cti regional learning network meeting

THE CORAL TRIANGLE INITIATIVE

ON CORAL REEFS, FISHERIES AND FOOD SECURITY

REGIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT

CTI REGIONAL LEARNING NETWORK PLANNING DRAFT MARCH 17-18, 2011 (MANILA, PHILIPPINES)

CORAL TRIANGLE INITIATIVE ON CORAL REEFS,

FISHERIES AND FOOD SECURITY

REGIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT

CTI REGIONAL LEARNING NETWORK

PLANNING MEETING

MARCH 17-18, 2011 (MANILA, PHILIPPINES)

Prepared for the US Agency for International Development

by Tetra Tech ARD, Inc. under Contract No. EPP-I-00-06-00008-00

US CTI Support Program Document No. 02-USCTI-11

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Cover Photo: WWF/J. Freund

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. III

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

II. SESSION PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................. 3

DAY I ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 OPENING PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 CALL TO ORDER AND OVERVIEW OF MEETING AGENDA ....................................................................................... 4 SESSION 1: THOUGHTS ON AND EXPERIENCES WITH LEARNING NETWORKS ......................................... 5 SESSION 2: CONCEPTS, OBJECTIVES AND OPERATIONS OF LEARNING NETWORKS: A GLOBAL

PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................... 5 SESSION 3: INTEGRATING CTI LEARNING NETWORK PERSPECTIVES ............................................................... 8 SESSION 4: LEARNING NETWORK CONTEXT IN THE CORAL TRIANGLE REGION .................................. 10 SESSION 5: RESULTS OF CTC’S SURVEY AND CONSULTATIONS ON THE PROPOSED CORAL

TRIANGLE LEARNING NETWORK .......................................................................................................... 13 SESSION 6: STRATEGIC PURPOSES FOR THE CORAL TRIANGLE LEARNING NETWORKS ........................ 14 SESSION 7: IDEAS LISTED ................................................................................................................................................... 15 SESSION 8: VOTE FOR PRIORITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 17 SESSION 9: DAY 1 REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 17

DAY 2............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 SESSION 10. OVERVIEW OF DAY 2 .................................................................................................................................. 18 SESSION 11. STRUCTURES FOR LEARNING NETWORKS ........................................................................................ 18 SESSION 12. ROADMAPS FOR THE CORAL TRIANGLE LEARNING NETWORKS ............................................ 19 SESSION 13. PRESENTATION OF ROADMAPS .............................................................................................................. 20 SESSION 14. COMMITMENTS FOR STRATEGIES AND NEXT STEPS .................................................................. 29 SESSION 15. CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................................................... 31

III. ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................... 32

A1. AGENDA: CTI REGIONAL LEARNING NETWORK PLANNING MEETING .................................. 32 A2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND RESOURCE PERSONS ............................................................................. 34 A3. REGIONAL EXCHANGE PARTNERS ............................................................................................................. 40 A4: PARTICIPANTS’ BREAKDOWN BY GENDER AND ORGANIZATION ............................................ 41 A5: LIST OF PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 42

Regional Exchange Program Activity Report: CTI Regional Learning Network Planning i

ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank

ARC Australian Research Council

BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

CCA Climate change adaptation

CFF Coral reefs, fisheries and food security

CI Conservation International

CLMA Centre for Locally Managed Areas, Inc.

CRITC Coral Reef Information and Training Center

CRM Coastal resource management

CT Coral Triangle

CT6 CT Countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste)

CTC Coral Triangle Center

CTI Coral Triangle Initiative

CTMPAS Coral Triangle Marine Protected Areas System

CTLN Coral Triangle Learning Network

CTSP Coral Triangle Support Partnership (USAID/Asia)

DA Department of Agriculture

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

EAFM Ecosystem approach to fisheries management

EBM Ecosystem-based management

FARMC Fisheries and aquatic resources management council

GEF Global Environment Facility

ICM Integrated coastal management

IEC Information, education, and communication

IUCN-WCPA International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas

IUU fishing Illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing

KM Knowledge management

LGU Local government unit

LMMA Locally Managed Marine Area

LMP League of Municipalities of the Philippines

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MPA Marine protected area

MSN MPA Support Network

Regional Exchange Program Activity Report: CTI Regional Learning Network Planning ii

NCC National CTI Coordinating Committee

NGO Non-governmental organization

NPOA National Plan of Action

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization

PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau

PEMSEA Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia

PES Payment for ecosystem services

PI Program Integrator (for USAID/Asia US CTI Support Program)

PNG Papua New Guinea

PO People’s organization

RCO Research Center for Oceanography

REO Regional Environmental Officer (USAID)

RETA Regional technical assistance (ADB)

