Belize Workshop for Predictive Model for MMAs
March 13-14, 2008
Feedback Notes compiled by Leah Karrer
Participants: Melanie (MM), Adele (A), Diane, Jack (JN), Juan, Jocelyn, Miguel, Virginia, Lauretta (LB), Kirah, Yvette, Leandra, Saul, Robin, Renatta
Organizers: Lindsay, Suchi Gopal, Hrishi Pate, Giselle SamonteTan, Leah Karrer
Overall Comments
Overall
Duplicate weighting when all comes together – keep separate (MM)
Need to be able to see what situation is now
And see future
Scale:
Clarify if focused on MMA or country-wide (LB)
Need to have ‘zoom’ function so focus on particular MMA (?)
Be able to make it for Hol Chan then revise for elsewhere (LB)
Way to average out the score for national scale (LB clarified by MM)
Look at differences (e.g. ngo mgt v. govt) (MM)
Revised Outcomes
Outcomes – What are the appropriate outcomes for Belize?
Currently: Quality of Life (measured by employment), Ecological Conditions (measured by fish biomass), Governance Conditions
GOVERNANCE OUTCOME: Representativity & Empowerment. Self-mgt, ownership, part of decision-making. Compliance.
SOCIOECONOMIC OUTCOME:
· considers the socioeconomic CDFs collectively
· not only income but also health and education, community involvement and association, feeling of having a stake in the well-being of the community
ECOLOGICAL OUTCOME: Want overall statement. But then bar graphs for each of the ecological CDFs. Don’t want to see other CDFs.
GW Graph: don’t have data on data on degree heating days, but can access degree weeks. Need more explanation in the ‘help’. Is this really useful when already have NOAA info, gone to NOAA training and is understood – why bring in something new?
Revised CDFs & Levels
Ecological CDFs (Melanie, Jocelyn, Renatta, Leandra, Karah)
Habitat extent. Reductions in mangrove and seagrass habitats (maybe reef). Criteria for levels: % decline. Consider in your reserves vs. outside reserves (don’t limit to within boundaries – look around park).
· Need at least 5 levels: Very low, low, medium, high, very high
· Need to define % with drop down per habitat (coral, mangrove, seagrass)
Habitat health. Criteria for levels:
Corals: coral cover, coral recruitment, species richness, recent mortality.
Mangroves: productivity, epyphytes, forest structure (heighty)
Seagrasses: productivity, density (see new from Healthy Reefs/Healthy People).
· Unrecognizable, poor, fair, good, very good, pristine
· Need to define % with drop down per habitat (coral, mangrove, seagrass)
· for coral – refer definition if healthy reefs initiative for corals
· for mangrove – need to define; refer to MBRS
· for seagrass- refer to SeagrassNet and MBRS
Herbivory. Herbivorous fish biomass, urchin biomass, fleshy macroalgal index (see new from HR/HP).
· two levels: good or bad – refer to Peter Mumby’s study/work
Focal species abundance. (More tailored to MPA) Criteria for levels: commercial species biomass (may need to revise AGGRA/MBRS to Belize fish), total fish biomass, management targets (e.g. if established to manage particular species such as crocs, manatees).
· Drop down per category
· commercial species biomass – very low, low, medium, high, very high; refer AGGRA/MBRS
· total fish biomass - very low, low, medium, high, very high; refer AGGRA/MBRS
· management targets – type in the name of the focal species since this varies across MMAs; limit to 3 – 5 species; then need population state (for example: low, medium high) per speicies listed
Socioeconomic CDFs (Yvette, Adele, Diane, Robin)
Perceived threat level due to development. [expand definition, change level opti; ons/rating scheme – impacts to both humans and natural resources; development includes: development within the buffer zone of the MMA as well as development upstream (includes development on both land and water]
Very low – no threat due to no development or development that is environmentally sustainable – ecosystems left undisturbed, low or no impact from human foot print. Water quality very high
Low – low threat level due to development that is within the established carrying capacity of that specific MMA. Water quality high
Medium – medium threat due to development this is at or above 20% of the established carrying capacity of the specific MMA. Water quality medium
High – high level threat due to development that is at or within 50% to 80% of the established carrying capacity of the specific MMA. Water quality low
Very High level threat due to development that is at or above 80% of the established carrying capacity of the specific MMA. Water quality very low.
