Workshop Report No. 265
Caribbean Marine Atlas (CMA2) Review
and Planning Workshop
Courtyard Marriott Coconut Grove, Miami, USA
25-29 August 2014
UNESCO 2014
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Oostende, 9 October 2014
English
For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as follows:
Caribbean Marine Atlas (CMA2) Review and Planning Workshop, Courtyard Marriott Coconut Grove,
Miami, USA, 25-29 August 2014
Paris, UNESCO, 10 September 2014 (IOC Workshop Report No. 265) (English)
Participants of the Workshop (List see Annex VI)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page (ii)
___________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
The Caribbean Marine Atlas phase 2 (CMA2) kickoff meeting was intended as both the
closing workshop for the Caribbean Marine Atlas phase 1 (CMA1) project as well as the
kickoff meeting for the CMA2 project. While CMA1 focused on building capacity within the
participating small island states (+Cuba) in the Caribbean region, and on setting up national
spatial data portals (“atlases”) in these countries, the CMA2 project will develop a regional
data, information and services sharing platform that will contribute to the development of
national and regional atlases and related products and services to support Decision Making
(DM) and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) processes for improved marine and coastal
resources management in the region composed by the Caribbean and North Brazil Shelf
Large Marine Ecosystems (the “CLME+” region). The platform will be piloted in selected
countries for regional and national-level consultation and decision-making. Training,
awareness building and dissemination activities will be conducted. To ensure uptake,
sustainability and up-scaling of results, the project will be closely linked to the implementation
of the regionally endorsed 10-year CLME+ Strategic Action Programme (SAP). The CMA2
project builds upon the experience and lessons learnt in the CMA1 and the Ocean Data and
Information Network for the Caribbean and South America (ODINCARSA) initiative. While
CMA1 workshops involved only the technical experts of the participating countries, a much
larger group was invited for the CMA2 workshop resulting in 48 participants. They included
the national partners (Barbados, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, Jamaica, Mexico, Turks &
Caicos, Venezuela), member states interested in participation (Belize, Costa Rica,
Netherlands Antilles, US Puerto Rico, Trinidad & Tobago, UK and USA). In addition there
were 14 regional/international organizations such as the Organization of Eastern Caribbean
States (OECS), Caribbean Marine Protected Areas Management Network and Forum
(CamPam), the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), the Permanent
Commission for the South Pacific (Comision Permanente del Pacifico Sur, CPPS),
Conservation International, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
the Organization of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector of the Central American Isthmus
(Organizacion del Sector Pesquero y Acuicola del Istmo Centroamericano, OSPESCA), The
Nature Conservancy (TNC), The University of the West Indies (UWI), the Regional Office for
Latin American and the Caribbean (ROLAC) and the Regional Coordination Unit of the
Caribbean Environmental Programe (RCU/CEP), both of the United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), European Commission (EC)
and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Presentations (http://www.iode.org/cma2kickoff) showed early on that there is no lack of
national “atlases” in the region, but rather that there is a need to develop a regional service
platform and mechanisms that can facilitate the sharing of data and information, as well as
expertise on atlas development: many of the existing organizations already provide
geospatial data services but all have difficulties in accessing and/or providing well
documented and reliable data. It was therefore decided that CMA2 should focus on the
promotion of the best available and authoritative data sources, tools and services through a
regional service platform. The project will achieve this through the following 9 project
components: (i) Project Management; (ii) Partnership/consortium agreement; (iii) Regional
metadata repository; (iv) Directory of atlases (portal); (v) Catalogue of documents related to
atlases (content related); (vi) Community of practice; (vii) Training; (viii) Communication and
outreach; and (ix) Development of showcase product(s)
A new project workplan reflecting these objectives and expected outcomes will be
developed. The meeting also reconfirmed the designation of Dr Francisco Arias-Isaza as
project coordinator and agreed with the establishment of the project secretariat at INVEMAR,
Santa Martha (Colombia).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page (v)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
2.
OPENING OF THE MEETING ................................................................................................................................ 1
WELCOME ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA..................................................................................................................................... 2
DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND RAPPORTEUR FOR THE MEETING ............................................................................ 2
INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS .......................................................................................................................... 2
CMA2: SETTING THE SCENE ................................................................................................................................ 2
2.1. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF CMA2 ................................................................................................. 2
2.2. REVIEW OF THE CMA2 PROJECT DOCUMENT AND REPORT OF THE “CARIBBEAN MARINE ATLAS REVIEW AND
PLANNING MEETING, DECEMBER 2013” ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.3. “5X5 SESSION” OVERVIEW OF OTHER REGIONAL AND GLOBAL INITIATIVES, RELEVANT TO THE OBJECTIVES OF
CMA2 AND CLME+ ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3.1. CLME + PCU (SUMMARIZE THE OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE CLME+ PROJECT AND SAP) .......6
2.3.2. WWF (MAR2R GEF PROPOSAL) ............................................................................................................................................7
2.3.3. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY (CCI, ECMMAN, OTHERS) ...................................................................................................8
2.3.4. IOC (TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME, TWAP – LME COMPONENT) ......................................9
2.3.5. UNEP ROLAC (GEF/UNEP/CARICOM INDICATORS INITIATIVE)............................................................................. 10
2.3.6. UNEP CEP (REPORTING UNDER THE CARTAGENA CONVENTION AND ITS PROTOCOLS; STATE OF THE CONVENTION
AREA; REGIONAL SEAS INDICATORS) ......................................................................................................................................................11
2.3.7. IOC (WORLD OCEAN ASSESSMENT) .....................................................................................................................................12
2.3.8. FAO (INDICATORS UNDER THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES, EAF) .............................................................. 12
2.3.9. CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (OCEAN HEALTH INDEX) ............................................................................................. 13
SUMMARY PART 1 OTHER PROJECT AND PROJECT PROPOSALS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT &
INDICATORS - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................................ 14
2.3.10. UNEP ROLAC (THE UNEP LIVE PLATFORM) ................................................................................................................ 15
2.3.11. FAO (FIRMS, IMARINE) .....................................................................................................................................................16
2.3.12. COMISIÓN PERMANENTE DEL PACÍFICO SUR (CPPS) ..................................................................................................... 17
2.3.13. EUROPEAN COMMISSION – JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE, BIOPAMA .............................................................................. 17
2.3.14. UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES (MFISHERIES) ........................................................................................................... 18
2.3.15. INTERNATIONAL COASTAL ATLAS NETWORK (ICAN) ................................................................................................... 20
2.3.16. IOC (CARIBBEAN REGIONAL OBIS NODE) ........................................................................................................................ 21
SUMMARY PART 2 – POTENTIAL USEFUL PLATFORMS, FUNCTIONALITIES & TOOLS ..................................................................... 21
2.4. LESSON LEARNT AND BEST PRACTICES UNDER CMA1 ......................................................................................... 22
3.
IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AND M&E ISSUES ...................................................... 24
3.1. PRESENTATIONS BY SUB-REGIONAL GOVERNANCE BODIES .................................................................................. 24
3.1.1. CARIBBEAN REGIONAL FISHERIES MECHANISM (CRFM) ................................................................................................. 24
3.1.2. ORGANIZATION OF THE FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE SECTOR OF THE CENTRAL-AMERICAN ISTHMUS OSPESCA
26
3.1.3. ORGANIZATION OF EASTERN CARIBBEAN STATES (OECS) .............................................................................................. 27
3.2. OVERVIEW OF PRE-IDENTIFIED PRIORITY MONITORING & EVALUATION (M&E) NEEDS ................................... 28
3.3. IDENTIFICATION/UPDATING OF PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING & EVALUATION ISSUES AT RESP.
THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS .............................................................................................................................. 29
3.3.1. SUMMARY OF PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING & EVALUATION ISSUES........................................................ 29
4. CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(NATIONAL ATLASES AND RELATED DATA SYSTEMS) .................................................................................... 32
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
BARBADOS ............................................................................................................................................................ 32
BELIZE ................................................................................................................................................................... 32
COLOMBIA ............................................................................................................................................................. 32
CUBA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34
DOMINICA ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page (iv)
___________________________________________________________________
4.6.
4.7.
4.8.
4.9.
4.10.
4.11.
4.12.
4.13.
4.14.
4.15.
5.
JAMAICA ................................................................................................................................................................ 35
MEXICO ................................................................................................................................................................. 35
NETHERLANDS ANTILLES ..................................................................................................................................... 35
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ....................................................................................................................................... 36
TURKS & CAICOS................................................................................................................................................ 36
UNITED KINGDOM AND OVERSEAS TERRITORIES ............................................................................................. 37
UNITED STATES - PUERTO RICO ....................................................................................................................... 37
UNITED STATES ................................................................................................................................................. 38
VENEZUELA ........................................................................................................................................................ 38
COSTA RICA ........................................................................................................................................................ 39
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING ................................................................................................................................. 39
5.1. UPDATING OF STAKEHOLDER INVENTORIES, DEPARTING FROM THE RESULTS OF DAY 2 ................................... 39
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER MAPPING (NATIONAL LEVEL) ................................................................................................................ 40
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER MAPPING (REGIONAL LEVEL) ................................................................................................................ 40
5.2. IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIONS TO ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS (WP3 – A3.2) ........................................................ 41
6.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
7.
7.1.
7.2.
8.
8.1.
9.
PLATFORM FUNCTIONALITIES & DELIVERY MECHANISMS .................................................................. 42
IDENTIFICATION OF DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES REQUIRED BY STAKEHOLDERS (WP3 – A3.3, A3.4) 42
FUNCTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................................... 42
SYSTEM DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE - OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS .................................. 43
IDENTIFY AND SELECT PREFERRED SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS (WP 5 – A5.1)45
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH ..................................................... 49
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 49
COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ....................................................................................................................... 50
COMMON DATA NEEDS, AND READILY AVAILABLE PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA SETS ......................... 50
COMMON DATA NEEDS .......................................................................................................................................... 50
CMA2 SCOPE, PARTNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS, AND 2014-2015 WORK PLAN 53
9.1. THE CMA2 PARTNERSHIP: CONTRIBUTIONS BY, AND SYNERGIES WITH REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
PARTNERS INITIATIVES. ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
9.2. REVIEW AND REVISION –AS APPLICABLE- OF PROJECT SCOPE AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS, AND
FINALIZATION OF THE 2014-2015 WORK PLAN ............................................................................................................. 55
10.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT ......................................................................................................................... 57
11.
CLOSING OF THE MEETING ........................................................................................................................... 57
ANNEXES
ANNEX I:
ANNEX II:
ANNEX III:
ANNEX IV:
ANNEX V:
ANNEX VI:
Agenda of the Meeting
Table of national policy issues
Table with a priority set of indicators
Table of national responsible/stakeholders
Terms of Reference of the Governance Structure
List of Participants
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 1
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1. Welcome
The meeting was opened by the General Director of INVEMAR and the Project
Coordinator of CMA2 Dr Francisco Arias-Isaza. He informed the participants of the
objectives of the meeting: (i) review of progress in project preparation/activities; (ii)
common understanding of current global, regional and national level activities as
relevant to CMA2; (iii) preliminary identification of priority management/monitoring
issues to be addressed, stakeholders, and associated data needs; (iv) preliminary
identification of platforms, technologies and functionalities; (v) establishment of the
CMA2 partnership and management structure; and (vi) revision of the 2014-2015
work plan and budget and assigning responsibilities. He reminded the participants
that the working language of the meeting will be English.
Mr Ariel Troisi briefly addressed the meeting as IODE Co-Chair. He emphasized that
IODE should not be seen as merely a building, nor a community network sharing best
practices in data and information management. Opportunities like CMA2 are
important, not only for the management of data, but also for making data more
accessible, understandable and used. The Member States that contribute to this
project all need to generate products to fulfil their needs. CMA2 can help the data
coordination for the Caribbean and Latin American region and demonstrate what the
region can do and how it can respond to stakeholder needs. IODE is there to help you
move forward.
Dr Cesar Toro addressed the meeting on behalf of IOCARIBE. He noted that the first
step in this long journey started in Barbados, where the protoype atlas has been built
during the first phase of CMA. He pointed to the fact that CMA is not a stand-alone
project, but is developed in the framework of IOC, where it contributes to IOC’s major
programmes as well as to IOCARIBE as one of IOC’s subregional programmes. The
establishment of partnerships between national, regional and international institutions,
and a strong management structure will be one of the key elements of CMA, to
improve sharing of data in a way that will benefit all and contribute to marine science
in general.
Mr Peter Pissierssens briefly addressed the meeting on behalf of Dr Wendy WatsonWright, IOC Executive Secretary and the Flanders Government as the main donor of
the project. The second phase of the CMA project is starting now after the first CMA
project that started in 2009 is ending. The purpose of CMA1 was to identify, collect
and organize available spatial datasets into an atlas of environmental themes for the
Caribbean region. A number of valuable lessons on what worked and what did not
work have been learned, which were reviewed during the meeting last December
2013. One of the most important lessons was that the human resources in the Island
states are very limited and priority will be given to activities that are of direct relevance
to national priorities. But these priorities also increasingly include commitments to
international conventions on e.g. the law of the sea, the convention on biological
diversity etc. So CMA2 must ensure that whatever activities are planned they fit within
national, regional and international priorities. Close collaboration and interaction with
regional as well as international organizations is therefore essential and this is why
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 2
___________________________________________________________________
nearly half of the participants are representing such organizations. Mr Pissierssens
welcomed them all.
On behalf of the Government of Flanders he also welcomed all to this CMA2 kick-off
meeting. Cooperation between the Government of Flanders and UNESCO’s
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission goes back to 1998 when Flanders
and UNESCO signed an agreement. Since then Flanders has been providing up to
1M€/year for activities related to hydrology, ecology and oceans. For IOC activities
started in Africa with the ODINAFRICA project. More recently Flanders provided
support for the SPINCAM project and CMA. Flanders appreciates the active and
enthusiastic involvement of Member States in these projects, which is the reason why
Flanders agreed to continue with CMA2. However it is essential that CMA2 closely
links and interfaces with other on-going or planned activities in the region and of
course also with SPINCAM. The presence of so many key regional and international
organizations is an extremely good start and Flanders looks forward to a successful
second phase of the Caribbean Marine Atlas.
1.2. Adoption of the Agenda
Mr Peter Pissierssens introduced the meeting objectives, the agenda and timetable,
which were adopted by all the participants. Mr Pissierssens also provided some
practical information.
1.3. Designation of Chair and Rapporteur for the Meeting
The meeting designated Dr Francisco Arias-Isaza (Colombia) as Chair of the meeting
and Mr Ward Appeltans (IOC/IODE) as Rapporteur for the meeting.
1.4. Introduction of participants
All participants briefly introduced themselves. Full information on the participants is
available in Annex VI.
2.
CMA2: SETTING THE SCENE
2.1. Objectives and expected outcomes of CMA2
Mr Patrick Debels summarized the objectives and expected outcomes of the CMA2
project, as formulated in the latest version of the Project Document.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3928
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104334513
The CMA2 project is expected to deliver distinct contributions to two broader
development objectives, namely: (1) reduction of the vulnerability of coastal socioecological systems in Caribbean States through better Integrated Coastal Zone
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 3
Management (ICZM), and (2) the sustainable management of living marine resources
that are shared among the nations that are part of the Caribbean and the North Brazil
Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems (further referred to as “the CLME+ region”). The
CLME+ region consists of a total of 39 States and dependent territories.
The main objective of the CMA2 project itself is to sustainably operationalize an
online digital “Caribbean Marine Atlas” technological data platform, or combination of
platforms, to support the 2 previously mentioned over-arching development objectives
or goals. It is expected that, in the context of these goals, the platforms will be able to
support policy development, decision-making, and monitoring and evaluation
processes.
The three more specific objectives of the project have been defined under the original
Project Document as: to operate a decision support and M&E mechanism for:
•
•
(objective 1): ICMZ, in up to 10 pilot countries;
(objective 2): improved shared living marine resources management, at the
LME level; and
•
(objective 3) to enhance awareness, capacity and participation of key regional
and national-level stakeholders in the process. Special attention will need to be given
in this context to the long-term sustainability of the systems that will be developed,
and to the potential for the up-scaling of the results from the pilot and demonstration
activities under CMA2.
Important in the context of objective 3 is that due consideration is given to the
identification of the different stakeholders with a role or mandate relating to each
component of a typical policy cycle: (a) the provision of analysis and advice; (b) the
decision-making; (c) the implementation of decisions; (d) the review and evaluation of
policy impacts; (e) the collection, management and provision of data and information
in support of this process.
Achieving the objectives of the CMA2 and especially its over-arching goals is thus a
major task. Therefore, it is very important that the CMA2 Project is not seen as a
stand-alone initiative: in the current context, CMA2 can and should be closely linked
to the implementation of the CLME+ Project. The CLME+ Project is currently under
development and will be implemented between 2015 and 2019. It aims at catalyzing
the implementation of the 10-year “CLME+ Strategic Action Programme for the
Sustainable Management of shared Living Marine Resources in the Caribbean and
North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems”. This Strategic Action Programme, also
called the CLME+ SAP, has already been endorsed to date by more than 30
ministers, in more than 20 countries, and thus counts with broad political support in
the region. The SAP is an umbrella programme that will deal with the 3 priority
environmental problems in the CLME+, namely: (1) habitat degradation, (2)
unsustainable fisheries, and (3) pollution. As an umbrella programme, the SAP is not
expected to become implemented through a single project or initiative. Instead, it will
be important that the many organizations and projects in the region, adopt the SAP as
an over-arching reference and coordination framework, and that collaborative
agreements for its implementation are forged among these partners. The Global
Environment Facility or GEF is planning to provide in this context 12,5 million USD to
help kick-starting the implementation of the SAP through the CLME+ Project. The
timeframe for execution of the 3-year CMA2 initiatives largely overlaps with the 5-year
CLME+ Project, and opportunities are currently being explored to continue the work
initiated under the CMA2 project through this project.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 4
___________________________________________________________________
In this context, some key guiding principles and frameworks have been adopted by
the CLME+ Project, and their adoption by the CMA2 Project is now also being
proposed. These are: the DPSIR framework and the Governance Effectiveness
Assessment Framework. Both frameworks remind us that, in the context of the
specific activities to be executed under CMA2, we always need to bear in mind that
these should contribute to closing the gap between the current status of ecosystems
(and their associated socio-economic benefits), and the status society desires these
would have (DPSIR). Identifying and creating awareness about the “baseline” status,
and target-setting with regard to the improvements we want to achieve, will then
guide society towards the identification of those measures that need to be
implemented. To ensure that targets are indeed reached, data and information will
need to be collected, managed and made available, so that the process of
knowledge-guided DPSIR framework application can then be achieved.
In a similar way and at the policy level, and in order to achieve improved human wellbeing and social justice, through improved ecosystem conditions, this would mean
that policies need to be defined by institutions which have been assigned a clear
mandate for this. This brings us back to the policy cycle, and the importance, under
the CMA2, to clearly identify CMA2 all associated stakeholders.
At the (sub-)regional level, for example, pre-identified stakeholders, represented at
this meeting, include (for environmental governance): UNEP CEP, CCAD, TNC,
WWF, Conservation International, IUCN,…, and (for fisheries governance): FAOWECAFC, CRFM, OSPESCA and OECS.
It will thus be important that in the development of the CMA2 and CLME+ Project
timelines, reference is made to the timeline of the decision-making processes under
these different regional governance mechanisms.
Mr Osborne asked the question if regional governance mechanisms recognize the
importance and the challenges of access and sharing of data and information (i.e.
marine evidence)? Mr Debels replied that there is indeed a disconnection, and
therefore we need demonstration projects with provide context and practical
examples, so governments become more aware of the benefits. But it will be an
iterative process.
Mr Troisi asked how CMA2 will address the communication with the stakeholders;
how will they be able to interpret the data and how will we understand the
requirements of the stakeholders. Mr Debels replied that we will try to find ways to get
additional insights through CMA, by interacting with regional organizations who can
help liaise with the national organizations.
2.2.
Review of the CMA2 Project Document and Report of the
“Caribbean Marine Atlas Review and Planning Meeting,
December 2013”
Dr Francisco Arias-Isaza reviewed the main elements of the Project Document as well
as the major findings of the report from the December 2013 workshop (IOC Workshop
report No. 260). He continued to highlight current progress with, and suggested
modifications to the work plan agreed upon during the December workshop. In
particular, he briefly reported on progress under Work Packages 1 (Project
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 5
Management arrangements), 2 (Atlas and Technology Assessments) and 3
(Stakeholder engagement). He noted that some of the activities of the original work
plan could not yet be implemented due to the late start of the project, and pointed out
the potential benefits of streamlining the CMA2 work plan and timeline with those of
other major, relevant regional initiatives.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3957
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104334912
Mr Taconet asked if fisheries would be represented in the CMA2 steering group. Mr
Arias-Isaza replied that the steering group is mainly an administrative team, but the
WP leaders will deal with thematic activities. Mr Toro added that the regional and
international organizations who are also dealing with the thematic topics such as
fisheries are included in the steering group.
Mr Osborne noted the UN-GGMM report highlighting critical issues associated with
integrating land-marine datasets and asked whether the project has a plan to address
these issues with respect to ICZM? Mr Debels replied that under the Cartagena
Convention there is the Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and
Activities (LBS Protocol) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is currently
working on a project proposal that will specifically address river-based management
with the perspective of the marine environment.
2.3. “5x5 Session” overview of other regional and global initiatives,
relevant to the objectives of CMA2 and CLME+
Mr Alejandro Iglesias-Campos (IOC/MPR) introduced the objectives of the new
section on Marine Policy and Regional Coordination (IOC/MPR), which allows IOC to
fully engage in the multi-agency consultation processes.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3764
This new section of IOC is responsible for the coordination of IOC’s external policy
and communication with the aim of fostering multi-agency partnerships related to
ocean and coastal matters and related science-policy interface, the development and
dissemination of coastal and marine management tools. This introduction served to
present the challenges and opportunities of coastal and marine environments, by
emphasizing the emerging human use conflicts that require specific decision support
tools to facilitate the implementation of institutional responses to these processes,
and the integrated coastal area management and the marine spatial planning became
the most relevant tools to address it, in order to ensure the optimal allocation of the
existing (and limited) coastal and marine resources.
Mr Iglesias-Campos then invited participants representing or linked to regional or
global initiatives, which are of potential relevance for decision making and monitoring
& evaluation processes for improved marine and coastal resources management in
the Caribbean region, to give a short presentation on the potential linkages between
their initiatives and CMA2. Each initiative had 5 minutes to present using 5 slides
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 6
___________________________________________________________________
(1.Objective of initiative, 2. Relevant products/results expected, 3. Main linkages with
CMA2 on: 3a. Information Technology and platform – 3b. Data and Information for
sharing & 3c. Preliminary proposals on collaborative activities).
PART 1 – OTHER PROJECT AND PROJECT PROPOSALS CURRENTLY
UNDER DEVELOPMENT & INDICATORS - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
2.3.1. CLME + PCU (summarize the objectives and expected outcomes of the CLME+
Project and SAP)
Mr Debels presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3887
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104335578
Mr Debels said that, as already indicated under the first intervention, the CLME+
Project, currently in the proposal development stage, is expected to run from 2015 –
2019 and will catalyse the implementation of the 10-year CLME+ Strategic Action
Programme. We recall that one of the over-arching development objectives of CMA2
indeed also linked to the sustainable management of shared living marine resources
in the CLME+ region, and can thus be closely related to this CLME+ Strategic Action
Programme (SAP).
