Summary Report

Name: 12th AP-BON Workshop
Date: 22 January, 2021
Venue: On-line (Webex meeting room)

Welcome and opening remarks
Opening Remarks：Hiroyuki Muraoka（Co-Chair, Gifu University, Japan）
Dr. Hiroyuki Muraoka, one of the three co-chairs of APBON delivered a brieforientation on APBON’s history and thanked the organizers on behalf of the co-chairsof APBON. He reminded the meeting of the beginnings of a Global Biodiversity
Observation network in 2008 and recalled the history of APBON. He provided a short
introduction to the discussions of the workshop, highlighting keynote and plenary
presentations, and the introduction to the new work plan. And he mentioned that in
the last 10 years since the AP-BON established, we had wonderful co-chairs, Dr.
Yahara, Dr. Sheila, and Prof. Kim. He appreciated their efforts very much to our
biodiversity observation network. And he explained that Ms. Runi Anak Sylvester
Pungga from Malaysia, Prof. Yongyut Trisurat from Thailand, and Prof. Hiroyuki
Muraoka were appointed as new co-chairs in the middle of November.
He thanked the Ministry of the Environment, Japan for their support of this workshop.
Opening Remarks ： Runi Anak Sylvester Pungga （ Co-Chair, Forest Department
Sarawak, Malaysia）
Ms. Runi Anak Sylvester Pungga, who is one of the co-chairs of APBON, welcomed allof the participants and said that it is a very important opportunity to meet all of
the participants here and she expressed the delights to have this 12th APBON
workshop to listen to keynote speeches and presentations. She hoped it would be agreat time to share the information and study each other one day long.
Opening Remarks：Yongyut Trisurat（Co-Chair, Kasetsart University, Thailand）
Prof. Yongyut Trisurat, one of the co-chairs of APBON, thanked the former co-chairsof APBON and welcomed all of the participants here. And he also thanked all of
the invited speakers to give speeches. He expressed his sincere appreciation to the
APBON community to dominate me the co-chair of APBON. So based on the
excellentachievement, as the new co-chair, they are ready to move to the next step, and it’s anhonor to work with the international communities, which will be discussed in the firstsession later.
Opening Remarks：Hideaki Matsumoto (Ministry of the Environment, Japan)
As a Secretary-General of APBON, Mr. Hideaki Matsumoto, Director of the Biodiversity
Center of Japan, Ministry of the Environment-Japan welcomed participants to the 12th
Asia-Pacific Biodiversity Observation Network Workshop. Unfortunately, due to theworldwide pandemic of COVID-19, this is the first trial to hold a workshop online.
He expressed his warmest appreciation to 3 newly appointed APBON co-chairs and the
speakers. He mentioned that APBON was established in 2009 as a regional network togather and share information on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacificregion, which leads to the 12th workshop today. He also mentioned that in this workshop,
there’s a chance to share the current status of biodiversity observations in the Asia
Pacific region, and discuss how we can enhance engagement, networking, and actions
by GEO BON, CBD, KBA, and others international bodies.

In the end, he concluded

his address by thanking all of the participants again and expressed his sincere
expectation for fruitful discussions.

Reviewing APBON’s Strategic plan to 2030 and objectives of this workshop（Hiroyuki
Muraoka,Co-Chair, Gifu University, Japan）

