species; in particular, migratory bird species on the IUCN red list.
He listed next the various agreements for biodiversity conservation that Myanmar was party to, such as the
Global Tiger Forum in 1994, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 1995, the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1997, and in particular the Ramsar
Convention in 2005.
Changes in Myanmar’s marine and aquatic species were that marine fauna and flora were affected by habitat
degradation, particularly in mangrove forests, coral reefs, and sea grasses. That was due to human activity but
also because of climate change. Some of the depleted species moved to new habitats, such as freshwater fish.
In particular was the Nga Tha Lauk fish, which was crucial to the livelihoods of many in Myanmar.
Threats to biodiversity included land use, soil erosion resulting from shifting cultivation, clearing naturalforests for agricultural expansion, and more. For agro-biodiversity, since 1990 the Myanmar Seed Bank andinternational partners had conducted participatory field surveys, farmer visits, and focal group discussions toinventory cropland acres. That indicated that the distribution and extent of plant resources was growing. Next
he introduced the plight of Myanmar sea turtles, which had severely diminished due to sale of sea turtle
products and weak law enforcement, along with habitat encroachment. To save the turtles, they needed tourgently implement biodiversity conservation measures.
Dr. Thwin then described the plight of avian species on Mount Popa, which accounted for 177 species of birds.
They needed encouragement for annual monitoring and investigation of the breeding and non0breeding
population of the park to maintain stable populations, and having an annual monitoring programme would be
crucial for understanding ecological information and developing conservation strategies throughout thecountry.
Their biodiversity conservation investment vision achieved an updated analysis of policy, socioeconomic andcivil society contest for conservation efforts, a re-prioritization of threats, and more. Ongoing activities
included biodiversity and forest ecosystem research, and many international cooperation projects forbiodiversity conservation. They needed to implement monitoring, law enforcement, buffer zone management,water resource management, identify protected and rare species, and identify and register rare, endangered andthreatened species. With that, Dr. Thwin concluded his presentation.
Dr. Vergara introduced the next speaker, Dr. Park Jongsun, who spoke on the current status of the K-BON
project to create an integrated platform for a biodiversity observation network. Many people had made good
20 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

systems, but there were still limitations to fully utilize the data. Biodiversity data was really complex andvastly different, so there could be no unified data form. Last year, they developed software for Android
smartphones so that ordinary citizens could contribute to K-BON, and making use of GPS data in recent
digital devices, and weather sensors. They had to consider how to gather weather information like humidity,
temperature, light, and wind. They tried to collect all that data to upload to their server farm. They also
accumulated data from diverse sources (although most were not yet digitalized), and also information from
GBIF. Once the data was amassed, they would develop an interactive web interface in order to support diverse
research.
He briefly introduced the smartphone application. There were big limitations to identifying plant species, but
it was still useful to have ordinary people taking pictures of plants to send to the database. Whenever the user
connected to a Wi-Fi network, they could then smoothly upload their photos to the server. With weather
information, they were grateful to have basic sensors, although they did not have all of the capabilities they
wished it would have. Construction of a cheap sensor network for gathering weather information efficiently
was their priority (for cost), providing for more data that was ready to be analyzed with other information, andthey also sought out equipment with high durability and low power consumption. He demonstrated the current
status of the K-BON database. Once they had the data, they could now plot it on the map.
The next step was to improve the quality of data, including species identification. A plant taxonomist could
access the pictures by citizens and confirm the names of all the specimens that come in. They found it difficult
since a simple picture was often not quite enough to tell, but something was better than nothing. They
practiced the technique on Mt. Suri nearby Seoul, collecting data over eight trips. They plotted the data on amap, and began identifying species. They managed to list 141 species and 326 plants. He finished by showing
a picture of the K-BON website, which displayed statistics and products. The picture browser was one of thetools available on the site. He also showed the website for the K-Bon Appathon.
Next he showed the integration of sequence for building the database: collecting photo information fromsmartphones or digital cameras, next taking a sample, then bringing the sample into a lab to make a herbarium,and finally registering the herbarium into another database. It was quite simple, but once the experts had theherbarium, they could track back the plant to its natural status before they took the sample. Sometimes theyalso needed to extract DNA and identify species. First they extracted the DNA, they sequenced the DNA, anddeposited the sequences. Once that was finished, the data would be used for phylogenetics, population
genetics, and phylogenomics, finally building novel relationships between observed data and sequence
analysis results.