The CLME+ Project will be expected to be executed through 5 components:
I.
A first component will help improving the architecture of governance
arrangements in the CLME+ (i.e. institutional mandates, and agreements for
coordination and collaboration); for this purposes it is foreseen that intersectorial coordination mechanisms will be developed or enhanced, at both the
regional and national levels. This will also be of relevance to the CMA2.
II.
It is proposed that the second component aims at helping stakeholders in
making use of these enhance governance arrangements to effectively
implement Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and an Ecosystem
Approach to Fisheries (EAF). For this purpose, it is expected that, through a
”learning by doing approach”, regional plans to deal with key issues such as (i)
Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing; (iii) habitat protection and
restoration: (iii) pollution will be produced. Also under this component, best
practices and innovative tools for data and information management will be
identified, a communication strategy will be developed, and targeted training
will be provided on related matters.
III.
The third component aims at testing the implementation of EBM/EAF through
a selection of demonstration projects, and is currently still very much under
development. Even so, it is worth mentioning already that these demonstration
project -for which the Governance Effectiveness Assessment Framework will
used as a guiding framework- will be in need of a data-based decision-support
and M&E mechanism.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 7
IV.
The fourth component aims at identifying investment needs, and at identifying
financing sources, so that efforts initiated under the Demos can be upscaled
and replicated.
V.
Finally, the fifth project component aims at establishing the “CLME+
Partnership” for the joint, collaborative implementation of the SAP. It is
proposed that linked to this effort, a CMA2 partnership be established as well.
Further, under this component the development of a Monitoring and
Evaluation system to track progress and results from the implementation of
the SAP is planned, together with the production, through a collaborative
approach and building upon the already existing regional efforts, of a “State of
the marine ecosystems and associated living marine resources” report.
Ms Simpson commented on the requirement for Component 2 for a repository of Best
practices in data and information management and highlighted that IODE has already
set up an OceanDataPractices repository for data and information management best
practices and guidelines (http://www.oceandatapractices.org), so CLME+ should
utilize the IODE OceanDataPractices repository and not set up a new product. Mr
Debels replied that CLME+ will definitely link with existing long-term initiatives.
Mr Roach asked if the establishment of partnerships is meant to become a long
lasting collaboration. Mr Debels replied that this is indeed the case and we may even
provide guidelines on how to establish or provide advice on how to improve existing
partnerships.
Mr Knowles asked what will happen with the Information Management System &
Regional Ecosystem Monitoring Program (IMS-REMP, https://clmeims.gcfi.org)? Mr
Debels said it was an experiment (demo) under the first CLME project, and it may not
be continued. But that will probably become clearer in the next few days as we look at
the different other initiatives and available technologies.
2.3.2. WWF (MAR2R GEF proposal)
Ms María Porta presented the Integrated Transboundary Ridge-to-Reef Management
of the Mesoamerican Reef (MAR2R).
Her presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3941
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104335703
The GEF funded project “Integrated Transboundary Ridge-to-Reef Management of
the Mesoamerican Reef (MAR2R)” has as objective to support regional collaboration
for the integrated ridge-to-reef management of the transboundary Mesoamerican
Reef, by demonstrating its advantages and improving regional, national and local
capacities for the integrated management and governance of its freshwater, coastal,
and marine resources. The MAR2R project identification form (PIF) was submitted to
GEF by WWF, as the GEF Agency, on behalf of the four countries that share the
Mesoamerican Reef: Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico in coordination with
the Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD). As
part of the revision and approval of its May 2014 Work Program, GEF approved the
project concept.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 8
___________________________________________________________________
The MAR2R project concept was designed with four components: The first
component, strengthening regional resource governance and promoting regional
collaboration for integrated transboundary ridge to reef management of the
Mesoamerican Reef. The second and third project components will focus on the
integrated ridge to reef management of watershed and freshwater resources and of
coastal and marine resources, respectively, to reduce threats to the transboundary
Mesoamerican Reef. The fourth and final component will work on project monitoring
and sharing lessons learned. The project will actively engage key stakeholders in
improved natural resource management approaches.
The Project Document (ProDoc) for the MAR2R is under elaboration. One of the
expected results of the MAR2R is the MAR strategic planning, policy making and
monitoring supported by a comprehensive information portal and monitoring system
through the establishment of CCAD's Regional Environmental Observatory as the
information hub to systematize and disseminate data specific to the MAR. This is
where a link between MAR2R and CMA2 projects is identified and envisioned. This
represents an opportunity to share watershed, coastal and marine information.
Although there is a need to take into account the geographical scope difference
between these two projects. A preliminary proposal on collaborative activities
include: Get knowledge of CMA information/platform; obtain lessons learned from
CMA in relation to platform sustainability; build CCADs Regional Environmental
Observatory taking in account CMA information and lessons learned; consider
contribution to CMA during ProDoc elaboration; and provide complementary
information to CMA during project implementation.
Mr Osborne asked which data management standards and basemaps does MAR2R
use? He noted the specifications of these will be extremely important for the success
of the project and hence for the contribution to CMA2. Ms Porta replied that the
concept of the project has just been approved and that there is now time to address
these elements in more details. There is indeed a need for a data management plan
and sustainability plan of the observatory beyond the project.
Mr Diaz asked if the project will take into account the best practices in the coastal
waters developed by the local environmental agencies? Ms Porta replied that they are
indeed one of the focal points, but we found out that there is also a need to include
the agricultural and tourist agencies, the housing sector etc. especially when it comes
down to decision-making.
2.3.3. The Nature Conservancy (CCI, ECMMAN, others)
The Nature Conservancy, represented by Mr John Knowles, gave an overview of the
Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI) and the Climate Resilience Eastern Caribbean
Marine Managed Areas Network (ECMMAN) Project as efforts which are of potential
relevance for decision making and monitoring and evaluation processes for improved
marine and coastal resource management in the Caribbean region and how it can link
to the Caribbean Marine Atlas (CMA2).
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3936
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104335868
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 9
The CCI involves 10 governments with 2 main objectives; the '20-by-20' goal to
effectively conserve and manage at least 20% of the marine and coastal environment
by 2020; and the sustainable finance goal to achieve the '20 by 20' goal and to have
in place fully functioning sustainable finance mechanisms that will provide long-term
and reliable funding to conserve and sustainably manage the marine and coastal
resources and the environment in each participating country and territory. One of the
projects carrying out this work in the eastern Caribbean that includes 5 of the 10
governments is the Sustainable Financing and Management of the Eastern
Caribbean Marine Ecosystem Project. Through this project a regional monitoring &
information system for the protected areas networks will be deployed.
The second part of the overview related to the relevant products and linkages to
CMA2 for the ECMMAN project. The ECMMAN project is working across 6
governments in the eastern Caribbean to; declare new marine managed areas (MMA)
and strengthen existing ones; build strong constituencies for sustainable livelihoods
and ocean use; improve and update an Eastern Caribbean Decision Support System
that provides accessible decision making tools and incorporates current ecological,
socio-economic, and climate change data; and institute sustainability mechanisms to
support the MMA network, including regional political commitments and actions,
collaboration mechanisms on marine and coastal resources and sustainable
financing.
Dr Bustamante added that through UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme and as
part its Caribbean Marine Protected Area Management (CaMPAM) Network Small
Grant program, 12 projects will be funded in 2014-2016 to support capacity building in
marine managed areas in the countries associated to the ECMMAN project namely,
Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
and St. Kitts and Nevis.
Mr Roach asked if the project will also include modelling outputs related to climate
change. Mr Knowles replied that we will focus on the socio-economic impacts, but the
team has not yet concluded on the climate change assessments.
2.3.4. IOC (Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme, TWAP – LME
component)
Mr Alejandro Iglesias-Campos (IOC/MPR) provided an overview of the Full-size
Project of the Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP). His
presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3915
TWAP is funded principally by GEF with cofinancing from other sources, and arose
out of the need for: 1. A global baseline assessment of the status and changing
condition of transboundary water systems resulting from human and natural causes,
which will allow the GEF, policy makers and international organizations to set
science-based priorities for financial resource allocation and 2. The institutional
arrangements for conducting periodic future assessments of transboundary water
systems to allow the GEF and others to track the results of their interventions. The
current project, which runs from April 2013 to March 2015, builds on the previous
phase during which assessment methodologies were developed for the five types of
transboundary water systems.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 10
___________________________________________________________________
IOC/MPR is leading the Large Marine Ecosystem component which results will
provide a better understanding of coastal and marine emerging issues such as
overfishing, habitat destruction and pollution that have been identified as among the
priority environmental issues in LMEs by GEF LME projects, as well as on
socioeconomics and governance. For each theme, a number of indicators and
metrics are being used in the global baseline comparative assessment of LME status,
future trends and associated drivers, and the consequences for humans.
Mr Debels commented that we are all gathering data at all levels, but how can we
make the most of our individual efforts? He suggested that we need to move and
gradually grow. Everyone will need its own technologies and data platform, but we
have limited resources and need to look how we can reuse the data.
Mr Osborne said that the good news is that there are many data standards we can
draw on as long as we know about them and have the capacity to use them. He then
asked whether the databases referred to in the presentation are being created or do
they already exist? There are data compiled and available but some indicators require
new data or updated databases, such as the Ocean Health Index which is now
including cumulative impact indicators.
Responding to Mr. Taconet’s question inquiring about the constraints which the
project faced regarding data sharing, Mr. Iglesias-Campos answered that in certain
regions/LMEs countries are reluctant to share which in turn impacts on a global
capacity to share across world LMEs.
Mr Troisi commented that we need to think of the interoperability of the data
platforms. We also need to measure the efforts that we request from the member
states in terms of staffing, infrastructures, etc.. Because we run the risk to being over
optimistic. And coming back to data sharing; by developing a good product you create
an incentive for data sharing.
2.3.5. UNEP ROLAC (GEF/UNEP/CARICOM indicators initiative)
Mr Charles Davies of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) presented
work on indicators in connection with the Latin American and Caribbean Initiative for
Sustainable Development (ILAC).
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3888
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104336129
ILAC had been adopted by the Forum of Environment Ministers of Latin America and
the Caribbean in the margins of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. It included a
framework of seven regional priority areas—climate change; biodiversity; water
resources management; vulnerability, human settlements and sustainable cities;
social issues, including health, inequality and poverty; economic issues, including
competitiveness, trade and patterns of sustainable consumption and production; and
institutional aspects—as well as goals and indicators, a number of which focused on
the marine environment. The Forum had established a Working Group on
Environmental Indicators with participation at present from 28 of the 33 countries of
the region, many participating through both environment ministries (officials
responsible for environmental information) and national statistical offices.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 11
The Working Group, chaired by Mexico, was developing common regional
methodologies for a core set of regional indicators (currently focusing on sustainable
and consumption indicators) and provided a network for capacity building activities,
recently including training on GIS, cloud computing and web map services organized
by the Latin American Development Bank (CAF)´s GeoSUR programme and the PanAmerican Institute for Geography and History (PAIGH), and delivered by the Spanish
Mapping Agency. The Working Group would also be providing technical support to an
upcoming process of ILAC revision, to be aligned with the Sustainable Development
Goals process. There were no mandatory reporting requirements, but a number of
countries had developed national reports tracking progress against the ILAC
indicators. In November 2013, a meeting of ILAC focal points from Caribbean Small
Island Developing States (SIDS) and international organizations recommended to
pursue an initiative on environmental information at the regional level; UNEP was
pursuing funding support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to complement
any other funding sources that other organizations and countries might be able to
access in support of these efforts.
Mr Roach commented that there is a need to identify overlap of indicators within
different initiatives. Mr Osborne asked how CMA2 can help this initiative? Mr Davies
said that the biggest challenges include the lack of links between many data sources
and the national environment information systems. Coordination of environmental
information (normally collected by several different agencies/institutes) is a big
challenge at the national level, an issue that GEF is prioritizing under its cross-cutting
capacity development portfolio. UNEP Live primarily develops links with existing
authoritative data sources managed at source. CMA2 could help develop stronger
links between different sources of data on the marine environment, and support
increased access and use for purposes such as national assessments and reports.
2.3.6. UNEP CEP (reporting under the Cartagena Convention and its protocols; State
of the Convention Area; Regional Seas indicators)
Mr Christopher Corbin, Programme Officer with UNEP’s Caribbean Environment
Programme provided a short background to his organization including its role as the
Secretariat for the Cartagena Convention and its three technical protocols.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3778
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104336261
These protocols deal with Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife - SPAW; Land
Based Sources of Marine Pollution, and Oil Spills. Through this legal framework,
UNEP CEP facilitates cooperation in scientific research, monitoring &
data/information exchange, reporting by Governments on measures taken to
implement the Convention & its Protocols and provides a framework for developing
future State of Convention Area Reports (SOCAR) for the Wider Caribbean Region.
These activities are implemented through several national and regional projects and
activities and often in collaboration with regional and global partners.
As a result of these projects and activities, UNEP CEP has produced several
technical reports, reporting templates, data bases, interactive online maps, GIS based
tools and other knowledge management products that can be used in the further
development of the Caribbean Marine Atlas. Several lessons and best practices have
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 12
___________________________________________________________________
also been documented from these efforts including the importance of: (1) Building on
existing platforms and mechanisms; and (2) Making allowance for issues such as
data ownership, sharing and sensitivity.
In conclusion, Mr Corbin identified possible areas for future collaboration including:
(1) Use of the UNEP CEP network of policy and technical Government Experts to
enhance the uptake & use of final products produced under the CMA Phase 2. (2)
Provision of technical support & conducting of joint activities involving UNEP CEP’s
Regional Activity Centres (RACs) and collaborating technical agencies; and (3) Build
on existing data & information products produced by UNEP CEP and through its subprogrammes, projects and activities.
2.3.7. IOC (World Ocean Assessment)
Mr Alejandro Iglesias-Campos (IOC/MPR) presented the IOC contributions, as a focal
point within the UN wide system for ocean sciences, observations, services, data and
information exchange and capacity development, to the UN World Ocean
Assessment and its report to be released by the end of 2014; and the development of
a new UN legal agreement related to the conservation and sustainable use of marine
biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction. IOC is also contributing to various
ocean–related UN inter-agency activities and UN processes which responds to the
needs expressed by the UN General Assembly, and plays an active role in UN interagency mechanisms and activities: (i) UN-Oceans, the UN inter-agency coordination
mechanism on ocean affairs, whose new terms of reference have been endorsed by
the UN General Assembly in December 2013 through resolution A/Res/68/70; (ii) the
on-going UN negotiations related to formulation of a set of the Sustainable
Development Goals in the post 2015/MDG context; (iii) the preparations for the UN
Conference on Small Island Developing States (1–4 September 2014) in Samoa.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3916
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104336498
2.3.8. FAO (indicators under the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, EAF)
Mr Marc Taconet (FAO) presented “Indicators under the Ecosystem Approach to
Fisheries (EAF)”.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3939
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104336616
EAF aims at long-term sustainable use of marine living resources, so to contribute to
broad societal goals of Ecological well-being (healthy ecosystem), and equitable
socio-economic development and human well–being, including through secured fish
food supply. EAF indicators are used in management frameworks to develop
operational objectives, and monitor effects of management procedures, as part of risk
based-approaches (Adaptive management). Their scope covers ecological, social,
economic, governance, and they can be classified as status / pressure / response
indicators.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 13
In order to foster implementation of the EAF, FAO has developed the EAFNet, a
participatory network where technical guidelines and tools can be found. Reporting
obligations to FAO are also drivers to Member Countries to generate minimum data
required for the EAF. At high level, such reporting allows FAO to produce high level /
integrative / global indicators such as State of Stocks (now part of the MDG), Mean
trophic level in catch, Fish food supply, or Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
(CCRF) implementation index.
The data relevant to CMA2 goals, which FAO maintains for producing such indicators,
are Fishery global statistics (> 60 years time series for Capture / Aquaculture
production, Fishing Fleet / Fishers; Food Balance Sheet), and various collections of
geo-referenced fishery fact sheets (species, Regional Fishery Bodies, Fishery and
Aquaculture country profiles, Inventories of aquaculture farming systems). Through
the FIRMS partnership for which FAO provides the Secretariat, EAF indicators
monitored by the 14 international RFB partners are collected by individual stock or
fishery.
All these data sources are managed by FIGIS, the Fisheries Global Information
System, and are disseminated in various formats including standard web-services
(Rest APIs) and XML formats (SDMX, FIMES, OGC, RDF).
Besides making available these products, FAO envisages to collaborate with CMA2
under the CLME+ project where national and regional capacity will be developed to
implement and enshrine the FIRMS framework in WECAFC, CRFM and OSPESCA
processes. In this context, enhancements to the system might be considered, such as
extensions on social and economic value of fisheries, finer grained geo-referenced
stocks and fisheries, or summary indicators on state of stocks / status and trends of
fisheries (socio-economics, management). FAO would also consider collaborative
activities aimed at producing new composite indicators for assessing / monitoring
Ecosystem state and Fishery productivity.
2.3.9. Conservation International (Ocean Health Index)
Mr Erich J Pacheco (Manager, Ocean Health Index at Conservation International)
presented the Ocean Health Index.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3937
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104336772
Many government initiatives emphasize the need for keeping oceans healthy, without
comprehensive methods for measuring ocean health. The Ocean Health Index is the
first integrated assessment framework that scientifically combines key biological,
physical, economic, and social elements of the ocean’s health. Overall Index scores
are a combination of ten components, or ‘goals’, of ocean health. These scores are
calculated using the best available data and indicators at the scale of the
assessment. Scores reflect how well coastal regions optimize their potential ocean
benefits and services in a sustainable way relative to a reference point (target), on a
scale of 0 to 100.
Methods for calculating the Ocean Health Index were developed at a global scale,
combining dozens of data sets to produce annual Index scores for coastal nations
and territories. Using the same framework, regional assessments allow for exploration
of variables influencing ocean health at the smaller scales where policy and
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 14
___________________________________________________________________
management decisions are made. Goal models and targets are created using local
higher resolution data, indicators, and priorities, which produce scores better
reflecting local realities. This enables scientists, managers, policy makers, and the
public to better and more holistically understand, track, and communicate the status
of local marine ecosystems, and to design strategic management actions to improve
overall ocean health.
Mr Osborne asked how important benchmarking (reference point) is and how the
information is being presented to policy makers in a meaningful way? Mr Pacheco
said setting benchmarks for indicators is extremely important and that OHI works
through the national agencies, which creates close buy-in. Mr Debels, asked if OHI
provides access to the underlying data? Mr Pacheco confirmed that you can
download all the data.
Mr Taconet asked how conflicting views among sectors were addressed, e.g. among
fisheries and conservation interests. Mr Pacheco said that tools and scoring are
handled at National level according to national priorities.
Summary Part 1 OTHER PROJECT AND PROJECT PROPOSALS CURRENTLY UNDER
DEVELOPMENT & INDICATORS - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Rapporteur Mr Appeltans summarized the many relevant collaborative activities and
issues raised as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All initiatives raised issues regarding data sharing, different technologies and
standards and data quality. The group recommended that the initiatives should
consider interoperability when addressing data exchange, product development,
services, platforms and standards.
CMA2 should invest in building demonstration products, which could drive future data
exchange.
CMA2 need to map the activities (including monitoring, tracking, setting
reference/baselines and trend analysis, interpretation of results, communication,
reporting, assessments, targets (e.g. Sustainable Development Goals), capacity
development, and ultimately decision making). Who is doing what and set up
partnerships.
CMA2 could identify overlap of indicators within different initiatives.
CMA2 need to select priority indicators/data that CMA2 will support.
We need to avoid setting over-ambitious goals. Taking into account the limited
resources, what can CMA2 do successfully? There are already many data portals.
What should be the added value and functionalities of a Caribbean Marine Atlas?
Should CMA2 be a data gateway to help support Member States in their reporting
obligations?
CMA2 needs to measure the impact of the proposed activities on individual countries
in terms of required/requested human & financial resources, as well as in terms of
infrastructure (including access to data, internet etc).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 15
PART 2 – POTENTIAL USEFUL PLATFORMS, FUNCTIONALITIES & TOOLS
2.3.10.UNEP ROLAC (the UNEP Live platform)
Mr Charles Davies of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) presented
UNEP Live (www.uneplive.org).
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3766
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104348237
UNEP Live is an open access platform for environmental information developed at the
request of Member States. The recent session of the UN Environment Assembly also
encouraged Governments, UN specialized agencies and other partners to engage in
the future development of UNEP Live and share appropriate, credible and qualityassured data and information. UNEP Live aimed to support existing communities of
practice to capture, use, integrate and contextualize data. It also aimed to improve on
and support existing assessment processes—such as the Global Environment
Outlook series—by maintaining information more efficiently, effectively and
dynamically, and improving coherence based on the principle of “collect once, use
often”.
UNEP Live aimed to establish dynamic links to as many sources of credible
information as possible, maintained at source, including international and national
sources, web map services, real-time information, with the information and platform
being used to develop assessments and other information on different themes (at
present, a GEO for SIDS currently at final draft stage).
UNEP Live would be supported with a strong programme of capacity building,
including a National Reporting Toolkit to help governments coordinate their
environmental data for more efficient and coherent national and international
reporting. Finally, he outlined UNEP´s contribution to two international assessment
progresses linked with the marine environment—the Transboundary Waters
Assessment Programme (TWAP) and the World Oceans Assessment—including
responsibilities for data and information management, indicators and capacity
building.
Mr Debels asked if the UNEP live tools and data platform can be copied or used for
CMA2? Mr Davies replied that there were several possibilities: there might be
possibilities for LMEs to develop Communities of Practice on UNEP Live and/or for
UNEP Live to host the information. A more straightforward approach (assuming the
relevant data could be managed at source and/or through the CMA-2 platform) would
be to develop a direct link with an API, or develop other dynamic links between CMA
and UNEP Live platforms.
Mr Taconet mentioned that FAO and UNEP have recently updated their
Memorandum of Understanding and agreed to work together on common directions
and strategies, standards, policies etc. towards global level data platforms.
Mr Knowles asked how the TWAP platform links with UNEP Live. Mr Davies said that,
in addition to making UNEP Live expertise available to support different thematic
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 16
___________________________________________________________________
assessment initiatives such as TWAP, it is planned to make data from TWAP and
other thematic assessments available on UNEP Live.
Mr Appeltans asked if UNEP Live includes the statistics from the national
environment reports. Mr Davies said that UNEP Live currently includes national data
compiled by international organizations such as the United Nations Statistics Division,
with dynamic links to national sources in some cases (e.g., Kenya). UNEP is
developing tools such as a National Reporting Toolkit to assist countries to publish
and maintain their national data, with links to UNEP Live.
