1

Micronesia Challenge Socioeconomic Monitoring Draft Plan*

Vision: Sustainable and thriving communities empowered through informed conservation

*As of May, 2016

2

Micronesia Challenge Socioeconomic Monitoring Plan Vision: Sustainable and thriving communities empowered through informed conservation 1. Background

Micronesia Challenge and socioeconomic monitoring In March 2006 all five Chief Executives of the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam agreed to globally declare ambitious conservation targets in order to sustain the biodiversity, protect the culture and environment, and sustain the livelihoods of Micronesian island communities.1 The Chief Executives united the region and launched the Micronesia Challenge (MC) conservation initiative. This shared commitment by the leaders of the region is to “effectively conserve at least 30% of the near-shore marine resources and 20% of the terrestrial resources across Micronesia by 2020.” Later in 2006, at the 8th Retreat of the Micronesians in Island Conservation (MIC) Network, participants discussed the difficulty of satisfying the needs of all stakeholders, yet suggested that the definition of effective conservation in Micronesia must consider a balanced approach that uses a combination of traditional and modern conservation practices.2 Later that same year, a definition of “effective conservation” was drafted and preliminarily approved at the 1st MC Planning Meeting, stating that effective conservation:

“entails the social, traditional, political, biological, financial, and legal aspects of sustainable use of at least 30% of marine resources and 20% of the terrestrial area keeping in mind the overall management of surrounding areas, and finding a right balance between resource utilization by communities to sustain their cultural values, socio-economic development, and prosperity.”3

This definition of effective conservation has since been adopted and sustained, keeping in mind the overall management of surrounding areas, and finding a right balance between resource utilization by communities to sustain their cultural values, socio-economic development, and prosperity.” The effectiveness of conservation and the importance of benefits of conservation to people is the impetus for socioeconomic monitoring planning and implementation.

Site and monitoring population target(s)

1 Declaration of Commitment: ‘The Micronesia Challenge’. 2006. 2 MC Regional Support Team Concept Paper. 2006. 3 Micronesia Challenge. 2006. “1st Regional Workshop Report.”

3

The regional SEM effort is being implemented to systematically understand and monitor our island community’s human well-being. The SEM sites for each jurisdiction will be determined by that jurisdiction with support and guidance from SEM team and mentors. MC Management plan There is no formal management plan for the Micronesia Challenge, however there is a Micronesia Challenge "We Are One" Business Plan. Moreover, each MC site either has or is in process of developing a management plan and should be referenced at the jurisdictional level. Purpose and history of monitoring The first MC Measures Working Group meeting took place on Pohnpei in 2008 to build on the foundation laid during the Regional Action Planning Meeting. The meeting defined a proposed process and timeline for the periodic (biological) measurement and analysis of progress made toward achieving the goals of the MC. The meeting participants identified the regional overlaps and gaps associated with biological and social indicators related to natural resource management across terrestrial and marine ecosystems by participating agencies and organizations, a shared set of results chains that are related to the MC goals, and reached consensus around a proposed set of relevant and useful categories of MC measures, and a possible set of corresponding indicators to be collected across jurisdictions, as appropriate. It was agreed that refinement of these indicators was still needed, along with a plan for how to build the necessary capacity to measure these indicators within the jurisdictions. In August of 2012, the First MC Socioeconomic Measures workshop was held. It was the fifth in a series of ongoing meetings of the MC Measures Working Group. The participants, with the assistance of socioeconomic monitoring experts, worked together to identify measures of progress in achieving the goal of effective conservation. Over three days representatives from each of the MC jurisdictions met in Koror, Republic of Palau, to lay the foundations for socioeconomic monitoring of the Challenge. As a result, a small set of socioeconomic indicators was selected and agreed by all jurisdictions to measure at their various MC sites. These indicators selected focus on the aspects of human wellbeing that the participants agreed on as being most important for Micronesia Challenge and the processes that are relevant to achieving them. They are also considered to be relevant to all jurisdictions, and are attributed to or contributed by MC efforts and feasible to measure. The three most important human wellbeing domains for MC efforts are: Sustainable Livelihood, Good Governance, and Education/Built Capacity. Indicator areas related to these attributes were then discussed and agreed upon. Because the process of MC was identified as crucial for achieving human wellbeing objectives, participants also discussed and agreed on process indicator areas. Through a number of rounds of comments and edits after the workshop, the initial