Future directions for the K-BON platform included an integrated platform, where data was naturally depositedand analyzed in the database. Data management would increase seriously, and the web interface would bemade even more user-friendly. All of that would lead to more diverse research—and new innovations. Even
though there were some shortcomings to the system, it was still necessary to promote regular sharing of
information.
Dr. Vergara opened the floor for questions. Mr. Wang said that for data integration, the schema was very
important, and asked what kind Dr. Park used. He said he used his own, designing his own schema of loose
relationships between various types of data rather than a rigid one. Mr. Wang clarified that when starting a
database, it was crucial to decide on a schema core like Darwin Core. Dr. Park said he didn’t bother with that,as he wanted to keep up the loose relationships and center on those.
Dr. Pereira added to that, as there were many standards already for making the data useable. Largely the only
way to organize those was with standards. Otherwise it was very difficult to develop relationships between
data, as the databases could not communicate with each other. Dr. Park admitted it was strange because hemade his own schema, but the structure could change based on various needs. First, he wanted to develop a
relatively tight table for preserving raw data, so as to avoid losing any data that might not be allocated for in a
database like Darwin Core.
Dr. Kim thanked him for his hard work, and thought it was especially effective for involving ordinary citizens
21 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

in K-BON activities. He thought it was a good opportunity for Dr. Park to establish an international means ofsharing data, and also that it was a good chance for him to demonstrate their technology to the other BONs. Dr.
Park thanked him for his comment.
Mr. Freyhof commented that it seemed like they took available data, adapted it to suit their means, but did notprovide any backflow. He encouraged them to seriously consider their data flow both ways, to make sure it
was internationally accessible. His main point was what they would do if the Korean government suddenly
came to ask about how its outputs were contributing to biodiversity initiatives. Dr. Park admitted he did not
make a slide about data exporting, but he would definitely make an export function to share the data with therest of the world. He would make sure to make sure it was an open system that could communicate with otherplatforms, as he was aware that as a closed system it could not survive. His hope was that he could discusswith Dr. Park Chanho to develop the database for further integration, and that it was the next step. Dr. Kim
replied that they, the BONs were all asked the same question from their governments; they should firmly
discuss how they could contribute to Aichi Targets and IPBES activities, and give suggestions to national
BONs. Dr. Park agreed, saying that was part of why he applied to participate in the meeting.
Dr. Vergara brought the session to a close, commenting on how many activities were going on, but that they
were still mostly Asia rather than Asia-Pacific, and that they needed to work on their organizational structure.
She also thought they could discuss how to contribute to the CBD and come up with strategies to address
those. Dr. Vergara thanked them for a fruitful morning of discussion, and broke for lunch.
The meeting resumed with a presentation by Dr. Ma Keping on infrastructure development for biodiversity
conservation, from a national to regional scale. He was happy to have the opportunity to speak, and briefly
introduced the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
He began with a map of the Chinese Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Network, CForBio, which monitored avast array of trees in various climate zones throughout the country. It was part of the international network
CTFS or ForestGEO, to which China contributed about 13 plots. They also had Sino-BON, which was meant
to expand their forest network into a biodiversity network, trying to cover all sorts of ecosystems. The
Academy committed to invest USD $30 million for the expansion, with about 40% already invested. They
planned to purchase more sets of LiDARs for remote sensing data collection, and also servers for to manage
and store data. They had various networks to cover observation of species, such as for mammals, birds, fish,
insects, soil biodiversity, and so on; and planned to implement canopy cranes for studying biodiversity in
canopy. So far, they had eighteen institutes involved in the initiative.
Next, Dr. Ma brought up species red listing in China. The Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry ofEnvironment Protection of China officially released the national red list last year, with 12% of 34,000 speciesof higher plants in China being threatened. They were also part of the National Red List Alliance, and madesure to note that in their official statements. They also established the National Specimen Information
Infrastructure, NSII, in which USD $20 million had been invested. More than 10 million specimens have been
digitized. Two million species’ names were included. They also put out the Catalogue of Life-China, which
categorized nearly 70,000 species found in China, with a hard copy started last year. Additionally, they put out
the Flora of China (Chinese version), with 80 volumes, 126 books; Flora of China (English version) with 50
volumes. They also had the Chinese Virtual Herbarium (CVH). Another NSII initiative was the Nature
Museum (CFH), where photos were regularly uploaded to their website; just that day over 4,000 photos had
been uploaded; so far, there were more than 5 million color photos in the system.