Perception of access and use of marine resources in managed areas (fish, beaches, coral, mangroves, sea for recreation, plants)
Very low – no local communities have access and use of marine resources within the MMA
Low – 10% of local communities have access and use of marine resources within the MMA
Medium – 50% of local communities have access and use of marine resources within the MMA
High – 50% -80% of local communities have access and use of marine resources within the MMA
Very high – 80% and above of local communities have access and use of marine resources within the MMA
Successful income generating activities within local communities – income generating activities that uses marine resources in a sustainable manner as well as alternative income generating activities. (beyond training ).
Very low- very low household income levels – below the indigent line
Low- - at the indigent line
Medium- between the indigent and poverty line
High- 50% above the poverty line
Very high- 80% or above the poverty line
Direct socioeconomic benefits from establishment of marine managed area. (e.g. scholarships)
Very low -
Low-
Medium-
High-
Very high-
Issues: need space for comments. Need to address data sources for rating CDFs and how realistic is it for data collection? Communities (parameters per MMA).
Governance CDFs (Virginia, Jack, Lindsay, Juan, Miguel, Saul)
Stakeholder Involvement (combined Participation by those affected & Community organization b/c very similar – linked to each other. Combine). Level and quality. Issues: capacity to participate (e.g. organizations), being heard/things change, equity of participation/influence, two-way flow of information.
Level Excellent: >90% Highly representative and active Board of Directors. Organizational relationship where community is highly interactive with their organization. >90% of representatives report to their constituent.
Level High: >75%
Level Medium: >50%
Level Fair: >25%
Level Low: < 25%
Support from government agencies – enacted legislation, supporting existing and creating new policies, providing coordination (e.g. National Protected Area Commission, PACT)
Level Excellent: >90% Government Co-management agreements are defined and signed. Government agencies play important role on committees. Government is receptive to the stakeholders and organizations concerns and suggestions. Government agencies upholding and enforcing existing laws and regulations.(i.e. not giving permits for dredging within MMA’s)
Level High: >75%
Level Medium: >50%
Level Fair: >25%
Level Low: <25%
Management effectiveness/operations. Resources (people, equipment/infrastructure and $$) for enforcement, monitoring, outreach/education, field presence. Are you doing what your management plan says? Do you have a mgt plan?
Level Excellent: >90% Implemented Strategic and Management Plan. Capable staff. No shortage of resources. Demarcated reserves. Stakeholders are aware of rules and regulations. MMA Violations are caught. (i.e. illegal fishing within MMA’s)
Level High: >75%
Level Medium: >50%
Level Fair: >25%
Level Low: <25%
Commitment/ownership/ethics – Willingness to respect or comply with rules (e.g. self-interest vs. the common good). e.g. does society agree that cutting mangroves is bad? e.g. is there the political will to control illegal activities?
Level Excellent: >90% Community at large, staff and specific stakeholders have a commitment to common good
Administrative Structure: Funding, Infrastructure, Linkages, Membership/Partnerships, Sustainability, Board/Organizational structure/capacity
Level Excellent: >90% Long term funding in place. Identifiable and represented organization locally and regionally. (I.e. logo, office etc) Strategic partnerships are in place. All legal requirements are satisfied (i.e. NGO registration)
Level High: >75%
Level Medium: >50%
Level Fair: >25%
Level Low: <25%
WEIGHTINGS FOR GOVERNANCE OUTCOME
GOVERNANCE OUTCOME: Representativity/Equinimity. Empowerment. Compliance. (sense of ownership included in rep and emp). Self-mgt, part of decision-making.
