REPORT OF THE 5TH MEETING
OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC BIODIVERSITYOBSERVATION NETWORK(AP-BON)Table of Contents
Meeting Summary, p. 1
Introduction, p. 3
Day 1, p. 3
Opening Programme, p. 4
The History of AP-BON, p. 5
Presentations on Current Biodiversity Observationin the Asia-Pacific Region, p. 5
Presentations on Data Holdings and Gaps
in Biodiversity Information Availability
and Sharing, p. 7
Presentations on Existing Databases, p. 9Open Forum, p. 10
Meeting Discussions, p. 11

Day 2, p. 13
Compilation and Publication of Regional Redlist Data
and Possible AP-BON Products, p. 13
Recommendations, p. 14
Next Steps, p. 15
Closing, p. 15
Table 1. Summary of Issues, Solutions and Possible APBON Products
Discussed during the 5th APBON Meeting in Los Banos, Laguna,Philippines, p. 16
List of Annexes, p. 17

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

5TH ASIA PACIFIC-BIODIVERSITYOBSERVATION NETWORK (AP-BON) MEETING
25-28 November 2013, Laguna, Philippines

MEETING SUMMARY
The 5th meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) was held in Los
Baños, Laguna from 25 to 28 November 2013.
Co-organized by the Government of Japan’s Ministry of the Environment and the ASEAN Centre
for Biodiversity (ACB), the meeting gathered representatives of key organizations who have, common among them, the mandate to conduct biodiversity observations.
As he welcomed and thanked the participants for their participation, Atty. Roberto V. Oliva, executive director of ACB, underscored the importance of working together to provide tools for data integration and analysis as well as improve the delivery of biodiversity information to users such as
government agencies, conservation organizations, decision makers, researchers, and the generalpublic. He also reaffirmed ACB’s commitment to support AP-BON’s key goals of observing andassessing biodiversity changes in the Asia-Pacific region where biodiversity loss is rapidly happening; and developing effective plans for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Dr. Theresa Mundita Lim, director of the Philippines’ Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau(PAWB), also welcomed the participants and lauded the AP-BON for its key role in the fulfillmentof the Aichi Biodiversity targets. She said that there is indeed a great challenge to promote sharing and delivery of biodiversity information resources, especially in our region. She also highlighted that the outputs of the meeting will help promote the resilience of ecosystems in the AsiaPacific region.
For his part, Mr. Ryuji Nakayama, director of the MoEJ’s Biodiversity Center, emphasized that themeeting aims to discuss biodiversity information sharing in the Asia-Pacific region, noting theneed to conduct assessments of gaps in biodiversity information – an issue identified at the COP
11 in India. He hoped that the discussions will be useful towards appropriately managing biodiversity information in the ASEAN region; creating stronger linkages among AP-BON, the Group on
Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEOBON), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). He added that the urgent issue is to provide adequate information on biodiversity to decision-makers in order to allow
them to make appropriate decisions based on such information.
Mr. Tetsukazu Yahara discussed the rationale and objectives of the meeting. He stressed that
ecosystems and biodiversity should be linked. He added that species have very important function to ecosystems.
Dr. Sheila Vergara discussed the meeting methodology; particularly the sequence of presentations. She also said that the team needs to craft recommendations after the meeting. She alsomentioned how AP-BON can best contribute to the Conference of the Parties (COP).
Day One of the meeting focused on the assessment of gaps in biodiversity information and findways to generate and share these information. A series of presentations and discussions weremade about the current biodiversity observations in the Asia-Pacific region as well as data holdings and gaps in biodiversity information availability and sharing.

1

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

In terms of structure, the meeting participants identified the lack of collaboration on data among
institutions and the variations in database structures as key challenges. They believe that the differences in formats pose a challenge because they make access to data difficult and limit ourability to conduct meaningful regional or global assessments. Examining the gaps in content,
process, and collection circumstances and efforts, the participants highlighted that there are too
many species, but too little time. As a result, some species become extinct even before they are
surveyed. The lacks of funds to conduct comprehensive surveys was also identified as an issue.
Discussing proposals on how to collect and share biodiversity information in the Asia-Pacific region, the participants identified publishing information through AP-BON publications, magazines,
and digital museums as an important step. An equally significant recommendation is to build
capacity in the region in the area of species-based analysis, biodiversity observation at thenational level, developing a consolidated list of threatened species, and using a system to monitor
ecosystem services. One recommendation is to use ACB as a platform for capacity building
activities and assessments. Other proposals include demonstrating the use of data and information collected in the region, supporting continuing inventories, collaborating through models suchas S-Net of Japan and the ABCD Network.
On furthering the work of AP-BON, the participants said this could be done by encouraging thecreation of more biodiversity observation networks, conducting gap analysis among AP-BON
counties, using AP-BON to support IPBES and GBIF, and preparing AP-BON products to support
GEOBON. To generate more support for AP-BON, the meeting participants underscored the needto mobilize support from members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Also highlighted were the need to make the most out of the utility of the databases that the APBON members organize, focusing on the needs of target stakeholders such as policy makers,
and building interest in AP-BON.
Day Two of the meeting focused on the compilation and publication of regional RedList data andpossible AP-BON data products. Following discussions on the niche of APBON and targeting
multilateral environmental agreements and initiatives such as the CBD, GEOBON and IPBES, themeeting participants identified a number of project options, including Key Biodiversity Areas(KBAs) and related processes, regional RedLists, essential biodiversity variables, and fundassessments and databases for mosses.
In support of efforts to better promote the work of AP-BON, the participants identified upcoming
meetings where AP-BON can be highlighted. Among these meetings are SBSTTA 18, CBD COP12, GEOSS meetings, and GBIF 21.
The ideas and recommendations gathered from the meeting will be presented to the Steering
Committee and the Working Groups. Nepal offered to host the next AP-BON meeting after COP12 either by end of 2014 or early 2015.

