Summary Report
8th AP-BON Workshop
Title：The 8th Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network Workshop
Date： 12th -13th September, 2016
Venue：Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
Participants: 32 (8 countries and regions)<Objectives>
1. To share information on biodiversity research and assessment activities, country andregional reports
2. To develop a new work plan for AP-BON(2017–2020)
3. To promote networking observation sites collaborated with International Long-Term
Ecological Research Network (ILTER)

4. To promote data sharing, motivations for data sharing
5. To promote development of tools for sharing and managing data
＜Summary of workshop＞
Day 1
Opening Remarks
On behalf of AP-BON Secretariat, Mr. Hisashi Kawagoe, Director of Biodiversity Center ofJapan, Ministry of the Environment(MOE-J), opened the workshop. The Director stressed theincreasing importance of managing, sharing, and publishing biodiversity data which can be usedin decision making and policy making. The Director also hoped that the participants could
exchange their views on how to contribute to GEO BON and IPBES (The Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services).

Session 1: Introduction of 8th AP-BON meeting
Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara (Kyushu University, Japan)
Dr. Yahara briefly talked about the history of AP-BON, the contribution of AP-BON to IPBES
and the role of AP-BON in collaboration with GEO BON.
Dr. Yahara introduced the MOEJ-sponsored core project S9 which collected biodiversity data inseveral sites in Asia.

Dr. Yahara emphasized the meaning of the workshop, in regard with the need and urgency tocollect and list the biodiversity data.
Session 2: Self-Introduction of new participants
In this session, new participants briefly introduced themselves, their research interest, andcurrent projects.
Session 3-1: Recent Progress in soundscape monitoring, camera trap, and UAS (Unmanned
Aerial Systems) Data Management & Observation Systems for AP-BON
Dr. Yu-Huang Wang (Academia Sinica, Taiwan)
The 2014 Asian Soundscape workshop encouraged participants to use five-minute recording
files with detailed metadata. According to Dr. Wang, all data and information could be
published, shared, and recorded through GBIF(Global Biodiversity Information Facility)
network. Dr. Wang encouraged the participants to consider how to archive and analyze
these big data from a long-term perspective.
Session 3-2: Biodiversity monitoring activities in Taiwan Listening to the wild: Ecoacoustics
and wildlife biodiversity through soundscape information
Dr. Tzu-Hao Harry Lin (Academia Sinica, Taiwan)
Measuring the complexity of acoustic signals could help ascertain the biodiversity within anarea and this approach provided the opportunity to explore the variability of acoustic worldand biodiversity of calling animals. Probability distribution of each soundscape event andscene could be deployed to calculate the diversity of the soundscape. By using algorithms, a
researcher could establish sound catalogues and send them to other researchers to investigate
occurrences of different kinds of animals.
Monitoring of Ultra-soundscapeDr. Mao-Ning Tuanmu (Academia Sinica, Taiwan)
The soundscape ecology is a field focusing on how nature processes and anthropogenic
activities changed the sounds emanated from landscapes. The focus of the field had been on
audible sounds that humans could hear and sometimes on infrasound. However, ultrasounds
produced by animals, such as bats could also serve as a very important indicator forbiodiversity.
Asia Pacific Regional Distributed Collaboration Infrastructure for AP-BON
Dr. Eric Yen (Academia Sinica, Taiwan)

The huge data produced by the Large Hadron Collider gave birth to the Worldwide LHC
Computing Grid (WLCG), the distributed infrastructure for sharing and analysis. Since 2005,
WLCG had been expanded to other disciplines. This technology of distributed infrastructure
had been deployed by other research projects such as Life Watch.
(Conclusion)
Dr. Yu-Huang Wang concluded the session with some suggestions.
・Scientists need to collaborate to share, analyze, review, and manage data to create synergies in
the cloud age.
・Accessing grid computing and shared resources were necessary to seek for synergy.
・Data and information management required the standard methods, open data, sharing andreusing existing resources, and saving and sharing resources.
・It is important to establish collaborative observation network.
・Cross domain collaboration between biodiversity and information communication technology
is important.
Session 4-1: New GEO BON structure towards 2020
Dr. Laetitia Navarro (GEO BON)
Dr. Laetitia Navarro had become the new executive secretary of GEO BON on 1st September
2016. The vision and mission of GEO BON, the endorsement criteria of BONs and the three
types of BONs (national, regional, and thematic) were introduced. She presented the previous
structure and then explained the activities that were held to contribute to the current structureof GEO BON.
Session 4-2: Opportunities and challenges for linking the activities of Biodiversity Observation
Network (BON) and Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) at regional as well as global
level
Dr. Eun-Shik Kim (Kookmin University, Korea)
Dr. Kim introduced IPBES as a major global event, and its four functions. The issues related to
GEO BON implementation, niche of observation in GEO BON and the ultimate BON modelfor global networking were discussed. Dr. Kim also referred to the Long Term EcologicalResearch (LTER) network activities with BON activities at regional and global levels.
Regarding the details, the goals of LTER science, categories and criteria for evaluating thestatus of LTER networks such as governance, sustainability, and services – giving back tosociety was introduced.