SessionⅠ Development of BON and its contributions to society
Presentation: 1. CBD post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework(Mr. Basile van Havre, Canadian Wildlife Service)
Q&A parts:
Q: I was wondering if CBD is discussing setting complete goals and providing amonitoring framework for the index for the post-2020 target?
A: This area of genetic diversity is probably the one that requires more work in the goal.
And we received the missions from the genetic diversity network when we had a few
meetings with them. If you look at the monitoring framework posted on the CBD
website, look at what has been submitted there. If you feel this is not clear enough,please make comments, and I’ll be related to back to us. I know it is not done properly sofar, but I’ll do all the help that I can.
Q: We have challenged integration of different conventions, for example, climate
conventions we have the one plan somewhere earlier this week, now many conservation
scientists are alert that many of comic conventions have huge drives to plant trees,
Pakistan billion trees, tsunami, half of those trees are being spared. In the world life
tree framework, CITES is still missing the majority species, how are we going to better
integrate synergize these different conventions to complement each other, and tocomplement the mission of CBD, and fulfill the goals of the post-2020 framework?
(Because when last time we do it, we were going to see this critical situation where
biodiversity conservation was being hampered by certain climate targets. And for mostI’ve seen that have not yet been enough synergy to climate nutrient benefit we need.)
A: I think your question is on the very good point. There’s a workshop related to theplanet summit taking place in 12hours. We need to put it into the structure. So the firststep is, make sure that climate projects do not harm biodiversity. That’s what you deal
with the eucalyptus issue. However, that's not enough. What we want are a natural
positive project. So I'll take a Canadian example, we do have 2,000,000 tree targets, andwhat we hope to do is to be able to plant those 2,000,000 trees in places where there is aneed for installation. In the boreal forest, there has been a seismic exploration in thepast. So we want to replant those in native species that do tree benefits so you get theclimate benefits you get your protected area. So and that's OK, you can triple dip in thebenefits with one project so that's the first point.
The second part is the coordination between institutions and I think the links to CITES
which is likely easier than the one on climate because they fall under the same group of
the convention. And that's what we're doing with ensuring that there’re performanceindicators. For example, the one on the sustainable train should be directly linked to the
CITES one, so CITES is a very effective machine that when you look at the species levelfrom one decision one species, it’s a very effective implement place. What is less clear tome is how to totalize their values actions is making a difference and I think that's what
you're getting into as well. So we will be working in trying to put in place those linkages
between the species. So the above could be part of the answer, but probably not enoughto satisfy you.
Q: I have a question about Oher Effective Conservation Measures(OECM) because next
CBD targets are trying to increase the area with the protected area so many people arefocusing on other effective management areas, however, I'm not sure what can be in themarine system so if there's any discussion in CBD about OECM the marine area. It isvery important to us. Thank you.
A: It's always difficult to talk about the protection and conservation targets in isolationof target one which is run hunting in total landscape use. (I'll start from a terrestrial
example and then move to the Marine right after.) For example, when you look at the
total management of landscape, you will choose or you will identify the area that isdevoted to production and those are cities where people are living and then we all knowthat we need some area, and then on the other hand of the spectrum, those there would
be some areas that are dedicated to the protection and in between, there will be several
different areas including OECM where the primary purpose may not be biodiversity but
they do lead to the biodiversity outcome. Moving on to the marine realm, we've seenthat the map of the United Kingdom where there were all the various types of themarine protected area and they usually have some level of restriction on some level ofactivities. It is not a no-take zone, some traditional fisheries may be taking place. So all
those tools need to be looked at by the government and they need to have a kind of novel
approach, not neglecting any of those. So the tree protection area is important, and therestricted access area is important, the area where there is economic activity
yesterday's regulation is equally important. So you need the portfolio and you need to beable to use all those tools the result is having good management for the long term.
Presentation: 2. GEO BON’s next plans