Ecological CDFs
.4 Habitat extent.
.7 Habitat health.
.5 Herbivory.
.7 Focal species abundance. (More tailored to MPA)
Socioeconomic CDFs
.7 (note that more over-fishing, less empowered) Level of fishing pressure
.75 (note that more development, less empowered) Perceived threat level due to development.
.5 Perception of access and use of marine resources in managed areas – primarily for tourism.
.4 Successful alternative livelihoods / alternative income generating activities/ diversification.
.4 Direct socioeconomic benefits from establishment of marine managed area.
Governance CDFs
.8 Stakeholder
.6 Support from government agencies
.9 Management effectiveness/operations.
.5 Commitment/ownership/ethics
.6 (but if very high, then can have negative consequences b/c people feel you’re too big for your boots) Administrative Structure
WEIGHTINGS FOR ECOLOGICAL OUTCOME
Comments on CDFs for ECOLOGICAL OUTCOMES
Ecological CDFs
.8 Habitat extent.
1 Habitat health.
1 Herbivory.
.5 Focal species abundance. (More tailored to MPA)
Socioeconomic CDFs
.9 Level of fishing pressure
· Most important socioeconomic CDF for ecological outcome
· Level of fishing pressure in southern Belize perceived as extremely high but does actual data (if we had it) reflect the perception
· Extractive use so should different from #3 which includes non extractive (eg tourism) from the ecological point of view
· Can be considered an ecological CDF
.9 Perceived threat level due to development.
· If ecosystem perceived to be threatened,
.5 (can be positive link, but also negative) Perception of access and use of marine resources in managed areas
· If perceived access for tourism, meaning as a value then this is positive link for ecological outcome
· If people perceive that they have access then they will support MMA and ecological outcome
· However, if access to MMA resources is restricted but the ecological outcome is being achieved, and then the perception of users may be negative because users would want access.
.6 Successful alternative livelihoods / alternative income generating activities/ diversification.
· For example, if you have 100 fishermen shifting livelihood to tourism related, then this may take of fishing pressure
.8 Direct socioeconomic benefits from establishment of marine managed area.
Governance CDFs
.7 Stakeholder Involvement
· For example, If no stakeholder support, then there will be poaching
.7 Support from government agencies
· Laws are the guide to follow
.9 Management effectiveness/operations
· If management is going to be effective, other governance cdfs are already considered
.5 Commitment/ownership/ethics
· This is sense of will have effect but support from government is more important
.5 Administrative Structure
WEIGHTINGS FOR SOCIOECONOMIC OUTCOME
Comments on CDFs for SOCIOECONOMIC OUTCOMES
Want to develop Nature of Needs
Some not straight lines: threat ones, mgt effectiveness (negative on livelihoods in beginning – need to figure out how to address)
Weighting of CDFs
Ecological CDFs
.7 Habitat extent
· Can impact the QOL because Belize is prone to natural disaster
· Belize has is almost all coastal communities(eg, hurricane) and mangroves act as buffer for towns
· Other habitats such as seagrass and reefs, affects livelihoods (fishing, tourism)
1 Habitat health
· People depend on healthy habitat as a source of income
Don’t know Herbivory
· If it says something on the health of the habitat, then yes will influence QOL
1 Focal species abundance
· Very important, what people depend on
Socioeconomic CDFs
Level of Fishing Pressure – remove as a CDF; covered under #3
.8 Perceived threat level due to development
.8 Perception of access and use of marine resources in managed areas
1 Successful alternative livelihoods / alternative income generating activities/ diversification. (beyond training)
1 Direct socioeconomic benefits from establishment of marine managed area. (e.g. scholarships)
Issues: need space for comments. Need to address data sources for rating CDFs and how realistic is it for data collection? Communities (parameters per MMA).
