The Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network presentation began with an opening address by Mr.
Kazuaki Hoshino, advisor to Minister of the Environment, Japan. He gave a brief explanation about
his history at the Ministry, explaining how he became advisor to the Minister. He also expressed his
gratitude to the government of the Republic of Korea for hosting COP12 and the opportunity to host aside event, as well as for sponsoring the six AP-BON workshops at the National Institution for
Biological Research at Incheon. He also expressed his gratitude to Dr. Kim, Dr. Vergara, and Prof.
Yahara; among others involved in activities of BON.
Recently, the management of biodiversity had become extremely important for policy in conservation.
AP-BON has contributed by providing policymakers with relevant data. They also contributed to global
biodiversity conservation by provision of data to global networks, as well as collaboration with otherregional networks. Furthermore, they were expected to contribute to IPBES for more policy efforts. It
was a great honor for the Government of Japan to contribute to global diversity through their supportof AP-BON. He concluded by hoping the session would lead to fruitful discussion and promotion of
their initiatives.
Next, Mr. Tetsukazu Yahara gave a presentation on the development of AP-BON, Japan. First, hebriefly introduced the outline of the conference and subsequent speakers. He discussed the AP-BON
network, which was organized under the global network GEO BON. It aimed at developing global
earth observation system of systems, which was involved in analyzing nine areas, including disasters,
health, energy, weather, and water. Under the core of GEO BON, AP-BON was organized in 2008. In
the GEOSS-AP symposium, they regularly discussed biodiversity issues, and were able to build up a
network in the Asia-Pacific region for mutual support.
He introduced two publications of their work in the Asia-Pacific region: The Biodiversity Observation
Network in the Asia-Pacific Region, 2012; and Integrative Observations and Assessments of Asian
Biodiversity, 2014. They summarized how they were able to develop a database and data sharing,and their network of programs, and national BONs and institutes. At present there were K-BON in
Korea, J-BON in Japan, Nepal BON, Sino BON, along with many other hub institutes in the
Asia-Pacific region.
They were currently constructing the CBD GBO4, and had launched IPBES for regional assessments,
which were to be made from 2014-2016. They would soon begin to draft chapter papers for regional
assessments. AP-BON activity had many chances to contribute to not only GEO BON, but also
compliance to Aichi Targets and contributions to IPBES. In the session, they would discuss how tocontribute further to global diversity through coordination with regional BONs, leading up to the third
AP-BON publication. With that, Mr. Yahara concluded his presentation.
Next, Mr. Henrique Pereira spoke about integrating regional networks in GEO BON. He began by
expressing his gratitude for the invitation to discuss how AP-BON is involved in the greater GEO BON
network, and news on the progress with the essential biodiversity variable frameworks.
Biodiversity change was an immensely complex issue. It could measure extinctions, loss of
biodiversity, shifts in abundance, and more. Biodiversity was also under the pressure of multiple
drivers, such as habitat change, pollution and climate change. To fully understand biodiversity
required knowledge of these factors. We had to understand what the dimension of the biodiversity
crisis is. He showed projections of the 21st century to demonstrate how severe the crisis was, withsome predictions as high as 60% of species on Earth going extinct. It was impossible to know for sure,because there are few monitoring systems for biodiversity that allow for tracking these. One crucial
area was to be able to discover the ‘tipping points’ when a biome cannot be recovered any further, butthey did not have enough data to assess those early warning signs. Thus, the need for biodiversity
monitoring.
What was the role of GEO BON? They hoped to be a coordinated global network that sharesinformation on biodiversity and provides tools for biodiversity management. The context of GEO BON
includes research, assessment, and monitoring. Research and monitoring were mutual fields, andassessment was mostly carried out with policy makers. IPBES was an assessment exercise, which
took in data from research to inform policy makers; however, GEO BON was in the monitoring part,which provided data and could inform IPBES assessments. A similar structure exists for climate
arenas, with IPCC assessing and GCOS monitoring.
GEO BON was a bottom-up and top-down organization, existing as mainly a global biodiversity
network with regional initiatives. They have working groups at the thematic level, separated byterrestrial, freshwater and marine, all separated by level themselves.
Next, he explained some of the challenges ahead of GEO BON to develop better monitoring to meetthe 2020 CBD goals. Countries had to monitor progress towards each of the targets, and many were
just starting up or revising their biodiversity observation programs. GEO BON found that countries
often needed guidance to accomplish this, and so they stepped in to provide assistance andguidelines on how to build up monitoring. They built up the Essential Biodiversity Variables framework,
which was a system that described what any biodiversity monitoring system should measure. Some ofthe characteristics of the EBVs were that they can detect change, are quantifiable, were repeatable;
allow aggregation and disaggregation, biological, and emphasis on states. This is because GEO BON
focuses on change, and how change is progressing.