(Prof. Andrew Gonzalez, Co-chair of GEO BON)
Q&A parts:
Q: It’s quite exciting to see the ongoing in future design and GEO BON to be inclusive of
the global community and I have a question about how can we ( I mean the community
members in APBON) have a variety of people with interests institutions or andindividual scientists and how can we (APBON) or the individual member of the APBON
be joined to the GEO BON to contribute to establishing this global biodiversity
observation network, something like this data itself and knowledge itself or how can we
involve in the working groups to work more intensively with the GEO BON community?
A: That’s a fantastic question and a crucial word. There are many levels in which I think
APBON can help and share the learning that you've acquired over the last 12 years. At
the highest level, it's how to create cooperation and collaboration among countries. So
what is the culture that you establish to allow that to happen, how can that learning bebrought into this working group that we want to establish on creating the globally
integrated system? I think we need strong representation from APBON about what it
takes to do that effectively. Funding is always limiting but what is the most strategic
use of limited funds to create and maintain that network. we have also an opportunity
to integrate data sources, so I understand that you're collecting information for different
taxonomy in different biomes. I would love to learn how you are integrating that
information to provide a picture of change, what kind of tools you are using to makeinferences about change, and if that information available to compliment the EBV Data
Portal. So there is a data portal that's been established that an idea in Leipzig. It is easy
to set up a flow of data to build this data set. So I would say again that there is a datatask force to have representation from APBON of our data task force.
And the third point I think is on this in these knowledge hubs. These knowledge hubs
which are involving stakeholders end-users and scientists in every single working
approach. I would love to know if that is something you're already doing have you
already created a knowledge hub like that. I imagine you have. You would be willing tocreate a knowledge hub for the APBON that would be embedded within the GEO BON
network. So these 3 levels which I think there’s an opportunity to learn reciprocallyfrom your experience and what we can contribute to help you do that.
Q: Thank you very much and congratulations on your new chairship for the GEO BON.
When considering the first development of GEO BON, I think that one of the key
advancements was EBVs for the co-chairs’ work. Do you have any examples that can bethe indicator of your chairship of GEO BON in development?
A: So a simple measure of success for me would be growing the BON network. Right
now we have a relatively small number of BONs around the world. Most nations arelacking a BON, so I would like to be able to double the number of BONs in the first three
years and then double it again by the sixth year. So that we are getting keeping up the
momentum, but as we are adding BONs, it is not sufficient to just add BONs without
global coordination. So an important indicator will be the degree of coordination among
BONs and I think there are some ways of facilitating that we can establish some ofthem are technical informatics infrastructure that can help that, but often it's aboutclear measures of cooperation and collaboration when we're trying to produce an EBV
product for the global scale for example. Or when we are trying to assess the impact of adriver like a climate change or habitat loss at the moment we're not bringing those thatdifferent types of information together across the BONs, so the BONs aren't
contributing to assessment. And I’d like it also accelerated in the coming years.
Presentation: 3. Progress on Aichi Targets in Hindu Kush Himalaya(Dr. Sunita Chaudhary, ICIMOD)
Q&A parts:
Q: Thank you for your great presentation and inputs to share with us. I have manythings to ask you later but I have one question. What would be the very critical points
for the biodiversity community, particularly for the Himalaya region to work with otherdisciplines something like the water cycle or food production another kind of addicttion
to environmental challenges that we could work together, ICIMOD and APBON andwith other AOGEO community?
A: It is a small Institute but we collaborate with the global and regional Institutions.
For instance, we are now collaborating with the CBD secretariat itself to assess the
progress made in the region. We are working with the GPS so we are also trying ourbest we need to find the area of mutual interest. So freshwater is one of our major areas
and at the moment we are producing freshwater handbooks for Nepal government
demand. But this is an area where there is a very limited research, so there is very highpossibility of doing collaborative research and we did have small projects on highaltitude wetland from IGES before, but because of the limited funding and also theinaccessibility in the higher altitude areas, there is very limited research going on. So I
think there is a great opportunity for the easy mode to initiate something with APBON,