RDMA Regional Development Mission for Asia

RPOA Regional Plan of Action

SCTR State of the Coral Triangle Report

SEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center

SFP Sustainable Fisheries Partnership

SILMMA Solomon Islands LMMA

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

SOM Senior Officials Meeting

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SSME Sulu-Sulawesi Seas Marine Eco-region

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TOR Terms of reference

TWG Thematic working group

UMS Universiti Malaysia Sabah

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UPMSI University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute

URI University of Rhode Island

USAID United States Agency for International Development

US CTI United States Support to the Coral Triangle Initiative

USG United States Government

WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature

WMPO West Melanesia Program Office (WWF)

Regional Exchange Program Activity Report: CTI Regional Learning Network Planning iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) Regional Learning Network Planning Meeting was held on March 17-18, 2011 in Manila, Philippines. The Philippines’ National CTI Coordinating Committee (NCC) hosted the event, with organizational support from the Indonesia-based Coral Triangle Center (CTC) in collaboration with representatives from the six Coral Triangle (CT6) countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste) and supported by the US CTI Support Program. This Planning Meeting was chaired by the interim CTI Regional Secretariat and organized in response to the broad CTI objective articulated in the Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) to encourage the sharing of information and use of learning mechanisms among the CT6 members and partners toward achieving the five CTI goals. It was the first CTI Regional Exchange to focus on the design and operation of a learning network to support the CTI RPOA and the six National Plans of Action (NPOAs). In total, 64 people, including the country delegates and representatives of the CTI Interim Regional Secretariat and partner organizations, participated in the Planning Meeting to develop an initial consensus on the design and framework of the Coral Triangle Initiative Learning Networks (CTLN), to identify regional CTI issues that the CTLN could address, and to chart a plan on how to link and coordinate national learning networks at the regional CTI level. The activity enabled the CT6 delegates to identify four priority areas in which to develop learning networks that would be linked regionally through the appropriate CTI organizational mechanisms, and to draw up a roadmap for each proposed learning network. The CTLN framework, with a 2011-13 work plan for each proposed learning network, will be presented to the 7th CTI Senior Officials Meeting (SOM7) in mid-2011 for discussion and action. The Regional Exchange consisted of two main activities:

• One day focused on developing a common definition of “learning network” and identifying priority objectives.

• One day focused on drawing up the CTLN framework and charting a roadmap for developing a learning network toward addressing each of the identified priority objectives.

Based on highly participatory planning methods and relying heavily on group dynamics, these activities allowed the CT6 delegates and assisting organizations to come together and discuss their different perspectives of a learning network and the regional and site-specific needs (as outlined in the RPOA) that the CTLN can address as outlined in the RPOA. The discussions, which incorporated inputs on knowledge management (KM) from an ADB-hosted Regional Needs Assessment and State of the Coral Triangle Report Workshop held in the same venue earlier during the week, also brought out and clarified organizational issues that could potentially further target and refine the scope and function of the CTLN. Consequently, the delegates reached an initial understanding on the four priority areas on which the CTLN could focus, as follows:

1. Integrated/ecosystem approach to CTI goals 2. Ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) 3. Marine protected areas 4. Broader CTI Support (Support to NCC/TWG)

Roadmaps were developed based on a two-year (2011-13) timeframe for the establishment of a learning network in each of these priority areas. Each roadmap outlined the network purpose, measurable outcomes, target participants, organizational structure, next steps and resources needed, as well as identified existing networks and champions that can help build and support the network.

Regional Exchange Program Activity Report: CTI Regional Learning Network Planning iv

As a first step to implementing the roadmaps, each country delegation agreed to initially take up the following specific objectives and action items: Malaysia

• Set up a CTI Learning Center at UMS, which will support the CTLN by promoting an ecosystem/integrated approach to CTI goals.

• Seek NCC support for the CTLN proposal so it can be brought up to the SOM. Papua New Guinea

• Through the CLMA Network and other partners, seek opportunities to support and link up with the CTLN.

• Work within the PNG Marine Program to champion a CTLN proposal that the NCC can endorse to the SOM.

Solomon Islands

• Support a CTLN proposal that the NCC can bring up to the SOM.

• Work within the NPOA and government-supported Solomon Islands LMMA Network (SILMMA) to promote the CTLN process.

Indonesia

• Assure the government and NCC members that the learning network process is an integral and necessary part of the CTI to support its goals and RPOA.

• Bring the proposed CTLN into the appropriate NCC mechanisms dealing with relevant concerns.

• Ensure that the results of this meeting are taken up during the NCC meeting.

• To support the development of the CTLN, strengthen existing national networks or sea partnerships; integrate into the learning network development process the MPA training and capacity-building program developed through the USAID/Asia Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

• Use the NCC channel to bring up the CTLN proposal to the Regional Secretariat through the capacity-building working group, so that it can be included in the agenda of the next SOM.