For regional initiatives, in 2010 they released the Asian Plant Conservation Report, and together with manycolleagues from Asian countries launched the ABCDNet, Asia Biodiversity Conservation and Database
Network. They always strived to create linkages with isolated data sources. They had collected about 500
websites associated with biodiversity that gathered information. They also developed a taxonomic tree tool tocompare species checklists and improve visualization. That tool could be found on the Global Names website.
Another priority project on ABCDNet was the Asia Red List, from which they had data from over 40 countries.
For regional assessment with IPBES, they needed more data sets. Dr. Ma was part of an expert group for
scoping conceptual framework and methodologies on valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and22 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

was involved in writing the guide to do so. It was very important to consider how to collect and clarify data of
biodiversity in a region to provide support for global or regional assessment.
He described the first and second meetings of ABCDNet. Their current priorities were to integrate national red
lists in Asia, integrate national species checklists, to improve communication and networking among Asian
countries for biodiversity conservation, promoting Asian contribution to CBD and IPBES, and more. The way
forward included promotion of networking and cooperation at a regional scale, capacity building throughtraining courses, fellowships, and workshops, and mobilizing joint efforts in collecting and integratingbaseline information from member countries and areas in Asia. With that, he concluded his presentation.
Dr. Pereira thanked him for his presentation, and had a concern about the direction of IPBES. He thought it
was becoming an assessment of everything on the planet and was becoming too broad, as if it was going tosolve all the problems of the world. In engaging with IPBES, he thought they had to bring it back to the basics
of biodiversity and keeping biodiversity as its core. Dr. Ma agreed. He attended the 3d Expert Group twice,and noted that most participants in those were economists who valued ecosystems and human activities, rather
than biodiversity.
Dr. Hosoya was surprised that they were also working on merging the red lists in Asia. That convinced himthat his activities were not moving in the wrong direction, but thought they should avoid duplication ofactivities. He asked that when they were merging the lists, if they came across ensuring that the given name
was truly the official taxonomic name, and asked how they overcame that. Dr. Ma responded that it was a true
challenge to merge the red lists and taxonomies. They were in the pilot phase, selecting groups likebryophytes and birds as pilot projects. It was difficult to merge everything together.
Dr. Kim thought that his presentation was excellent, and commented on the development of Sino-BON.
Additionally, with ABCDNet, he was grateful for that contribution, but was not sure if it had any close
relationship with AP-BON at the moment. Dr. Ma’s understanding was that the focus of ABCDNet was on
biodiversity informatics, rather than monitoring any change. Dr. Kim also asked about how he could relate
Sino-BON with answering the Aichi Targets. Dr. Ma thought that for national BONs, they might have had
different missions rather than solely contributing to CBD or IPBES. For networking, the Chinese Academy of
Sciences felt promotion of science was also an important mission. If they had the data, they would of course
analyze it to try and be strategic, but they did not focus on a conventional agreement only.
Next was Dr. Perry Ong. He first thanked Dr. Yahara for the invitation, and the Ministry of the Environment ofJapan for funding his trip. As there was no Philippines-BON, they used PhiLTERnet instead, which he headed.
He started off with a picture of a degraded fresco, analogizing it to the state of biodiversity. Good intentions,
he stressed, could lead to disastrous results. If we saw something that was not right, yet we did not complain,
we have lost our right to complain when the result was not what we wanted.
With that introduction, he led into his work at the University of the Philippines. Just like the fresco, he noticed
that there was no serious assessment, nor no serious baseline for biodiversity going on. Without a baseline,
they could not tell if they were succeeded or not. At the time GEO BON went online, he wanted thePhilippines to join, but they had no data to offer. Thus, he started the Research on Ecological Systems andServices to Protect, Enhance and Conserve Total Biodiversity (Respect Biodiversity) Project. The project was
split into taxa-based and ecosystems-based fields. On the other side was Pro-active Research and Outreach to
Test and Explore Cures and Treatments for Humanity (Protect Humanity), which focused on natural products
research and biomedical research. The third part was DNA-barcoding Of Life-Philippine Network (DOLPhiN),
which was a research and networking agenda to develop the capacity for database establishment andmanagement, with a DNA library and more.
How did he intend to implement the project and get funding? He would promote science-based biodiversity
conservation with partners. He focused on the private sector, convincing them of benefits to their company
and to the world. Local benefits were that the data they generate could be fed back directly to the community,
such as comprehensive land-use programs and capacity building of local universities. That would prevent‘parachute’ biology, so that they did not just gather data and leave. National benefits would contribute to better
23 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

land use planning and long-term development goals, and global initiatives included greater ties to international
networks and access to data.