Last year, with a workshop at the European Space Agency, they published a paper in Science withthat framework in mind, and established six solid EBVs classes (for a total of 23 EBVs). Those were
genetic composition, species populations, species traits, community composition, ecosystem
structure and ecosystem functions; along with other potential variables. They all came along with
examples, measurability and scalability, temporal sensitivity, and feasibility. EBVs were related to the
Aichi Targets because they were based on national and regional paradigms that can then respond toeach of the targets. EBVs could contribute to ecosystem services as well, because many of theservices could be derived from primary data on the EBV variables. He gave an example of beneficial
species trends, where identifying the range of a particular medicinal herb can also inform you on
where the service is being provided. If you understand how the variables change, you understand how
the services change.
Mr. Pereira briefly ran through some examples of EBVs in action. One was population abundance;
you could have a matrix of species by location across different years, which would become the EBV.
Another example was birds in North America, showing richness change and abundance change from1970-2010. Yet another example was the change in the mean abundance of mammals globally from1970-2010. That model estimated how many species, or how the abundance of species, has changed
over time. The goal was to have for all of the EBVs these kinds of data sets that can be used forscientists, policymakers, and anyone interested in biodiversity change.
Currently they were still developing the EBVs. They carried out multiple workshops, submitted
multiple papers, and beginning more assessments to that end. Mr. Pereira finished by providing a
website link for GEO BON’s homepage with more information.
Next, Dr. Park Chanho spoke about the activities/products of K-BON, with his presentation‘Sustainable Biodiversity Observation Network Activity Enabled through the K-BON with Civil
Scientist’. K-BON was basically organized into three groups: NIBR and MEV, research including
institutions and universities, and civil scientists like para-taxonomists. Next, he described the threeworking groups of K-BON. The first was about Korean species and ecosystem monitoring, along withlong-term monitoring of CBIS (climate-sensitive biological indicator species); the second was
prediction analysis and conversation research; and the third was genetics/phylogenetic diversity
research. Citizen participation in biodiversity conservation management was one of the key activities

of K-BON; and Dr. Park offered examples of such initiatives in Germany and Japan. Capacity building
was carried out through neighborhood biological monitoring, mainly for fieldwork and workshops, tocelebrate regional biodiversity and nature.
The main problem was managing all of the information they amassed. Their solution was to develop
the K-BON Monitoring Application, which aimed to collect pictures of species with GPS data. Many
people could use the application to collect pictures of diverse plants and animals easily, and track
their pictures and where they were taken. Dr. Kim demonstrated how to use the application. The
K-BON information structure included a main server farm, with inputs coming from their web interface,smartphones and digital cameras, and observations from other diverse sources imported to theirserver. They use open monitoring in conjunction with a cloud-based CHM network, including the
K-BON server, NIBR database, and the K-GEO server. Dr. Park showed an example of the network inaction, showing species distribution analysis of Niolitsea sericea and Abies koreana with input from
K-BON members.
Through this data, they were tracking many changes in biodiversity, monitoring adaptations to climatechange by insect pests, and monitoring red list and invasive species. With that, Dr. Park concluded his
presentation.
Mr. Ma Keping then gave a presentation about activities/products in China, and introduced Sino-BON
activities. He thanked the organizer for the chance to introduce biodiversity monitoring and associatedactivities in China. First, he showed a map of Chinese Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Network(CForBio), showing the distribution of forest dynamics plots in China, giving examples of a rainforest
in Xishuangbanna and a subtropical evergreen forest in Gutianshan. Using the Gutianshan plot, they
introduced their approach to grid out a forest into 20 m by 20 m quadrets in a plot, in which 169 seedtraps and 510 seedling plots are placed. For seed traps, they collected seeds, fruits, and litterfalls
once two weeks and seedling plots were measured twice a year. They also used dendrometers tomeasure more than 2,000 trees for every forest dynamics plot, which was also measured twice a year.
Additionally, they also carried out soil mapping. Camera traps included in the plots were also able tocapture native birds, mammals with in and around the plot.
A regional FDP system would include a main plot with the size 20-25 hectares, 3-5 associated plots of
1-5 hectares, and more than 20 smaller satellite plots over a larger area such as a province, in orderto capture all potential forest types. CForBio also produced stand books, which described the tree
species found in the plot and their distribution within the plot. They have published five such standbooks, and can boast hundreds of publications in high profile journals. He also provided somestatistics on how many species of tree species and individual trees they have covered. Dr. Ma also
described their annual meeting on FDPs with Taiwan colleagues. They were part of a global network
namely ForestGEO, with 13 sites in China along with CForBio. He provided further statistics showing
the spread of CForBio into Sino-BON (China biodiversity monitoring network), including 10 thematic
monitoring networks and a synthetic center, such as a forest canopy biodiversity observation network
and a mammal diversity-monitoring network with camera traps. With the introduction of ABCDNet(Asia Biodiversity Conservation and Database Network), Dr. Ma concluded his presentation.