Timor-Leste

• Build on the Timor-Leste government’s commitment to support every single activity that will be conducted under the CTI umbrella.

• At the community level, adopt the LMMA Network concept; through site visits, learn from the other CT countries’ experience in networking communities to improve coastal and marine management.

• Once a consensus is reached on how the proposed learning networks will work at the regional level, include the CTLN in the government’s agenda for the next SOM.

Philippines

• Submit the CTLN proposal to the NCC to determine where it fits in the Philippines’ NPOA framework.

• Link to the CTLN process existing country-level networks, such as the MPA Support. Network; develop existing partnerships with commercial fishers, the Mayors’ League and the academe into formal learning networks that can be linked to the CTLN.

• Link the CTLN to the Asian Development Bank KM platform.

• Identify financial and human resources that can help move the CTLN process forward.

To assist the process, the US CTI Support Program Integrator (US CTI PI) committed to continue its partnership with institutions and help the NCCs promote connectivity and learning exchange.

Regional Exchange Program Activity Report: CTI Regional Learning Network Planning 1

I. INTRODUCTION The Coral Triangle Initiative’s Regional Plan of Action (CTI RPOA) encourages the sharing of information and the use of learning mechanisms among the six country members (CT6) and partners to achieve the CTI goals and targets. This Planning Workshop was the first CTI rregional meeting to focus on the design and operation of a learning network to support the CTI RPOA and the six National Plans of Actions (NPOAs). Held on March 17-18, 2011 in Manila, Philippines, the Learning Network Planning Meeting brought together the CT6 governments, representatives of major learning institutions within the region, and various organizations that support CTI activities to develop a framework for Coral Triangle Initiative Learning Networks (CTLN) that will link universities and knowledge centers, funding sources and practitioners in order to generate synergy and maximize the use of available knowledge, resources and skills toward achieving CTI goals. The operation of the CTLN is envisioned to also lead to innovative solutions that are a foundation principle of the RPOA. The Meeting was hosted by the Philippines’ National CTI Coordinating Committee (NCC) and chaired by the interim CTI Regional Secretariat, with organizational assistance provided by the Coral Triangle Center (CTC) of Indonesia in collaboration with CT6 representatives, and supported by the US CTI Support Program. To promote the CTI Interim Regional Secretariat’s mandate to coordinate and leverage resources toward the development of the CTLN, the CTC also conducted an on-line survey and consultations with CT6 governments and partners on existing national and regional learning networks and institutions. The results of the survey, consultations and other background information on the nature of learning networks were presented as inputs to the Planning Meeting for review and consideration and for follow up actions by CT6 governments and partners. In total, 64 people, including country delegates and representatives of the CTI Interim Regional Secretariat and partner organizations, participated in this regional exchange to develop an initial consensus on the design and framework of the CTLN, to identify regional CTI issues that the CTLN could address, and to chart a plan on how to link and coordinate national learning networks at the regional CTI level. The CT6 countries were officially represented by a total of 23 delegates, most of them NCC members and mid-level government managers and their staff. The Solomon Islands delegation was made up of two non-government representatives.

CTI Regional Learning Network Planning Meeting participants


OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES This Regional Exchange activity was designed and conducted to achieve five primary objectives:

• A shared understanding of the nature of learning networks.

• A consensus from the stakeholders on the initial scope of the CTLN.

• A draft framework or design for the CTLN and its operation to be presented at the 7th Senior Officials Meeting (SOM7) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

• A commitment from key stakeholders to support and utilize the CTLN framework and operating mechanisms.

• A proposed initial work plan for 1-2 years (2011-13) of early learning network activities. There were four expected outcomes:

• A shared understanding of a learning network.

• Identification of priority objectives or critical challenges that can be addressed by the CTLN.

• Group vision, scope and framework for the CTLN.

• CTLN framework and initial two-year roadmaps (2011-13) The CTLN framework, along with a 2011-13 work plan for each proposed learning network, will be presented at the SOM7 in mid-2011 for discussion, action and launch of the CTLN.