Components of the genes to ecosystems data collection included DOLPhiN, with DNA barcoding and wildlife
forensics; Flora Research Program; Wildlife Flagship Species Program; and Ecosystems Monitoring 100.
Some of the wildlife forensics included confiscating specimens of illegal transport, such as ‘dressed’
Pangolins that were too far gone to save, and they were buried. When they exhumed the carcasses a year later,
the vacuum-packed specimens were almost perfectly preserved.
For the flora of the Philippines, they were working with various institutions for biodiversity monitoring, which
was complicated as there were only about 50 botanists nationwide. He introduced the Palanan Forest
Dynamics Plot, and the study they completed which was published into a book. Within a single 16-hectare
plot, they found 323 species of trees—nearly 10% of known species of Philippine trees.
Next, eight years after he began the program, the university was implementing terrestrial research at eightsites throughout the country. He compared statistics for four 2-hectare plots, comparing the various
biodiversity variables between them. The state of the forest could be characterized comparing as tree size andbasal area. Most of the plots are regenerating forests, as the most of the trees in the plants have small DBH(diameter at breast height), with very few trees contributing to the basal area of the forests. They were in theearly stages of coastal and marine work. For Ecosystems Monitoring 100, they worked on capacity building,mentorship, partnership, collaboration, and hands-on work. They envisioned a network of field stations
through establishing 100 permanent plots. Dr. Ong gave a list of the tasks that still had to be done, such as
identifying and obtaining data holdings, making a database and analyzing it, validating their result, publishing
gap analyses, initial discussions and monitoring protocols; and a list of tools they would need to accomplish
that.
He discussed the ILTER EAP that was held in June, and the topics they discussed there. Their research
programs had produced various field guides, which were not meant to be definite, but produced as soon as
possible so that field staff could use the field guides to make assessments on the spot. In the field guides, theyused both IUCN and Philippine classifications to understand the state of a plant in the country, also showing
how a specimen looks in its natural environment. He introduced the LTER further, as a site-based researchmethod with long records of baseline measurements. It was interdisciplinary with mechanisms of sharing
information, and focused on ecosystem change. It had nine formal member networks and three associate
ILTER sites, with 170 facilities and 3,000 scientists. The region expanded throughout Asia and the Pacific. He
listed the international conferences since its establishment. Dr. Ong described how the 4th ILTER-EAP
Information Management System training was organized and conducted, which was largely organized anddiscussed over the Internet beforehand, allowing for the smooth implementation of the training workshop.
Finally, he suggested that BONs coordinated with the government, as PhiLTERnet already exists, and had
found it effective. Another problem they faced was the limited number of warm bodies who would continue
the work, since some of their members are way past retirement age. Some of their activities were symposiums,
training workshops, and participations in international conferences.
He stressed that they had to change their MAPS (mindsets, attitudes, and practices); and bridge their GAPS
(goals, aspirations, and passion). The Asia-Pacific had many cultural and biological treasures, so they had tonurture nature, protect people, and sustain society. He suggested a societal framework where economics did
not control their agenda, but it would be foolish to completely exclude those forces. Transforming thatframework led to a vision of using science-based approaches and an empowered people living harmoniouslywith biodiversity for the present and future generations, whose outcomes were maintaining species andhabitats, and improved quality of life. Strategies included protection, mitigation, development, management,
capacity building, research, and communication. They had to take actions for conservation with programs,
projects, and activities, and get many parties and organizations involved. They also had to have indicators ofsuccess to let them know whether they are attaining their visions and goals.
Finally, their work would not be complete without the 4Ps+++: those were patterns, processes, predictions,
24 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

and publications. That would lead to the pluses of change: practices, perspectives, and policies. That, in turn,should be strengthened by the 4Cs+++: coherence, consistency, continuity, and commitment; which would
then lead to changes in cooperation, capacity building, and critical mass. His final message was to change
MAPs, bridge GAPs, the 4Cs and 4Ps, and the NPS2. With that, he concluded his presentation.
Dr. Pereira thanked him for the lengthy talk, but wondered that from the monitoring programs they had inplace, how many programs did they have for species and ecosystems, and how many were engaged in them.
Dr. Ong replied there were very few. Of those that did exist, many had data that could not be analyzed, andpart of their job was to convince them to follow a standard. With their programs, they attempted to make surestandards were met. They were getting closer to the point where they could make a coherent assessment, butwere not there yet.