2.3.11.FAO (FIRMS, iMarine)
Mr Marc Taconet (FAO) presented “FIRMS and iMarine”.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3938
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104348026
FIRMS is an information sharing partnership bringing together fourteen international
Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) aimed at facilitating the monitoring of state of world
fishery resources, and status and trends of fisheries and their management. iMarine
is an initiative supported by EU FP7 aimed at establishing and operating a data
Infrastructure supporting the EA to Fisheries Management and Conservation of
Marine Living Resources. iMarine current value proposition covers data management
solutions to support the whole EA policy life-cycle, e.g. for fine grained catch & effort,
biodiversity mapping, mapping of sensitive habitats, comprehensive EA indicators
dashboards. iMarine services can be classified in three broad categories: collation
and sharing campaigns (geo-finder, statistical data harmonizer, fisheries data
enricher), Ecosystem Approach assessments (species distribution modeler,
integrated capture manager, fishing activity manager), and policy implementation and
monitoring strategies (fact sheet manager / dissemination, applications builder).
iMarine is powered by the D4Science data infrastructure, an IT supported platform
geared to facilitate the integration of IT resources (hardware, software, data), and
enable the mobilization of related human expertise, under regulated data policies
and governance mechanisms. It is fundamentally a distributed infrastructure, which
overall coherence builds on the existence of a central conductor. Virtual Research
Environments (VREs) is a key iMarine product, a flexible and secure Web-based
working environment configured to serve the application needs of a community
working for a specific goal.
Through iMarine VREs, users can get access through various formats and protocols
to a comprehensive data catalogue on the EA across fisheries, biodiversity and
marine environment. Through iMarine services (upload and format conversion, DB
plug-ins protocols, APIs registering), they can also add their own data source to the
Data catalogue. In support to data sets harmonization, iMarine also offers tools to
collaboratively manage distributed Reference Data, Code lists, Classifications, and
their mapping.
Under CLME+, FAO proposes to leverage on FIRMS and iMarine and develop a
Fisheries Regional DataBase (fisheries-RDB) in support to Stock assessment and
fishery management plans (under WECAFC, CRFM, OSPESCA mechanisms). VREs
will be set-up for harmonizing national fishery statistics, enabling a data processing
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 17
suite for stock assessment, and fishery management, and FIRMS inventories and
status/trends reports.
Beyond the fisheries-RDB, iMarine VREs can also be made available to CMA2’s
broader EA goals, thus allowing e.g. an integrated access to a broad range of EA
data sources, a support to CMA2 harmonization processes, support to a regional data
portal disseminating a range of geo-referenced EA indicators through seamless
access across various relevant information system, or the collaborative production of
derived indicators for monitoring Ecosystem productivity and state.
2.3.12.Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur (CPPS)
Mr Fernando Félix presented SPINCAM. His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3958
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104348457
The Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) is the regional coordination
institution of the SPINCAM IOC-UNESCO/Flanders/CPPS project. The second phase
of the project started in 2013. Participant countries are Chile, Colombia, Ecuador,
Panama and Peru. The general objective of SPINCAM is to support the development
of decision-making tools and implementation of ICAM through improved data and
information management capacity, knowledge, communication and networking at
national and regional level. Relevant products related with geo spatial information
include the Geoportal SPINCAM (http://190.95.249.245/smartatlas) and the
information system on marine biodiversity SIBIMAP http://sibimap.net. The former
shows a graphic representation of four ICAN indicators and another six indicators will
be ready by the end of 2014. SIBIMAP contains georeferenced information on
cetaceans, sea turtles and MPA. SPINCAM has four years of implementation in the
Southeast Pacific. Lessons learnt during this processes may be of interest to CMA2
particularly on definition of data standards, establishment of a regional spatial data
infrastructure, definition and implementation of national and regional indicators and
training the right/wrong technicians. Active collaboration between SPINCAM and
CMA2 may include exchange of experiences in the development ICAN indicators and
conduct join training activities, among others.
Mr Roach asked if the development of indicators was based on those of the PEGASO
project of which IOC is involved (http://www.pegasoproject.eu/)? Mr Felix said that
this provided the conceptual framework and the factsheet developed by IOC was
indeed very useful.
Mr Arias-Isaza commented that SPINCAM is a good example where nations started
sharing data.
Mr Corbin said that we should identify joint training needs and opportunities, pooling
resources.
2.3.13.European Commission – Joint Research Centre, BIOPAMA
Ms Mariagrazia Graziano (European Commission DG JRC) presented the
Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management project (BIOPAMA)
Her presentation is available at:
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 18
___________________________________________________________________
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3760
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104348936
BIOPAMA is focused on improving long-term conservation of biodiversity in AfricaCaribbean-Pacific (ACP) regions and reduce the poverty of populations surrounding
protected areas. The program will improve access to and availability of information on
biodiversity and socioeconomic issues by a well-structured information system
including the “Digital Observatory of Protected Areas-DOPA” and the “Regional
Reference Information System – RRIS”. The tool eMarine, part of this system,
provides a set of indicators related to the Marine Protected Areas for ecosystems
monitoring and assessment. It has been developed based on the best available
scientific data to support effective protected area management and marine
biodiversity conservation in the regions.
2.3.14.University of the West Indies (mFisheries)
Mr Kim Mallalieu presented mFisheries. His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3891
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104349097
The Caribbean ICT Research Programme in the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering at The University of the West Indies’ St. Augustine Campus in
Trinidad and Tobago is concerned with the use of information and communication
technologies for social and economic development of marginalized communities.
mFisheries is a suite of mobile and Web applications developed by the Caribbean ICT
Research Programme to address various lifestyle and operational challenges faced
by small scale fisher folk, particular but not limited to, seafarers.
Over the coming year, the suite will be extended to start integrating ICT into the
small-scale fisheries vertical value chain in a number of Caribbean countries. In
particular, the team shall build on existing instrumental, informational and
transactional capabilities effected through mobile and Web solutions and include new
organizational and ultimately strategic interventions through the use of ICT tools.
The team’s particular strategic interest revolves around the social and economic
empowerment of the small-scale fisher. They are engaged in the elaboration of
indicators for access, use and impact of ICT in national development, using the ICT
Development Index (IDI) as the baseline. They recognize that the impact of ICT use is
grounded in application and that in the case of small-scale fishers, there is a
compelling opportunity for contextualization in the vexing case of governance,
monitoring and evaluation of the living marine resource.
Existing instrumental facilities in the mFisheries suite include various navigational
instruments and trip planners on the cell phone; to which we shall add a Normally
Zero Reporting satellite communications interface for range extension. Existing
informational facilities include open data access to current market prices as well as a
range of training companions and other information resources. Existing transactional
facilities include a virtual market place, which links buyers and sellers.
The new organizational component of the ICT-enabled vertical value chain will be
affected through a multi-agent engagement platform for the Caribbean Network of
Fisherfolk Organizations (CNFO).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 19
A key strategic outcome of Caribbean ICT Research Programme interventions would
be the creation and maintenance of channels through which the small scale fisheries
community can themselves participate in the governance of the marine resource for
which, through generations of tradition, they feel a strong sense of ownership. Within
the tiered assessment framework for ICT impact, this would reside at the apex. The
use of the mFisheries application suite in established and emerging co-management
regimes is therefore of particular interest.
Dr. Mallalieu expressed keen interest in partnering with other initiatives in the region
to develop and demonstrate the CNFO engagement platform as the focal point for
fisherfolk sensitization about, and deliberation on, matters which impact them as
primary users of the marine resource. She also expressed keen interest in partnering
with other initiatives in the region to define, design and demonstrate a comanagement regime which would involve the bidirectional flow of information
between small scale fishers and the existing and emerging regional data
infrastructures.
Essential to the success of planned mFisheries initiatives over the coming year is the
partnership with other regional initiatives that stand to gain from mobile data
acquisition, Web analytics and visualization; as well as ICT-facilitated multistakeholder engagement with emphasis on primary users of the living marine
resource. Also essential to success is the partnership with other regional initiatives
that provide resources to Web and mobile platforms used by fishers. The mFisheries
team is keen to implement their data infrastructures and web services in such a way
as to align with other regional initiatives. They have already started working with the
CNFO and ECMMAN.
Mr Corbin asked what is the value that we can provide to fishermen? Dr Mallalieu
said maps of maritime artefacts and of the ocean floor, with very highly value from
nautical charts. She indicated that her team, the Caribbean ICT Research Centre,
was keen to include such data in the open source mFisheries mobile and Web
application once it could be sourced and legitimately used at no cost; but that NOAA
had confirmed that they did not possess nautical charts for the southern Caribbean
and UKHO had indicated that they were unable to provide electronic charts at no
cost.
Dr Mallalieu indicated that the several of the proposed outputs of the CMA2 project
were of keen interest to the Caribbean ICT Research Centre for access through the
mFisheries mobile and Web application suite to strengthen the value proposition for
small scale fishers to contribute data such as IUU and catch and effort. She explained
that such data is important for management of the fisheries sector in particular and of
the living marine resource in general, but that there is no incentive for fishers to
provide this data. For local fishermen in the Caribbean, the mobile phone is the only
communications device that is generally carried to sea. Though few small-scale
fishers have marine radios, they are not widely used and virtually no small scale
fishers utilize satellite communications; yet safety at sea is a deep concern for them.
Dr Mallalieu indicated that over the coming year, the Caribbean ICT Research Centre
would be building and testing a relatively low cost Normally Zero Reporting satellite
communications interface for mFisheries as one component of a multidimensional
incentive programme for fishers within a co-management pilot. She expressed
interest in partnering with other regional initiatives, represented at the CMA2 Kick Off
meeting, to implement this pilot.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 20
___________________________________________________________________
Ms Porta asked if this project is already on-going? Dr Malalieu said it is currently
running in Tobago and over the coming year it will be extended to Trinidad, Antigua,
Barbuda and Belize.
Mr Debels enquired about the scale of the planned activities over the coming year
and Dr Mallalieu said that they would be happy with 5 or 10 fishermen that are
seriously committed to the co-management pilot. She emphasized that the
proposition is potentially transformational and addresses many vexing and competing
issues and that there could be no quick solution in the context of generations over
which small-scale fishers have commanded the seas with little or no interference.
They have a strong sense of ownership of the seas that equates to squatters’ rights
and any change to this regime will necessarily entail a deliberate yet gradual strategy.
Mr Arias-Isaza commented that gaining confidence from the local fishermen is a
major challenge. Dr Mallalieu added that in addition to the perceived ownership of the
seas, the fishers’ whereabouts and routes, which are of great interest to several
agents, is their intellectual property; and that indeed the building and maintaining of
their trust, in the context of a tangible and compelling value proposition is key. She
again indicated that the CMA2 and other regional initiatives can contribute information
resources that can potentially strengthen the value proposition to small scale fishers.
2.3.15.International Coastal Atlas Network (ICAN)
Ms Marcia Berman (ICAN Co-Chair, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of
William and Mary) presented the International Coastal Atlas Network (ICAN).
Her presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3926
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104349245
ICAN is a community of practice of organizations with a mission to share experiences
and to find common solutions to Coastal Web Atlas (CWA) development. With more
than 60 member organizations around the globe, ICAN can harness expertise across
a wide range of specialties that include data management, map services, networking,
coastal management, ocean remote sensing, and coastal policy. A major goal of
ICAN is to help build a functioning digital atlas of the worldwide coast based on the
principle of shared distributed information and global-level operational interoperability.
ICAN promotes and encourages an increase in coastal and marine data sharing
among policy makers and resource managers through the strategic use of CWAs.
Participants seek to play a leadership role in forging international collaborations of
value to the participating nations and organizations, thereby optimizing regional
governance in coastal zone management.
To that end, ICAN collaborates on regional and global projects, provides training, and
serves as host for informed discussion. Among its achievements are a handbook on
coastal informatics and CWA development, an interoperability portal, training guides
on best practices, and numerous workshops. In 2013, ICAN became an official
project of the IODE.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 21
2.3.16.IOC (Caribbean regional OBIS node)
Dr Eduardo Klein (Simon Bolivar University) presented the Caribbean node of the
Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS).
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3917
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104349406
OBIS currently holds ~ 40MM worldwide georeferenced records of marine organisms
from ~1500 databases. For the Caribbean region, the system has ~380K records of
~13K taxa from 119 databases. In addition to taxonomic information, OBIS also has
oceanographic data (such as temperature, salinity, nutrients, depth) and different
regional boundaries (EEZ, IHO, LME, MEOW, WHS, MPA), which could be used to
construct multi-criteria searches. It also provides summary maps of number of
species, number of records and several biodiversity indices.
At this stage, OBIS only provides sea turtle nesting sites (from OBIS SEAMAP) to the
CMA project. OBIS follows the IOC data policy, which means unrestricted access to
all data and products developed by OBIS. CarOBIS node is a Tier 2 unit in the OBIS
structure. CarOBIS is the regional OBIS node, connecting local data providers and
providing guidance on best practices in biodiversity data management, quality control
and data sharing. CarOBIS could acquire new biodiversity related databases for the
Caribbean; provide guidance and training, and biodiversity data to the CMA2 via the
OBIS geoserver.
Mr Roach asked if the 199 datasets from the Caribbean includes the island chain. Mr
Klein said that there are certainly several gaps, especially in the open ocean, but
several global databases also have data from the Caribbean.
Mr Arias-Isaza commented that we do not have experts on all taxa and hence many
taxa are not studied. Mr Klein confirmed that the main groups are well represented,
but OBIS depends on the data provided and does not organize or collect data
themselves.
Mr Knowles asked if the Caribbean OBIS node has its own site? Mr Klein said that
they have their own IPT (data publishing toolkit), but that all data is accessible
through the international OBIS portal.
Mr Taconet asked if CarOBIS has data from fisheries surveys. Mr Klein said that it is
very difficult to get data from fisheries, but to overcome the barrier of data sharing
they can give presence data and not abundance, even though we prefer to include
abundance data.
Summary Part 2 – Potential Useful Platforms, Functionalities & Tools
Rapporteur Mr Appeltans provided a summary of the potential useful platforms,
functionalities & tools presented.
•
We have seen many interesting and advanced platforms, functionalities and
tools such as VREs, webservices, mobile and web applications, mapping
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 22
___________________________________________________________________
•
•
•
•
applications, etc which support data access, as well as data collection and
data processing (Quality Control, data harmonization etc). There are obviously
several champions and CMA2 will need to consider whether it is most
appropriate to build new tools, implement some of these tools or contribute to
existing tools. We cannot be champions in everything and we may need to
distribute efforts. Also CMA2 needs to reflect on what is wants/can deliver? A
data portal or a data management framework, including core reference
datasets (including the small scale fisheries data)? A regional marine data
management framework (a clearing-house mechanism) might be more useful
then a data portal.
It is recommended that CMA2 map the existing functionalities,
Consider the guidelines on atlases developed by ICAN
Consider sustainability and scale when developing its data platform,
And collaborate among other initiatives in capacity development activities.
2.4. Lesson learnt and best practices under CMA1
Mr Ramon Roach gave an overview of lesson learnt in CMA1, and coastal zonerelated management issues that had already been identified by participants under
CMA1.
Mr Roach began his presentation by stating that the CMA project was conceptualized
as a potential means to address the gaps in regional environmental decision-making.
He described the importance of access to environmental data as a means to support
effective policy making, as data was required for each phase of the policy cycle
(planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation). In addition, data from multiple
parties was also required for trans-boundary analysis as well as effective
communication with policy makers at the local and regional levels. He proceeded by
noting that improved data management practices can promote the effective use of
data from multiple disciplines by improving data access and data quality. Furthermore
he indicated that sound data management could improve communication with
stakeholders.
Mr Roach continued the presentation by describing the genesis of the CMA through
the example provided by the African Marine Atlas project from ODINAFRICA and the
understanding of the clear benefits this system could provide to the Caribbean. This
led to the hosting of an inception workshop in Barbados in 2007 involving participants
from six Caribbean countries all sponsored by the IODE. One of the outputs of this
workshop was a listing of regional priority environmental issues that the CMA project
would focus on initially to demonstrate its utility as a data management and decisionmaking tool. The priorities identified were:
•
•
•
•
•
Marine habitat management (coral reefs, sea grass beds, mangroves)
The overexploitation of marine resources
Natural hazards
Beach erosion
Land based sources of marine pollution
In addition the participants identified several common data access and data
management issues, which had the potential to be at least partly addressed by the
CMA.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 23
The speaker then briefly described the data management and atlas development
courses the national representatives from the CMA partner countries took part in over
the course of the CMA project, including ocean data management, database
management and marine atlas building workshops. The Flanders UNESCO Science
Trust (FUST) sponsored all of these capacity building activities.
Mr Roach concluded his presentation by describing the challenges and lessons
learned over the course of the CMA project. He indicated that capacity at participating
national institutions was a challenge, as there was limited or no specialization in
coastal/marine data management and as such both data management and atlas
development tasks were given low priority. Cross-institutional data discovery was also
generally limited and as a result required data was difficult to find and access.
Furthermore, staff rotation reduced the level of participation in the project and limited
implementation efforts. Technology challenges (changes in atlas backend systems)
also impacted the successful implementation of project activities.
The speaker noted that the priority needs of regional and national atlas stakeholders
who were identified over the course of the project were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additional data collection capacity
Additional data management capacity
Easy data location and visualization
Transparent, well defined data policies
Policy-relevant applications for spatial data/information
The clear identification of the economic benefits of participating in an atlas
programme.
In terms of the priority needs of the developers of the atlas platforms themselves,
these were identified as:
•
•
•
•
•
Capacity development in web atlas building
Assistance with adding functionality to existing atlases
Assistance in the management and preparation of datasets for inclusion in
atlases
Support in developing ways to automate certain data management tasks
Support in the development of data sharing and data distribution policies.
During this session we exchanged many impressions and reflections on what was
presented during the morning and lesson learnt and best practices under CMA1 and
what we need to make new in CMA2.
Ms Haddad asked if CMA1, with the current knowledge, would change the priority
settings that were set in the beginning of CMA1? Mr Roach replied that the priorities
at the regional level have not changed much, but they did at the national level, e.g. in
Barbados national hazards are high up now.
Mr Troisi said capacity challenges outweigh technical challenges. Developing policy
relevant applications will help raise support. What would be the main obstacle in
developing policies? Mr Roach said the reluctance of different heads of government
agencies to sharing some types of data. Mr Roach recommended that in addition to
showing what data applications can do, it is more important to convince the policy
makers that they need this.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 24
___________________________________________________________________
Mr Osborne noted that in the UK it took 15 years to get a decent level of data sharing,
but even the technology and data platforms are not yet entirely in place.
Mr Paver asked if we need to build capacity in every single skill, such as data
collection, data management, data dissemination etc. or will each partner specialize?
Mr Debels said that this is too early to know now, but the project could form a joint
data management team.
Mr Toro commented that we first need to know the data needs and drivers of the
Member States, what are the issues we are going to answer, and not first think of how
to overcome the data sharing problems. For example, next week there is the SIDS
conference in Samoa. CARICOM is strong in demanding to get back the resilience of
the islands.
Mr Clerveaux commented that the main buy-in is the profitable use that others can
make. In CMA1 we tried to train 2 persons per institution. Now we can do remote
training. Mr Roach said we need to think what training will be the most efficient.
Mr Pissierssens informed the meeting that in IODE’s OceanTeacher, all courses were
organized in Oostende, in which often only 1 person from each country could
participate. The next phase of OceanTeacher (OceanTeacher Global Academy) will
include regional training centres, with local training. For example, INVEMAR will host
a training centre for Spanish speaking trainees. We are still missing an English
training centre in the Caribbean region. Regional training centres need to be selfdriven and self-financed.
Mr Osborne asked if CMA1 has developed a metadata database? Mr Roach, yes
there is a geonetwork database holding the metadata. The metadata is created
nationally, and this could enable CMA2 to just harvest the data. Yes in the ideal case.
But how many of the countries in CMA2 have already a national geospatial
infrastructure in place?
Mr Debels stated that availability of data is an issue. We don’t have access to all of
the data, but if we can have access to a few datasets, we can already improve the
decision making system, making small steps and gradually grow. For example, look
at the Ocean Health Index. They made results based on global data. Not all countries
agreed with the results, and that triggered them to contribute better data.
3.
IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY MANAGEMENT
AND M&E ISSUES
3.1. Presentations by sub-regional governance bodies
Meeting Chair Mr Arias-Isaza invited sub-regional governance bodies to give a brief
presentation on their mandate and their corresponding interest in the CMA2 initiative.
For this purpose, they have built further upon the inputs provided during Day 1.
3.1.1. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM)
Mr Peter A. Murray presented the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 25
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3889
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104416100
The CRFM was established by treaty in 2002. The objectives of the CRFM are:
efficient management and sustainable development of marine and other resources;
promotion and establishment of co-operative arrangements; and, provision of
technical advisory and consultative services to fisheries divisions. The CRFM was
designed as a network of stakeholders with a governance structure comprised of the
Ministerial Council as the highest decision making entity, the Caribbean Fisheries
Forum of Directors of Fisheries/Chief Fisheries Officers (the Forum) and the
Technical Unit or the CRFM Secretariat. The network currently comprises 17 States;
together with organisations such as UWI, University of Belize, the Caribbean Network
of Fisherfolk Organisations (CNFO) and the CARICOM and OECS Secretariats.
In 2003, Government of Barbados proposed elaborating a Common Fisheries
Regime. Conference of Heads of Government mandated work on a common fisheries
policy and regime (CFP&R) for the region. The Forum decided, in March 2003, that it
was best placed to provide regional leadership for developing a common Fisheries
Policy and Regime (CFP&R). Preparation of the CFP&R was through a consultative
process involving representatives of Member States and regional experts in fisheries,
regional integration, and marine law and policy. Regional policy makers guided the
technical work: first, the CARICOM Council for Trade and Economic Development
(COTED); then, the CRFM Ministerial Council (comprising Ministers Responsible for
Fisheries). The nine-year process resulted in a draft agreement establishing a
Caribbean Community Common Fisheries Policy (CCCFP) that, notwithstanding
being approved by Ministerial Council and can be considered a clear “statement of
intent”, is awaiting signature by the Heads of Government.
The Policy’s objectives are to: promote the sustainable development of fishing and
aquaculture industries; develop harmonised measures and operating procedures;
improve the welfare and livelihoods of fishers and fishing communities; prevent, deter
and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; build the institutional
capabilities; integrate environmental, coastal and marine management considerations
into policy; transform the sector to be market-oriented, internationally-competitive and
environmentally-sustainable; strengthen, upgrade and modernise legislation; and
facilitate the establishment of a regime for sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS)
measures. The Policy covers areas including, but not limited to: Statistics and
Research; Conservation and Management; Confidentiality and Intellectual Property
Rights; Dissemination of Information; Public Awareness; and Links with International
Organisations.
The CRFM’s interests in the CMA2 are essentially “enshrined” in the organisational
results of six of the eight strategic objectives of the CRFM’s Strategic Plan 20132021. The relevant organisational results are: strengthened capacities to collect,
manage, analyse and use data and information; adoption of appropriate (regional)
standards for data and information sharing; monitoring of management effectiveness
and conservation measures; actively implement the Precautionary approach (PA),
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) and the Castries Declaration on Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing; preparation, adoption and implementation of
fisheries management and development plans; incorporating and implement the
“CARICOM strategy and action plan on climate change adaptation and disaster risk
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 26
___________________________________________________________________
management in fisheries and aquaculture”; reduce fisherfolk and fishing communities’
vulnerability to crisis, threats and emergencies; strengthen national fisheries
administrations and other supporting institutional frameworks; streamline the process
of provision of fisheries management advice; effectively implement the CRFM
Communication Strategy; and, implement the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem
(CLME+) Strategic Action Programme (SAP).