2

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

REPORT OF THE 5TH MEETING OF THE
ASIA-PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY OBSERVATION NETWORK (AP-BON)
25-28 November 2013, Laguna, Philippines
INTRODUCTION
The fifth meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) was held at the
SAS Hall, SEARCA, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines on 25 to 28 November 2013.
Co-organized by the Government of Japan’s Ministry of the Environment and the ASEAN Centre
for Biodiversity (ACB), the meeting gathered representatives of key organizations who have,common among them, the mandate to conduct biodiversity observations.
The Meeting was chaired by Dr. Sheila Vergara, Director, Biodiversity Information Management(BIM), ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB); and attended by: Atty. Roberto V. Oliva, Executive
Director, ACB; Mr. Ryuji Nakayama, Director, Biodiversity Center of Japan, Ministry of theEnvironment Government of Japan; Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara, Center for Asian Conservation
Ecology, Kyushu University, Japan; Ms. Armida Andres, Chief, Planning Division, Protected
Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Philippines; Dr. Mariano Roy Duya, Diliman Science Research
Foundation; Dr. Tsuyoshi Hosoya, National Museum of Nature and Science, Japan; Dr. Dedy
Darnaedi, LIPI, Indonesia; Dr. Mangal Man Shakya, Wildlife Watch Group (WWG), Nepal; Dr.
Motomi Ito, University of Tokyo, Japan; Dr. Saw Leng Guan, Forest Research Institute Malaysia;
Dr. Eun-Shik KIM, Kookmin University, Korea; Mr. Suman Jaiswal, International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development, Nepal; Dr. K. N. Ganeshaiah, University of Agricultural
Sciences, India; Dr. Ibrahim Djamaluddin, Kyushu University, Japan; Dr. Yuichi Kano, Kyushu
University, Japan; Dr. Keping Ma, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Science; Ms. Emily
Capuli, Fishbase Information and Research Group, Inc.; Dr. Benito Tan, National University ofSingapore; Dr. Takeshi Osawa, National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Japan; Dr.
Tsuyoshi Hosoya, National Museum of Nature and Science, Japan; Dr. Yu Huang Wang, Taiwan
Forest Research Institute, Taiwan; Dr. Edwino Fernando, University of the Philippines Los Banos;
Ms. Lilibeth Cabebe, BIM, ACB; Ms. Karen Lapitan, Communication and Public Affairs (CPA)
Unit, ACB; Ms. Pamela Q. Reblora, CPA, ACB; Ms. Erica Villavelez, BIM, ACB; Mr. Jerome
Alano, BIM, ACB; Ms. Rea Anne Rañada, BIM, CPA; Ms. Angela Metin, CPA, ACB. The complete
list of participants is attached as ANNEX 1.
The Meeting was held in plenary.

35th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

Day One – 26 November 2013
OPENING PROGRAMMEAs he welcomed and thanked the participants for their participation, Atty. Roberto V. Oliva,
executive director of ACB, underscored the importance of working together to provide tools fordata integration and analysis as well as improve the delivery of biodiversity information to users
such as government agencies, conservation organizations, decision makers, researchers, and thegeneral public. He also reaffirmed ACB’s commitment to support AP-BON’s key goals ofobserving and assessing biodiversity changes in the Asia-Pacific region where biodiversity loss is
rapidly happening; and developing effective plans for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity. The full text of the message is attached as ANNEX 2.
Dr. Theresa Mundita Lim, director of the Philippines’ Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau(PAWB), also welcomed the participants and lauded the AP-BON for its key role in fulfilling the
Aichi Biodiversity targets. She pointed to the great challenge faced by the region in promoting
sharing and delivery of biodiversity information resources. She also highlighted that the outputs ofthe meeting will help promote the resilience of ecosystems in the Asia-Pacific region.
For his part, Mr. Ryuji Nakayama, director of the MoEJ’s Biodiversity Center, emphasized that themeeting aims to discuss biodiversity information sharing in the Asia-Pacific region, noting theneed to conduct assessments of gaps in biodiversity information – an issue identified at the COP
11 in India. He hoped that the discussions will be useful towards appropriately managing
biodiversity information in the ASEAN region; creating stronger linkages among AP-BON, theGroup on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). He
added that the urgent issue is to provide adequate information on biodiversity to decision makers
to enable them to make appropriate decisions based on such information.
Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara discussed the rationale and objectives of the meeting. He stressed that
ecosystems and biodiversity should be linked. He added that species have very importantfunction to ecosystems.
Dr. Sheila Vergara discussed the meeting’s methodology, particularly the sequence ofpresentations. She also said that the team needs to craft recommendations after the meeting.
She also mentioned how AP-BON can best contribute to the Conference of the Parties (COP).
This was immediately followed by the introduction of participants.