Dr. Darnaedi thanked him for his presentation, and added that Indonesia had the problem that many species’
names were not unified, especially for flora, and asked if that was a problem in the Philippines. He noted it
was a huge setback to their efforts to put out a red list, and that there was little unification between regional,
national and local levels. Dr. Ong replied that they only had three senior botanists left, but they could notagree on what to do. His first idea was to get younger people involved and interested, but they were not as
serious in his opinion. A company put a scholarship to sponsor a student to study their Ph.D. in somewhere
like Harvard, but three years later there had been no takers. The funding was available, but no one had applied.
Collecting specimens was also a difficult issue, though it could be done with planning. That had discouraged
many plant taxonomists from other countries to come to the Philippines, unfortunately.
Dr. Kim first thanked and congratulated Dr. Ong for his success in hosting the meeting earlier this year. It
could not have been easy to build up their initiatives, but Dr. Ong had done an impressive job, demonstrating
important leadership with PhiLTERnet.
Mr. Shakya asked about a particular slide, concerning the confiscated pangolins, and Nepal’s struggled infiguring out what to do with the corpses they found. He asked if that was also the case in the Philippines. Dr.
Ong replied that their first impulse was to destroy the specimens, because they simply ran out of space to store
them; but instead of throwing them away, he proposed that they use them for research so that they still had
some value. The government agreed, but no follow-through would keep it as just a suggestion.
Mr. Freyhof wondered if there was a database of confiscated animals. Dr. Ong replied they did, but it was allanalog. They could retrieve it with patience, but were still asking them to digitize the records. Mr. Freyhof
also wondered about the future of taxonomy, and how to think about ways to monitor biodiversity without
experts and without taking things from nature. Dr. Ong said that was a challenge to all, but thought that theyshould emphasize they were losing interest from the international community because of the restrictions on
their samples. A team of researchers recently got charged for an infraction because they did not capture andrelease; they captured and dissected.
Dr. Vergara had two questions. Was training consistent with their format? And also, he asked if there waslong-term research. Dr. Ong replied there was no long-term research, though he was looking into it. In regards
to training, they adopted the Darwin Core, and an IMS system for biological information.
Session 4: Contribution to IPBES regional assessment
Next, Dr. Tohru Nakashizuka discussed networking observations of ecosystem services. His presentation was
an introduction to observing ecosystem services, networking observations, and EVBs, essential variables forecosystem services.
He first showed the procedure to monitoring ecosystem services based on biomass and productivity. First it
should cover land cover, classification, and biomass change. Next were climactic condition, then ecosystem
functions, then estimating ecosystem services and mapping/monitoring of ecosystems. There was lessinformation about biodiversity, however. They gathered some data about SO2 and NO2 absorption in Chiba
Prefecture, Japan, modeled with simple equations. What they wanted was to involve more biodiversity
25 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

information to estimate ecosystem services. What they were now doing was keeping the land coverclassification change the same, but have a database on tree enumeration and a database on functional traits, toestimate ecosystem functions and ecosystem services. In case of abundance of key organisms, they build up a
database there as well. The variables depended greatly on the landscape, and so they needed information about
land cover. Using that information to estimate the abundance of key organisms, they estimate ecosystem
functions.
They also began a database for tree species. They targeted 300 Japanese tree species, the most abundant; thatmeant they could acquire 90% of biomass. They only had 900 species for throughout Asia, however. The
measuring traits included LMA, leaf area, leaf strength, leaf thickness, water content, wood density, leaf
nitrogen, leaf carbon, and more. Literatures had 120 traits, however: those relating to defense, pollination, rootsystem, or its utilization (lumber, food, medicine). They created a map of photosynthetic potential using theirdata, including data on species composition, a database of leaf traits, climactic data, and a statistical model.
Additionally, they analyzed the probability of soil erosion, which allowed them to establish a statistical modelof soil erosion.
In the second case, they used a local model of pollination services. First they made a model of the abundanceof honeybees, and plotted the abundance of beetles, compared with the land cover. It was quite successful on a
local scale. They expanded it to be nationwide, estimating the abundance of the honeybee, cross-referencing
with land cover to understand the estimated potential of pollination services and evaluating their effectiveness.
They also analyzed the abundance of trees for honey resources, examining the change in the 1980s withchange in the 2000s.
Dr. Nakashizuka hoped that they could implement this outside Japan, attempting to have some kind ofresidential land cover maps for the Asian region. Besides CTFS sites, they probably had as much as 500 plotsin Southeast Asia, from where they could create a database of functional traits. At the moment, they collecteda data set of nearly 500 species in Thailand, and 400 or so in Malaysia. For land use, most of the maps they
could use were potential vegetation maps, so they had to detect newly-disturbed forests.