4

indicators have been revised and tailored to best gauge the extent to which MC addresses the human wellbeing objectives and process to achieve them. An Appendix for the MC indicators was produced in September 2013 and tested in several sites in the MC countries (see Appendix). During the 2nd MC Social Measures workshop in June 2015, these indicators were revisited and revised (See Table XX for the revised MC indicators) Stakeholders and participation/consultation plans At the regional level, the MC SEM Team is a network of donors, advisors, managers, and practitioners in environmental, resource, societal, and conservation area management working in the region, who provide technical, policy, funding, resources and communication support to the MC Regional Office and MC jurisdictions as needed and appropriate. Key members include the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), RARE International, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Locally Managed Marine Area Network (LMMA), , the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), the Pacific Islands Forum, the US Department of Interior, US Forest Service, Palau International Coral Reef Center (PICRC), Pacific Islands Managed and Protected Areas Community (PIMPAC), the College of the Marshall Islands (CMI) and all of the resource management agencies and local conservation NGOs in each of the islands. The social networks are, as shown in Figure 1, strategically aligned to address the various capacity needs of the MC jurisdictions while leveraging each other's resources and avoiding duplicating efforts while maintaining a long-term vision of greater Micronesia.

5

Figure 1: Each conservation audience listed on the left is served by a social network listed on the right. (Image adapted from PIMPAC.)

The SEM Core Team is a subgroup within the MC Measures Working Group and the Communications Working Group, as shown in Figure 1.

6

Figure 2: Organizational framework for the MC.

At the jurisdictional level, the key stakeholder groups are those from whom the data for the MC indicators come from and whom participate in the collection and use of the data. These are summarized in the Column “Targets for Information” in the table XX below: Indicator Type Targets for Information

MC1. Perception of change in food availability.

Site Level Census/Survey of the communities, SE POCs

MC2. Household participation in natural resources management planning or decision making

Site Level NGOs, Gov. Agencies, Traditional leaders, SE POCs

MC3. Number of community driven management plans endorsed by stakeholders

Site Level NGOs, Gov. Agencies, Traditional leaders, SE POCs

MC4. Change in violations and illegal activities related to fishing, harvesting, and use of natural resources.

Site Level NGOs, Gov. Agencies, Traditional leaders, SE POCs

MC5. Education Site Level

MC6. Accessibility of reports to all stakeholders.

Initiative Level

MC Regional Coordinator

MC7. Use of scientific data in decision making of MC.

Initiative Level

MC Regional Coordinator

7

MC8. Community awareness of the MC

Initiative Level

MC SE POCs

MC9. Community support for the MC

Initiative Level

MC SE POCs

MC10. Commitment of Micronesia Challenge governments to human wellbeing objectives.

Initiative Level

MC Regional Coordinator

MC11. Micronesia Challenge regional coordination effort.

Initiative Level

MC Regional Coordinator

Monitoring objectives Through the minimum set of agreed MC-SEM indicators, we are hoping to begin to monitor these same specific human wellbeing outcomes and process related aspects of the Micronesia Challenge at the site level. However, because every site is unique, and as a result, site specific socioeconomic assessments will vary greatly throughout the region, users of these guidelines may select the following indicators and develop new ones that are relevant to their site. In addition, it is highly recommended that users also refer to the main SEM-Pasifika guide to help further develop more complete assessments in which wider underlying socioeconomic drivers and stresses of resource use and management of the site can be better understood and addressed in adaptive management. Aspects of human wellbeing outcomes and related processes often cannot be measured directly. Proxy indicators, or indirect indicators are therefore used to represent and approximate a situation or condition in the absence of a direct measure. 4

Long-term indicators and data collection methods The following table summarized the latest indicators agreed by all present jurisdictions in the 2nd MC Social Measure workshop in June 2015. 4

Indicators, Data Collecting Methods and Interval Indicator Number

Indicator Names Data Collection Areas of Monitoring

Suggested Main Data Collecting Methods

5

Additional methods

Suggested Frequency of

Data Collection (years)

Human Wellbeing Benefits

Process

4 RMI representative was scheduled to participate but do to unavoidable circumstances was unable to attend. 5 As in SEM-Pasifika guidelines, the following abbreviations are used for data collecting methods:

FG = Focus group SG = Survey with special groups HH = Household survey KI = Key informant interview S = Secondary data

8

Sustainable

livelihood

Good

gover

nance

Educat

ion

MC1 Availability of locally sourced marine and terrestrial foods

HH KI 1

MC2 Household participation in MC management planning or decision making

HH, S 2-3

MC3 Number of community driven management plans endorsed by stakeholders

S FG 2-3

MC4 Change in violations and illegal activities related to fishing, harvesting and use of natural resources