45th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

THE HISTORY OF AP-BON
PRESENTATION 1: AP-BON History and Strategy

Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara traced the history of AP-BON and its relationship with the GEO BON.
Among the key activities discussed were the publication of the AP-BON book, the International
Workshop on Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation in Asia, the International Symposium on
Biodiversity in Changing Coastal Waters of Tropical and Subtropical Asia, and database
construction for data sharing.
He also discussed the AP-BON strategy which focuses on conducting networking activities
directed at biodiversity observation and will bring synergy in conservation of biological diversity at
the local, national, regional and global levels. His PowerPoint presentation is attached as ANNEX
3.

PRESENTATIONS ON CURRENT BIODIVERSITY OBSERVATION IN THE ASIA-PACIFICREGIONPRESENTATION 2: State of Biodiversity Observation in the Philippines

Ms. Armida Andres, Chief, Planning Division, PAWB, presented an overview of the Philippines’
biodiversity, including status, recent endemic species discoveries, trends and threats, and the
updating of the Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. She also presented thePhilippines’ inventory programs that cut across various ecosystems and species.
On examining the obstacles faced in the area of information sharing, Ms. Andres reported thelack of a systematic reporting system and a database that can help manage information neededfor decision making. She also mentioned the difficulty encountered in gathering updated
information from data holders. Despite these challenges, she highlighted that the Philippines
looks forward to opportunities such as the Biodiversity Information Sharing Network which wasorganized to facilitate information exchange and provide data to the Philippines Clearing-House
Mechanism (CHM). Her presentation is attached as ANNEX 4.

55th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013
PRESENTATION 3: Inventory and Assessment of Biodiversity in Mounts Iglit-Baco Mountain
Range: Mount Masulong Key Biodiversity Area

Dr. Mariano Roy Duya, biologist at the Diliman Science Research Foundation, Inc., presented theassessment of flora and fauna in Mounts Iglit-Baco, Mount Masulong Key Biodiversity Area
conducted by the University of the Philippines Biology Department and the Diliman Science
Research Foundation, Inc. According to Dr. Ruya, the research team finds it imperative that
protection measures of the remaining forest patches in Mindoro be set in place to ensure
continuous survival of the island’s biodiversity assemblage. He mentioned that one strategy thatcan be adapted is declaring the area as an Indigenous Community Conserved Area.
Asked about the level of information that the locals in the KBA know about the species in the Red
List and their importance in protected areas, Dr. Duya explained that most of the communities
were consulted when the KBAs were identified. Consultations, he said, are conducted to gather
feedback on how the locals can work together and how they can manage on their own. This
presentation is attached as ANNEX 5.

PRESENTATION 4: Current Biodiversity Observations in the Asia-Pacific Region

Dr. Tsuyoshi Hosoya from the National Museum of Nature and Science in Japan introduced themuseum, its major functions, departments, collecting activities, and data publication flow. A copyof his presentation is attached as ANNEX 6.

PRESENTATION 5: Current Biodiversity Observations in Indonesia

Dr. Dedy Darnaedi, tropical botanist at the Herbarium Bogoriense, Research Center for Biology,
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), shared key facts about Indonesia’s rich biologicalresources. His presentation focused on flora, natural forest ecosystems, ecosystem diversity, andendemic species. A copy of the presentation is attached in this report as ANNEX 7.

PRESENTATION 6: Promotion of the Network Activities for the Biodiversity Observation in Nepal
and Region

Dr. Mangal Man Shakya from Nepal’s Wildlife Watch Group (WWG) introduced the organization’sfunctions as a watchdog in the area of biodiversity conservation. Presenting WWG’s N-BON
activities, he shared the group’s experience in performing conducting biodiversity observation byassessing the impact of climate change on flora and fauna in Nepal’s protected areas. These
activities, he said, were performed at the Parsa Wildlife Reserve, the Shivapuri-Nagarjuna
National Park, and Langtang National Park with Nepal’s Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservationand the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Future biodiversity observations
are planned in Ramsar sites and World Heritage sites.
Dr. Shakya also recommended key activities including gap analyses for AP-BON countries,
networking of AP-BON by sub-region and by country, and preparation of AP-BON reports by subregion and by country. He also underscored the importance of crafting strategic action plans androadmaps as well as boosting promotional efforts for AP-BON activities. Dr. Shakya’spresentation is attached as ANNEX 8.