especially to collect data on biodiversity on freshwater ecosystems.
Presentation: 4. Status and challenges in the Pacific(Dr. Yimnang Golbuu, CEO, Palau International Coral Reef Center)Q&A parts:
Q: My question is just a minor one. As you just showed MPA is quite effective to
predator fishes, but it seems like for other feeding fish with different feeding type, it is
not so significant difference between MPA and outside of MPA. What do you think tomake differences among functional group of fish?
A: If we look at all the fishes, they are different. So there's twice as much fish in themarine protected area and non-protected area. But the reason why we see such a big
difference in marine top predators is that that’s a valuable fish. That's where thefishermen target, so for the other fish, the fishermen do not target as much. So that's
why the fishes are not as much as inside and outside. But for the highly targeted or thevaluable species shore fishes, the MPA does five times more in the MPA and outside. If
you look at just all the fished, they are twice in the MPA and outside and that's becauseof the demand that the target for the top predators.
Q: I think in the first photo of your presentation you said about the impact of terrestrial
inputs such as erosion and sedimentation. Do you think among management ofterrestrial input will change the impact of climate change or whitening and is there
such kind of management for not just the marine protected area but also including theprotected area for the marine area?
A: The study we've been doing on these protected areas shows that even if we have very
good enforcement in the marine protected areas, especially the ones near land and that
we make sure there's no poachers and no other species in there, we see that impact fromthe land is so great that we can't even see the line in this habitat. So that's one of theideas that in addition to these marine protected areas, we need to think about land,
land management and land protection. Because for a small island like Palau areas near
the coast, whatever you do on land would eventually affect the marine environment, so
if you do a lot of construction and not careful, everything will be back from those
activities or will affect the marine environment. And if we have more intense weather
systems because of climate change so more intense storms and more intense rain in taskowner make the situation worse.

1st Photo session

Session Ⅱ

Updates of BONs in the region

Presentation: ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (Christian Elloran)
Presentation: China (Sino BON) (Xiaojuan Feng)
Presentation: Indonesia (Dedy Darnaedi)
Presentation: Japan (JBON) (Yayoi Takeuchi)
Presentation: Korea (KBON) (Chan-Ho Park)
Presentation: Malaysia (Zarina Sebli)
Presentation: Nepal (Mangal Man Shakya)
Presentation: Thailand (Yongyut Trisurat)

Session Ⅲ Breakout group sessions(Terrestrial, Freshwater and Marine working groups)

Following points were considered in the each working group, and reported back to theplenary in Session IV.
1. Planning observations and data integration (master site concept, on-going/future
projects, “Indicators” of SDGs, etc.)
2. Data base, information platforms (for science community, user community)
3. Capacity building
4. Challenges under and post COVID-19 pandemic
5. Contribution to AOGEO (IPS; cross-cutting theme; knowledge sharing frombiodiversity-related issues)
6. Cooperation with GEO BON*In this session, the 3 working group discussed about points above, and delivered their
discussion outcomes in session 4 by each working group leader.

Session Ⅳ

Engagement, networking and actions for 2021

1. Presentation：Key Biodiversity Areas(Dr. Andrew Plumptre, Head, Key Biodiversity Area Secretariat)
Q&A Parts:
Q: Can these criteria be calculated or not?
A: If some of the criteria can be met, it tends to become an important area of
biodiversity and a stronger, safer site. If there are multiple trigger species, because if forsome reason you lose enough of a population of 1 trigger species then the others will still
maintain the site until you can build numbers back up again.
Q: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think that KBA gives good criteria for
the APBON sites to be operational in terms of conservation of biodiversity. So I thinkthat this activity would be promoted further with the APBON members and also Dr.
Yongyut.
A: I agree. What I see is that you're pulling together a lot of the important biodiversity
information for your region and this is one way to turn that into a way of helping
conserve some of that important biodiversity in your region. And when we form thesenational coordination groups, we very much encourage people from the scientificcommunity where they worked for universities or museums to form the core componentsof that group because they have all the knowledge and the biodiversity activities. We
also encourage that they partner with some of the conservation groups and also ideally
government. In some countries, the government has interests and joins right at thestart, in other countries they joined later. So it depends on the interests and the
dynamics in the country, but certainly please consider whether you can pull a group
together to form a national coordination group in your countries.