Dr. Sheila G. Vergara shared the knowledge products prepared by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity(ACB). She thanked the hosts of AP-BON for making the meeting possible, and the representatives of
GEO BON for coming all the way to Asia.
She described ACB's mandates, that include the facilitation and coordination of biodiversity related
discussions among the 10 ASEAN member states (AMS); capacity enhancement on policy
development, PA management, etc. and providing the framework and facilities for information sharing.
Related to ACB's biodiversity information management mandate, they have organized interoperable
databases, populated these with data from reliable global resources and contributions from national
reports. They are building partnerships to improve the regional capacity for data management,
increase data contributions and ensure interoperability.
Having reliable data improves the quality of regional analysis, assures informed policy development,
local area management support, and contributes to the identification of topics for research.
ACB maintains the Regional Clearing House for Biodiversity (CHM). This facility provides access tobiodiversity data made available by AMS, presents automatic summaries from data provided, andrelated maps.
To date, this regional CHM provides auto summaries for threatened coelenterates, mollusks andcrustaceans in the ASEAN region as a subset of the species databases. Future work will cover othertaxa such as insects and plants. Other resources made available through this clearing-house are the
e-library, with over 10,000 sources to assist in research; and interactive maps and graphs preparedfrom available data.
The results of data analyses are incorporated in the ASEAN Biodiversity Outlook, an ACB publication.
The data and analyses are likewise used to design animated videos for distribution to elementary
schools as part of the toolkit used to teach biodiversity conservation. Available videos are onthreatened species, marine and coastal resources, invasive species and an interpretation of theASEAN biodiversity outlook. Applications (apps) for smartphones have been designed for ASEAN
Heritage Parks, and to make the e-library accessible to a wider audience. These knowledge products
have been identified through a structured Knowledge Management Strategy.
These knowledge products are supplemented with media forums and training, use of social media
and the Internet, print and audio visual (AV) materials, exhibits, the Champions for Biodiversity
initiative, photo contests, and Fun Runs for Biodiversity as part of ACB's Communication and Public
Awareness strategy. With that, Dr. Vergara concluded her presentation.
Next, Mr. Ishii Reiichiro presented on the activities/products of J-BON. He briefly introduced theorganization as a network of researchers, NGOs and policymakers coordinating various research
activities, observation networks, and databases on ecosystems and biodiversity in Japan. The
organization of J-BON consisted of an executive committee on top, with an organizing committee andsecretariat. It had eight working groups, and included interface, remote sensing, assessment andprojection, inland water ecosystem, marine ecosystem, forest ecosystem, terrestrial species/genetic
diversity, and agricultural land/grasslands/Satoyama. Naturally they collaborated with GBIF. Their
mission was coordination of research projects and facilitation of utilization of existing biodiversity data:
managing, monitoring, networking of various activities; contributions to policymaking; networking withothers to assessing biodiversity. They developed models and tools to assess biodiversity andecosystem services in AP, with three themes: modeling and mapping biodiversity changes: gene andspecies diversity changes; and forest, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. They contributed to IPBES,GEO BON, CBD, REDD+, and national strategies.
GBIF Japan, with J-BON, would hold workshops on integrated red list/invasive species analysis in
East Asia. They also collaborated with JaLTER, for long-term research, which has 20 core sites and
36 associate sites throughout Japan; and the JapanFlux database. Currently they were making a data
paper online, together with the Ecological Society of Japan. Collaboration and publishing data itself
has become much easier due to the Internet.
J-BON also worked to network other related agencies, such as with space agencies like JAXA in orderto acquire satellite data. Their input to JAXA facilitated solar radiation maps, rainfall maps, landcovermaps, forest/non-forest maps, sea ice maps, and forest height maps. These data contents help
facilitated biodiversity assessment. For instance, these kinds of activities could be published; theirwork was published in CDB-72. They have responded since 2014 to SCBD notifications, acting as aplatform for scientists’ communities in Japan. With that, Mr. Ishii concluded his presentation.