65th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013
PRESENTATION 7: Current Activity on Biodiversity Observation Data Archiving in Japan

Dr. Motomi Ito from the University of Tokyo shared information on Japan’s activities related to thecreation and archiving of biodiversity data. Topics covered in his presentation were the AsiaPacific Plant Diversity Assessment in Terrestrial Ecosystem (APDATE); the Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS); and the collection, analysis, complementation,
estimation, and visualization of biodiversity and ecosystem information. His presentation is
attached in this report as ANNEX 9.
When asked about the possibility of sharing Japan’s model on biodiversity observation dataarchiving to other countries, Dr. Ito said Japan can provide technical support and capacity
development assistance.

PRESENTATIONS ON DATA HOLDINGS AND GAPS IN BIODIVERSITY INFORMATIONAVAILABILITY AND SHARINGPRESENTATION 8: The ASEAN Clearing-House Mechanism

Dr. Sheila Vergara discussed the key role that information sharing plays in monitoring the
progress of biodiversity conservation efforts in the ASEAN region and making science-based
decisions and policies for conservation planning. In introducing the ASEAN CHM, sheemphasized that it was established to support science-based decision making for biodiversity andto enable ASEAN Member States to meet their commitments to the Convention on Biological
Diversity. She also highlighted the importance of the ASEAN CHM in tracking the progress of
AMS in biodiversity conservation efforts.
Dr. Vergara discussed the various features of the ASEAN CHM, including the single entry point
for biodiversity information websites of ASEAN Member States, support to biodiversity information
research, monitoring and tracking (auto summaries, maps), interactive tools (interactive graphs),
capacity building tools, interactive graphs, access to ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHP) as uniquetreasures, E-library, Friends of Biodiversity, and Mobile Applications for AHPs e-library. She also
highlighted the importance of ACB’s forma and non-formal partnership arrangements in furthering
the Centre’s work on biodiversity information management. Her presentation is attached as
ANNEX 10.

PRESENTATION 9: Biodiversity Databases at the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) and the
Malaysian Clearing-House Mechanism

Dr. Saw Leng Guan from the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) discussed theabundance of Malaysian biodiversity, the databases managed by FRIM, Flora and Fauna
Databases at CHM, and the Protected Area Database. His presentation is attached as ANNEX
11.

7

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013
Presentation 10: Follow-up measures of the IUCN Resolution for the Promotion of the AP-BON
adopted at the World Conservation Congress (WCC) in 2012

Before delivering his presentation, Mr. Eun-Shik Kim expressed his sympathies for the victims of
Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. The AP-BON co-chair discussed the key resolution items ofthe 2012 Jeju World Conservation Congress of IUCN on AP-BON. These include urging themembers of IUCN to support existing biodiversity observation network activities, encouraging non-government organization members of IUCN to actively participate in activities, encouraging
governments in the Asia-Pacific region to extend support to biodiversity observation networks,
requesting IUCN’s director general to boost cooperation and promote capacity building, andinviting the director general to utilize information generated by the AP-BON.
In discussing follow-on measures for the IUCN Resolution for AP-BON, the presenter suggested
holding a side event at the 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in Korea topromote the AP-BON. He also recommended initiating an international cooperative research
project on essential biodiversity variables in the Asia-Pacific region. He also suggested
conducting further discussions in Korea about the promotion of the AP-BON.
Mr. Eun-Shik Kim also discussed the questions that should be asked about AP-BON, which
include among other the niche of AP-BON in biodiversity conservation, interlinkages, and thebenefits of networking. His presentation is attached in this document as ANNEX 12.
During the question and answer portion of the session, the participants highlighted the importanceof linking regional activities of the CBD, the IPBES, and other organizations with the AP-BON
network.

Presentation 11: ICIMOD’s Biodiversity Information Gaps in Information Sharing in HKH Region

In this presentation, Mr. Suman Jaiswal gave an overview on what the International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) is all about. He discussed the Centre’s regional
programmes and thematic areas, regional database initiative, the HKH biodiversity data, and data
portals, among other topics. In discussing challenges and the way forward, Mr. Jaiswal the needto address the issue of taxonomic anomaly and incentive for data publishing, conduct data
sharing to improve decision making, sustain activities by ensuring long-term funding, boost
capacity building activities, and encourage continued support from GBIF members.
Providing a glimpse of what ICIMOD wants to see in the next few years, Mr. Jaiswal highlighted
the importance of discovering all available data, conducting demand-driven publishing, becoming
scientifically and socially relevant, and becoming an important partner of IPBES. His presentation
is attached in this report as ANNEX 13.

Presentation 11: National Initiatives on Biodiversity Databases in India

Dr. K. N. Ganeshaiah from the University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore traced the beginningof India’s digital inventory of its biological resources. He discussed Jeeva Sampada which covers
a huge database, more than 150 scientists, almost 500 man years, and involves taxonomy,
biology, chemical constituents as well as uses and economic importance. According to Dr.
Ganeshaiah, Jeeva Sampada includes bio-resource databases, taxonomic databases, andecological databases. Their data holdings are disseminated and utilized through reports, scientificpublications, maps, atlas, web GIS, decadal plans, and partnerships with universities, NGOs andinstitutes.