In commenting on the presentation, Mr Corbin emphasized the important role regional
organizations play. We have a legal mandate under the Cartagena Convention, but
often rely on their expertise, their personnel and willingness to collaborate with us.
Mr Debels, asked if CMA can be present in the CRFM governing bodies to get more
buy-in and attract more data? Mr Murray: this is indeed imperative. However, data
sharing depends on the will of the people.
Mr Sean asked if there are champions at the national or regional level for CRFM who
can help to push it through? Mr Murray: There are champions at all levels, at
ministerial level and regional level. However, keeping things going is a challenge
when other priorities pop up. Hence, the output is very important to justify its
existence.
Mr Taconet, commented on the difficulties of data sharing. FIRMS has been endorsed
and regional focal points are assigned, also CRFM has a focal point, and we started
creating an inventory. He thanked CRFM for their collaboration.
3.1.2. Organization of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector of the Central-American
Isthmus OSPESCA
Mr Reinaldo Morales R. (Regional Expert of SICA/OSPESCA) gave a presentation on
the Organization of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector of the Central American
Isthmus (OSPESCA).
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3923
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104416389
OSPESCA is the agency of the Central American Integration System (SICA) that
works to the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the SICA's countries (Belize, Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Dominican
Republic). Its objective is to promote the sustainable and coordinated development of
fisheries and aquaculture in the context of the Central American integration process,
defining, approving and implementing policies, strategies, programs and regional
projects.
OSPESCA, is composed by the competent authorities of fisheries and aquaculture of
SICA's countries. As decision-makers, their instances of maximum level are the
"Council of Competent Ministers of Fishing and Aquaculture Activities", the
"Committee of Vice Ministers" and the "Commission of Directors of Fisheries and
Aquaculture". As entities of consultation, OSPESCA works with the Organization of
Entrepreneurs of Fisheries and Aquaculture (OECAP) and the Confederation of
Artisanal Central American Fishers (CONFEPESCA).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 27
Decisions are based on the regional governance model, that includes specific
mechanisms and processes through which changes are generated and guided,
having as pillars: i) the general framework of SICA; ii) the integration policy of
fisheries and aquaculture in the Central American Isthmus; iii) regional and national
institutions; iv) the regulatory harmonization at national and regional level, and, v) the
relation with forums, agencies and other international instruments.
The enactment of regional regulations is based on Article 22 of the Protocol of
Tegucigalpa, which created SICA and establishes that decisions of the Council of
Ministers are mandatory to all its member states. In this framework, nine regulations
have been enacted, as follows: 1) Integrated register system of fisheries and
aquaculture; 2) Management of the Caribbean spiny lobster; 3) Regional system of
satellite monitoring of fishing vessels and control; 4) Code of ethic for responsible
fisheries and aquaculture; 5) Prohibiting the practice of shark finning; 6) Proper use of
Turtle Excluder Devices (TED); 7) To prevent, control, and eradicate diseases in
shrimp culture; 8) To strengthen the sustainability of whale shark (Rhincodon typus);
and 9) To prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
For the development of its activities, OSPESCA is supported by international
cooperation, memorandums and agreements with agencies and countries such as the
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), CLME, and Central American
Commission of Environment and Development (CCAD), among others.
3.1.3. Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)
Ms Asha Singh presented the work of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States
(OECS) with regards to Sustainable Ocean Governance: The importance of marine
spatial data.
Her presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3848
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104416592
The OECS comprises of nine member states. As a body, the OECS is governed by
the Revised Treaty of Bassettere establishing the Economic Union. In the member
states, all the countries have ratified the UNCLOS which give rights up to 200 NM and
responsibilities to sustainably manage the space. Boundary delimitation is a priority
and countries are moving towards boundary finalisation. By estimate, upon the
finalisation of this process, some countries will have many times more marine space
than land under its jurisdiction. Given the common challenges, issues and direction of
the OECS, the approach to sustainable ocean governance is regional. In 2013,
ECROP and a 3 year Strategic Action Plan were approved and within this framework,
sustainable ocean governance is pursued in the OECS.
With regard to synergies with CMA, there are a number of thematic areas, which will
benefit from spatial information or its success hinges on said. These include the
following among others: maritime boundary delimitation, assessment of MPAs,
Quantify Resources, ocean and coastal zoning and spatial planning-potential and
future uses. There is also the opportunity for the OECS to support of the data
aspirations and governing structure of CMA with some of the on-going and planned
initiatives such as the Hydrographic study and the development of a marine research
strategy which will have a number of protocols for research and data sharing.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 28
___________________________________________________________________
Mr Osborne: Does OECS has a metadata database on hydrography? Ms Singh: Not
at the moment, but it is our aspiration, having said that, we have commenced the
process of getting there, and currently undertaking a hydrographic scoping study
which covers all the member states. .
Mr Roach asked if OECS is taking over the development of nautical charts from the
UK. Ms Singh: No the UKHO being a primary charting authority will continue doing
that.
Mr Toro invited OECS to continue working collaboratively with IOC and encouraged
them to stress further the importance of the ocean in the draft document “OECS
Vision Priorities – Consolidation of the Single Economic Space. Ms Singh replied that
OECS has a governance structure and is endorsed by heads of the governments, but
it is true that the ocean can still get more priority. However, the importance of the
ocean is recognized. OECS Ocean Governance Unit only started about 6 months
ago, and since then we have already formed good relationships with e.g. the Global
Partnership for Oceans, UNEP-CEP, … and there is great synergy, and we hope to
work with IOC as well.
Mr Corbin, noted that the geographical coverage of OECS still has gaps, while for
ocean governance it is important to look at the entire region. He also recommended
ensuring data interoperability and harmonization with the regional/international efforts.
Ms Singh fully agrees that we must ensure that we complement each other and not
conflict with each other’s initiatives. OECS has a well-established governance
structure and marine strategy and will work with international data standards, and not
work in isolation. Our motto is collect data once - use many times.
3.2. Overview of pre-identified priority monitoring & evaluation
(M&E) needs
Mr Debels gave an overview of progress in the identification of coastal zone/marinerelated monitoring and reporting priorities that are common/shared among
participating countries and/or correspond to regional or global commitments and
obligations.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3959
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104416829
Mr Davies, suggested some additional information sources that could be taken into
account in a study on existing reporting requirements including:
•
•
•
The InforMEA web site (www.informea.org)
A study of regional and subregional priorities and processes on sustainable
development
produced
for
the
Forum
of
Environment
Ministers
(http://www.pnuma.org/forodeministros/19mexico/documentos/Regional%20and%20subregional%20priorities%2023%20August
%202013%20_3_.pdf), and
Reporting frameworks of funding agencies. The Framework for the Development of
Environment Statistics (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/fdes.htm) and the
System
of
Environmental-Economic
Accounting
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 29
(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp) were not reporting requirements,
but could be useful to consider as they covered relevant topics such as aquatic
resources.
Mr Toro: We need to look into which reporting obligations already exist and how CMA
can help the countries to support this.
Mr Osborne, how can CMA build on or contribute to some excellent initiatives? What
do they want from us? There are some fundamental building blocks such as (i) data
management framework, resources developed centrally e.g. metadata databases,
training, mentoring, standards; (ii) CMA should build a pool of resources, knowledge
and expertise where member states can draw on. For example, all thematic themes
need base mapping, such as bathymetry. CMA1 currently uses GEBCO that is fine
but not good enough at local level. So we need to update that and (iii) a lot of new
data collection, and there is a lot of potential in crowd sourcing.
3.3. Identification/Updating of priority management and monitoring
& evaluation issues at resp. the national and regional levels
Participants were divided in 2 groups:
• group 1 (country representatives) worked on the identification of priority
management/policy issues in each participating country, for which the CMA2
applications will be expected to provide decision support. Consideration was
given in this context to existing national and regional commitments (e.g. the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the development of National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPS) for the 2015-2020 period),
projects and initiatives, from which a specific demand for decision-support may
emanate, and which at the same time can provide an additional
(logistical/financial) support base for the work to be conducted under CMA2. Mr
Patrick MCConney was appointed the facilitator and Mr Sean Padmanabhan the
rapporteur to report back to the plenary.
•
group 2 (regional/international organizations) worked on the identification of a
priority set of indicators (reporting obligations, and M&E of CLME SAP
implementation) for which the CMA2 applications will be expected to provide a
dissemination and consultation platform. Lavern Walker was appointed the
facilitator and Mr Patrick Debels rapporteur to report back to the plenary.
The break-out sessions was followed by a plenary discussion (incl. reporting on
the break-out session results)
ANNEX II: Table from group 1: Identification of priority management/policy
issues in each participating country, for which the CMA2 applications will
be expected to provide decision support.
3.3.1. Summary of priority management and monitoring & evaluation issues.
Group 1. Mr Padmanabhan summarized the outcomes of this break-out session. His
presentation is available at this video:
http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469151
Issues raised:
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 30
___________________________________________________________________
•
•
•
•
Good and biased use of information by data consumers
Priority of Expected datasets and information that CMA should produce
De-centralization of information and reports
Lack of analysis tools / capacities
Opportunities identified:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Possible/Future projection/modeling tools capabilities of CMA
Available FAQs and simply visualization and query tools for CMA
CMA can provide regional and sub-regional info and allow greater detail to come from
national sources
CMA can provide / re-package products/data that specifically cater to its user-base
CMA can provide information on risk assessment and risk reduction as part of information
on coastal development
MBRS2 Programme
Healthy Reefs Initiative
Mr McConney said that if CMA2 is to be successful it needs to address which
resolution to focus on. CMA should provide something that is manageable, such as a
clearinghouse mechanism/portal.
Mr Arias-Isaza reported that risk assessments, climate change and tsunami warnings
are better known problems, and governments will soon be demanding advice on
these topics.
Group 2. Mr Debels summarized the outcomes of this break-out session. His
presentation is available at this video:
http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469428
He reported that the CMA2 Project will contribute to two different overlapping
development objectives. The work of group 2 focussed on objective 2: Sustainable
Management of shared living marine resources in the Caribbean and North Brazil
The project will contribute to this by operationalizing spatial data -based online
platforms (Caribbean Marine Atlases) in support of policy development, decisionmaking and M&E needs.
The priority topics for the region in the context of CMA2 and CLME+ had been
identified as: Fisheries, pollution and habitat degradation, in order to improve shared
living marine resources governance and management at LME level (i.e. linked to the
implementation of the CLME+ SAP). So we were looking under the breakout session
for reporting and M&E requirements associated to these issues.
As already mentioned in previous sections, the SAP is an umbrella programme and it
is hoped that partnerships can be established among the different partners (present
at the meeting and others) to jointly contribute to the implementation of the SAP: e.g.
CLME+, TWAP, SPINCAM, CMA2, OHI, CCI, ECCMAN, MAR2R amongst others. So
we were looking to capture inputs from all (prospective) partners in the context of the
above.
Objectives of this session:
The agenda reads “to achieve a priority set of indicators”, but this is overly ambitious
in the context of the meeting session so this is interpreted as “to identify both
reporting/M&E requirements, both in the case of orgs with a formal mandate for living
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 31
marine resources governance, as well as other reporting/M&E/DSS initiatives linked
to the different projects in the region (this inventory can then be used as a departure
point for the inventory of indicators later on).
We refer to the Governance Effectiveness Assessment Framework which ultimate
goals are achieving enhanced human well-being, through social just solutions to
environmental stressors. This way it attends the linkages between human well-being
and the ecosystem capacity to provide goods and services.
Classes of indicators associated to the above are classified as follows: status
indicators (socio-economic status, ecosystem status, or fish stock status, etc.) and
pressure (stress reduction indicators).
Governance arrangements need to be put in place and made operational to achieve
coordinated implementation of actions. We thus also need to ensure that
(international) organizations associated to the different elements of the policy
cycle/decision-making process have a clear thematic mandate and clear geographical
scope, in support of these governance processes.
Identification of roles and level of involvement of both international and regional
organizations as well as projects initiatives:
-
Mandate role – International Organizations
Supporting role – Projects in the region
Key consideration brought forward in this context where: when talking about
indicators, we need to consider the following criteria: need for SMART indicators,
need for baseline values, need for target setting
A table structure was proposed to capture the existing or planned reporting and M&E
requirements/initiatives under the different governance mechanisms and projects.
The table was filled by allowing all participants to provide inputs on their organization:
name organization; name of associated project(s) (where applicable); geographic
range (listing of countries); thematic range; associated reporting/M&E requirement or
effort; data management mechanism available? Or desired?
Although the session managed to collect quite some input from the participants, the
need was felt to allow participants to provide additional inputs, by circulating the table
after the session. Additional inputs will then be collected and digested in a
consolidated table.
It was suggested that thematic areas of common interest between the outputs of
group 1 and group 2 could now be identified, which can help in setting priorities for
work under CMA2. The table also provides a departure point for the further inventory
of indicators, and for the work under the other sessions in the next few days.
Mr Debels also said indicators should be created on the SMART principles, with
baselines and targets. Can we establish a CMA partnership and pool resources from
other projects? How much correspondence is there between regional and national
decision making processes? Are all efforts taken at the national level, re-used at the
regional level? We need to get the full picture at least at (sub)regional level.
Ms Haddad proposed that we also map staffing/local expertise.
Annex III: Table with a priority set of indicators (reporting obligations, and M&E
of CLME SAP implementation) for which the CMA2 applications will be
expected to provide a dissemination and consultation platform.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 32
___________________________________________________________________
4.
CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR
GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(national atlases and related data systems)
Mr Arias-Isaza welcomed 5 new partners in the project. Each partner was invited to
provide a brief (5 minutes) presentation on their country’s current institutional
arrangements for geospatial information management. This should include
information on the collection, management and delivery of ocean/coastal data,
existence of coastal atlases as well as other services. Information should also be
provided on the currently served stakeholders.
4.1. Barbados
Mr Roach presented the situation in Barbados.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3930
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469525
4.2. Belize
James Azueta (Fisheries Officer, Ecosystems Management Unit Coordinator, Belize
Fisheries Department) told there are no institutional arrangements for the
management of geospatial information in Belize. However, the Land Information
Centre (LIC) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture is considered
the primary management agency producing legal information. Since there is a fair
amount of geospatial information as well as other sources such as oceanic and
biological data being generated by various national and international organizations,
the timing is adequate for Belize to start to consolidate the management of the
existing data.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3846
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469584
4.3. Colombia
Ms Paula Sierra-Correa from INVEMAR, summarized the atlases experiences of
Colombia. Her presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3920
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469673
Colombia is the only South American country sharing coasts on both the Caribbean
Sea and the Pacific Ocean. This feature gives the country a complex set up of
tropical coastal and marine ecosystems. Coastal and marine ecosystems face
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 33
different threats associated to natural causes, or from human actions. Institutional
arrangement includes since 1993 a National Environmental System (SINA) was
established with the purpose of defining an institutional framework devoted to protect
the environment, to define responsibilities among different entities dedicated to its
administration and to act in a coordinated way to assure natural sustainability of the
country. The Marine and Coastal Research Institute (INVEMAR) has been assigned
by law (Law 99/1993 and Bill 1276/1994) the responsibility of organizing in a
structured way the marine environmental data and information system (known by its
acronym in Spanish SIAM). INVEMAR is a national coordinator of SIAM and
responsible for report for national and international initiatives. The Institute has also
the task of supporting a network of institutions related to the coastal and marine
scientific research of the country, in the frame of the Science and Technology
National System.
The SIAM’s infrastructure is supported by Linux Server with blade arrangement.
INVEMAR have a data denter flexible with scalable infrastructure. Several software
packages:
• ORACLE data base managerial software
• ArcGIS SERVER 10.2
• ArcGIS API for Flex
• Metadata server/catalogue: Geonetwork
• Contents management: LifeRay
• Document Management: Alfresco
SIAM uses geographic information services as tools to integrate geo-referenced data
and show their spatial distribution (visualization map viewers) yielding static maps
(WMS – SHP) and dynamic maps (Modelling) representing the results of queries and
information search. For particular needs INVEMAR develops its own software and
applications. In the same context, standards have been implemented for several
processes, for example, guides and protocols in databases, GIS, Remote Sensing
and Quality Accreditation, the information and its metadata follows the application the
ISO19115.
About
relevant
information
products
all
are
available
http://siam.invemar.org.co/siam/index.jsp . She presented some examples:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marine Biodiversity (SIBM)
Environmental Quality Monitoring of Coastal Waters (REDCAM)
Vulnerability Assessment, Mitigation and/or Adaptation (CLIMARES &
COSTERO)
Fisheries (SIPEIN)
Indicators (NATIONAL ANNUAL REPORT & SPINCAM)
Marine Protected Areas Decision Support System (DSS-SMPA)
Main Linkages with CMA2 on: Data and information sharing
• Our data and information products
• Satellite images catalog and antenna for collect satellite data
• Know-how in data and information management
• Data center and Ocean Teacher Center facilities
Main Linkages with CMA2 on: Preliminary Proposal on collaborative activities:
•
•
on
Development of geographic viewers on Web
Analysis of temporal changes in coverage space based on remote sensing
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 34
___________________________________________________________________
•
•
•
•
Compilation and statistic analysis of information, including geostatistics
Environmental and economic indicators development
Mapping and georeferencing information
Software infrastructure for the collection and organization of structured data
4.4. Cuba
Mr Adan Zuniga Rios (Coastal Ecosystem Research Center) presented the
information on Cuba.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3919
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469770
Up to now, Cuba does not have formal web map servers, however, there are many
institutions working and producing geospatial information related to main objectives of
the CMA2 (Oceanology Institute, Tropical Geography Institute, Geology and
Paleontology Institute, Meteorology Institute, Coastal Ecosystems Research Center,
National Protected Area Center, Fisheries Research Center, Marine Research
Center, and others).
The main national information products may be obtained from the National Statistical
Information System of Cuba (annual information on socio economics and
environment). The information of this web site is only in MS Excel databases, but is
relatively easy to produce maps and reports, taking account that the information has
been compiled from municipality level. The Spatial Data Infrastructure of the Cuba
Republic (IDERC) is another information source; however, special permits are
required for accessing the URL.
A lot of shape maps are being produced by Institutes, research centers and national
and international projects but often are not being shared because of internet
connection issues. In the subnational level there are many institutions that produce
useful environmental shapes layers.
The coordinator institution for the National Atlas is the Coastal Ecosystem Research
Center where the main server of the National Atlas should be. It is highly possible this
task will move to the Meteorology Institute thinking this institution has better
conditions for accessing the Internet.
The main kinds of layers produced by institutions are:
• Oceanology Institute (mainly oceanographic and biological data on marine
shelf)
• Tropical Geography Institute (mainly physical, infrastructure and socio
economic maps)
• Geology and Paleontology Institute (mainly geological maps)
• Meteorology Institute (climatic maps and current weather information)
• Coastal Ecosystem Research Center (monitoring databases on coastal zones)
• National Protected Area Center (maps of the state of conservancy on marine
and terrestrial areas).
Preliminary proposal on collaborative activities lies in to consolidate the national
structure and mechanisms for sharing spatial data (maybe workshops and courses
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 35
will be required), to compile shapes maps from all institution involved on CMA2, to
create new shapes from the database of the National Statistical Information System
of Cuba and provide access to the web map service, involve and disseminate among
stakeholders the progress of the CMA2.
4.5. Dominica
Mr Derrick Theophille presented the information on Dominica. His presentation is
available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3921
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469833
4.6. Jamaica
Mr Sean Green presented the information on Jamaica. His presentation is available
at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3890
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469958
4.7. Mexico
Carlos R. Torres (Mexico NODC) presented the information on Mexico. His
presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3922
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104469996
Mexico’s efforts to increase the knowledge of its seas are presented in the context of
the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, which is linked to its Caribbean
counterpart. It is explored how existing Mexican ocean observing systems could
interact with those of CMA2.
4.8. Netherlands Antilles
Mr Johan Stapel (Caribbean Netherlands Science Institute at St Eustatius, CNSI) told
the Netherlands is collecting information from the Dutch Caribbean Islands Aruba,
Curacao, Bonaire, St Maarten, St Eustatius and Saba. Dutch organisations that are
collecting marine data include ministries, scientific institutions and nature foundations.
In the past few years efforts are primarily focused on the Caribbean Netherlands
(Bonaire, Saba and St Eustatius), which since 10 October 2010 are special
municipalities of The Netherlands. Aruba, Curacao and St Maarten are independent
countries within the Kingdom of The Netherlands.
Relevant for CMA2 are data collected and managed by the Ministry of Economic
Affairs in cooperation with Wageningen University and Research Center (nature
management, fisheries and biodiversity), the Ministry of Infrastructure and
Environment (pollution), the Ministry of Defense (bathymetry), NIOZ Royal
Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (marine data manager), Naturalis Biodiversity
Center (collections) and the Dutch Caribbean Nature Alliance (Dutch Caribbean
Biodiversity Database).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 36
___________________________________________________________________
Participation in CMA2 for Dutch institutions depend on the amount of funding that can
be secured, the specific roles these partners can fulfil and the availability of (unique)
expertise and skills that is required for CMA2.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3925
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104470104
4.9. Trinidad and Tobago
Mr Sean Padmamanabhan presented the information on Trinidad & Tobago. His
presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3847
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104470236
Within Trinidad & Tobago there are quite a few entities within the public and private
sectors that undertake the challenge of collecting and managing spatial information
particularly with regards to coastal and ocean data. With no real legislative or
regulatory frame of reference for specific datasets in most cases, there is a little
clarity and general recognition as to which entity is responsible for collecting,
maintaining or disseminating a particular dataset. This in turn leads to much overlap
and ambiguity in distinguishing ownership versus stewardship of data among
organizations (public sector or otherwise). As a direct result, many environmental
datasets are sectorial and discontinuous in nature, with duplicate efforts for the same
result being made by organizations and several versions of a dataset existing for the
same area.
However, there are several efforts currently in progress or being planned within
government to take greater responsibility for management of specific datasets
through the employment of enterprise and server-based systems. The intent here is
to not only broadening the distribution of information through intra-and internet-based
access, but in so doing also move towards defining roles and responsibilities for the
management of data. Unfortunately, many of these efforts are being undertaken in
silos and unknown to one another. With government organizations being the largest
consumer of spatial information, it is its own largest stakeholder, followed by the
private sector and non-governmental organizations. With the advent of a National
Spatial Data Infrastructure policy by government, the hope is that these singular
efforts of the many organizations responsible for data may be overseen by a
coordinating body that will assist in streamlining and consolidating their results under
an umbrella of consistent and well-defined standards and practices to allow for
greater interoperability and operational efficiencies.
4.10. Turks & Caicos
Mr Luc Clerveaux presented the information on Turks & Caicos. His presentation is
available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3927
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104470350
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 37
4.11. United Kingdom and Overseas Territories
Mr Mike Osborne (OceanWise / Marine Environment Data and Information Network
(MEDIN) and Mr Stephen Hall (UK National Oceanography Centre) presented the
marine policy in the UK and Overseas Territories and the data and information
framework to support it.