S, KI HH 1

MC5 Education SG, O S Depending on the project

period

MC6 Accessibility of reports to all stakeholders

SG 2-3

MC7 Use of scientific data in decision making of MC5

SG KI 2-3

MC8 Community awareness of MC

HH 2-3

MC9 Commitment support for MC

HH 2-3

MC10 Commitment of the MC to human wellbeing objectives

SG, KI 2-3

MC11 MC regional coordination effort

KI, FG, SG 2-3

O = Observation

9

Data collecting instruments 1) Secondary Data:

Substantial amounts of secondary data have been gathered at the jurisdictional level, however it is our understanding that these data sets have not always been accessed to help address current work, resulting in limited use of these datasets. To help facilitate the process, team members will compile existing data from previous SEM assessments by September workshop. The following data will be compiled in each jurisdiction:

Chuuk Parem 2010, 2012, 2014

Palau PICRC’s SE data

Yap Ngulu and Tamil

Pohnpei Nanwap, Pakin, Nahtik, and island wide (if accessible)

Kosrae Walung

RMI Kabin Meto, and CMAC SE data (if accessible)

Guam Manell Geus

CNMI Laolao (2009, 2014), Rota, Managaha (Rare)

2) Household survey questionnaire The household survey involves questionnaires with highly structured, close-ended questions. The questionnaire has specific questions with limited answers (e.g. multiple choice, yes/no) resulting in quantitative data that can be analyzed statistically. Once the survey questionnaires are developed, they should be pre-tested among small groups of people as a way to receive input for the drafting the final questionnaires which should be clear and useful for gathering requested information. Ideally, pre-test data should be analyzed before survey revisions, as data analysis of responses to the draft survey may reveal issues with the survey questions or answer choices that should be changed before the final version. Surveys are important for understanding households and individuals’ perspectives.6 Household questionnaires have been used throughout the region in every jurisdiction. The questionnaires are site specific, however beginning in 2012 they incorporate MC indicators as appropriate. To date SE teams have relied on traditional paper surveys. However, the team will consider and investigate transitioning from paper to digital data collection methods within the next 5 years. This will build on the growing body of evidence suggesting that tablet computers are a suitable alternative to paper and-pencil. Opportunities to enhance data collection, data tabulation, and data analysis via tablet-based SE surveys will be explored by Mark as the Marshall Islands SEM representative and Marybelle Quinata as the Guam SEM representative. Associated software

6 SEM-Pasifika Guide, p. 23.

10

subscription costs provide for cost-sharing opportunities and so these parallel efforts will be coordinated, as appropriate.

3) Key Informant Interviews

Key informants are individuals who, because of their experience and/or knowledge can provide insight and information into the larger population and/or particular group. Key informants can provide common knowledge, shared knowledge, and specialized knowledge. Because it is not possible to speak with everyone, these individuals with experience and knowledge are often sought. The semi-structured interview should be used as it allows the interviewer to deeply explore certain aspects of the topics and allows the informants more freedom to express and present the information in their preferred context. This format makes use of open-ended phrasing in questions that require key informants to discuss the response and allows follow up questions for clarification. It is important to pretest the interview questions with a small number of people before the actual interview takes place to make sure that all the questions are clear and effective in obtaining the information you are looking for. Generally, several key informants are interviewed to gain a breadth of perspective. A rule of thumb to determine when enough key informants have been interviewed regarding a particular variable is when the answers to the same questions become repetitive. For example, if the team is asking about the types of activities in the study area and the informants are all noting the same activities with no new activities coming up, then the team can stop interviewing about this variable.7 For Micronesia Challenge socioeconomic monitoring semi-structured questions for key informants and focus groups will be developed to address the monitoring objectives at specific sites.

4) Focus Group Discussions

Focus group discussions are a type of semi-structured interview. However, focus group interviews involve a selected group of informants (usually 4 to 10) who share a common background or knowledge (e.g. use patterns, language, organization membership). Like semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions are based on a set of open-ended questions or discussion points, and generate qualitative information. This flexible method allows the facilitator to probe for answers, follow-up the original questions and pursue new lines of questions during the interview. Therefore, the interview and information evolve allowing the facilitator to cover a range of topics. The flexibility and openness of this method encourage two-way interaction, including exchanges of information between the facilitator and the informants. Focus groups discuss community or group level information rather than individual perspectives. Focus group interviews are often conducted in the middle or end of the field data collection, after the team has a strong understanding of the

7 From SEM-Pasifika guidelines. P. 21

11

stakeholder groups, their priority concerns and internal dynamics. The team can use this knowledge to focus the interviews on particular topics and to ensure the appropriate participants are invited. The discussion provides opportunities for informants to interact with each other and reach consensus.8 For Micronesia Challenge socioeconomic monitoring semi-structured questions for key informants and focus groups will be developed to address the monitoring objectives at specific sites.