For networking, they hoped to have data on physical environment, land-cover data, network of plot data,collaboration for functional traits database, a survey or analyses on ecosystem services and ecosystem
conditions, identification of key organisms, analyses on abundance of key organisms, and compensation of
insufficient information.
For essential variables, he thought it was probably effective to apply locally, so as to quantify ecosystemservices. However, it could be difficult on a larger scale. The local combination of climate, topography, andbiodiversity made the variables different; different species/taxa may play different essential roles in different
areas, and it might depend on the abundance of information available. If they did not have sufficient
information, the situation would be very different. To use essential variables, they should think about that kindof problem. With that, he concluded his presentation.
Dr. Park Jongsun asked about remote sensing, and how they could sense the configuration of a plot haschanged just through a satellite image. Dr. Nakashizuka said that fundamentally, remote sensing alone could
not accomplish that. Dr. Ishii added that they get more information from local organizations.
Next, Dr. Pereira complimented them on their approach. He had been pushing to use exactly that kind of
approach, and hoped to discuss later on how to collaborate with him. He asked a question concerning theessential variables, wondering why essential variables could not work on both local and global scales. Dr.
Nakashizuka replied that some biological controls depended on which organisms played important roles. For
instance, honeybees were not as abundant in tropical areas. The procedure itself on a global scale was
effective in some way, but he thought that local variables had a strong effect.
Dr. Ma had a question concerning trees, and wanted to know how they factored species distribution into theirassessments. Dr. Nakashizuka replied that they sampled trees in several locations to assess the functions oftrees and how they were improved or impaired. The data they would collect would be open to everyone
26 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

eventually, but for now was being kept for their research purposes.
Finally Dr. Yahara spoke on the scoping of IPBES regional assessment. The IPBES was launched with two
plenary sessions, where they developed the conceptual framework. The first objective was to strengthen
capacity and knowledge foundations of the science-policy interface to implement IPBES functions, tostrengthen it as the sub-regional, regional and global levels; to strengthen thematic assessments; andeventually to contribute to policy. The first assessment was ongoing on pollination, with land degradation,
alien species, and sustainable use starting soon; later on regional assessments, global assessment afterward,
then thematic assessment, with a policy support to follow. They used existing literature to prepare drafts ofpollination assessments. Last August they had a scoping meeting for regional assessment for the Asia-Pacificregion based on the IPBES Conceptual Framework, assessing nature’s benefit to mankind and more.
The unique feature of IPBES assessment was not only to assess nature and its benefits, but also to assess
anthropological benefits and socio-politic, economic, technological, and cultural drivers, so as to contribute toa harmonious life with the planet. He related translating the concepts to the Rosetta Stone, such as translating
concepts found in Asian languages to better understand the concepts in English—not only literally, but
semantically. Dr. Yahara thought maybe they could publish a chapter in AP-BON book 3 about comparing
these different semantic concepts.
The scoping meeting included a chapter outline of AP regional assessment. That was to first set the scene, thendiscuss nature’s benefits to people and its impact on quality of life, the status and trends in biodiversity andecosystems underpinning nature’s benefits to people, direct and indirect drivers of change in the context ofquality of life, integrated analysis of interactions of the natural world and human society, and options for
decision-making across scales and sectors. He next shared the chapter outline as based on the IPBES
framework, and stated they needed to figure out how to relate the chapters to each other; relating the states
and changes of biodiversity to changes of ecosystem services or nature’s gifts. They had many examples ofthat.
Next he showed a prototype figure, where institutions and governments were placed in the center, withnature’s gifts, human wellbeing, and nature on the periphery. The first part of chapter five would focus on
scenarios and models that provide insights into future trends, pathways to change, best practices and specificpolicies; as well as addressing key challenges for sustainability and what they were for the Asia-Pacific region.
For instance, he brought up data regarding forest coverage in Asian countries, which was largely on the
decline, and how they could discuss the different drivers in the various countries that contributed to that. That
included the human development index, human population density, wood imports, and increases in crop
imports, oil palm plantations, and forest coverage. He suggested the Kuznets curve to demonstrate the changes,
and to show where the ‘turning point’ for increasing forest coverage could be.
He hoped to collaborate with the other members of AP-BON to write good assessment chapters. However, forthat, they needed to publish ideas and evidence. His idea was to publish book three, so that they could cite
their work in the future and for others to see their activities. With that, he concluded his presentation.