85th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

In examining issues faced in India’s biodiversity databases, Dr. Ganeshaiah said that it would bevery productive to augment the efforts of the Indian Bio-resource Information Network (IBIN) at
the national level. He also mentioned that GBIF should think of setting a global infrastructure in
India with equal participation, highlighting that the Indian sub-continent is a mega-diversity cluster.
His presentation is attached as ANNEX 14.
Presentation 12: A GIS Web Server for the Development, Circulation and Utilization of Biodiversity
Information

In this presentation, Dr. Ibrahim Djamaluddin from Japan’s Kyushu University discussed how
using a Geographic Information System web server can integrate many observation data andestablish a geodatabase network on biodiversity data. His presentation covered geodata, multiuser geodatabase, geodatabase interoperability, integrating web services by mashups, web
application of client-side, publishing and utilizing plant survey data, and collecting biodiversity
information and sharing via mobile. According to Dr. Djamaluddin, ecological data can be
integrated and shared effectively for regional or global scale research. He underscored that using
GIS web server capabilities in building web-based analysis tools can contribute a usefulcomponent for ecological forecasting. His presentation is attached as ANNEX 15.

Presentation 13: Database for Freshwater Fishes in East and Southeast Asia

Dr. Yuichi Kano of Kyushu University discussed the online database on freshwater fish diversity inEast and Southeast Asia. The database managed by the Nagao Natural Environmental
Foundation helps document freshwater fish in the region, with the ultimate aim of protecting Eastand Southeast Asia’s freshwater ecosystems. According to Dr. Kano, what sets apart their
database from other databases is that primary data are actively collected. He added that
information in their database is also visually presented, holds a range of data types, and has an
ID for a cluster of data. His presentation is attached in this report as ANNEX 16.
Responding to a query raised by a participant, Dr. Kano clarified that their database isindependent from FishBase and that there are no data overlaps between them.

PRESENTATIONS ON EXISTING DATABASES
Presentation 14: Biodiversity Informatics in China

Briefing meeting participants about biodiversity informatics in China, Dr. Keping Ma from the
Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Botany discussed the all-in-one design of the National
Specimen Information Infrastructure (NSII). The NSII covers both biodiversity and geodiversity,and includes more than 10 million specimens and links with more than 100 institutes anduniversities. He also discussed key initiatives such as China’s Catalogue of Life, the Chinese
Field Herbarium, the Chinese Virtual Herbarium, the National Digital Museum of AnimalSpecimens, and the Biodiversity Heritage Library of China. A copy of his presentation is attachedin this report as ANNEX 17.

95th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013
Presentation 15: FishBase Information and Research Group, Inc. (FIN) Databases

Ms. E. Emily Capuli, FIN research associate, introduced FIN, a Philippine-based organization
established in 2003 to support the availability of comprehensive information systems with key
data on all aquatic organisms of the world, easily accessible and free of charge to the public. She
presented the organizations two main projects – FishBase and SeaLifeBase – which holdinformation on nearly 160,000 species. Also covered in her presentation is AquaMaps, which has
at least 13,000 species mapped. Ms. Capuli also discussed FIN’s various knowledge products
such as the fish ruler and poster, an atlas of common fishes, and mobile apps. Her presentation is
attached in this report as ANNEX 18.
PRESENTATION 16: Plant Databases in Singapore

Dr. Benito Tan from the University and Jepson Herbaria, University of California at Berkeley
presented the plant databases of Singapore, including Singapore Herbarium Online, the Digital
Nature Archive of Singapore, the Zingiberaceae Resource Centre, the East Asian Moss
Database, the Interactive Malesian Moss Database, and the NParks FloraWeb. According to Dr.
Tan, among the problems faced by plant databases are completeness of information, accuracy of
information, intellectual property ownership, and sharing and benefits. His presentation is
attached in this report as ANNEX 19.

PRESENTATION 17: National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences and Collaboration Work inJapan

Dr. Takeshi Osawa introduced the National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences (NIAES), a
Japan-based institution that assesses risks in agricultural environments and develops risk
management technologies; elucidates the structure of agricultural ecosystems in order to develop
technologies to manage natural cycles; and conducts basic research to help elucidate thefunctions of agricultural ecosystems. He also discussed the National Resources Inventory Center(NRIC) and its key role in advancing natural resources inventory. Dr. Osawa also shared withparticipants the major activities that NIAES conducts for GBIF, including providing thousands ofrecords on insects, microbe, and plant observation; publishing research papers; and promoting
the biodiversity informatics field. His presentation is attached as ANNEX 20.

OPEN FORUM

A major issue discussed during the open forum is the urgent need to demonstrate the relevanceof the AP-BON by having tangible, appropriate, and useful products that reach target
stakeholders. According to participants, databases will only be useful if data they contain will beanalyzed, packaged well, and distributed to decision makers.
One product identified is a regional Red List. The participants agreed that this is a priority productthat can encourage stakeholders to take action, especially when informed about criticallyendangered species.
Another product identified is the mapping of key biodiversity areas. Participants agreed thatassessing protected areas and mapping KBAs will provide significant information including
species that are being lost. This product, the group agreed, can be packaged as a visualreference that offers a wealth of species information for policymakers.