Their presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3892
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104470425
The UK has the largest maritime economy in Europe. This is increasingly known as
the ‘Blue Economy’. The UK Government’s Marine Policy Statement calls for clean,
healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. This policy
statement covers the UK’s obligations under national and international legislation,
including for example marine planning under the Marine Act and the European
Union’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The UK Overseas Territories are
constitutionally responsible for the protection their natural environments. The UK
Government has stated recently (*) that its role is to work in partnership with the
Territories Governments to provide technical advice and support to fulfil this
responsibility successfully.
MEDIN was established to help coordinate and improve access to marine data.
Historically different datasets have been collected by different organisations for
different purposes, leading to numerous ‘islands’ or ‘silos’ of data. The UK
Government’s transparency agenda aims to make data more easily accessible using
Internet based technologies such as ‘linked data’. A MEDIN objective is to create and
maintain marine core geographies or reference datasets which were identified as
important to marine planning, for example. However, many of these datasets are
derived from disparate sources and/or data products, such as nautical charting, and
require considerable rework to make them suitable for use in wider applications.
These applications include as base or foundation data layers in coastal or marine
atlas.
(*) House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee – Sustainability in the
UKOTs, 2014
4.12. United States - Puerto Rico
Mr Ernesto L. Díaz (Coastal Zone Management Program of Puerto Rico Climate
Change Council) presented the information on Puerto Rico. His presentation is
available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3935
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104470579
Mr Díaz said GIS technology is widely used by Puerto Rico's public and private
sector. Data collection must meet all relevant standards adopted by the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). Puerto Rico has established a centralized data
clearinghouse that integrates official information submitted by data providers
(gis.pr.gov).
Federal government provides access to official data-sets and
information through data.gov.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 38
___________________________________________________________________
Puerto Rico is an archipelago located in the Northeast quadrant of the Caribbean
region. Total area is 13,790 km2 (Land: 8,870 km2 and 4,291 km2 territorial waters).
Puerto Rico's population is 3.7 million, GDP: $70.7 billion (45% manufacture, 7%
tourism, 1% agriculture). Climate conditions are sub-tropical. Six ecological life
zones, extensive coastal wetlands and surrounding coral reefs. Coastal uses and
critical infrastructure include: 11 ports, 8 airports, 7 power plant systems, 114 miles of
primary roads, 81 industrial parks., 1,080 miles of sanitary infrastructure, 14 waste
water treatment plants. In addition to governmental data collection human uses data
is collected through participatory mapping processes.
Fishermen, coastal
communities, boating community, and recreational users are interviewed and data
collected and validated.
Data and information is available in most cases via Internet. Visualization tools and
products resulting from modelling initiatives are also available online. His presentation
highlighted examples of data collection, dissemination, products, and visualization
available online or currently being developed.
4.13. United States
Christopher Paver (Oceanographer, NOAA) presented the National Oceanographic
Data Center (NODC). His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3924
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104512065
NODC acquires oceanographic data from around the world. These data are made
freely available to the public via many portals and web services. These data are also
used to generate products, conduct research, and provide services to the
oceanographic community. The World Ocean Database (WOD) is one such product
containing scientifically quality controlled profile data.
NODC would like to offer our data and services to help further develop and maintain
the Caribbean Marine Atlas through activities such as data sharing agreements,
quality controlled database management, data processing, regional product creation,
and cooperative research.
4.14. Venezuela
Mr Eduardo Klein (Simon Bolivar University) presented the information on Venezuela.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3918
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104512278
Venezuela is developing a geoportal for all geographical, administrative and
biological information at http://geoportalsb.gob.ve, which is administered by Ministry
of the Environment. However so far, only few layers related to marine environment
are available. In theory all the layers are available for downloading through WFS
services. Some other research institutions can provide georeferenced information of
the marine domain. Meteorological information summaries of coastal and island
based stations are available from INAMEH (http://www.inameh.gob.ve/). Also a very
efficient
and
robust
seismic
network
is
available
at
FUNVISIS
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 39
(http://www.funvisis.gob.ve). A very successful initiative on climate change monitoring
and oceanographic time series is the Cariaco project (http://cariaco,ws) which
monitors the conditions of the Cariaco trench system since 1994, in a consortium of
research institutions from Venezuela and the US. Some initiatives has been created
to provide online access to biological collections and ocean conditions.
Remote Sensing lab at University Simón Bolívar (LSR-USB) provides data without
restriction on satellite images (SST/pigment maps, raster), main marine ecosystems
(as polygons), biological collection of the university's museum and some others
national collections (as points), lion fish sightings (as points, as a Citizen Science
driven initiative), human impact on marine area (points, lines, polygons), as well as
basic geographic layers. The data could be obtained via
WMS/WFS/GeoJSON services, shape files or PostgreSQL databases. The lab works
almost only with FLOSS (Free-Libre-Open-Source-Software) technologies and have a
moderate IT infrastructure under Linux. The LSR-USB also coordinates the
Caribbean OBIS node, with national and regional databases.
4.15. Costa Rica
Ms Jenny Asch Corrales presented the information on Costa Rica (in Spanish). Her
presentation is available via this video:
http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104512449
5.
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING
5.1. Updating of stakeholder inventories, departing from the results
of Day 2
Participants were divided in 2 groups:
• group 1 (country representatives) worked on the mapping of stakeholders this should include the identification of a technical AND political (or senior
technical) focal point within each participating country- and stakeholder
groups under the different components of the policy cycle. Reference was
made in this context to the priority management issues identified during Day
1. Mr Patrick McConney was appointed the facilitator, and Ms Paula SierraCorrea the rapporteur to report back to the plenary.
• group 2 (regional/international organizations) worked on the mapping of
stakeholders and stakeholder groups under the different components of the
policy cycle. Reference was made in this context to the objectives and
targets of related regional and global initiatives, incl. the CLME+ SAP
implementation, and the reporting & monitoring priorities that have been
identified in this context during Day 1. Ms Lavern Walker was appointed the
facilitator, and Mr Patrick Debels the rapporteur to report back to the plenary.
The break-out sessions were followed by a plenary discussion (incl. reporting
on the break-out session results).
Group 1: Ms Sierra-Correa provided a summary of the discussions (Country
representatives).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 40
___________________________________________________________________
There was a common understanding that for CMA2, stakeholders needed to
be identified for each step of the policy cycle. As a result, the table below
categorizes the members of the stakeholder community.
Annex IV: an overview table of the national stakeholders.
Summary of Stakeholder mapping (national level)
The group members made several comments, such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
We don’t need to convince the data providers about the importance
of the data, but we need to convince them about the formats that
they need to put in the information and create understandable
outputs for politicians and other decision makers.
We need to make sure that the key people are informed about the
project.
We need to take into account “positive” as well as “negative”
potential effects from different stakeholders.
We need to create a package of products to disseminate the data
at different groups of stakeholders.
We need to take into account the various types of stakeholders,
who need different types of products (tables, graphs) and delivered
in different ways.
We need to create sufficiently understandable products, in different
language (not only Spanish, English or French, but also indigenous
languages).
Annex V: an overview table of the regional stakeholders
Summary of Stakeholder mapping (regional level)
Work conducted during the breakout session was based on the following
considerations:
•
•
•
•
The objective was to initiate the inventory of stakeholders related to the governane
and management of shared Living Marine Resources (sLMR), at the level of the
Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME+ level)
An important observation in this context was made, in the sense that interactive
governance entails the involvement of governments + private sector + civil society
(with a further supporting role for academia and bi- and multi-lateral donors)
Stakeholders for the sLMR governance & management processes for the CLME+ can
be situated at the global, regional, sub-regional, national and local levels
Facilitating full policy cycle runs requires that stakeholders are identified with a
mandate for each component of the policy cycle:
o Analysis & advice
o Decision-making
o Implementation
o Review & evaluation
o Data & information management
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 41
•
Relevant in the context of this exercise were also the considerations that CMA2 is
about:
o Policy development/decisions-support
o M&E/reporting
o Data exploration
o Outreach/communication/awareness building
more specifically to deal with the following 3 priority issues for the CLME+: habitat
degradation + unsustainable fisheries + pollution (and the associated, cross-cutting
issue of climate change)
The above considerations constituted the context for the inventory. The results
obtained from this inventory are detailed in Annex V. Annex 5 will be used as a
departure point for further work.
A remarkable observation was the exercise that in the case of the “review &
evaluation” component of the policy cycle, while some mandates had been
established, and some intentions existed, this component was often (or even mostly)
lacking in terms of actual implementation. This, whereas substantial monitoring efforts
were taking place (in other words, substantial amounts of data gathered and “available”, but
therefore not necessarily used).
5.2. Identification of actions to engage stakeholders (WP3 – A3.2)
Mr Alejandro Iglesias-Campos presented an overview of good practices in
stakeholder engagement. It was reminded that these actions should be included in
the work plan together with resource allocations.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3904
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104536004
The presentation was divided into two parts, one containing the key concepts and
principles of stakeholder engagement, the most relevant practices that are known to
work and the tools to support the delivery of effective stakeholder engagement. The
second part was focused in practical issues, and tools that could be considered within
the different phases of the project cycle of CMA2 from the initial design of the concept
of stakeholder. Each of the presented phases also involves different environmental
and social risks, as well as opportunities for the project and, as such, different
practices in stakeholder engagement need to be employed and integrated into the
project management at each stage.
Mr Davies (UNEP) noted that its Country Office in Haiti was hoping to work with the
Government on a Haiti Marine Atlas, aimed to link with tourism development and the
first marine protected areas in the country. It was keen to work with the Caribbean
Marine Atlas community of practice, and might be a good example where the
scientific network could link with a particular user need.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 42
___________________________________________________________________
6.
PLATFORM FUNCTIONALITIES & DELIVERY
MECHANISMS
6.1. Identification of data and information services required by
stakeholders (WP3 – A3.3, A3.4)
The ICAN experts were invited to give an overview of data and information services
commonly required by the different stakeholder groups.
Ms Marcia Berman (ICAN Co-Chair, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of
William and Mary) introduced the importance of understanding needs, priorities and
requirements of the broader user audience for the future of the Caribbean Marine
Atlas. Specifically, elements of Work Package 3 will be reviewed, and suggested
methods to achieve the desired outcomes will be proposed. Prior experiences
gleamed from previous developers surveys conducted as part of ICAN activities will
be mentioned with the aim of enforcing the importance of this project element. Finally,
results of an initial survey among current CMA and CLME+ members will be
showcased. This survey, albeit currently small, has the capacity to begin collating
basic information about stakeholder needs. The benefits of expanding participation
will be discussed, as well as alternative ways to gather comparable data. The
presentation will be followed by two, more detailed, presentations focused on platform
functionality and system design and architecture. The goal of the session is to select
a preferred system approach for the next generation of CMA2 in light of existing
technology.
Her presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3961
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104554732
6.2. Functionality requirements
Ms Haddad presented functionality requirements of the data platforms based on the
results obtained from the workshop so far.
Her presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3962
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104555337
This presentation was designed to help participants think about the characteristics
that will make the CMA2 a successful coastal/marine web atlas. The primary question
is really composed of two sub-questions: Who is the Atlas built to serve? What do
those users need from the Atlas?
Functional needs for CMA2 expressed in the meeting thus far:
•
•
•
Better national engagement in CMA2 (participation of users)
Better sustainability of the platform (long-term relevance)
Better approach to data sharing (relationship with contributors)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 43
If CMA2 has more than one audience, CMA2 may need to build more than one tool or
pathway for users to look at data. Sometimes simple tools have wide appeal, while
complex, expensive tools have narrow appeal. The CMA2 project team should
consider this balance when determining what functions to include in the future atlas.
Aspects of Coastal Web Atlas (CWA) Functionality
Primary minimal components of any atlas include: a maps engine, thematic data,
place gazetteers, documentation. When discussing the functions of an atlas it is
helpful to segregate discussion of the front-end user interface
elements, from the back end elements. And to separate discussion of maps from the
supplementary support features such as narratives texts and photos.
Front-end user interface elements include: interactive maps, cartography, navigation,
map table of contents, information access (static or dynamic).
Back-end Technical features include: data & service management, analysis support,
interoperability, performance, caching
Atlas supporting features include: narrative text, photos, featured stories, reports
Recommendations for meeting functional needs:
1. Design the system to benefit the contributors
•
•
•
Give people/institutions credit for their data contributions
Give it back to them with improvements
Give them access to all contributions
2. Know and serve your audience
•
•
•
•
Build profiles of known user types
For each user type, profile needs an atlas can address
Design Atlas functions around these profiles
Select technologies to deliver these functions
6.3. System design & architecture - overview of relevant technology
solutions
Mr Yassine Lassoued provided an extensive overview of technology solutions and
platforms that could be implemented at the national and/or regional level while taking
into account the need for interoperability.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3963
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104573535
Architectural design choices should be made regarding metadata and data
management, and the atlas software development. For each of these aspects, a
choice needs to me made regarding the standards to use, the software packages
(APIs), and a centralised vs. distributed approach. Data and metadata should be
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 44
___________________________________________________________________
made available in standard formats through standard OGC web services whenever
possible. In particular metadata shall be managed in, and made available through,
OGC catalogue services (CSW). There exist several commercial and open source
OGC web service implementations. Partners may use one or the other, which should
not affect the interoperability of the atlases as these implementations comply with the
same standards.
CMA2 metadata, data, and maps, may be centralised or distributed. Each approach
has its pros and cons. Mixed approaches exist which usually provide a good
compromise. There exist several mapping APIs and frameworks, which can be used
to implement the CMA atlases. Smart Atlas is one option that is supported by IOC
through the African Marine Atlas and SPINCAM.
Recommendations are made at the end of the presentation, the main of which being:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use latest stable technologies
Comply with standards
Use HTML5 for the front end
Engage users as early as possible in the development life cycle
1 technical partner to develop the atlas software, all focus on populating it,
hence the idea of an ³Atlas in a Box² (reusable, customisable, easy to deploy)
that ICAN is promoting through Smart Atlas
Standardise legends (e.g., African Marine Atlas), layer names, data fields
(names, dimensions, units of measure), metadata profile, metadata keywords,
organisation names, etc. ‹> need for standard vocabularies
Harmonise atlases look and feel and make it as elegant as possible
Consider developing a multilingual atlas: software (easy), content (more
difficult)
Attention should be paid to maintaining the atlases both in terms of software
and content.
The three ICAN presentations yielded many questions and discussions, which are
summarized below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The importance of the engagement of a community cannot be
underestimated.
It is important that a data system provides feedback to its data providers.
Data quality assurance, sometimes peer-review is necessary.
Sometimes it is better to refer data custodians towards more specialized
portals with a specialized community (e.g. eBird.org).
Data portals nowadays should provide more benefits than just access to data,
but also tools, web-based trend analysis, workspaces, communication
platforms, control of data, etc.
In terms of system architecture: a mixed distributed architecture is probably
the best way to avoid duplication. With the current technologies we can split
the atlas from the working system. We can have people that are very good at
developing portals and there are others who could be dedicated to the
workflow.
In terms of sustainability, we need to have institutions that have the capacity
to host and maintain the system overtime.
In terms of functionality, three key words are: use, usability and usage.
We need to be careful when choosing the scope and the target audience and
specify the specifications of the system accordingly (e.g. need for
mirrors/redundancies).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 45
6.4. Identify and select preferred system architecture and
technological solutions (WP 5 – A5.1)
Participants were divided in 2 groups to identify possible system architecture and
technological solutions for resp. ICZM and M&E and reporting
•
group 1 (country representatives) facilitator was Mr Yassine Lassoued, and
rapporteur Ms Tanya Haddad.
•
group 2 (regional/international organizations) facilitator was Ms Marcia Berman,
and rapporteur Mr Greg Reed.
Results from the break-out sessions from the previous day were brought to the
plenary, and the way forward for the CMA2 project was discussed.
Group 1: system architecture and technological solutions according to national
organizations (by Ms Haddad).
Interoperability
There is acknowledgement of the fact that due to the wide number of participating
organizations that a heterogeneous technical landscape is to be expected in this
project. Many participants are using open source solutions, while others use
proprietary solutions, in additional to other natural and expected technical variation
expected between the tools used in different thematic or science domains. As such,
interoperability principles are of the highest importance as foundations to successful
data sharing and service integration.
Scalability
The need for the system to scale is an important consideration. This will have
implications for system design when centralization vs. distributed platforms are
considered. Scalability needs are not only driven by audience size, but will also have
to be considered when tools are designed for particular purposes (e.g. simultaneous
uses in public meetings or classroom settings, vs. asynchronous use in general
browsing by the public).
Targeted front ends
While there is discussion that a shared back end would make maintenance and
training for this system simpler in the long term, we cannot avoid the need and
extreme utility for customized front ends for various topic areas and national needs.
Making Meaningful Progress on Technical Decisions
Discussion turned to how to make immediate continued progress following the August
CMA2 meeting. The question was asked about how other regional groups have made
progress over time, and both the African Marine Atlas and the West Coast Governors
Alliance experience were discussed. The following diagram from the WCGA was
shared to see if it might help shape organization of future work efforts (perhaps
through virtual meetings of work groups):
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 46
___________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: WCGA diagram
Mr Corbin asked whether, in the context of national level, there is advocacy for the
need of this tool. Was there a need expressed for this tool? Ms Haddad replied that
this was not discussed, but there is general agreement that the countries would
benefit from the system through improved connection with peers, stronger
interoperability, freeing up of resources and making everyone’s life easier.
Mr Roach repeated that we clearly need to determine where to put our efforts, is it
outreach or more on the technical side of things? Which will drive the demand most?
Awareness building will be tougher than technical challenges.
Mr Toro asked to identify priorities, because we cannot solve everything. How can we
ensure sustainability, and make sure data are transferred and accessible? Mr Troisi
replied that we need to measure the requirements and efforts to reach the goal. You
must be sure that all those involved are capable to access and transfer data and profit
from the services. We need to know the individual capacity of the member states.
Capacity needs will be discussed in the next session.
Mr Osborne advised CMA2 to look into Creative Common licenses for data use
licences.
Group 2: system architecture and technological
regional/international organizations (by Mr Reed).
•
•
•
System requirements:
Low cost
Sustainable and easy to update content
Multilingual
solutions
according
to
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 47
• Serve four categories of users:
1. public, e.g. fishers (maybe mobile app)
2. policy makers
3. scientists
4. technical people
• Different views for different user classes
Figure 2: Examples of different views
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Functionality
Platform to support decision making for Caribbean Seas management
Need to generate products (summaries, graphs, trend analysis)
 Maps s.s. are not for decision making
 Need set of tools that go beyond maps.
CMA network/system architecture
Federated network of portals with interfaces to achieve decision making
Leverage off other projects to ensure sustainability
Interoperability is key
Use of recognised standards
Design so it can be enhanced and grow to meet future needs.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 48
___________________________________________________________________
Figure 3: federated network of portals
•
•
•
•
Data sharing
Need to facilitate a data policy for sharing
Licencing agreements
CMA Data Policy
Reinforce the economic value of sharing
Mr Pissierssens capitalized that there are many activities taking place in the region,
but the lack of human resources remain a problem, especially at the national level.
The region recognizes the importance of data, such as good data provenance, high
quality standards and interoperability. However, it seems we should not focus to try to
create a new atlas, and not compete with the existing atlases, but rather build a
federated platform where all the stakeholders can find what they need and create a
community of practice. IODE already has a number of tools available, such as
OceanExpert, Ocean data best practices (http://www.oceandatapractices.org/) etc.
CMA2 will not be able to build a regional data portal, but perhaps we could build a
metadata portal and maybe one highly visible product (e.g. based on OBIS)? CMA2
will need to make sure it reaches the high level stakeholders and convince them to
provide more budget. CMA2 needs to continue providing training. INVEMAR will
become IODE’s training node for the Spanish speaking part of the region, and we still
need to find an English regional training centre in the region.
Mr Osborne endorsed what Mr Pissierssens said, but added that we need stronger
support for data management activities, which are the essential building blocks, in the
countries.
Mr Debels also agreed and wishes that some on-going or planned projects or
initiatives in the region could also help the implementation of CMA2 in the countries.
Mr Roach said that we need one or better two upfront applications that demonstrate
the service, one that fulfils a need.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 49
7.
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNICATION
& OUTREACH
7.1. Capacity development
Mr Ramon Roach provided a brief presentation on capacity development activities
implemented during phase 1 referring especially to successes and failures.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3931
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104629258
The training impact in CMA1 was high, with 7 countries trained and 5 new national
atlases built (2 countries dropped out during the process).
Mr Taconet suggested that regarding IT capacities, CMA2 could leverage support
from IT departments who are mandated to support other departments. We should
involve those people that are dedicated to IT.
It was also suggested that CMA2 should train people on raising awareness and
communication.
Ms Paula Sierra then inquired from the participating countries about their capacity
development requirements. In summary, these were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CZM and Marine Spatial Planning framework
Data sharing policy
Data Security for sensitive information
Developing Coastal and Marine web-based Atlases
Define the platform for the project and training on that
Prepare stakeholders for the of management digital marine and coastal
information
Increase the people trained on monitoring and GIS (in some countries only
one person is in charge for coastal and marine data management)
Training of Trainers
Some countries offer the possibility to join with their training programes (e.g.
CIO - UNIA master, UK, Colombia, Mexico)
Lacking thematic focus and driving on that, promote and explore the real
capacities in each country
Data management, Data Collection, Proper Infraestructure
Needs on updated data and improve the metadata
Training on open source resources for marine data management
Training on analysis and transformation of existing scientific data into the
proper language for decision makers.
Internships, fellowships, stages and student exchanges (MSc or Phd students)
Create an interactive media toolkit for sharing training materials
Use as much as possible virtual interaction (networking, webinars, info
exchange)
Two core groups were identify during the session, one need basic training, and
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 50
___________________________________________________________________
the other one requires an advanced level of training and they may train the first group
or exchange experiences.
The information collected from the meeting will be used for the development of a
capacity development plan (incl. gap analysis).
7.2. Communication and outreach
Mr Alejandro Iglesias-Campos (IOC/MPR) emphasized the importance of
communication as the major component of a successful project, a way to
communicate amongst partners and with stakeholders and citizens, a complex task
which requires a clear definition of a communication strategy and plan. In his
presentation, he mentioned the steps that the project could follow in order to prepare
the communication strategy and the most important issues that need to be addressed
in the process, such as: raising awareness and ensure communication with the
relevant target audiences by using the best mechanisms, and appropriate methods to
fully understand the objectives, the work progress and the results of CMA2. Finally,
he presented the results of a communication survey that was developed in the
context of SPINCAM Project (in the Southeast Pacific region) as a first step to design
the project communication plan.
His presentation is available at:
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=1
3905
Video: http://vimeo.com/album/3009142/video/104630329
Mr Alejandro Iglesias-Campos invited the meeting to brainstorm on key consideration
aspects & elements for the communication and outreach strategy. The information
collected from the meeting will be used for the development of a capacity
development plan.
8.