Dr. Tan asked a question, wondering if AP-BON would consider complementary copies of the book for those
who were supporting their activities and conferences. Dr. Yahara replied that after the scoping process, they
could do so, but they could not distribute widely to the public.
Dr. Kim said that most of the work seemed to be regional, but IPBES was mostly aimed at a global scale. He
asked them to consider how they could contribute to a global scale, and that scoping was only part of theprocess. Many chapters had been drafted, with ten expert groups working on it. Thinking on IPBES activities,
he thought it better to consider all of the work going on. Dr. Yahara responded that he had to read otherdocuments at the scoping meeting, and that each group had to provide direction, and that his basic idea wasbeing incorporated.
Dr. Darnaedi commented that the global assessments would finish before they completed their regional
assessments, and he asked how GEO BON falls in the global assessment of IBPES, and if they had any plans
27 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

for assessment. Second, he asked about the rapid economic development of regions affecting forest cover, andpopulation growth, wondering if it was specific to AP-BON but not the Asia-Pacific as a whole. He alsomentioned that indigenous knowledge was closely related to ownership of the culture along the protected area,
and would be very important to include. Dr. Yahara responded to the first that there was no formal relationshipas far as he was aware. But in the process of regional assessment, at least for natural science, the participantsat AP-BON were actively involved in those processes, and that their communication was crucial to develop it.
Dr. Vergara asked about chapter 4, on the drivers of biodiversity loss, and thought they might include
sub-regional drivers in that as well. Dr. Ma then commented it was a good idea to relate AP-BON with IPBES,
and asked if he had any further ideas about AP-BON trying to cover specific sub-regions. Dr. Yahara
responded that they were mainly working in East Asia and Southeast Asia, with some participants from the
Pacific Islands. As for West Asia, they had no relationship, so as for regional assessment in the Asia-Pacificregion, they hoped they could develop relationships there.
Discussion began on the matters raised, the EBVs, regional red lists, and data papers. First he asked forcomments on EBVs. Dr. Kim noted that at the meeting at the Philippines last November, he thought theyshould review the EBVs with AP-BON. He thought it was very good to see the variables created by GEO
BON, and hoped that they could have some support from the Korean side to promote the list with AP-BON.
He hoped to have a subcommittee working on the AP-BON side for a first evaluation and ways to apply.
Dr. Pereira added that from the GEO BON secretariat point of view, the point was to try to assign thedevelopment of specific EBVs to particular communities. They would now post again criteria until the end of
the year for how the assignments could be made and how a community could develop a specific EBV, coming
up with standard measurements and protocols in order to build data sets. He saw no reason they could nothave multiple locations working on the same EBVs, as long as there was active communication with thesecretariat to make sure AP-BON did not go in one direction and GBIF in another. Dr. Ma added that based on
the presentations he saw, there might be information available on trees, and wondered if they could add‘service’ to the ecosystem function variable. Dr. Pereira thought it was fine to add ecosystem services. There
was a large discussion regarding that in the workshop. The comment that was the deciding factor was that forservices, you required both supply and demand. You needed to have data that was not only for potential ofservice, but for demand; and that was why they limited data to a strictly biological framework. It was all rightto add services with a similar methodology, but it would not be strictly biological.
Dr. Ma thought that maybe they should consider another strategy of setting up core variables, along withselected variables, as observations varied depending on scale. If they could come up with two sets of variables,
and associate select variables to those. Dr. Pereira said they could develop another list, but that these should becore variables. The six examples could be measured at the scale of one square meter or on the global scale,
which was the idea behind it; that they could be measured across scales. They had a full list of 23, available on
their website. Some might be core, some might not be. He thought that was crucial to the discussion. For
instance, they discussed the variance variable the week before, struggling to define it.
Mr. Park Jongsun thought that they could extract common variables from a population, like location, time,
species, movement, and so on. In that way, they could list it in six big groups and detail the items for eachgroup, and then for each item, try to define commonalities and a structure for the data they have to collect. Dr.
Pereira suggested they did not move away from calling these essential variables. He gave an example where
he believed there was already contribution. GBIF would soon produce a report with the extended Darwin Core
that could now allow it to report on abundances and other variables in the EBVs. There was no single way ofstandardizing reporting measurements, so they had to come up with data standards and protocols for each of
the EBVs, and start building data sets from local to national. But as much as possible, he thought they should
constrain it to these terminology and those variables, else they risked being unable to harmonize concepts.