10

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

The lack of funding was discussed as a significant roadblock in coming up with AP-BON products.
One recommendation offered is to convince government officials that what AP-BON is doing on
the database is useful and encourage them to provide the funding needed to sustain AP-BON’swork. Gaining access to a higher ministerial meeting was also recommended to demonstrate theimportance of the work conducted by AP-BON.
On the issue of scale, the participants agreed that AP-BON products can initially target a small
area to test the usefulness of products. Products and projects can then be expanded later on tocover a wider stakeholder base.
In discussing databases, the participants examined the issue of usefulness. They agreed that it isimportant to identify the end user, the type of information they need, and the kind of presentation
they require. A key step identified is to find out who are using the databases and how they areusing the data.

MEETING DISCUSSIONS
Issues Gathered from the Presentations

In terms of structure, the meeting participants identified the lack of collaboration on data among
institutions and the variations in database structures as key challenges. They believe that thedifferences in formats pose a challenge because they make access to data difficult and limit ourability to conduct meaningful regional or global assessments.
Examining the gaps in content, process, and collection circumstances and efforts, the participants
highlighted that there are too many species, but too little time. As a result, some species become
extinct even before they are surveyed. The lacks of funds to conduct comprehensive surveys andestablish permanent plots was also identified as an issue.
Other process issues gathered from the presentations include intellectual property rights andlegal issues and misunderstanding of museum functions.
In terms of collection circumstances and efforts, among the issues identified were thedisplacement of native plants, the reduction in the number of migratory birds observed, and shift
in the frequency of fauna from lowland to upland. Another key issue highlighted in thepresentations was the fragmentation of forests and the modification of ecosystems. The lack offunds and safety from insurgents were also identified as barriers.

Proposals on How to Collect and Share Biodiversity Information in the Asia-Pacific Region

Discussing proposals on how to collect and share biodiversity information in the Asia-Pacificregion, the participants identified publishing information through AP-BON publications,magazines, virtual herbaria, and digital museums as an important step.
An equally significant recommendation is to build capacity in the region in the area of speciesbased analysis, biodiversity observation at the national level, developing a consolidated list of
threatened species, and using a system to monitor ecosystem services. One recommendation is
to use ACB as a platform for capacity building activities and assessments.

11

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

Other proposals include demonstrating the use of data and information collected in the region.
The creation of a regional Red List was discussed as a key component of this recommendation.
One idea brought forward was to make available online a list of threatened species. Also
discussed was the need to develop a comprehensive database that will address the conservationneeds of a larger stakeholder group.
The participants also proposed supporting continuing inventories, collaborating through models
such as S-Net of Japan, centralized specimen-based databases, specimen and ecosystem-based
networking, network of partners, the landscape approach to ecosystem management, and the
ABCD Network.
In terms of data structure, participants proposed the use of the CHM as a national platform andthe use of Darwin Core 2. They also mentioned the importance of using available technology
such as GIS web server capabilities for utilizing biodiversity information data.
On data content, the participants recommended increasing the number of people who encodedata, highlighting species of interest, and linking the map-based protected area database with theWorld Database on Protected Areas. In discussing the development of data sharing incentives,
the participants highlighted the need to break data sharing issues through the “carrot and stick”
approach, generating support from GBIF, establishing data storage arrangements.

Furthering the Work of AP-BON
On furthering the work of AP-BON, the participants said this could be done by encouraging thecreation of more biodiversity observation networks, conducting gap analysis among AP-BON
counties, using AP-BON to support IPBES and GBIF, and preparing AP-BON products to support
GEO BON.
To generate more support for AP-BON, the meeting participants underscored the need tomobilize support from members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Also highlighted were the need to make the most out of the utility of the databases that the APBON members organize, focusing on the needs of target stakeholders such as policy makers,
and building interest in AP-BON. The complete presentation on meeting discussions is attachedas ANNEX 21.

12

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

Day Two – 27 November 2013COMPILATION AND PUBLICATION OF REGIONAL RED LIST DATA AND POSSIBLE APBON DATA PRODUCTSPRESENTATION 18: Compilation of Regional Red List