2. Reporting working group session outcomes:-Terrestrial Working Group:
Presenter: Yayoi Takeuchi (National institute for Environmental Studies, Japan )-Freshwater Working Group:
Presenter: Yuichi Kano (Kyushu University, Japan)-Marines Working Group:
Presenter: Masahiro Nakaoka (Hokkaido University, Japan)*For the presentation material, please refer to Appendix 6.
Discussion session:
Comment: We've talked about a lot of different topics and in the workshop, we had lasttime we talked about plans for how to work with the supersites. We've got a fantastic
group and we have new chairs, I am thinking about how to enact the TG plan and work
more within the working group. I know MBON and APMBON have been doing active
work but the other groups have done less. So how do the chairs think we can move
forward and also what we talked about in the last meeting was we've got the CBD COP
theoretically this year, we've got the IUCN meeting. How do the chairs piercing
contributing actively and usefully to those regions those meetings because this region isalways being neglected and it needs a much more strong and current voice?
Comment: Thank you so much for your inputs, the points that we would like to discuss
are based on the strategic plans and those considering our contribution to CBD COP
and also IUCN meetings.

3. AOGEO – Integrated Priority Studies, contributions to GEOEngagement Priorities, collaboration with other Task Groups
Discussion session:
Comment: I think we should emphasize the importance of considering nature andhumans together. So the viewpoint of social-ecological system or the integration natureand human have to be emphasized in the future. But it seemed that the GEO
community is somewhat behind about emphasizing the relationship or interaction
between humans and nature. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is a good
opportunity to emphasize the importance of nature and humans together. I think
APBON is very familiar with this idea, so as an important role of APBON, we betteremphasize observing both nature and humans in the GEO community.
Comment: That is an important point.
Comment: As for the COVID-19 impact, actually I didn't mention the impact on our
research activity. I think many of us have a very negative impact on our productivity
which made us stop monitoring or observation and the clear result. I think many theother groups also have the same situation, and we may work on this issue for thesolution.
Comment: I heard from many international colleagues that many fieldwork andmeetings are hardly limited, especially for us and biodiversity scientists, and educators,
the activities are quite limited. But at the same time in parallel, we can have any kindof alternative idea about how we can overcome this kind of limitation. For example, Dr.
Nakaoka in the marine group discussed online training opportunity and this could be avery education thing. And for the observations, we can raise some ideas about how can
we continue or expand our biodiversity and ecosystem observations under this kind ofrestrictive limitations.
Comment: This is a very important point and I was thinking how about we use cuttingedge technology, but you still need to be there and maybe in the future we can set up theremote control camera to observe nature. This is the idea from me. And anybody’s ideas
are welcomed.
Comment: Limitation is quite negative for the fieldwork but not only for online courses

but also citizen science could be promoted. For example, asking local citizens to take aphotograph of the organisms and then we can do a combination with something likedeep learning techniques or something may give us a chance to promote morecitizen-based biodiversity monitoring activities. Of course, we sometimes need to go
there to instruct how to do it, but if it's going well even under the situation of COVID-19,
it will reduce our carbon footprint for frequent trouble problems. So there will havesome merit in proposing such kind of activity. It’s the comment from me.
Comment: Some of the two elements that could be useful. One would be developing amechanism to force our students. Many of us have students across the region, they are
the future of this region's research in future conservation. There is a way to bring in
those younger researchers perhaps having worked together to do comparable studies indifferent regions but not only gather long term data but also teach somestandardization collaboration and that kind of things. Because that kind of legacy would
also be very powerful and in a time where travel is difficult by working together they
can all achieve more in line with that developing more common standards so that when
we collect research and data from different regions we know that data is fullycomparable we know that in terms of understanding patterns across the region. It's notgoing to be confounded by different sets of collection mechanisms.
Comment: I am wondering because we have been talking a lot about impacts on
COVID-19, but it's been already almost a year, so many government civil societies, andprivate sectors are taking actions and we already have responses on the ground. So we
also need to see the implications of those responses on biodiversity and ecosystems.
Comment: I think we witnessed the enormous event for us to have the regular workshop
is instead of offline meeting. This is a big thing for us to consider after the impact of
COVID-19, so first I'd like to congratulate the chairs and also the Biodiversity Center ofJapan Ministry of the Environment. And the second thing is that we are working on
APBON is, we are thinking about data information and knowledge, but the key point tomake the network of this data is how should we behave. This is the real-time to think
about the wisdom of how should we live. In terms of the pandemic directed to the
zoonotic disease, I think that now” how should we behave” or” how should we act” interms of the behavior and also the in actions. So maybe we might think about this interms of the new normal after this COVID-19 pandemic.
Comment: We’ve been hearing new normal or post-pandemic and that not only the posttime with someone said to me that we have to think about beyond pandemic. For me, it'sa little bit difficult to understand the differences between after and beyond. But I thinkthat's your comment is related to this kind of issue.
Comment: The difference is whether we have to vista to overcome this kind of pandemic
by behaving differently.
Dr. Muraoka (announcement):
As we sent to this PPT material to all of the participants and you are all welcome to put
your any kind of keywords or phrases idea, and please fill in your feedback to me and I
will try to consolidate them and share with all of you.
It might be not only for the input to the AOGEO committee but also the future idea of
APBON’s future activities.