Next, Dr. Nakashizuka moved on to red list discussion. Dr. Ma offered a comment, because there were twoissues; combining taxa from two different countries and how to promote countries and collaborate.
Collaboration was key, he thought. Dr. Hosoya added that he was talking about how to share information
together with Mr. Wang, and he said that they could utilize something like Google Drive. Mr. Wang added that28 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

he created one Google Drive folder after a meeting in July, so the data was easily accessible and facilitatedcollaboration. He was not sure how feasible it was, but since GBIF has some data from different countries,
countries that lacked a database could simply download data from GBIF and build off the taxa. Dr. Ito had toclarify that locality was not a variable in GBIF.
Dr. Tan wondered if they could get a country’s checklist for red lists from GBIF. Dr. Yahara commented on
their progress on making a national red list of trees, and that they were working especially on big familygroups. To identify and edit red lists, they needed complete checklists of each group. Taxonomists usually
took a lot of time to publish one graph, but with the need to access red lists, he suggested that one initiative of
AP-BON could be to quickly publish their countries’ red lists. Dr. Ito continued about local checklists, notingthat they had initiatives for publishing local checklists for data papers. Mr. Freyhof reminded them that thevery different approaches used for different countries’ red lists were a good example of how interoperability
would never be achieved, and at least they could stick to a IUCN standard and be compatible with the rest of
the world.
In response, Dr. Ma said that it was a matter of collecting data and analyzing it. He said he found an example
about one species on the red list in Korea, but not in China; from that case they could understand thedifference in red lists between countries. He thought it was good for AP-BON to take red listing as a priority,and if they endorse that, in terms of expertise or training costs, they could have some viable policies on theseissues. Dr. Thwin responded that Myanmar’s red list needs to identify different kinds of species, and that was
why they needed input for the red list. Dr. Nakashizuka suggested that AP-BON deliver assistance. Dr.
Vergara agreed with Dr. Ma, that ASEAN member states would rather make red lists on their national leveland gather data accordingly.
Dr. Nakashizuka moved the discussion on to data papers. Dr. Yahara first commented that they met several
times to discuss writing data papers. One idea was a workshop on how to develop capacity for publishing thedata. In Indonesia, they were actively working to integrate forest plot data, and they developed a semantic web
system to publish those. That was one such activity. Japan had many similar examples too. By introducing theteams to each other, he thought they might be able to build on that experience and collaborate on papers. Dr.
Ma added that they had several initiatives for publishing data papers and data journals, and that it had beenreally difficult to convince the majority of scientists to publish. Only a very small proportion could be
convinced. He thought it was not only a technical issue, but also a cultural and environmental issue. To hold atraining class was a good idea, he thought, emphasizing the success and opportunities that come withpublishing.
Dr. Tan added his experience in making checklists—it was difficult to find a high-name journal to publish
them. He prepared a list with Dr. Iwatsuki in Japan, and eventually had to publish in a Philippine journal. That
was an issue they would have to think about. Mr. Wang added that they could have their own special issue on
publishing. Dr. Ong suggested the online journal Checklists, which was an SCI journal. Mr. Wang added that
he had a friend who tried that, but came across difficulty because the approval process took over a year.
Dr. Kim asked if they could discuss AP-BON promotion. He reminded them of the gaps in strategy, and they
had to decide their core activities, vision, mission, and goals. Also they had to discuss gaps in understanding
with identifies and interactions, such as with AP-BON itself, GEO BON, and national BONs. They also had
gaps in focus, with internal network functions and external international interactions. Finally they had gaps ingovernance and bylaws. He brought up again the categories and criteria for establishing the success of
individual networks. First was governance and infrastructure, second was sustainability of research,monitoring and science; and third was service to society. For governance, he thought they could create somecommittees and sub-committees to work on those. For sustainability, he thought they could work on scienceand protocol, as well as cyber infrastructure and protocol. Finally, for service, he thought they needed
education, outreach, and capacity building, along with communication, demonstration, and extension. Dr.
Nakashizuka thought they could discuss that in the steering committee meeting. He brought the discussion to aclose and thanked them for their comments.
Dr. Yahara thanked Dr. Kim, Dr. Park Chanho, and his other Korean colleagues for hosting the meeting. He
29 / 30

6th AP-BON (2014)

directed the council members to a separate room for discussion and ended the 6th Asia-Pacific Biodiversity
Observation Network Meeting.
---------------------------[END]30 / 30