Governance CDFs
1 Stakeholder Involvement
· Reflects ownership and compliance with rules and regulation
· Whole MMA is a process, if people do not feel that MMA process is not important, then MMA will not work, thus need a stake to begin with
· MMA cannot have an impact on the QOL if not involved (eg, big private company, does QOL diminish because does not participate?)
.5 Support from government agencies
· Has a relationship but not direct
· Depends on designation – different laws that govern different areas
.8 Management effectiveness/operations
· Enforcement
· Management has impact on livelihood
.7 Commitment/ownership/ethics
· If talking about compliance levels, then important because people take upon themselves to engage in sustainable practices
.8 Administrative Structure
· Internal to the MMA body
· From perspective of resources and capacity to do it
Maps Comments
Include southern Belize so all of Belize (V)
The maps don’t seem to be related to the first 2 panels (A)
Want to be able to input levels for all CDFs specific for one cell and then see it on the map for that cell. Want to see how changing things in Panel 1, such as levels of development, results in visual changes. (J, A)
What is the point of these layers? (J, A)
Map can be current situation, then user puts in the CDFs, and then you can visualize in the map with the new, predicted conditions.
Don’t need all the variables changing for each cell.
Want to be able to manipulate mgt zones which are the MPAs with Xmi buffer so you focus on the MPAs.
Want to be able to see inside vs. outside MPA. Show these are the effects of the MPA.(J)
Risk map below great analysis comparison with color referencing so redder, higher the risk – can see getting better as go out to see.
How deal with communities, which are on land? Add comments section so clear which communities are referring to. (A)
Can we have the grid, but also zoom into just the MPAs?
Can we look at more than 2 MPAs at a time? Would like to compare.
Utility Comments:
How do you anticipate using this model? Your colleagues? Others outside Belize?
Help convince politicians that management is important – great way to visually show politicians (JN)
See where need to focus (X, I)
Technical data into decision-making with govt and stakeholders – this kind of thing is not very available (I)
Will affect govt – socioecon, ecology – show images (I?)
5 years is a good amount time b/c can see how can make a difference in during their 5 year political term. (I?)
Mapping helps show what we did this year, what need to change in next 5 years. Thought needed to change. Did change and effect (?)
Quick way to show Minister (JN)
Different MPAs have different levels. Can see differences. (JC)
Working with the communitites to think about what we can do, key stakeholders. Run scenarios. If do this, this will happen. If keep doing this, this is what will happen. (LG)
If educate communities, then becomes their ideas. Can get them more involved to take action. (JN)
Multi-disciplinary is really important and unique – not just one dimension. The integrated planning is possible with this tool (A).
Level of government influence possible, but best at level of planning MMA (A) b/c administrators can use it even if used to show politicians to show what situation is like. So utility is for the managers (A)
Advocate for support so can show potential change = advocacy tool. More holistic b/c shows the ties of ecological and governance changes having greater effect on people and national level (I)
Important to recognize the value of this b/c MPAs not necessarily established for protection – always for fisheries management. So this tool lets them see the benefits of MPAs beyond conservation/biodiversity (A)
APAMO getting more involved and NPA Commission so tool like this very useful for all of them. (LG)
Showing politicians 1, 2, 3 may not result in change. Have to have stakeholder support and get them to campaign.
Shows that if this is my outcome that I want, then raising ecological levels isn’t the only thing – it’s also stakeholder involvement. Shows importance of e.g. stakeholder involvement (J).
Also need to think about what goes into the model: begin with establishing CDFs, then how capture/measure information (how do we get the data to be able to then decide high/medium/low), using the model and outputs. (A). Models are always changing (SG). Needs to be very clear in the MIDAS Manual (SG), but also another workshop to decide?
When sharing, need to have a 5 slide slideshow to explain how this all comes together. (JN).
Way of showing donor community what getting from their $$. (LG)
How can we best share the model once finalized? Within Belize? Beyond?