Session 5-1:
Recent development on biodiversity observations and conservation: LTER Perspectives
Dr. Hen-Biau King (Taiwan Ecological Research Network: TERN)
Dr. King introduced the background of the loss of biodiversity with the evidence supported byother scientists’ research for the problem of climate change, invasive species and thetaxonomy. As the urgent research topics, species need to be identified before their habitats
being destroyed, and Acoustic tool are very powerful in identifying species.
The importance and Future Trends of Sharing Data on Biodiversity and Ecosystems: A Regional
Perspective
Dr. Chau-Chin Lin (Taiwan Forestry Research Institute)
The availability and sharing data are the only ways to address complex, large scale andlong-term environmental challenges. Data sharing also improves data quality and enables
new science by hosting workshops to promote a data sharing culture.
Session 5-2:
Mobilizing Biodiversity Data from ASEAN Protected Areas (GBIF Grant/ Biodiversity
Information Fund for Asia, BIFA)
Dr. Sheila Vergara (ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, Philippines)
Dr. Vergara introduced the orientation workshop on mobilizing Biodiversity Data from ASEAN
Protected Areas. Currently, there were now 38 ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHPs), which areusually supported by national governments to collect information, so it was ideal to startcollecting information from AHPs. In addition, as the expectation of AHP, such as increasing
availability of biodiversity information, increasing the awareness of camera trap deployment,
promoting the decision making and policy development on the base of scientific information.
Day 2
Session 1-1: Data sharing in AP-BON: points to be discussed
Dr. Yahara
Dr. Yahara introduced the forthcoming discussions from which a new work plan for AP-BON(2017 – 2020) could be developed. These will include: 1) Promoting data sharing, which
include data tagged with species-name, other ecological data geo-referenced and maps andsatellite images 2) networking observation sites collaborated with ILTER 3) collaboration
with IUCN 4) contribution to IPBES and CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity).

Session 1-2: Fish Base
Dr. Christine Marie Casal (Fish Base, Philippines)
Dr. Christine Marie Casal explained the outline of FishBase in which the information and tools
being used. She introduced the current status for ASEAN freshwater species. AquaMaps
utilizes environmental envelops to locate where the species might be. The number of mappedfish species in Global Freshwater AquaMaps was not ideal compared with that of the marine.
It is necessary to develop an authoritative classification for the species of freshwater basins.
(Discussion)
Dr. Vergara commented ACB also collaborated with FishBase for fishes in the AESEAN region.
AP-BON plays important role in promoting data sharing, network and collaboration.
Dr. Yahara also commented it was important to observe states repeatedly in the same location.
He asked the type of approach to update fish data.
Dr. Casal replied they would put them in once new species were discovered or newly introduced
species reported, data were uploaded every two months.
Session 1-3: Database of freshwater fish in mainland SE Asia
Dr. Yuichi Kano (Kyushu University, Japan)
Dr. Kano explained the three local databases that he was managing after introduction of his
recent activities about the database and his recent published paper covers Japan, Thailand,
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and China. This paper investigated into dams and global warming
issues in the Mekong region.
Session 2: Discussion on Data Sharing in AP-BON: points to be discussed
Dr. Yahara invited discussion on motivation such as incentives and interests for data sharing.
For the future effort, Dr. Yahara also suggested the Asian Tree Database that would include achecklist, specimen images, collaboration on taxonomy, capacity building, and datasummaries (counts, threat status, hot spots). He concluded by introducing examples of global
platforms such as Tree of Life: One Zoom, EOL, Discover of Life and the Map of Life.
(Discussion)
Dr. Huang expected AP-BON as an infrastructure of capacity-building and providing training,
contributing to the database, since some Southeast Asian countries do not have theinfrastructure to collect small mammal specimen or acoustic recording.
Dr. Vergara agreed and commented that there were various needs across the region, so capacity
building and infrastructure were very important for interoperability of data.