Finally, Mr. Dedy Darnaedi spoke on biodiversity observation activities in Indonesia. He referred to the
GEOSS-AP in Indonesia, in which the country participated, to address water and land-related
observation issues. Data sharing and access, knowledge transfer, experience exchange, and user
requirements for decision making became priority targets for their working groups. He reiterated thatIndonesia was one of the biggest countries in Southeast Asia, and was very rich in ecosystem types,
species numbers, and endemism. That was exactly why it was crucial to have a database and study
the ecosystem diversity in the country. One such data plot he presented the was distribution andprofile of vegetation types in Lorentz National Park, West Papua. Another example of their work was adata plot of the species richness in a forest ecosystem in different islands in Indonesia (Java, Sumatra,
and Kalimantan), which showed that an increase in size of area showed an increase also in thenumbers of species, suggesting a minimum requirement for a representative plot size.
Biodiversity observation activities in Indonesia included those with AP-BON, where they collaborated
with Japan to identify particular terrestrial species; and other studies that reaffirmed the decrease of
the richness of plant species in accordance with altitude and plot size, in plots around the country.
They also contributed to research between LIPI and Seoul Women’s University, Republic of Korea,
where they gathered a total inventory for all species in 2 cm up in DBH. That research was stillongoing to monitor population dynamic in a long-term period. The data from that research showed avast distribution of one particular tree fern species (Cyathea spp.), but only three specimens ofanother; it was interesting to see what kind of factors in the plot would contribute to the distributions ofeach.
Conclusions were that loss of forest covers land degradation, species extinction, and genetic erosion
is still ongoing in Indonesia, although the rate has much reduced in recent decade. Biodiversity
observation activities in the country were carried out by various institutes, whether independently or incollaboration with international networks; but no formal biodiversity observation network was
established yet. Botanical exploration and establishment of permanent monitoring plots at different
vegetation types have continuously conducted, and mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystemobservation and services to policymaking have been identified as crucial. Many countries lacked
these networks because they lacked capacity, funding and guidance. In order to support theestablishment of those, the regionally tailored startup kits, ‘BON in a Box,’ was started, along withoffering strategies to integrate data in situ. With that, Mr. Darnaedi concluded his presentation.
Following all of the presentations, the panel entered discussion on AP-BON’s contribution to GEO
BON, CBD, and IPBES.

Mr. Pereira congratulated everyone on their initiatives, noting how impressive the initiatives had beenin the seven years since AP-BON was established, diversifying in accordance to their regions. He
wondered what the government stance was with the organizations in each case. There were alreadysome cases, such as in China, where government was already getting involved; but he asked if eachindividual network was developing in each country for more systematic involvement. Mr. Eun-Shik Kim
responded that they now had missions and a focus to monitor and assess biodiversity, along withconsistent services. He said it was natural to wonder about the regional bonds between each, andsuggested the session the next day would be a good opportunity to learn more. Dr. Ma commented
that his network was financially supported by the Chinese Academy of Science, with USD $30 million
to facilitate the network. For development in terms of data management and assessment, perhaps it
was ‘solved’, but collaboration with the Ministry of the Environment was forthcoming.
Another question came from Mr. Jorg Freyhof, the director of GEO BON. He wondered about the dataflows from, for example, J-BON, and how it flowed from J-BON to AP-BON and then to GEO BON.
The response was that they were discussing how to put their data for AP-BON for other networks, andthat they now had international standards for exchange of data. They were following that standard,
and then to share the data, J-BON will collaborate to making it part of the GEO BON. Mr. Freyhof
clarified that he was asking about data that had not been fit for global use by GBIF, as they wereaiming for globally-usable data. The response to that was that they were now thinking about how todeliver their data. They were thinking of a meta-database, such as Meta-Cat, like the INPP. They also
had to think about how they could interoperate with other databases, and bringing them up to
standard.
Another question came from a participant from the Ministry of Forestry in Cambodia. He said that a lotof communities, with their transportation and movement, could bring in non-native species to habitats;thus he wondered what they would do if they find a non-native species in their observation area andwhat they do with such data—if they report it to the government, or not. The answer given was that thefirst step was to identify what species it was in the first place; so not only the information flow mattered,
but they have to identify what species actually are in the region before making any moves.
With that, Mr. Yahara closed the session. They had many challenges left, but had made tremendous
progress in five years. He thought the most important point in AP-BON was to work together throughvarious opportunities, upon which they could input their capabilities for information-sharing andcreating a database. He thanked everyone for their contributions, and concluded the session at 19:50.
[END]

3. 第 6 回アジア太平洋地域生物多様性観測ネットワーク(AP-BON)ミーティングの開催
3-1. 開催概要(日本語・英語)
開催日：平成 26 年 10 月 10 日(金)～11 日（土）開催会場：生物資源研究所(NIBR)(大韓民国･仁川)
参加者数：29 名
Date: October 10-11, 2014
Venue: NIBR, Incheon, Republic of Korea
Number of Participants: 29

46