Dr. Tsuyoshi Hosoya, GBIF Japan Node Manager, presented an overview of GBIF as aninternational organization that focuses on making data available through the Internet. In terms ofregionalization, he explained that owing to the rapid increase in the number of participants andthe limited manpower, it became necessary for GBIF to undergo regionalization. The Asia-Pacificregion, he said, faces a number of problems related to regionalization, one of which is that theregion’s heterogeneity poses some challenges in terms of collaboration and communication.
According to Dr. Hosoya, the representation of the Asia-Pacific region in GBIF is not very strong.
This, he said, could be owing to the fact that there are only two voting members of GBIF in Asiaand that there are no full-time GBIF node managers in the continent.
Dr. Hosoya updated the participants about the status of Red List and Invasive Alien Species list in
Asian Countries. He said that materials for the fundamental data have been collected and thatclearance has been obtained for the integration. The actual integration of the data has been
initiated and is being funded by the East and Southeast Asia Biodiversity Information Initiative(ESABII). The final version is expected to be shared by ESABII, JBIF, and GBIF Asia. The next
steps, he said, include advancing contents for the listed species, establishing a procedure fordata sharing mechanism, and collecting data of invasive alien species. Dr. Hosoya’s presentation
is attached in this report as ANNEX 22.
In an open forum held after the presentation, participants emphasized that countries must have
uniform Red Lists. According to Dr. Vergara, this is the rationale behind supporting CHM in the
country level.

PRESENTATION 19: Data Publication as Means for Sharing Biodiversity information

In his presentation, Dr. Yu-Huang Wang of the Taiwan Forest Institute, explained the significanceof publishing data. He also answered the questions: What to publish? Where to? How to? This
presentation is attached as ANNEX 23.

13

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of issues and suggestions on how to move forward was presented. The participants
proceeded to talk about how the AP-BON will move forward. Dr. Saw Leng Guan mobilized
discussions on how to make the work of AP-BON more meaningful, building on the ideas put
forward by Dr. Ganeshaiah on making the most out of the utility of the databases that the APBON members organize, focusing on the needs of target stakeholders such as policy makers andthe need to build interest in AP-BON.
Following discussions on the niche of AP-BON and targeting multilateral environmental
agreements and initiatives such as the CBD, GEOBON and IPBES, the meeting participants
identified a number of project options, including regional Red Lists, Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)
and related processes, essential biodiversity variables, and fund assessments and databases formosses.
One product recommendation that resulted from the discussions is the establishment of aregional Red List. The participants agreed that there is a need to encourage Asia-Pacificcountries to establish their national Red Lists as instruments of prioritizing biodiversity
conservation and to publish the lists in their national CHMs. The components of the Red Lists
include capacity building, taxonomy, data entry, conservation assessment, and monitoring ofconservation threats using species data. In defining the character of the Red List, the participants
agreed that the lists should have Darwin Core as a common database structure. In addition to
Darwin Core, it was suggested that nationally elected categories such as ‘rare’ be included.
Another recommended product is the mapping of Key Biodiversity Areas. The participants
highlighted the importance of encouraging Asia-Pacific countries to identify KBAs using theirnational Red Lists as well as Important Bird Areas (IBA), Indigenous Protected Areas, and otherimportant areas as base of map-based site selection. This product, they said, can be a key
contribution of AP-BON to IPBES, CBC, and the GEOBON. They also underscored that thisproduct is a cost-effective means for Asia-Pacific countries to identify particularly sensitive andecologically important areas. AP-BON members, however, need to agree on the methodology forthis product. They also need to think about the mechanics of how to implement KBA selection
process at the national, subregional, and regional levels.
The participants also recommended having essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) as an AP-BON
product. Under this product, baseline references will be established to understand and documentchanges and impacts. This include selecting clear variables that everyone could agree to.
According to the participants, EBVs can be an important AP-BON soft product that can be fed to
IPBES. They also highlighted that this product, which may be supported by Korea’s Ministry ofEnvironment, can boost AP-BON’s visibility. They acknowledged a number of challenges that
may be faced in pursuing this product, one of which is the difficulty in identifying EBVs owing tocomplexity, local occurrence, and existing impacts. The difficulty of using global tools was also
identified as a challenge as well as the difficulty of measuring ecosystem services on the ground.
The participants also said that the processes and outputs in relation to EBVs are also lesstangible compared to KBAs. They agreed that the best way to go is through conservationassessment. Among the suggestions discussed is to have a regional EBV, establish a networkwith the developers of the Global EBVs, and identify AP-BON members who will attend EBV
discussions. Based on initial discussions on pursuing EBVs as an AP-BON product, theparticipants looked into monitoring the rate of species extinction at the national level using
species data. They said that this can be conducted as part of conservation assessment. Othersuggestions include monitoring the rate of conservation threats and using satellite images andtime scale to see what is happening regionally.

14

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

In terms of supporting work on mosses, the participants discussed an existing East Asiatic
database and an interactive database that is under construction. One activity to be conductedunder this product is a workshop that will introduce Pteridophytes, Bryophytes and Ferns. There
will also be an introduction to biodiversity, including the role in ecosystems and forest ecology andidentification of species to encourage interest in these species. The participants agreed that there
is a need to strategize from an applications point of view.
Another recommendation that resulted from the workshop is the publishing of data papers. They
agreed that data paper preparation can be a collaborative activity among AP-BON members. The
participants discussed the need for AP-BON to prioritize geographies and themes and tocollaborate on preparing data papers. They also plan to prepare at leats two data papers for
COP12 in Korea.
Other recommendations include opening existing databases for access to data, contributing a
draft paper of AP-BON governance including membership, and conducting another AP-BON
workshop to discuss products outside if databases and data products.