COMMON DATA NEEDS, AND READILY AVAILABLE
PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA SETS
8.1. Common data needs
Participants will be divided in 2 groups:
• group 1 (country representatives) discussed typical data requirements to support
decision-making in the context of the management issues defined on Day 1, and
identified a preliminary set of common data needs. Participants then also
discussed the approach to continue the inventory after the meeting, through the
involvement of the stakeholders identified in Day 3. Mr Yassine Lassoued and Ms
Tanya Haddad were facilitators, Ms Tanya Haddad was also appointed
rapporteur.
•
group 2 (regional/international organizations) discussed typical data requirements
to support priority monitoring & evaluation processes defined on Day 1 (incl. data
required for the preparation of indicators), and identified a preliminary set of data
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 51
needs of common interests. Participants then also discussed the approach to
continue the inventory after the meeting, through the involvement of the
stakeholders identified in Day 3. Facilitator was Ms Marcia Berman and Mr Greg
Reed was rapporteur.
•
The rapporteurs from the groups then debriefed to the plenary.
Group 1 summary (by Ms Haddad).
Available Regional Resources
Earlier breakouts created tables of available regional resources that should be the
master reference used for information about resources available to the CMA2 effort.
It was discussed that the discussion seems to be trending in the direction that maybe
CMA2 should become a connector between data providers and data hosting
institutions and the various audiences identified (communication node).
Institutional support needed for Data sharing
A short discussion on the need for formality in data sharing with various organizations
indicated that larger organizations with a mandate for data production often already
post publicly available products that can be freely used. e.g. NOAA does not typically
need a formal agreement for data sharing (just use it!), but would need a formal
agreement for staff participation (for Group support for example). Other large
organizations such as UNEP may be similar.
For other service providers, five minutes is not enough to summarize work, or various
license complications related to sharing. There is a need to inventory available
services. One action item might be to create a template that individuals can fill in to
create a simple catalogue of available services. Eventually organizations can and
should make metadata for their data and web services (and perhaps already have a
brief to do so), but this is apart from summarizing access and sharing policies that
might be relevant for their institutions.
Communication
Strengths of organizations in communications is an important area of work. Human
Resources for communications in many organizations is not always strong but some
have outreach plans that involve press releases, social media, media toolkits on
specific topics, and specialists that can provide minimal input on other outreach efforts.
Examples of communication approaches shared in the discussion:
•
•
•
Mandate typically is from member states and annual statistical digests are
available, science arm produces valuable biological data. Also some
management plans contain data management for specific action plans (e.g.
Flying Fish). Flying Fish can provide a good point of departure – a good use
case. Communication strategy includes products that could be a model for
similar CMA2 products.
NOAA has a customer services branch that can answer questions that come in
about data sets. They also have social media accounts where new products
are announced (in addition to normal channels).
ICAN website shares data about the network – it will undergo major revision it
in the coming year.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 52
___________________________________________________________________
•
•
•
•
The Nature Conservancy - Communications in the region is primarily internal
and external marketing is around the Carib Challenge.
CAMPAM - has a 900-member mailing list which CMA2 participants can join,
and also has detailed communication plans. Many organizations may have
some of the same people on their outreach lists.
WWF - no specific communication department or strategy (in progress as part
of next 5 year strategic plan). Most outreach is via the web at the moment. The
MAR2MAR can bring in countries that are not yet all that active, and could also
eventually be a source of information that can be linked.
BIOPAMA has its own well-developed communication plan.
Capacity Building
A short discussion on capacity building brought forward the following thoughts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FAO has a mandate to build capacity in the region, contained in each project
funding. Perhaps directing interns to the CMA2 team as in-kind contribution is
a good idea.
ICAN can be a great resource for technical support (e.g. monthly tech
webinars).
Perhaps adopt a “matching perspective” to match nations with data hosting
needs to institutions with hosting capacity is a valuable service the CMA2
network could provide.
Ocean Teacher has many courses that are already available, covering data
management, building atlases, metadata creation, etc.
Global Partnership on Oceans potentially intends to hep with data product
development (eg. regional pollution report - expected to have analysis of WQ
data, summarized into maps tables, graphs. Also habitat and Marine Litter).
NOAA has metadata training (formal) and many informal capacity building
things like long internships
If CMA2 can connect with existing and future grants with partner organizations,
it will be a way to help fund future desired features not covered by existing
funding
Programs with coursework and hands-on student work can be harnessed to
help get certain work done if targeted correctly.
Group 2 summary (by Mr Reed).
•
2.
o
1. Typical data requirements were identified for:
• Fisheries:
o Capture fishers. Species, landing sites and vessels, disposition,
catch/landings, effort, experts, employment demographics
o Aquaculture. Production, exports, employment demographics, costs
o Marine Environment. Quality, habitat, species, protected areas,
bathymetry
o Socio-economic. Pricing, fishers distribution
MPAs: 60 attributes, need to be geo-tagged.
o Collaboratively and distributed management of single master datasets.
o Common data layers can be discussed by SMEs.
Preliminary datasets are:
Bathymetry, boundaries (LME, EEZ, political, coastal zone units), navigation,
cables, shipwrecks, hazards, coastal (settlements, rivers, population), land
use, oil exploration, pollution discharge points, water quality,
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 53
wetlands/RAMSAR, physical oceanography, biodiversity (ChlA, species
diversity/indices), watershed extent, statistical layers, management units at
sea.
3.
o
9.
Address issue of maintenance of inventory
Secretariat to appoint a coordinator to continue development of products.
CMA2 SCOPE, PARTNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT
ARRANGEMENTS, AND 2014-2015 WORK PLAN
A core group was appointed by the meeting chair to prepare topic 9.2 review of the
2014-2015 work plan.
The group was composed of: Cesar Toro, Ariel Troisi, Pauline Simpson, Tanya
Haddad, Yassine Lassoued, Patrick Debels, Lavern Walker, Asha Singh, Chris
Corbin, Paula Sierra, Francisco Arias-Isaza, Peter Pissierssens, and Ward Appeltans.
9.1. The CMA2 Partnership: contributions by, and synergies with
regional and international partners initiatives.
A discussion took place on the tasks and composition of the proposed CMA2
governance structure (steering group).
Mr Pissierssens referred to the Terms of References of the different components as
part of the Steering Group, which was identified during the December 2013 meeting
(see Annex). Clarification was provided as to the Terms of Reference of the executive
team who will deal with the implementation of the work plan and will provide regular
reports on project progress, whereas the larger steering group will make more
strategic decisions as well as provide advice.
Mr Osborne noted that the inclusivity of all countries in the Steering Group is
important. The UK representative also proposed and the meeting agreed that IHO
involvement in CMA2 would be beneficial and to send an invitation to IHO requesting
participation. The details of the invitation will be agreed after the meeting.
Mr Debels asked who can appoint the national coordinators? The national
representatives here need to tell us.
Mr Padmanabhan asked who sends the letter of commitments. Mr Pissierssens said
the communication happens via the IOC action addresses to ensure that the
commitment comes from the country level. All official communication needs to be
done via the IOC focal point.
Mr Padmanabhan at December meeting we already mentioned problems with
national commitments from the Governments. National coordinators will need to work
hard to keep things going but support will be needed higher up in the country. Mr
Pissierssens replied that regional organisations that work at ministerial level could
help with this.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 54
___________________________________________________________________
Mr Corbin stated that CMA2 is a partnership encouraging as many partners as
possible. However, International organizations should not be part of the Steering
Group.
Ms Singh proposed that the executive team should reflect the 2 objectives, national
(coastal) and regional (resources).
Mr Pissierssens noted that so far we had 8 countries who expressed interest, and 6
more are here upon invitation, but have not yet confirmed officially to be formally part
of the project. What is the view of the Member States on the membership of
regional/international organizations?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Barbados: We are fine if 1 or a few people are representing the region and
there is consensus. However, smaller countries appreciate being included.
We need the administration part to be kept relatively small, and more
resources put in the project implementation. Need to focus on national
benefits. Countries need support in gathering data, formatting data etc. so
that assistance must be there.
Belize: We will send our commitment letter next week, we do not have
problems to be represented by (sub)regional organizations like OECS,
OSPESCA
Colombia: Of course we want to be part of the project, we accepted to be
the project coordinator.
Costa Rica: She will consult with her country who will be appointed. And
they also agree to be represented by a regional organization.
Cuba: It is best to have each country represented but it is all right if
represented by (regional) organization.
Dominica: CRFM can take over representation if required.
Jamaica: We work through the IOC national focal points. Membership
could work on a rotating basis.
Mexico: Yes we will be a partner.
Netherlands: I will ask for advice to form a national group with one
coordinator and one stakeholder.
Turks and Caicos: CMA1 commitment came from the ministerial level and
hope this will be the same with CMA2. He proposed that the executive
team (6 WP leaders) could be formed by 6 different countries.
UK: I hope we can have a coordinated involvement representing UKOT.
Venezuela: We will definitely participate and University of Simon Bolivar
will be appointed. We prefer to have a technical representation from the
countries and not political. It is also not easy to be represented by another
country.
Ms Singh added that whatever that happens, the competence on ocean governance
falls with the OECS. We need to follow this approach and there are other regional
initiatives. Countries will ask about the position of the OECS. We need to explain the
synergies and recognize the competency and the mechanisms in place.
Mr Toro concluded that many member states do not have a problem being
represented by regional organizations. However, they mostly prefer to have direct
representation in the steering group. We are talking about 15-16 countries, so budget
impact is limited. The steering group will meet maximum once per year.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 55
Mr Corbin stated that for UNEP-CEP it is important that we know exactly what CMA2
is, its budget and what the national commitments are and how it serves the interest of
the countries. We need to be able to justify to our governing bodies why UNEP-CEP
is engaged in CMA2.
Mr Pissierssens concluded that most of the country representatives are technical
experts, but CMA2 also needs national commitments. We need a channel to
Ministerial level to promote CMA and to ensure national commitment. National
commitment will only be there if we explain what we can deliver and if it responds to
the needs at all level. So we need to send our work plan to the regional organizations
and they need to tell us if we do what they want us to do.
9.2. Review and revision –as applicable- of project scope and
management arrangements, and finalization of the 2014-2015
work plan
The core drafting group revised the 2014-2015 work plan, which was based on the
project document and drafted during the December 2013 meeting. The group created
a new list of activities, which better reflect the current capacities, needs and existing
activities in the region. This list was commented upon in plenary (see list below), but
is still a draft. The secretariat will prepare a new project work plan for comments by all
(deadline: End of September).
LIST OF PLANNED ACTIVITIES (DRAFT)
Main objective: The project will develop a regional data, information and
services sharing platform that will contribute to the development of national
and regional atlases and related products and services.
1- MANAGEMENT
a. See notes
2- PARTNERSHIP/CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
a. CLME+ SAP as regional umbrella agreement through which CMA2 can
facilitate collaboration amongst the national and regional partners (including
SPINCAM, other regional atlas projects, etc)
b. Need to look at data policy (internal, external data sharing)
c. Collaboration with other interested parties (e.g. global level)
Note: we may have a series of small agreements
3- REGIONAL METADATA REPOSITORY
a. Metadata system, with link to data and services where possible
b. Data publication/citation/DOI
c. Consider existing metadata systems, IODE ODP, (check if we can import from
others or use other systems) – interoperability issues [needs input from
working group]
How can partners inform management team of what we have available?
The repository should have geographic interface (details to be decided).
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 56
___________________________________________________________________
4- DIRECTORY OF ATLASES (PORTAL)
a. Related to outreach/promotion: has to be excellent as promotion tool (ref. to
Ramsar, INSPIRE,…)
b. Could go from simple list of URLs to searchable database driven system with
its own metadata, controlled vocabularies etc.
Note: metadata repository could fulfill some of the functions of this. In between
step: we have portal that shows area of interest for different regional atlases.
5- CATALOGUE OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO ATLASES (CONTENT RELATED)
a. OceanDocs.org, Aquatic Commons, ASFA…
b. Involve librarians, documentalists (aquaria, museums, nature reserves,
national information systems, nature NGOs, research institutions,
ODINCARSA MIM contacts)
Note: atlas should not only be maps but also related documents. Need to
study this more: how to add more documents.
6- COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
a. data working group, technical working group, outreach (management as
overlap)
b. sharing of data specifications, practices, tools (oceandatapractices.org)
c. directory of stakeholders (oceanexpert.net)
d. groupware
note: b,c,d will be distributed to the 3 groups referred to under a.
7- TRAINING
a. Training needs survey (we have some information)
1. Technical, communication + user training (how?)
b. Existing training opportunities (incl. outside CMA, IOC)
1. Training modalities (person-to-person, distance learning, tutorials, videos,
training of trainers,…)
2. Sharing of training (related to CoP)
c. Regional training centers (OceanTeacher Global Academy)
1. Classroom, distance learning
d. CMA2 Training plan
e. Travel/Study grants
8- COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH
a. directories of stakeholders (collaborators, users) (LinkedIn)
b. web site(s)
c. listserv, Facebook, … (including re-broadcasting of important messages to
other groups)
d. outreach working group (deliverable: communication strategy both internal
and external)
e. publications (newsletter? Video? Poster? Brochure?, Papers in journals,
conferences, standard PPT, …)
a. URGENT: 1 pager in 2 languages to promote/advertise CMA
f. branding (logo, website design,…) – agreement on using logo in all partner
websites/atlas products (see 2)
g. language! (multi-lingual)
Note: not just maps but also analysis. Caribbean Marine Atlas and Analysis
System (CMAAS): to be referred to outreach working group.
9- SHOWCASE PRODUCT
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 57
a. (HOMEWORK THINKING!!): e.g. atlas product that supports MSP.
b. Probably need 1 national (for each country) and 1 regional show case product
FAO: showcase should be related to governance process CLME+
Case studies,…: needs more elaboration.
Note: maybe analysis can be linked to showcase.
Note (NOAA): possible product: regional climatologies (profile data): identify
data sparse areas (promoted more research);
Note: maybe present by theme (climate change, impact sea level rise, coastal
threats).
Note: (Eduardo): OBIS can provide info on invasions e.g. Lionfish as example
of atlas (can be done quickly).
TECHNOLOGY COMMENT: databases should preferably use distributed database
technology (harvesting) to ensure they remain up to date and not depend on specific
actions by the stakeholders in a central system.
USER COMMENT: need to make sure that we have web sites that address end users
but also technical people.
10. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT
Dr Francisco Arias-Isaza requested permission from the meeting to give the
responsibility for the finalization of the report to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will
distribute the report during the first week of September.
11. CLOSING OF THE MEETING
Dr Cesar Toro addressed the meeting on behalf of IOCARIBE. He thanked everyone
for their fruitful discussions. It now has become more clear what is expected and
which commitments are needed. We are not working for ourselves, but to strengthen
the capacity of the Member States. We need a core element in the project that need
to be delivered with the financial support and commitment from the Member States
that we receive. During this process this week, we received great contributions from
the NGOs, as well as from regional and IGOs. I am also glad that there are so many
new partners. I also wish to thank the chairman for conducting the meeting and wish
you all a nice flight back.
On behalf of CLME+, Mr Debels expressed gratitude to all the contributions during
this week. Especially because we needed a more participatory approach and finetuning. We have realized during the week that the region is more advanced than we
thought before. The new project document will need to reconcile this and also reflect
the needs expressed by the countries and have it validated by all, including our
stakeholders. CMA2 is not a standalone initiative and will need support from CLME+
and others. However, CLME+ should not delay the implementation of CMA2.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Page 58
___________________________________________________________________
Mr Ariel Troisi addressed the meeting on behalf of IODE. This week was a unique
opportunity to hear about so many initiatives and it was encouraging to see that
member states are taking ownership of the project. We now have a much better view
about the requirements and needs and the importance that Member States are giving
to this initiative. We are looking forward to help member states to move forward.
Mr Peter Pissierssens briefly addressed the meeting on behalf of the donor. This is
the first meeting where we had so many presentations (45!) and I have been
impressed by the wealth of information. I also wish to thank all the regional
organizations for being here. It is important to note that there will be an opportunity to
update the project document to better serve the needs of the member states and to
reflect the concept of a service platform that will help the region to work together. I
also wish to thank the secretariat at INVEMAR. In addition, we will have Ms Lin LIU
will be working as an intern to support CMA2 from Oostende. CMA2 will be able to
rely on a bigger support team than what we had in CMA1. CMA2 will also rely on the
ministers and the regional work to promote CMA and I look forward to working with all
of you in the next year. Mr Rudy Herman, Government of Flanders, was very happy
that there were so many participants and wishes the region every success.
Dr Francisco Arias-Isaza thanked everyone for their fruitful participation, their useful
comments and ideas. When we were invited to coordinate this project, I confess that
we were scared of the amount of work, especially because we did not participate in
writing the project document. However, what drove us to agree on taking up this role
was the importance of this project for the region. We will do our all we can to make it
successful and we believe it will because we have the countries behind us and we
have confidence and good companions to work together in this joint effort. I wish to
thank you all very much for all the support. I also wish to thank the many
organizations and institutions who are all committed to move this forward and to
improve the use of data and information for better management of our ocean and
coasts. I also wish to thank the IODE secretariat for all their efforts to organize this
meeting. It all went perfectly well. We now need to promote CMA2.
Dr Francisco Arias-Isaza then closed the meeting.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex I - Page 1
ANNEX I - AGENDA OF THE MEETING
1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Welcome
Adoption of the Agenda
Designation of Chair and Rapporteur for the Meeting
Introduction of participants
2.
CMA2: SETTING THE SCENE
2.1.
2.2.
Objectives and expected outcomes of CMA2
Review of the CMA2 Project Document and Report of the 'Caribbean Marine Atlas
Review and Planning Meeting, December 2013'
2.3.
'5x5 Session' overview of other regional and global initiatives, relevant to the
objectives of CMA2 and CLME+
2.3.1. CLME + PCU
2.3.2. WWF (MAR2R GEF proposal)
2.3.3. The Nature Conservancy (CCI, ECMMAN, others)
2.3.4. IOC (Transboundary Water Assessment Programme, TWAP-LME component)
2.3.5. UNEP ROLAC (GEF/UNEP/CARICOM indicators initiative)
2.3.6. UNEP CEP (reporting under the Cartagena Convention and its protocols; State of the
Convention Area; Regional Seas Indicators)
2.3.7. IOC (World Ocean Assessment)
2.3.8. FAO (indicators under the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)
2.3.9. Conservation International (Ocean health Index)
2.3.10. UNEP ROLAC (the UNEP Live platform)
2.3.11. FAO (FIRMS, iMarine)
2.3.12. Comision Permanente des Pacifico Sur (CPPS)
2.3.13. European Commission - Joint Research Centre
2.3.14. University of the West Indies (mFisheries)
2.3.15. ICAN (Marine Atlases, best practices and lessons)
2.3.16. Caribbean regional OBIS node
2.4.
Lessons learnt and best practices under CMA1
3.
IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING AND
EVALUATION ISSUES
3.1.
Presentations by sub-regional governance bodies
3.1.1. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM)
3.1.2. Organization of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector of the Central-American
Isthmus (OSPESCA)
3.1.3. Organization of Eastern Caribbean States
3.2.
Overview of pre-identified priority monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
3.3.
Identification/Updating of priority management and monitoring and evaluation issues
at resp. the national and regional levels
4.
CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR GEOSPATIAL
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT (national atlases and related data systems)
4.1.
4.2.
Barbados
Belize (new)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex I - Page 2
___________________________________________________________________
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
4.8.
4.9.
4.10.
4.11.
4.12.
4.13.
4.14.
4.15.
4.16.
Colombia
Cuba
Dominica
Jamaica
Mexico
Netherlands Antilles
Panama
Saint Kitts & Nevis (new)
Trinidad & Tobago
Turks & Caicos
United Kingdom (new)
United States - Puerto Rico (new)
United States - NOAA
Venezuela
5.
STAKEHOLDER MAPPING
5.1.
5.2.
Updating of stakeholder inventories, departing from the results of Day 2
Identification of actions to engage stakeholders (WP3 - A3.2)
6.
PLATFORM FUNCTIONALITIES AND DELIVERY MECHANISMS
6.1.
Identification of data and information services required by stakeholders (WP3 - A3.3,
A3.4)
Functionality requirements
System design and architecture - overview of relevant technology solutions
Identify and select preferred system architecture and technology solutions (WP5 -
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
A5.1)
7.
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH
7.1.
7.2.
Capacity development (WP6)
Communication and Outreach (WP7)
8.
COMMON DATA NEEDS, AND READILY AVAILABLE PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA
SETS
8.1.
8.2.
Common data needs
Readily available public domain data sets of relevance to CMA2
9.
CMA2 SCOPE, PARTNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS, AND 20142015 WORK PLAN
9.1.
The CMA2 Partnership: contributions by, and synergies with regional and
international partners initiatives
9.2.
Review and revision of the 2014-2015 work plan
9.3.
Work plan 2014-2015
10.
ADOPTION OF THE REPORT
11.
CLOSING OF THE MEETING
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex II – Page 1
Annex II. Table referring to agenda item 3.3 national policy issues
Existing national and
regional commitments,
projects and initiatives
Expected specific demand
for decision-support due to
the commitment, project, etc.
Additional (logistical/financial)
support base provided for the
work conducted under CMA2
Identify specific regional E.g. an example of a policy Capacities such as funds, data,
body, country or project
etc. question to be answered staff, hardware, software, etc.
Regional commitment
SPAW PROTOCOL
- Delimitation of
Protected Areas
- Effectiveness
(indicators)
Marine - Evidence to support MPAs
(benthic habitat mapping) and
necessary financial resources
of MPAs
- Gap assessment
Socio-economic
(stakeholder) info
CBD
OBIS
- Databases
Records
of
Biological
- RS Capabilities
National commitment
UK Marine Policy Statement Marine planning (e.g. marine Financial, Technical Assistance
(UK Overseas Territories - data management)
UKOTs)
Report on the State of the - Vulnerable and Priority INVEMAR
Marine
Environment Areas / Threat Assessments
- Institutional knowledge
(Colombia)
- Data for CMA
- Standards
Situational Awareness on Oceanography (Yucatan)
NODC Mexico
5-year Nature Policy Plan - Biodiversity
(Caribbean Netherlands)
- MSP
Min. of Economic Affairs
- Oceanographic Data
- Data
- MPA
3-year State of the Climate - Adaptation Measures
- Data Sharing Policies
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex II - Page 2
___________________________________________________________________
Report (Puerto Rico)
- Risk Reduction
- RS/GIS Capabilities
- Threat Assessment
- Viewer & Decision Support
Tools
State of the Marine Env - Water Quality Assessment
Report (Trinidad & Tobago)
- Vulnerable Areas
IMA
Annual
Environmental - Hazard Assessment
Outlook (Cuba)
- Coastal Management
National Statistical Information
System
- RS/GIS Products/Capabilities
- Data/Maps
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex III - Page 1
Annex III. Table referring to agenda item 3.3 priority set of indicators (reporting
obligations, and M&E of CLME SAP implementation) for which the CMA2 applications
will be expected to provide a dissemination and consultation platform.