Dr. Yahara pointed out that it was not difficult to create a checklist or images, and maybe GBIF
could provide it.
Dr. Lin said the necessity of same comprehensive standards for all fields so that it would not be
a problem of connecting databases of different fields in the future. In this sense, we needed tothink about kinds of observation such as BON as an observation site.
Dr. Yahara added that the purpose of regional BONs was to observe repeatedly in the same
region and document how global diversity was changing.
Ms. Navarro responded that GEO-BON had the concept of EBVs which were the building
blocks and indicators. The EBV development would be done at different working groups of
GEO-BON and then transfer to regional BONs for them to implement observations and sharetools.
Dr. Yahara said the difficulty lies with identification. Species identification cannot use thestandardized protocol. Sometimes it does not work. Therefore, we need to develop a good
identification system shared by researches in Asia.
Dr. Ishii said AP-BON did not have the power to force people who were not interested in thislarge-scale collaboration project to share data yet, how AP-BON could be the one which give
recommendations to national governments to provide incentives or promote to shareresearchers' interest.
Dr. Yahara responded to this concern saying researchers and scientists from different fields did
not necessarily share the universal interest. For researchers working on tree species, theymight have huge amount of data but were not willing to share them. It truly was a problem
when it comes to creating such a mechanism to encourage data sharing.
LTER collaborations: points of discussion
The session was opened with introduction of the points to be discussed: how to update plot data,
how to develop plots in plot-poor countries as Vietnam and how to observe changes in moreunstable forests. Dr. Yahara showed maps of deforestation in Southeast Asia and the need for
updating these maps of deforestation to complete IPBES assessments, talked about the use ofplot data, and composition data.
(Discussion)
Dr. Lin had questions about Forest inventory plots and Smithsonian dynamic plots, because
these two kinds of plots were much different systems with different protocols.
Dr. Yahara answered that the plots are mostly inventory plots. Currently, we do not have any
good system to operate on.

Dr. Sam said that they have done some primary analysis on tree distributions. They currently do
not have the resources to establish smaller plots in species rich area.
Dr. Yahara pointed out that funding is needed to develop new plots, of course, there are manyplots in Malaysia and Indonesia. Most researchers cannot access locations of inventory plotsor those who have the data. The idea should be to provide a simple database to start with.
Dr. Vergara said that clearing house mechanism development varies among Southeast Asian
countries. There must be a commitment from the national level to encourage plot data
sharing.
K-BON Activity, Now and for the Future
Dr. Chan-Ho Park (National Institute of Biological Resources, Korea)
Dr. Park made a brief introduction on K-BON and its activities in collaboration with the Global
Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) and ESABII.
Session 3-1: Update WCC and linking IUCN with AP-BON
Mr. Mangal Man Shakya (Wildlife Watch Group, Nepal)
Mr. Shakya introduced the WCC and its purpose as well as the activities and workshops.
Session 3-2: Developing a site network of long-term biodiversity observation in AP region
Dr. Reiichiro Ishii (Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Japan)
Based on the experiences with J-BON over the past 7 years, he introduced the international
programs on biodiversity and its spatial scales such as GEO-BON, IPCC, IPBES, and Future
Earth etc. to fill in the gap between those differences. If GEO-BON decided to use Essential
Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) to compare across different regions or time, some local
scientists might be able to provide within their biodiversity database at a very low cost. Thenhe raised question again who would pay for the cost of gathering extra information if extra
information was needed to meet the requirement from GEO-BON.
Session 4: AP-BON work program 2017-2020
Dr. Yahara
Since the rapid deforestation in SE Asia was being observed, Dr. Yahara presented somepersonal ideas about how they could appeal to policy making. Firstly, the role of IPBES
assessments which should include some aspects such as genetic diversity, species diversity
and ecosystem. Secondly, As general information of declining species examples heintroduced Sumatran rhino (loss of habitat), serious forest fire and haze in SE Asia (Indonesia
and Singapore), invasive alien species (weeds, insects, and pathogens), avian flu (diversity of

the viruses, new viruses are evolving), global diversity patterns for threatened andnarrow-range migratory species and so on. Then, he also introduced the current efforts ofscientists and the organization, mentioned that IPBES assessment assessed not only
biodiversity, but also bio-cultural diversity such as linguistic diversity in Papa New Guinea.
Lastly, he introduced the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis saying that upon economic
growth, at first forest coverage decreases, but after a turning point, it will increase. According
to his introduction, the forest coverage was decreasing in SE Asia but increasing in western &central, south, and East Asia as well as Oceania, it meant that the increase of forest coverage
did not indicate the recovery of biodiversity.
(Discussion)
Dr. Vergara stressed the sustainable development goals, or other global agreements to have astructure or indicators for data which responded to Aichi Target. She also referred to theimplications of rehabilitation, the forest rehabilitation in Southeast Asia was declining
generally. Although Vietnam and the Philippines were making progress in forest restoration,
there had been little impact.
Dr. Yahara agreed it with saying that two targets for CBD COP 10 for 2020 had been halted, it
might be a turning point.
Dr. Darnaedi added that the lifestyle in Asia Pacific was changing and had pressured theenvironment so it would consume more energy, therefore the turning point might not comequick.
Dr. Ishii agreed and mentioned that the turning point depended on the spatial scale. In fact,
trades had been occurring in the way of domestic use, woods were not chopped down only fordomestic use. They were chopped down by the companies that were trading with developed
countries. Trades within Asia were intensive than another region. If we include that, we might
have a different approach. We might consider changing the scale to know how to optimize
sustainability.
Session: Summary
Dr. Vergara
Dr. Vergara presented a summary of the presentations over the past two days, the workshop wasclosed.
［End］