NEXT STEPSThe ideas and recommendations gathered from the meeting will be presented to the Steering
Committee and the Working Groups. Nepal offered to host the next AP-BON meeting after COP12 either by end of 2014 or early 2015.
In support of efforts to better promote the work of AP-BON, the participants identified upcoming
meetings where AP-BON can be highlighted. Among these meetings are SBSTTA 18, CBD COP12, GEOSS meetings, and GBIF 21. The presentation on recommendations and next steps is
attached in this document as ANNEX 24.

CLOSING

Dr. Tetsukazu Yahara officially closed the 5th meeting of the AP-BON. He expressed his gratitude
to the Philippines for hosting the gathering and to Japan’s Ministry of Environment and ACB for
contributing significantly to the success of the meeting. He also thanked the participants forjoining the fruitful discussions. He expressed optimism that the meeting’s outcomes will contributeto the success of the AP-BON. Photos from the meeting form part of ANNEX 25.

15

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

Table 1. Summary of Issues, Solutions and Possible APBON Products Discussed during
the 5th APBON Meeting in Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines
IssuesLack of systematic reporting
system and a database that canhelp manage information neededfor decision making

Lack of collaboration on data
among institutions and variations
in database structures

Difficulty in gathering informationfrom data holders

Lack of collaboration on data
among institutions and variations
in database structures

Need to address issue on
taxonomic anomaly and incentive
for data publishing, conduct ofdata sharing for improved
decision making

Suggested Solutions


Use CHM as national platform, use
Darwin Core 2 format as structure
for species information



Use ACB as a platform for capacity
building activities and assessmentOn usefulness of data – identify
target users, information needs oftarget users

Encourage Asia Pacific countries
to establish their National redlists as
instruments of prioritizing
biodiversity conservation and publish
national CHM

Make available online a list of
threatened species

Possible APBON
Products
Product
Activities
Regional
Red List

Capacitybuilding, redlisting

KBA
delineation

Capacitybuilding,
KBA process
Implementation

Identify key
indices for AP
region,Remotesensing, timeseriesData papers,
data set,(Malaysia &India)



Problems faced by plant
databases are completeness andaccuracy of information, IPR
ownership and sharing of benefits
 Too many species, too little time
resulting to species becoming extinct
before surveys are conducted /Lackof funds to conduct surveysUrgent need to demonstrate
relevance of AP-BON by having
tangible products that reachstakeholders

Build capacities in the region to do
species-based analysis, developing
list of threatened species, andmonitoring ecosystems services

Essential
Biodiversity
Variable(EBVs)



Publish information through APBON publications, magazines,
virtual herbaria, digital museums

DatapublishedConvince government officials
about the usefulness of APBON
activities



Craft strategic action plans androadmaps and promotional efforts
for APBON productsLink APBON network with theregional activities of the CBD,IPBES and other organization

Lack of funding

16

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 2013

List of Annexes
Annex No.

Title

Link

1

Directory of Participants

DOWNLOAD

2

Welcome Speech

DOWNLOAD

3

Programme

DOWNLOAD

4

AP-BON History and Strategy

DOWNLOAD

5

State of Biodiversity Observation in the Philippines

DOWNLOAD

6Inventory and Assessment of Biodiversity in Mts. IglitBaco:Mountain Range: Mt. Masulong Key Biodiversity Area

DOWNLOAD

7

National Museum of Nature and Science

DOWNLOAD

8

Current Biodiversity Observation inIndonesia

DOWNLOAD

9

Promotion of the Network Activities for the Biodiversity Obser- DOWNLOAD
vation in Nepal and Region

10

Current Activity on Biodiversity Observation Data Archiving inJapan

DOWNLOAD

11The ASEAN Clearing House Mechanism

DOWNLOAD

12

Biodiversity Databases at the Forest Research Institute Malaysia and the Malaysian Clearing House Mechanism

DOWNLOAD

13

Followup measures of the IUCN Resolution for the promotionof the APBON adopted at the World Conservation Congress in
2012

DOWNLOAD

14

ICIMOD’s Biodiversity Information and Gaps in Information
Availability and Sharing in HKH Region

DOWNLOAD

15

Indian Bio-resource Information Network

DOWNLOAD

16

A GIS web server for the development, circulation, and utilization of biodiversity information

DOWNLOAD

17

Database for freshwater fishes in East and Southeast Asia

DOWNLOAD

18

Biodiversity Informatics in China

DOWNLOAD

19

FishBase Information and Group, Inc. Databases

DOWNLOAD

20

Plant Databases in Singapore

DOWNLOAD

21

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences and Collaboration work in JapanDOWNLOAD

22

Day 1: Meeting Discussions

DOWNLOAD

23

Compilation of a Regional Red List

DOWNLOAD

24

Data Publication s means of sharing biodiversity information

DOWNLOAD

25

AP-BON Potential Products: 2014 and beyond

DOWNLOAD

26

Photo Gallery

DOWNLOAD
17

5th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network (AP-BON) Report 201319