Organisation
Project/Ini
tiative
Time
frame
Scope
(countries)
Scope
(thematic)
Need for
indicators and
M&E systems
IUCN
BIOPAMA
Till 2016
15 countries,
please
specify
PA and
biodiversity
within PAs
Management
effectiveness,
biological, socioeconomic, maybe
governance in the
future (not defined
yet), ecosystem
service indicators
-regional reference
information system
Physical,
chemical,
biological data
-multiple platforms
Us National
Oceanographi
c Data Centre
Marinerelated
research
Corresponding to
reporting
obligations or
voluntary
initiative? Based
on existing data?
Or data to be
developed?
Does platform exist or
need to be developed
(need for support from
CMA to develop
platform?)
-(global) digital
observatory for protected
areas DOPA
-Database of QC profile
data (World Ocean
Database)
-World Ocean Atlas:
gridded data sets:
temperature, salinity,
nutrients, oxygen (Wolr
-regional climatologies
MARFUND
UNEP CEP
WWF/CCAD
Mesoameric
an Reef
System
CAMPAM
MAR2R
2015? 2020
CC
convention
area
MPA
effectivenes
s
Campam
database currently
has 60 fields; need
to compile info that
generally will
already exist on
(and expands its
geographic
coverage to CC
convention area):
% area of
replenishment
zones (based on
model from
Belize); score
cards developed
by world bank to
measure
effectiveness of
MPAs; # of MPAS
listed under SPAW
Protocol; reef
health indicator
www.
Honduras,
Guatemala,
Belize,
Mexico
IW, R2R
approach
Project logframe,
need for
development of
long-term
(institutionalized)
M&E framework
on R2R matters
-MBRS was built in the
past for the marine part,
but not sure what
happened with the
platform
Campam database with 60
fields on MPA (scope: for
all CC area MPAs, but not
all have data, or data in dB
is outdated)
-Desire to develop
platform through the
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex III – page 2
___________________________________________________________________
project: Regional
Observatory for Enviro….
(?) (to be administered in
the long-term through
CCAD, in
coordination/together with
OSPESCA
UWI
mFisheries
Until
Aug
2015 in
first
phase;
second
phase
post2015
Trinidad &
Tobago,
A&B, Belize,
perhaps
OECS; post2015 all
CRFM
countries
OSPESCA
Human
development
(incl.
livelihoods)
and
governance
with
emphasis on
participation
of smallscale
fisheries
Both project
implementation
and project
impacts across 2
thematic areas:
human
development
elaboration of
existing ICT
development index
(IDI) on digital
literacy;
elaboration of
progress
indicators for
participatory
governance of the
living marine
resources
Basic delivery platform
exists, plan is to link to
regional data platforms
-SIRPAC (public)
Vessel
Monitoring
-Satellite Vessel
Monitoring System (not
open to public), nationally
managed going to central
OSPESCA office
OSPESCA
lionfish
Some systems at country
level, not regionally
collected yet
OSPESCA
Spiny
lobster
Some systems at country
level, not regionally
collected yet
OSPESCA
New
regulation
on IUU
Some systems at country
level, not regionally
collected yet
OSPESCA
CPPS
ongoing
Spincam II
Until end
2015
8 OSPESCA
member
countries
CPPS
countries
(for CLME
that means
incl
Colombia
and
Panama)
Stock
assessment
s,
environment
al climate
change risk
managemen
t, …
Working on
development of
indicator set
(partial progress);
questionnaires
exist to collect info
from other
countries, relating
to application of
intl and regional
regulation in the
countries
(processes)
No portal yet, plans to
prepare
ICZM
indicators
Approved set of 10
common indicators
proposed: status,
social,….:
indicator values
under
development
(baselines, no
targets set yet)
Geoportal: yes
Working on prep of
regional database
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex III - Page 3
UN
Resolution
on
Caribbean
as Special
Area…
Yearly reporting
requirements, no
indicator
framework has
been developed
for it (very
descriptive) – this
would benefit from
the development
of an associated
indicator / M&E
framework
UNEP
Regional
Seas
In development:
guidance on
common set of
indicators for
Regional Seas
Programmes
UNEP CEP
GEF
Projects
(several)
3-5
years
Variable,
sub-regional
Primarily IW
and BD
UNEP CEP
State of
Convention
Area
Report
(SOCAR)
Projecte
d,
possibly
with 5
year
periodici
ty
Contracting
parties to
the Protocol
Pollution
issues
important for
the region Requirement
of LBS; not
as clearly
specified
under
SPAW (yet)
UNEP CEP
Reporting
obligations
under the
CC
Ongoing
(biannua
l
reporting
)
25 out of 28
(contracting
parties)
LBS,
Biodiversity
M&E of project
implementation,
and post-project
impacts
Yes needed but not
existing in some cases, or
developed under the
project but not sustained
afterwards
Indicators there,
but for the time
being mostly
processing
indicators
(management
plans, instit
structure, policies,
regulations,…)
GEO
reports
IADB
5 key
environment
al indicators
Development
Banks (e.g.,
World Bank,
IADB, CAF,
Caribbean
Development
Bank)
Monitoring
environme
ntal impact
of
programm
es and
projects
Others?
Developme
nt Bank
Indicators
CARICOM
CARICOM
Environme
nt in
Ongoing
Region-wide
Strong focus
on risk
reduction
indicators
(e.g., linked
with
infrastructur
e
investments)
.
World Bank is supporting
national geonodes in
several Caribbean
countries
Risk
reduction
mostly
Ongoing
(CARIC
OM
Environ
CARICOM
members
Environment
, and related
socioeconomic
Data from national
governments,
including
UNSD/UNEP
Hard copy publication and
Excel at present
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex III – page 4
___________________________________________________________________
Figures
ment in
Figures
2009 the
most
recent)
indicators
(e.g.,
population,
tourism)
Environment
Questionnaire
(waste –water)
Data from
governments and
NGOs. Used to
develop protected
areas statistics and
to report the MDG7
target on protected
areas.
protectedplanet.net
There is no
mandatory reporting
on ILAC indicators.
Future regional reports on
ILAC indicators produced
by UNEP will be linked
with UNEP Live.
TWAP
World
Ocean
Assessme
nt WOA
UNEP World
Conservation
Monitoring
Centre and
IUCN
World
Database
on
Protected
Areas
(WDPA)
ongoing
global
Protected
areas
Forum of
Environment
Ministers of
Latin America
and the
Caribbean
(UNEP
Secrerariat)
Latin
American
and
Caribbean
Initiative
for
Sustainabl
e
Developme
nt (ILAC) –
Working
Group on
Environme
ntal
Indicators
Ongoing
28 Latin
America and
Caribbean
countries
participate
(representati
ves from
environment
ministries
and/or
national
statistical
offices)
Indicators
for
sustainable
development
(7 areas—
see UNEP
presentation
on day 1).
Indicators
are coherent
with MDG
indicators.
Most data to track
the ILAC
indicators on the
marine
environment come
from FAO, some
(e.g., %
wastewater
treated) from
national sources
(statistics)
Many countries have
produced national
ILAC reports (most
recently Colombia
and Mexico), see
section on ILAC
indicators at
http://www.pnuma.or
g/deat1/publicacione
s
See also national
GEO reports at the
same web link.
UNEP
UNEP Live
CI
OHI
ongoing
Global
Environment
+ associated
socio-econ
info
disaggregat
ed @
country and
regional (not
yet LME)
level
See scope
www.uneplive.org
Global data
for each
country,
working on
lowerresolution;
within the
CLME+
region:
Colombia,
Panama,
Costa Rica.
CI would like
to have
more
countries/pr
ojects
Fisheries,
bd,
associated
socioeconomic
Status info for 18
elements of the
OHI (fisheries, bd,
habitat, socioecon,
cultural,),
pressures (cultural
practices, human
activities,…),
socio-ecological
resilience,
governance
(regulations)
OHI website
(NO)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex III - Page 5
partnering
with them
FAO
State of
stocks
report
ongoing
Global
based on
country
inputs; all
CLME+
countries
fisheries
Status indicators,
process I
(existence of
management
bodies,
agreements, # of
management
plans, targets
associated to dev
process, M&E of
uptake
(management
units)), state of
code of fisheries
(bi-annual
questionnaires),
impl tech
guidelines smallscale F
FIRMS, FISHSTAT, CCRF
questionnaire, (NO)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex IV - Page 1
Annex IV - Table referring to agenda item 5 National responsible/stakeholder mapping.
COUNTRY
Topic:
Analysis &
Advice
Decisionmaking
Implementation
Review & Evaluation
Data & Information
gathering,
management,
provision
CZMU, Dept
of Emergency
Management,
Ministry of
Economic
Affairs
Cabinet,
Attorney
General,
CZMU, Dept of
Emergency Management,
Town and Country
Planning, Insurance
Groups, Ministry of
Economic Affairs
CZMU, Dept of
Emergency
Management
CZMU, Barbados
Statistical Services,
Land Tax Dept,
Town and Country
Planning,
Department of
Emergency
Management
National-level
DecisionSupport
(DPSIR
pressure?
Impact?)
BARBADOS
Disaster Risk
Reduction
CZMU
BARBADOS
Coastal
Erosion
CZMU,
Hoteliers,
Cabinet,
Attorney
General,
CZMU
CZMU, Town and Country
Planning, Ministry of
Agriculture,
Environmental Protection
Department
CZMU
CZMU
BELIZE
Marine &
coastal
habitats status
CZMA
Cabinet
CZMU
2-yr reviews
Fisheries
(fisheries,
tourism, ngos)
(CZM
Strategy)
Depart. Of
Environ.
Fisheries
Department
Fisheries
MPA
Forestry
CZ developers
Department of
Environment
CZMA
Independent
researchers
Coast Guard
Forest
Department
BELIZE
Fisheries
status
Management
plans
Fisheries
Administration
Fisheries Depart
Yearly review
Fishing coops
BELIZE
COLOMBIA
Expansion of
replenishment
zones
Fisheries Dept
Environmental
Quality
Monitoring
INVEMAR
Cabinet
quotas
Yearly review
10 % of no-take
areas
Local Authorities
RedCAM
(Environmental
Quality Monitoring
Network)
RedCAM coordinate
by INVEMAR. It
involves different
institutions like
CIOH, CCCP,
Regional
Environmental
Corporations, local
environmental
MADS
SNRGD
SISCLIMA
Regional
Corporations
and local
authorities
Different Ministries
(Transport, Health,
Environment, etc.)
SNCyT INVEMAR,
CIOH, CCCP,
DIMAR
NGOs
Fisheries Dept.
Coast Guard
MADS
(Ministry of
Environment)
Regional Environmental
Corporations
Regional
Environmental
Corporations
COLOMBIA
Includes the
climate
change
impacts in the
localsubnationalnational
planning
process (i.e.
INVEMAR
(decree
1276/94)
DIMAR
Stock populations
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex V - page 2
___________________________________________________________________
Sea Level
Rise
scenarios) sea
below graph
as example
COSTA RICA
Ordenamiento
espacial
marino (usos),
Ministerio de
Ambiente
(MINAE)
Salud de los
ecosistemas,
sp,
Decisión del
Consejo
Ambiental
(consejo de
ministro
relacionados
con la parte
ambiental,
presidido por
el Ministro de
Ambiente y la
CONAMAR)
SINAC
5 AÑOS SINAC
(MINAE)
INCOPESCA
SINAC
INCOPESCA
SINAC
ICT
SNG
INCOPESCA
Servicio Nacional de
Guardacostas (SNG)
Universidades Estatales
ICT
Servicio Nacional de
Guardacostas (SNG)
Gobiernos Locales
ONG
Universidades
Estatales
Gobiernos Locales
ONG
COSTA RICA
Marine spatial
planning
(uses)
Ecosystem
health, sp,
Ministry of
Environment
(MINAE)
Decision of
the
Environmental
Council
(council of
ministers
associated
with the
environmental
part, chaired
by the
Minister of
Environment
and
CONAMAR
SINAC
INCOPESCA
ICT
National Guard (NG)
State Universities
Local Governments
5 years SINAC
(MINAE)
ONG
ICT
SINAC
INCOPESCA
SINAC
SNG
INCOPESCA
Servicio Nacional de
Guardacostas (SNG)
Universidades
Estatales
Gobiernos Locales
ONG
CUBA
Natural
hazards
reduction
National
Institutes
Research
centers
National and
International
Projects
CITMA
Environmental
Agency
Locals governments
CICA
National Institutes
Communities
CNAP
Research centers
and
National
Protected
Area System
IPF
Universities
UMA
Civil defense
DPPF
CUBA
Marine
Coastal
Habitat
protection
National
Institutes
Research
centers
CITMA
Tourism developers
GTI
FORMATUR
MINTUR
Locals fisheries
enterprises
CICA
National Institutes
CNAP
Research centers
and
GAVIOTA
Locals governments
National and
International
Projects
MINAL
IPF
Communities
MINAGRI
Environmental
Agency
IPF
Universities
UMA
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex IV - Page 3
SNAP
JAMAICA
Coastal
Habitat
degradation
Ministry of
Environment
(MOE)
(Mangroves
coral reefs
seagrass,
Fisheries)
Ministry of
Agriculture
and
Fisheries(MoA
F)
MOE, NEPA
NEPA
NEPA, MOE
Cabinet
MoAF
Cabinet
MOE
NEPA (marine
pollution, water
quality, habitat
change, beach
erosion) Fisheries
(Fish landing,
Fishing efforts)
National
Environment
& Plannig
Agency
(NEPA)
Planning
Institute of
Jamaica
(PIOJ)
JAMAICA
Coastal
Hazard & DRR
Office of
Disaster
Planning and
Emergency
Management
(ODPEM)
ODPEM
ODPEM,MOE
ODPEM
ODPEM, NEPA,
NEPA
Cabinet
Ministry of Health
(MOH),
Cabinet
NEPA
Water Resource
Authority (WRA), Flood mapping,
MOE
NEPA
MOE
JAMAICA
Solid Waste
&Hazardous
waste
National Solid
Waste
Authority
(NSWMA)
Hazard vulnerability,
health issues
NSWMA,
MOE, Cabinet
NSWMA, MOE NEPA
NSWMA,
NSWMA
NEPA
NEPA
NEPA
MOE
MOE
NEPA
MEXICO
COASTAL
ZONE
MANAGEMEN
T AND
ENVIRONME
NT
MINISTRY OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
(SEMARNAT)
SEMARNAT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
RESEARCH
CENTERS
AND
UNIVERSITIE
S
SEMARNAT
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
SEMARNAT
SEMARNAT
RESEARCH
CENTERS
AND
UNIVERSITI
ES
EACH OF THE
NATIONAL
AUTHORITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
MEXICO
Water Quality
SEMARNAT
SEMARNAT
(CONAGUA)
CONAGUA
SEMARNAT
SEMAR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
Comision Nacional
RESEARCH
CENTERS
EACH OF THE
NATIONAL
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex V - page 4
___________________________________________________________________
IMTA
MUNICIPALITIES
del Agua
RESEARCH
CENTERS
AND
UNIVERSITIE
S
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
AND
UNIVERSITI
ES
AUTHORITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
MEXICO
Land
degradation,
Forest
SEMARNAT
SEMARNAT
(CONAFOR)
CONAFOR
SEMARNAT
RESEARCH
CENTERS
AND
UNIVERSITIE
S
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
Comision Nacional
Forestal
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
EACH OF THE
NATIONAL
AUTHORITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
MEXICO
Biodiversity
SEMARNAT
SEMARNAT
(CONABIO)
CONABIO
SEMARNAT
RESEARCH
CENTERS
AND
UNIVERSITIE
S
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
Comision Nacional
para el
Conocimiento de la
Biodiversidad
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
EACH OF THE
NATIONAL
AUTHORITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
MEXICO
Protected
Areas
SEMARNAT
SEMARNAT
CONANP
CONANP
SEMARNAT
RESEARCH
CENTERS
AND
UNIVERSITIE
S
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
Comision
Nacional de
Areas Protegidas
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
EACH OF THE
NATIONAL
AUTHORITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
RESEARCH
CENTERS AND
UNIVERSITIES
CARIBBEAN
NETHERLAN
DS
Habitat
degradation
RCN
BC OLs
Marine Park
Directorates
Monitoring officer
EZ
Marine Park
Tourism office
IMARES
Scientists
CARIBBEAN
NETHERLAN
DS
Pollution
RCN
BC OLs
Marine Park
Directorates
RWS
RWS
National
government
(I&M)
Harbour authority
Harbour authority
Marine Park
Nustar/
BOPEC
Business
Scientists
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex IV - Page 5
Association
CARIBBEAN
NETHERLAN
DS
Fisheries
RCN
BC OLs
Marine Park
Directorates
Monitoring officer
EZ
Fishermen
Fishery body
Marine Park
IMARES
PUERTO RICO
-Habitat
degradation
[coastal
erosion, beach
loss (Sea turtles
nestingTourism),
intertidal
wetlands
migrationsqueezing,
Emergent
palustrine
wetlands loss
PUERTO RICO
Coastal Hazards
and Climate
Change
Adaptation
Dep. of Natural
and Env.
Resources
-PR Governor
-PR CZM
Office
-PR FWS
(DNER)
-DNER
-PR PB
PRCCC
:
-PR Planning
Board
-PR Office of Permits
Management
PR Cabinet agencies
(PR PB)
-Coastal Municipalities
-PR CZM
- PR Governor
- PR Climate
Change Council
Office and
heads Cabinet
agencies
-PR Cabinet agencies (i.e.,
DNER, PRPB, Office of
Permits Management)
-Coastal Zone
Mgmnt
5 yr Assessment and
Strategies
PR CZM
PR PB
-Fisheries and
Wildlife Bureau
-Natural
Protected
Areas Bureau
(PRCCC)
-PRCZM
-PRCCC
3-yr State of the Climate
Report
Includes:
-PR CZM
-PRCCC
-PR PB
Comprehensive
Vulnerability
Assessment
-Infrastruct. Agencies
& Adaptation plans at
different levels:
( Electric Power
Authority., Aqueducts
and Sewers Authority,
Housing Dep.,
-Island-wide
-Sectoral
-Municipal
Highway Authority,
Public Works Dep.,
other
-Local
( public participation)
TRINIDAD
TRINIDAD
Coastal
management
Water quality
-Min of Works
and
Infrastructure
-Min of
Planning and
Sustainable
Dev
-Min of Land
and Marine
Resources
-IMA
-Min of Works
and
Infrastructure
-Min of
Planning and
Sustainable
Dev
-Min of
Environment
-IMA
-Min of
Environment
-EMA
-Min of Works and
Infrastructure
-Min of Planning and
Sustainable Dev
-Min of Works and
Infrastructure
-Min of Planning and
Sustainable Dev
-IMA
-Min of Works and
Infrastructure
-Min of Planning and
Sustainable Dev
-Min of Land and
Marine Resources
-IMA
-EMA
-Min of Land
and Marine
Resources
-Min of Environment
-EMA
-EMA
-IMA
-EMA
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex V - page 6
___________________________________________________________________
TRINIDAD
Habitat quality
evaluation
-EMA
-IMA
-Min of
Environment
-Min of Environment
EMA
-EMA
-UWI
-IMA
TRINIDAD
Non living
resources
-Min of
Energy and
Energy Affairs
-Min of
Foreign
Affairs
-EMA
-Min of
Energy and
Energy Affairs
-Min of
Foreign
Affairs
-EMA
-Min of Energy and
Energy Affairs
-Min of Energy and
Energy Affairs
-Min of Energy and
Energy Affairs
-Min of Foreign
Affairs
-Oil and gas
companies
-EMA
TRINIDAD
Living
resources
-Min of Env
-Min of Land
and Marine
Resources
-Min of Env
-Min of Land
and Marine
Resources
-Min of Land and Marine
Resources
-Min of Land and
Marine Resources
-Min of Land and
Marine Resources
DDME
Planning
Dema
DEMA
Cabinet
Min. GSS, ENV
DDME
DEMA
Public works
DEMA
Same as previous +
Ministry + cabinet
DEMA, DDME, Puplic
works
DEMA+ Ministry+
cabinet+ public
DEMA
DEMA
DEMA+
Ministry+
Cabinet
DEFRA/FCO
DEMA
DEMA + public+
Ministry + Cabinet
DEMA
via Governor’s Office
Not yet decided
Local version of
DEFRA Status of
Seas report (CP2)
see
-IMA
-IMA
TURKS AND
CAICOS
TURKS AND
CAICOS
TURKS AND
CAICOS
UK
Flood
alleviation and
run off
Sustainable
Fisheries
management
(stock status,
effort
MPA
management/ef
fectiveness
Status of
UKOTs’
marine
environment
policies
DEFRA
Cabinet
Ministry of env
DEMA
http://chartingprogres
s.defra.gov.uk/
UK
Performance
of UKOTs’
against
international
indicators
DEFRA
DEFRA/FCO
via Governor’s Office
Not yet decided
TBA
UK
Emergency
Planning and
Mitigation
FCO
FCO / Cabinet
Office / Royal
Navy
via Governor’s Office
Prep then 3 year
review (probably)
Reference maps
Geohazards
Sensitive areas (e.g.
to inundation)
Location of shelters /
high ground
Emergency response
plans
UK
Nautical
Information
and Charting
FCO
UKHO
UKHO
Any change to be
reported asap
Bathymetry
AtoN
MPAs etc
VENEZUELA
Fisheries
Management
Fisheries
Institute
(INSOPESCA
).
Ministry of
food
production.
National
Assembly (if it
Fisheries institute
Fisheries Institute
Fisheries statistics.
(INSOPESCA).
Oceanographic
conditions
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex IV - Page 7
VENEZUELA
Invasive
Species
Control
Public
Consultation
(fishermen
organization)
will be a law)
Institute of
Aquatic
Spaces
(INEA)
INEA,
Biodiversity
office (Min
Env.).
(upwelling)
INEA, National Port
authorities
INEA, Ministry of the
environment
Ministry of
Environment.
National
Assembly (if it
will be a law)
Vessel traffic (INEA,
port Authorities).
Ballast water
samplings
(ministry of
Environment)
Technical
groups
(universities,
research
centers)
VENEZUELA
Marine
Protected
Areas project
(GEF)
Ministry of the
Environment/
Vice-Minister
of Territorial
planning.
Public
Consultation.
Fco. De
Miranda
Insular State.
National
Institute of
Aquatic
Spaces
(INEA)
Ministry of the
Environment,
Ministry of the
Environment,
National
Assembly (if it
will be a law)
Coastal zone direction,
National Parks Institute
Ministry of the
Environment: National
Park Institute
Biodiversity direction,
coastal zone
Direction,
(5yr management
plan)
National parks
Institute
(ecosystem
condition, tourism,
fisheries)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex V - Page 1
Annex V - Table referring to agenda item 5 - mapping of CLME+ shared Living Marine
Resources governance & management stakeholders (workshop results – basis for
further work)
A = agents / B = beneficiaries – affected / G = global / R = regional / SR = subregional / N = national
Wider Caribbean Region / CLME+
HABITATS
GOVERNMENTS/IG
Os
CIVIL
SOCIETY/CBOs/NG
Os
PRIVATE
SECTOR
1.