4. Plans for APBON activities in 2021
In this session, following points were considered. And free discussion ensued as below.
•APBON’s contribution to GEO BON, KBA, IPBES and other organizations•New APBON book•Participation to 13th AOGEO symposium (March 3 - 5, 2021)•Next APBON Workshop

Discussion session:
Comment: In addition to the separate working plan for terrestrial, freshwater, andmarine, I think sometimes we think about land-ocean interaction or ecosystem
connectivity project will be interesting. But at the moment, maybe we can do something
in the Mekong basin, but we still don't have any data in the Marine system. But I think
this kind of ecosystem connectivity research can be done not only on one side but also on
several other sides. Maybe in the future, not right now, we have some working groupmembers to think about this type of research connecting to different ecosystems.
Comment: That is a good point and also I remember that a few years ago we discussed
the landscape approach of APBON.
Comment: It may be collaborative activities with different research studies in different
types of ecosystems. So it will promote activity.
Comment: Building on that point, various countries in the Asia Pacific region havecommitted to the red list of ecosystems network. This is also something APBON could
actively contribute towards. For example, we often call the terrestrial group to forestgroup, but we will know the forests are the only ecosystem in the region and these aresystems that frequently fall between the gaps. So we might want to commit towards if
we can, trying to red list of ecosystems but also have a more comprehensive overview.
Because we want to make sure that the ecosystem and biological inventory of the entire
region is represented in the world.
Comment: Green-nesting methodology?
Comment: However, the Red List of Ecosystems reflects the Red List of Species, whichindicates how endangered an ecosystem is, taking into account the percentage of theecosystem lost, the degree of endemism, and the size of the area. Despite China's efforts
to red-list ecosystems and the creation of hypothetical lists, most ecosystems are not
red-listed. For example, the Red List of very challenging ecosystems has not beendetailed. Also, the green listing of ecosystems is not the same as reading a species list
because it uses a completely different system.
Comment: We don't have everything together in the region, and I think we shouldcollect information and dates and do knowledge management for APBON and connect itto the global community.
Comment:
Thank you very much. I have some very similar kind of idea which is we might develop
or something like APBON portal, then we would have the list of databases. I know wehave many various databases in our region, and perhaps we might develop the
publication list from our region and also the list or information sheet of each national
BON or contributors and also the list of APBON mater-site very shortly. So this kind of
APBON portal or data knowledge information portal site could be a kind of practice tobe connected with the diversity network such as GEO BON. So after the presentation ofProf. Andrew this morning, I communicated with him that how we can connect the
APBON and GEO BON. So this kind of platform suggested by Dr. Sheila should be oneof the key items that we might want to consider more this year.
Comment: I agree with Dr. Sheila. We need to be very specific on this point, and thesecond point is that APBON's 2021 action plan calls for more Aichi Targets in particular,
and OECM is taking shape, and I think this will be one of the highlights of the global
biodiversity framework over the next decade. The region is very rich in indigenous andcommunity areas outside of protected areas, and starting in 2021 we can start to workon capacity building and knowledge enhancement. We are also thinking of inviting
someone to speak about OECM in our future webinar.
Comment: Thank you very much. That also very points. We'd like to consider this and at
the same time, we share the importance of this kind of contribution of activity to engage
this very important international agenda.