Once finalized, then organizations that working in the MPAs need to get formal training – even for a week. Collect for individual sites then see overall. (I)
Not just one training – plan on multiple perhaps 1/year (R)
Walking ambassadors (I). University new Institute continuing training/use of model – get UB to take up and promote. UB Institute can take on data quality too along with the training. (LG)
Practically need to have someone from each region (south, north, central) to have region-specific training. ® But keep in mind turn-over, so university is permanent. Need to continue to work with them for long-term(LG). Need to choose best long-term trainers (e.g. Janet G, Melanie) ®.
Who would be in-country lead? Need to have programming capability in Belize.
2 components – 1. using (practitioners / APAMO & university); 2. designing/ updating capability (university of B) (R, I)
Key organizations – e.g. Fisheries Dept and other organizations with resources (e.g. PACT). To make sure not sitting on shelf – resources into collecting the data (A)
Could develop for terrestrial too. (JN)
Design Comments: How can we better design the user interface?
In general:
Make it clear how to open to get running
Making sure ‘medium’, etc are very clear. (J), especially when comparing between MPAs so it’s not what individuals think. Perception vs. factual.(A, J) One process needs to be clear. If don’t have data then could have perception, factual, future options – e.g. census data says everyone doing very well, but perception is that not doing well(K). Need to figure out how to show in model if perception vs factual. 3 levels for each CDF: perception, hard core data, what estimate for future (JN).
Good: Each thing is defined through the ‘help’ definitions (A)
Good: Easy to interpret the indexes (LB)
Separate context from MIDAS output for socioecon and ecol. E.g. very confusing to have the UN info with the QofL (MM)
Keep same titles between CDFs and outcomes (e.g. socioeconomic, ecological, governance) (MM)
Want to be able to show ecological outcome based on:
1) only changing ecological CDFs
2) changing all CDFs
able to show 2 or more MPAs at same time.
Need space for comments. Need to address data sources for rating CDFs and how realistic is it for data collection? Communities (parameters per MMA).
Need seemless between data collection and MIDAS. So MIDAS can inform data collection methods. Decide what are, how collect data to determine H/M/L, then input into MIDAS. Similarities in data.
Clean up fonts.
Socioeconomic, governance, ecological index.
Panel 1:
Panel 2:
State of Governance: put red/orange/green within graph instead of separate
Panel 3:
Next Steps
· Suchi and Hrishi set-up Wiki website (www.midasmodel.wikipedia.com)
· Suchi and Hrishi revise model by April 15th
· Have a conference call post-April 15th
· Pre-workshop prep to pull together data
· Return for training workshop in Belize – so practitioners get training on what MIDAS is, bring and input their data on the CDFs, and then see outputs first week of August (July bad; end of August bad b/c school starts)
· Jocelyn & Rentta attending ICRS
Changes Discussed in Debrief:
All of the above
CDFs:
Click which MPA so they know which MPA answering for
1st sentence explanation – explain doing scenarios
Adding climate change as CDF with 3 mini-CDFs: # degree heating days, mean temperature increase, coral species,
Outcomes:
4 buttons: Ecological, Socioeconomic, Governance, Mixed
Bleaching and ER into sub-boxes
Context sub-box in socioeconomic
Outcome sources:
Ecological (Ecological integrity) – Burton
Socioecon (Livelihoods ) – Diane/Adele
Governance (empowerment/representivity/compliance) -
Show current conditions and then line goes up or down
Map:
Map it! Button (instead of under Outcomes)
Layers buttons (instead of under Outcomes)
Maps focused on MMAs with result one combined pizza of all 3 outcomes
Maps show outcomes as measured by indicators noted above (ecological integrity, livelihoods, empowerment/representativy/compliance)
Next time:
1. Share a clear analogy:
Outcome: Good school education
Indicators of this outcome: high test scores, % get into college
Factors that influence the outcome:
- teachers
Size of classes
If have computers
2. Agree on Outcomes first, then CDFs
3. Assign facilitator/explainer for each break-out group
4. Print everything in advance