G: UNEP,
RAMSAR, CBD,
UNESCO (MAB),
FAO/FO
IUCN, TNC, WWF,
CI
G-R-SR-N:
Tourism,
Shipping,
Coastal
Developme
nt (Port
developmen
t),
Insurance
Companies,
…
Analysis & advice
N: NGOs, FFOs,
CBOs
R: UNEP CEP,
UNEP ROLAC
SR: CCAD, OECS,
5Cs, CARISec,
N: Agric/Forestry
Departments or
Enviro Depts,
depending on
country, NICs
2.
Decision-making
TourA:
B:
ACADEMIA
SR:
UWI/CERME
S; Univ. of
Miami
(RSMAS)
BILAT/MULTIL
AT DONORS &
DBs
G-R-SR-N:
GEF
Implementing
agency (as part
of project M&E)
N: H. LAvitty
Stout
Community
College
(BVI)
G: COP CBD, COP
RAMSAR, UNEA
R: ACS/CSC,
Parties to the
Cartagena
Convention,
Ministerial Forum of
UNEP
SR: OECS, COTED
(CARICOM), CCAD
N:
3.
Implementation
G: R: -
SR: MARFund
IBRD (in
support of post
project
activities)
SR: OECS
N: Development
Agency, different
gov’t agencies with
a stake in habitats
4.
Review & evaluation
Some mandates
established, some
intentions, but
mostly lacking in
terms of
implementation
G: FAO/FO (M&E)
R: SOCAR
G-R-SR-N:
GEF
Implementing
agency (as part
of project M&E)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex V - page 2
___________________________________________________________________
HABITATS
GOVERNMENTS/IG
Os
CIVIL
SOCIETY/CBOs/NG
Os
PRIVATE
SECTOR
ACADEMIA
BILAT/MULTIL
AT DONORS &
DBs
SR:
CARICOMP
GEF (e.g.
comment: often
much more
clarity on the
baseline)
(commitment,
process recently
started)
SR: CRFM (reef
strategy), OECS (St
Georges Decl,
revised treaty,…)
5.
Monitoring/data
collection/management
/provision
G: IOC (GOOS,
IODE, OBIS), UNEP
Live, IOCCP
(carbon monitoring),
CBD, RAMSAR,
FOA (World
Forestry Resources
Assessment)
G: GCRMN-ICRI,
WRI, TNC, CI,
WCMC, ReefCheck
SR: Healthy Reefs
Initiative
N: NGOS and CBOs
at local level
R: UNEP ROLAC,
UNEP CEP,
CAMPAM,
IOCARIBE (GOOS,
ODINCARSA,
CarOBIS)
SR:
N:
Awareness building?
FISHERIES
GOVERNMENTS/IG
Os
CIVIL
SOCIETY/CBOs/NG
Os
PRIVATE
SECTOR
ACADEMIA
BILAT/MULTIL
AT DONORS &
DBs
Analysis & advice
G: FAO/FICOFI
G: WWF
R: WECAFC
R: GFCI
Fishers and
aquaculture
rs
SR:
UWI/CERME
S;
EU/ DFATD
(Canada) (as
part of project
M&E)
SR: CRFM,
OSPESCA,
OLDEPESCA;
OECS, 5Cs, CCAD
SR: CNFO, UWI (as
part of CFF), WWF
subregional office
N: National
Universities
and/or
Community
colleges
N: National fishery
research centersN:
Agric/Fisheries
Departments or
Enviro Depts,
depending on
country, NICs
Decision-making
G: COFI
G: WWF
R: WECAFC?
SR: CNFO (as part
of CFF); WWF subregional office
SR: CRFM Council
of Ministers,
OSPESCA; OECS,
5Cs,
N: National direction
of fisheriesN:
Stakeholder
organisatio
ns (as part
of advisory
committees
where they
are
operational)
SR:
UWI/CERME
S (as part of
Caribbean
Fisheries
forum
(CFF));
G-R-SR-N: GEF
Secretariat,
GEF
Implementing
agency (as part
of project M&E)
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex V - Page 3
FISHERIES
GOVERNMENTS/IG
Os
CIVIL
SOCIETY/CBOs/NG
Os
PRIVATE
SECTOR
ACADEMIA
BILAT/MULTIL
AT DONORS &
DBs
SR:
UWI/CERME
S;
G: FAO/FI
(M&E)EU/
DFATD
(Canada) (as
part of project
M&E)
Agric/Fisheries
Departments or
Enviro Depts,
depending on
country, NICs
Implementation
G:
SR: CNFO, UWI
R: WECAFC
(working groups)
N: national
fishermen
associations,
seafood processors
associations
SR: CRFM,
OSPESCA; OECS,
5Cs, OLDEPESCA
N: Agric/Fisheries
Departments or
Enviro Depts,
depending on
country, NICs;
National direction of
fisheriesR
Review & evaluation
SR: OSPESCA
N: Fisheries and
Aquaculture Offices,
Statistic Institution
N: National Fishers’
organisations
R: GCFI (EAF
approach),
Universities
Experimental
centers
N:
fishermen
who have
to comply
and
contribute
SR:
Regional
Organizatio
n of
Fisheries
and
Aquaculture
N:
organizatio
n, fishers,
aquaculture
s
Monitoring/data
collection/management/provi
sion
G: FAO/FI
R: UWI, Universities
R: WECAFC
Experimental
centers
SR: CRFM,
OSPESCA, OECS,
5Cs
N: National direction
of fisheries
N: Agric/Fisheries
Departments or
Enviro Depts,
depending on
country, NICs
POLLUTION
GOVERNMENTS/IG
Os
CIVIL
SOCIETY/CBOs/NG
Os
N:
Fishermen?
(through
comanageme
nt and
mobile
apps),
Organizatio
n of
fisheries
and
aquaculture
s
PRIVATE
SECTOR
N: National
Universities
and/or
Community
colleges
G-R-SR-N: GEF
Implementing
agency (as part
of project M&E)
SR:
UWI/CERME
S;
N: National
Universities
and/or
Community
colleges
ACADEMI
A
BILAT/MULTIL
AT DONORS &
DBs
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex V - page 4
___________________________________________________________________
POLLUTION
GOVERNMENTS/IG
Os
CIVIL
SOCIETY/CBOs/NG
Os
Analysis & advice
N: Environmental
office, Healt,
Fisheries and
aquaculture, tourism
Universities
Decision-making
PRIVATE
SECTOR
ACADEMI
A
BILAT/MULTIL
AT DONORS &
DBs
ACADEMI
A
BILAT/MULTILA
T DONORS &
DBs
Experimental centers
CCAD
N: Environmental
office
Implementation
N: Environmental
office
Universities
Experimental centers
Review & evaluation
N: Environmental
office; Statistic
Institution
Universities
Monitoring/data
collection/management/provis
ion
N: Environmental
office, Statistic
Institution, Fisheries
and Aquaculture
Office
Universities
CROSS-SECTORIAL
COORDINATION/PLANNING
GOVERNMENTS/IG
Os
CIVIL
SOCIETY/CBOs/NG
Os
Analysis & advice
G: FAO (COFI)
G: Conservation
International
Experimental centers
Experimental centers
R: GCFI (EAF
approach); AMLC
Decision-making
Implementation
Review & evaluation
R: GCFI (EAF
approach); AMLC
Monitoring/data
collection/management/provisi
on
R: GCFI (EAF
approach); AMLC
Fisheries
and
aquacultur
e
organizatio
n
PRIVAT
E
SECTO
R
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - Page 1
Annex VI - Terms of Reference of the Governance Structure
Copied from IOC Workshop Report No. 260, Caribbean Marine Atlas Review and Planning
Meeting, Courtyard Marriott Coconut Grove, Miami, USA 10-13 December 2013
http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=13109
The December 2013 meeting discussed the required arrangements for the project
governance and identified the need for a Project Steering Group and Project Executive Team
with the following terms of reference and membership:
Project Steering Group
o
o
o
Terms of reference
The Steering group is responsible for the general oversight of the project’s
progress and for the strategic direction of the project.
Membership (funded by the project)
Representatives of the partner countries (1) (National coordinator)
IOC/IODE Secretariat
6 Work package coordinators
Representatives of other IOC programmes contributing to the project work
(e.g. ICAM, ICAN,…)
Project Coordinator
Donor representative(s)
Membership (not funded by the project)
Representatives of participating regional and international organizations (2)
CLME+/CMA Liaison person
Project Executive Team
o
Terms of reference
Day-to-day coordination and monitoring of the work plan implementation
Report to the Project Steering Group on progress and emerging issues
Drafting of annual proposed work plan and budget, for submission to and
approval by the Project Steering Group
Drafting of the annual report
o
Membership
Project Coordinator
6 Work package coordinators
CLME+/CMA Liaison person
National coordination groups
o
Terms of reference
Mobilizing, recruiting and engaging the national stakeholders
Development and implementation of a national CMA work plan
Implementation of the CMA work packages
Reporting on the implementation of national actions
Promoting the project at the national level
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 2
___________________________________________________________________
o
Membership
Stakeholder representatives
National coordinator
(1) Partner country = all countries who participated in the December workshop (and who will
benefit from the project funding) + any other country from the region who will self-fund their
participation in the project. Partner countries can send more than one person to the meeting
but only one will be funded.
The meeting recalled that it had also established “Stakeholder groups” under WP3 (A3.2):
intended to ensure that project remains demand-driven; active feedback required to Work
Package coordinators and Steering Group.
(2) Regional organizations will need an invitation to designate a representative. Mr Cesar
Toro was tasked to deal with these invitations.
Project coordinator
The meeting invited a volunteer for the position of Project Coordinator. Mr Francisco Arias
expressed his interest. He was requested to confirm his availability as Project coordinator by
mid-January 2014.
National coordinators
The meeting called for the partner countries to designate their national coordinators by midJanuary. In this regard the IOC Secretariat was tasked to send out an email to national focal
points of the partner countries (Barbados, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, Jamaica, Mexico,
Panama, Turks & Caicos and Venezuela). Mr Johan Stapel informed the meeting that The
Netherlands might be interested to join the Project and that he would inform the Secretariat
and Project Coordinator.
In order to ensure that the Secretariat has the correct contact details participants of the
meeting were requested to send the details of their IOC national contact point to the IOC
Secretariat by 31 December 2013.
Work package coordinators
The meeting called for partner countries to identify suitable candidates for Work Package
coordinators. Candidatures should be submitted to the Project Coordinator by mid-January.
A full CV, in English or Spanish, should accompany the applications. The project coordinator
will copy the applications to all identified national coordinators. The project coordinator will
designate the WP coordinators in consultation with the national coordinators by the end of
January 2014.
It was recalled that the Work Package coordinators will be responsible for the planning,
coordination and monitoring of the work package implementation. To this end they will
actively seek the necessary expertise amongst the partner countries and/or, as necessary,
internationally (e.g. in the ICAN community). Work Package coordinators will also be tasked
to report on Work Package implementation progress during sessions of the Project Steering
Group.
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 1
ANNEX VI - List of Participants
Project coordinator
Dr Francisco ARIAS-ISAZA
General Director
INVEMAR
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y
Costeras José Benito Vives de Andreis
Calle 25 No. 2-25, Playa Salguero,
Rodadero
Santa Marta
Magdalena
Colombia
Tel: +57 3145925562
Fax: +57 5 4328600
Tel: (876) 754-7540 ext 2220
Fax: (876) 754-7594/5
Project partners (region)
Dr Eduardo KLEIN
Professor
Instituto de Tecnología y Ciencias Marinas
INTECMAR
Universidad Simon Bolivar
Remote Sensing and GeoSpatial Analysis
Lab.
Dept. Estudios Ambientales. AP 89000
Caracas 1080
Miranda
Venezuela
Tel: +58 212 9063111 ext 6700
Fax: +58 212 9063111 ext 6701
Dr Laura CARRILLO
Researcher, Head of Department
Systematic and Aquatic Ecology
Unidad Chetumal, El Colegio de la
Frontera Sur
Av. Centenario km 5.5
Col. Pacto Obrero Campesino
77014 Chetumal
Quintana Roo
Mexico
Tel: +52 983 8350440
Mr Ramon ROACH
Coastal Information Systems Manager
Marine Research
Coastal Zone Management Unit
Warrens Towers 2
Warrens
St. Michael
Barbados
Tel: 1 (246) 622-1610
Fax: 1 (246) 228-5956
Mr Luc CLERVEAUX
Environmental Officer
National Environmental Centre, Dept. of
Environment & Maritime Affairs
Lower Bight Road
Providenciales
BWI
Turks Caicos Isl
Tel: 1-649-2430903
Fax: 1-649-946-4793
Ms Paula SIERRA-CORREA
Coordinator
Coastal Zone Management Research
Program
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y
Costeras José Benito Vives de Andreis
Calle 25 No. 2-55, Playa Salguero,
Rodadero
Santa Marta
Magdalena
Colombia
Mr Sean GREEN
Ecosystems Management Branch
National Environment and Planning
Agency, Jamaica
10 & 11 Caledonia Avenue
Kingston 5
Jamaica
Mr Derrick THEOPHILLE
Fisheries Liaison Officer
Fisheries Division
Ministry of the Environment, Natural
resources, Physical Planning and
Fisheries; Fisheries Division
Roseau Fisheries Complex,
Dame M.E. Charles Boulevard
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 2
___________________________________________________________________
Roseau
Dominica
Tel: 767-448-0140
Fax: 767-448-0140
Dr Carlos TORRES
Researcher
Universidad Autonoma de Baja California,
Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanologicas
(UABC)
Km 103 autopista Tijuana
22800 Ensenada
Baja California
Mexico
Tel: +52(646)1750707
Fax: +52(646)1745303
Mr Adan ZUNIGA RIOS
Geologist Engineer/Director
Centro de Investigaciones de Ecosistemas
Costeros/ Coastal Ecosystem Research
Center
Cayo Coco,
Moron Ciego de Avila
Cuba
Tel: (053) 33-301161
Fax: (053) 33-301151
Ms Lin LIU
UNESCO/IOC Project Office for IODE
Wandelaarkaai 7 - Pakhuis 61
B-8400 Oostende
Belgium
Mr Peter PISSIERSSENS
Head, IOC Project Office for IODE,
Oostende, Belgium
IOC Project Office for IODE
UNESCO/IOC Project Office for IODE
Wandelaarkaai 7 - Pakhuis 61
B-8400 Oostende
Belgium
Tel: +32-59-340158
Fax: +32-59-79 5220
Mr Cesar TORO
IOC Secretary for IOCARIBE
IOC of UNESCO. Sub-Commission for the
Caribbean and Adjacent Regions
Calle de la Factoria 36-57
Casa del Marques de Valdehoyos
Cartagena de Indias
1108
Colombia
Tel: +57 5 664 09 55
Fax: +57 5 664 02 88
Secretariat
Mr Ward APPELTANS
Programme Specialist
UNESCO/IOC Project Office for IODE
Wandelaarkaai 7 - Pakhuis 61
B-8400 Oostende
Belgium
Tel: +32 59 34 01 76
Fax: +32 59 34 01 52
Mr Alejandro IGLESIAS-CAMPOS
Assistant Programme Specialist (Physical
Geographer - Coastal/Marine and GIS
Expert)
Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission of UNESCO
7, place de Fontenoy
75732 Paris cedex 07
France
Tel: +33(0)1456-84023
Invited experts
Ms Marcia BERMAN
Program Director
Comprehensive Coastal Inventory
Program
Virginia Institute of Marine Science of the
College of William and Mary
P.O. Box 1346 Gloucester Point, Virginia
23062
United States
Tel: 18046847188
Fax: 18046847179
Ms Tanya HADDAD
Oregon Coastal Management Program
800 NE Oregon St, #18
Portland OR 97232
United States
Tel: +19716730962
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 3
Dr Yassine LASSOUED
GIS/Computer Science Research and
Development
Coastal and Marine Research Centre
(CMRC)
University College Cork
Naval Base
Haulbowline
Cobh
Co. Cork
Ireland
Tel: +353-21-4703103
Fax: +353-21-4703132
Ms Linda PIKULA
Regional Librarian
NOAA Central Library
NOAA Central and Regional Libraries
4301 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami Florida 33149
United States
Tel: 305-361-4429
Fax: 305-361-4552
Mr Greg REED
Executive Officer
Australian Ocean Data Centre Joint
Facility
Fleet Headquarters
Wylde Street Building 89
Garden Island Potts Point NSW 2011
Australia
Tel: +61 2 9359 3141
Fax: +61 2 9359 3120
Ms Pauline SIMPSON
Programme Coordinator
Central Caribbean Marine Institute
PO Box 10152
Grand Cayman
KY1-1002
Cayman Islands
Tel: +[1] 345 949 1244
ODINCARSA representatives
Mr Ariel TROISI
Head Oceanography
Oceanography Department
Servício de Hídrografia Naval
Av. Montes de Oca 2124
C1270ABV Buenos Aires
Argentina
Tel: +54 11 4301 3091
Fax: +54 11 4301 3091
Organizations (region)
Ms Hyacinth ARMSTRONG-VAUGHN
Protected Areas Officer
IUCN - Regional Office for Mexico, Central
America and the Caribbean
San Pedro de Montes de Oca, Los Yoses,
del Automercado 50 metros Sur,
Apartado Postal 0146-2150
San Jose
Costa Rica
Tel: 246-417-4316
Fax: 246-424-4204
Dr Georgina BUSTAMANTE
Coordinator
Caribbean Marine Protected Area
Management Network and Forum
Florida
United States
Tel: 1 954-9633626
Mr Christopher CORBIN
Programme Officer
Assessment and Management of
Environmental Pollution
United Nations Environment Programme
(Caribbean Environment Programme)
14-20 Port Royal Street
Kingston
Jamaica
Tel: 18769229267
Fax: 18769229292
Mr Charles DAVIES
Regional Coordinator--Early Warning and
Assessment
Regional Office for Latin America and the
Caribbean
UNEP
Avenida Morse, Corregimiento de Ancón,
Edificio 103
Clayton
Panama
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 4
___________________________________________________________________
0843-03590
Panama
Tel: +507 305 3150
Mr Fernando FÉLIX
Project Coordinator
Plan de Acción
Comisión Permanente Pacifico Sur
Edificio Classic, Complejo Comercial
Alban Borja, Km 3.5 Julio Arosemena
Guayaquil
Guayas
Ecuador
Tel: 593422211202
Fax: 59342221201
Mr John KNOWLES
Conservation Information Manager
Caribbean Program
The Nature Conservancy, Caribbean
Division
255
Coral Gables FL 33134
United States
Tel: +1 (305) 445-8352
Fax: +1 (305) 446-6395
Dr Kim MALLALIEU
Senior Lecturer and P.I. Caribbean ICT
Research Programme
The University of the West Indies
Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering
St. Augustine
Trinidad and Tobago
Tel: 18686822403
Fax: 18686624414
Dr Patrick MCCONNEY
Senior Lecturer
Centre for Resource Management and
Environmental Studies
The University of the West Indies, Cave
Hill Campus
Cave Hill
Bridgetown
St Michael
BB11000
Barbados
Tel: 246-417-4725
Fax: 246-424-4204
Mr Reinaldo MORALES-RODRIGUEZ
Principal Expert
Organización del Sector Pesquero y
Acuícola del Istmo Centroamericano
Calle Ramon Belloso, final Pasaje Isolde.
Edificio OIRSA. Colonia Escalon
(01) 61 -San Salvador
San Salvador
El Salvador
Tel: +503 22099263
Fax: +503 22631128
Mr Peter MURRAY
Programme Manager, Fisheries
Management and Development
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism
Secretariat, Headquarters
Princess Margaret Drive, P.O. Box 642
Belize City
Belize
Tel: +5012234443
Fax: +5012234446
Mr Erich J PACHECO
Manager, Ocean Health Index
Moore Center for Oceans and Science
Conservation International - Global Marine
Division
2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500
Arlington VA 22202
United States
Tel: 7033412625
Ms María PORTA
Senior Program Officer
World Wildlife Fund-Guatemala /
Mesoamerican Reef
World Wildlife Fund-Guatemala /
Mesoamerican Reef
15 avenida 13-45 Colonia Oakland zona
10
01010-Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Tel: 502-23665856
Fax: 502-23665856
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 5
Dr Asha SINGH
Head
Ocean Governance
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
Morne,
Castries
Saint Lucia
Tel: 758 722 6828
United Nations Office for Project Services
c/o IOCARIBE, Edificio Chambacu, Office
405
Cartagena
Bolivar
Colombia
IOC Member State (region)
Organizations (international)
Dr Mariagrazia GRAZIANO
Scientific Project Officer - Post Doctoral
Researcher
Institute for Environment and Sustainability
- Joint Research Centre - European
Commission
European Commission - Joint Research
Centre
21020 Ispra
Italy
Tel: +390332789744
Mr Marc TACONET
Chief, FAO Fishery statistics and
information Branch
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of
the UN, Headquarters
via delle Terme di Caracalla,
00153 Rome
Italy
Tel: +390657053799
Fax: +390657052476
CLME+ representatives
Mr Patrick DEBELS
Regional Project Coordinator, Caribbean
Large Marine Ecosystem Project (CLME)
United Nations Office for Project Services
c/o IOCARIBE, Edificio Chambacu, Office
405
Cartagena
Bolivar
Colombia
Tel: +57 5 6648882
Ms Laverne WALKER
Senior Project Officer for CLME Project
Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem
Ms Jenny ASCH CORRALES
Coordinadora Programa Marino
Sistema Nacional de Áreas de
Conservación de Costa Rica
National System of Conservation Areas
Apartado 10104 -1000
300m Sur Ulacit, Edificio Padilla
San Jose
Costa Rica
Tel: 00 506 256 0917
Fax: 00 506 257 9722
Mr Hamish ASMATH
GIS Officer
Geomatics
Institute of Marine Affairs
Hilltop Lane
Chaguramas
Trinidad and Tobago
Tel: 868-321-5679
Fax: 868-636-9965
Mr James AZUETA
Ecosystems Management Unit
Coordinator
Belize Fisheries Department
P.O. Box 148
Princess Margaret Drive
Belize City
Belize
Tel: 501 2232187
Fax: 501 2232986
Mr Ernesto DIAZ
Marine Scientist and Director
Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management
Program
Coastal Zone Management Program
(CZMP)
PO Box 366147
San Juan PR 00936
Puerto Rico
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 6
___________________________________________________________________
Tel: 7872443745
Dr Mike OSBORNE
Managing Director
OceanWise
United Kingdom
Tel: 447714799900
Mr Sean PADMANABHAN
GIS/SDI Specialist
Government of Trinidad & Tobago
101-103 Ariapita Avenue, Woodbrook
Port of Spain
Trinidad and Tobago
Tel: +1 (868) 687-2339
Mr Christopher PAVER
Oceanographer
NOAA, National Oceanographic Data
Center
1315 East-West Hwy
SSMC3 4th Floor
Silver Spring MD 20910
United States
Ms Deborah SPRING
International Program Liaison
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring
NOAA Fisheries Service
Partnerships & Communications
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring Maryland MD 20910
United States
Dr Johan STAPEL
Director
Caribbean Netherlands Science Institute
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea
Research
PO Box 65, St Eustatius, Caribbean
Netherlands
St Eustatius
Netherlands Antilles
Tel: +17215995376
IOC Workshop Report No. 265
Annex VI - page 7