Meanwhile, we might want to see who

APBON could work with to lead that kind of connection activities or connections. So I
suppose all of you have your networks or some connections. It would be good to convene
those collections as a divisional community. We might improve this kind of idea into

reality. So if someone could consider this connection with the post-2020 global
biodiversity framework, it would be nice.
Comment: Regarding the previous comment, I think it is the opportunity to find thefunding support to do something like the appropriately protected area comparison in
our region, so this might be an interesting research corporation.
Comment: I don't have any idea but does anyone have such an idea or do you know
something update to that?
Comment: I can connect to the global WCPA, the OECM chairs, and vice-chair. Because
sometimes they express their interests to provide kind of awareness webinars on OECM
for the Asia-Pacific region. I think we are a bit behind and they would also work on how
to enter data on WCPA data-based areas. Because CBD is putting a lot of effort to help
other countries to meet their Aichi Target 11, so that's the reason that I want to talkabout the OECM in the next webinar if possible. And we can explore funding and also
like later on engagement. Funding is a major problem, but maybe they can help us tofind networks or avenues. Anyway, we need to see.
Comment: I gave a seminar at the Peking University in December on some of my work.
And the seminar that followed mine was from the Research Center for ecology andevolution in Beijing. They've been doing a national protected areas inventory for thewhole China, including developing comprehensive measures for measuring protected
error effectiveness. I could ask some of the people from that working group if they would
be able to give a seminar next time. Because it could be useful for the rest of the APBON
network.
The other thing I was going to say is, another publication we had last year andsomething will be publishing on again probably this year is wildlife trade. Wildlife trade
is an organization that people overseas have looked into, but we know that it occurs
throughout the region, and much of it is unsustainable and illegal wildlife trade.
Something else we may want to consider within the working group is trying to at least
get some measure of our local level trade for some countries in the region. Because forexample, the paper that we published last September showed that 36% of reptiles are in
the trade, the research we're doing now shows about 17% of amphibians are in the trade.
But this is all based on subsets of data which is likely not entirely representative. So it
would be very useful if APBON members were interested in about doing things like

market service it's in their area in a standardized way to get a more comprehensive
overview of some of the species and trade and how sustainable or unsustainable it
might be.
Comment: It’s great to take concrete actions to be taken by APBON members.
I think we have many ideas. So let us try to utilize the APBON mailing list to exchange
ideas and call the cooperation.
Another thing to ask is, does someone have any idea about our contribution to IPBES?
Comment: I recently joined the IPBES workshop. I think the general assessment of theecosystem so far is already finished. However, they are trying to make a new scenario
and modeling framework to make a future projection. Because in the IPCC
social-ecological scenario, there’s nothing that includes biodiversity. They can increase
ecosystem services but they still lack exploitation. Of course, I understand GEO BON
and APBON mainly focus on the ecosystem observation itself.
Comment: Recently, I learned from Dr. Yahara that IPBES is now discussing thescoping for the next round of assessments, which is already explained by you right now.
Announcement: (Dr. Muraoka)
This is our first experience of a one-day full workshop online, and we learned a lot
through this opportunity. So we are always willing to have the workshop including theirfield excursions, but we don't know how the situation changes in the next half of theyear. So shall we try to monitor the situation and also try to think what type of ourgathering could be in this year.
So any ideas are welcomed and let’s keep in touch with each other through the APBON
mailing list.

2nd Photo session