Sampling design The team will make all efforts to conduct household surveys through a census. If a census is not possible, team members will identify the appropriate sampling size, confidence level, and confidence interval as recommended in the SEM-Pasifika guide. When necessary to randomly select participants, the RANDBETWEEN function within Microsoft Excel is one commonly used random number table software Excel, using the random function. Example: One method that is effective for random sample selection is to number every household on a spatial map of the site, and identify each by a unique identification number. Criteria for KI or FG for purposive sampling design will be developed on a case by case basis.

Data analysis and management: To be developed during September 2016 data training Monitoring team and tasks: The MC SEM Core Team is coordinated by Kodep Ogumoro-Uludong of Micronesia

Islands Nature Alliance under the guidance of mentor and technical expert Dr. Supin

Wongbusarakum of NOAA. As of May 2016, the regional SEM POCs are:

Palau: Shirley Koshiba, Palau International Coral Reef Center

Yap: Bertha Reyuw, Yap Community Action Program

Chuuk:

Pohnpei: Angel Jonathan, Pohnpei Conservation Society

Kosrae: Bond Segal, Kosrae Conservation and Safety Organization

RMI: Mark Stege , Marshall Islands Conservation Society

CNMI: Kodep Ogumoro-Uludong, Micronesia Islands Nature Alliance

Guam: Marybelle Quinata, NOAA

Mentor and technical expert: Supin Wongbusarakum, NOAA

8 From SEM-Pasifika guidelines, p. 24

12

Tasks:

During the 2015 October workshop, Kodep Ogumoro-Uludong agreed to chair

the SE team’s communications effort as laid out in the communication plan.

Shirley Koshiba and Mark Stege will work to identify opportunities for capacity

building related to SEM work at the jurisdicitional level in collaboration with

Palau Community College and College of the Marshall Islands,.

The Core Team will work to develop trainings in their jurisdiction as needed. In

addition, team members will respond to requests for assistance from other team

members.

Local monitoring teams are in place in each jurisdiction. They are able to assist

with fieldwork and monitoring implementation.

The coordinator will work to address requests from jurisdictions for trainings.

Working closely with partners she will identify necessary funds and co-trainers

available to assist.

Data management: PICRC will be housing the data for the monitoring. After

establishing data at PICRC we will work to build a mirror copy maintained at the

College of the Marshall Islands. Funding needs to be identified to move this

aspect forward.

Data analysis: The team will look into potential partnerships with local

institutions of higher learning such as Palau Community College, College of

Micronesia, College of the Marshall Islands, University of Guam, and Northern

Marianas College. Consider mirroring Palau Community College’s Ecological

Monitoring of MPA.

Each SEM core member will report on monitoring done in their jurisdiction.

The SEM annual communications coordinator, Kodep Ogumoro- Uludong will

report on regional SEM efforts.

The coordinator will look to identify funding for standardization of session plans

and developing an over-arching scenario

Micronesia Challenge Regional Coordinator, Rachael Nash will work to find

linakages between biological monitoring and development goals

Training needs: Core Team:

Data entry and analysis

Survey design

Training of Trainers and facilitation skills

Grant proposal writing

13

Reporting in writing/presentation to local and regional partners.

Monitoring Teams:

Data entry

Reporting or communicating results to the community level

SEM-Pasifika trainings

Monitoring schedule: It is recommended that monitoring take place every three to four

years.

10. Monitoring budget: NOAA, NFWF, MCT, TNC, PIMPAC and other funders will be identified to support needs of the team. We will work toward supporting salaries for jurisdictional POCs.

11. Monitoring results communication plan:

Critical audiences for communicating results were identified by the team as communities, local partners (government and NGO), funders, and the Micronesia Challenge. These results will be communicated via reports, presentations, the MC scorecard and potentially the MC dashboard. Key points to communicate will be determined on a case by case basis and will include any results demonstrating adaptive management.

12. Guiding questions to facilitate use of results for management planning or

adaptive management:

How can results be used at your site?

What happens next?

What resources are needed?

Who can help?

Do the results address management objectives? 13. Criteria for site selection:

Have management plan

Existing SEM

A relationship has been developed with the community

Biological monitoring data exists