II. SESSION PROCEEDINGS

Day I

OPENING PROGRAM Undersecretary Manuel Gerochi of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Government of the Philippines, welcomed participants and commended organizers for organizing the activity. Noting that since the adoption of the CTI RPOA on May 15, 2009 in Manado, the need to establish a clear mechanism for sharing tools, experiences and learnings among peers and colleagues has become more apparent, Mr. Gerochi expressed his hope that the meeting would result in the development of a mechanism for sharing information that would support science-based management among the CT6, one of the guiding principles of the RPOA. He said the CTLN could link knowledge centers, funding sources and practitioners through effective and efficient collaborative strategies to develop and share innovative solutions and practices to sustain the coastal and marine resources of the Coral Triangle. CTI Interim Regional Secretariat Chair Sudirman Saad reminded participants that, as agreed during the 2nd Senior Officials Meeting (SOM2) in the Solomon Islands in 2009, the Regional Secretariat is mandated to promote regional cooperation and sharing of lessons, and facilitate learning across the CT6 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste). He noted that work toward the development of the CTLN had already actually begun, with the Indonesia-based CTC undertaking preparatory activities at the request of the CTI Regional Secretariat and supported by the US CTI Support Program. These activities included data collection through consultations with CT6 governments and partners and an online survey to generate feedback on learning network perceptions and needs across the region. Mr. Saad said he hoped that the outcomes of this activity would include “strategic, innovative and actionable recommendations” for the development of the CTLN framework. He suggested that planning should initially focus on one or two learning teams or objectives that are demand-driven and would ultimately lead to endorsement by the SOM. He invited CTI partners to be true equals and members of the proposed CTLN, and pushed for an expanded CTLN workshop that would launch, in the next six months, the initial set of network mechanisms and activities that can be included in the 2011 CTI Annual Report to the Leaders.

From left, DENR-Philippines Undersecretary Manuel Gerochi, CTI

Interim Regional Secretariat Chair Sudirman Saad, and CTC Executive

Director Rili Djohani at the opening session.


CTC Executive Director Safira Warili (Rili) Hawari Djohani affirmed Mr. Gerochi’s and Mr. Saad’s views on the need for a learning network at the CTI regional level, noting that CTC’s experience clearly demonstrated how resource management has grown in complexity and scale in the last decade alone. The CTC was founded in 2000 as the hub for The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) marine conservation program to support the establishment and strengthening of marine protected area (MPA) networks in Indonesia and the CT region. It develops local and regional capacity for marine conservation through training and education, field testing and leveraging management practices, promoting learning networks and collective action, and developing public and private partnerships to address marine conservation issues. Having become established as an independent regional training and learning center for marine conservation, the CTC would like to help address, in a sustainable way, the need for customized training programs for stakeholders in the CT region, said Ms. Djohani. She hoped that with the development of the CTLN and with the commitment and readiness of its members, training and learning programs could be integrated, innovated, customized and sustained with a clear purpose and scope to help advance the goals of CTI.

Before ending her talk, Ms. Djohani introduced Mr. Sukoyono Suseno, Vice Chair of the CTI Interim Regional Secretariat and Chair of this planning meeting, and Ms Paquita Bath, Lead Facilitator, to signal the start of the main planning sessions.

CALL TO ORDER AND OVERVIEW OF MEETING AGENDA Mr. Suseno presented an overview of the CTI mission and the work done so far to advance the CTI RPOA. He noted that progress had been achieved through training workshops and exchanges on climate change adaptation (CCA), management effectiveness of MPAs and ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) and hoped that the meeting would help further enhance sharing and learning in the region in order to develop capacity and bridge communication gaps between policy and decision-makers, universities, practitioners, partners, and donors. He then called the meeting to order, urging the participants to work toward the development of a group mission and vision for the CTLN, and requested Lead Facilitator Paquita Bath to begin the planning sessions. Ms. Bath explained the mechanics of the meeting, emphasizing that the meeting would be highly participatory, relying heavily on group dynamics and discussions to encourage the generation of a wide range of ideas and perspectives on the kind of learning network or networks that could best meet the needs of the CTI as a whole, as well as those of the CT6 countries individually. Ms. Bath stressed that although national learning networks already existed across the CT6 countries, the meeting needed to focus on regional issues and the development of a learning network or networks that are regional in scope. She urged participants to think about the challenges facing them in implementing the CTI regional priority actions and how the CTLN could help in advancing the CTI goals. She explained that the meeting would focus on achieving four major outcomes, namely:

1. Shared understanding of a learning network. 2. Identification of priority objectives or critical challenges that can be addressed by the

CTLN. 3. Group vision, scope and framework for the CTLN. 4. Initial roadmaps for 2011-13, including a CTLN framework to be submitted to the

SOM7 for discussion, action and eventual launching of the CTLN.


SESSION 1: THOUGHTS ON AND EXPERIENCES WITH LEARNING NETWORKS Small group and plenary discussions (Facilitator: Surie Alip) Ms Surie Alip, Co-Facilitator, led participants in small group discussions (5-6 people) followed by a plenary discussion aimed at drawing out – and then reconciling – their diverse views and perspectives on what a learning network is. To encourage greater interaction between representations from the different organizations and countries, participants were asked to move around between groups at regular intervals during the small group discussions. The following process questions were used to guide and stimulate discussion:

1. What to you is a learning network? 2. Have you ever been part of a learning network? What was its objective?

The results of the small group discussions were collated and further crystallized during plenary discussion, which revealed that most participants associated the term “learning network” with the following ideas:

1. knowledge, information, learning

2. sharing, common purpose 3. people, groups,

organizations 4. practice, action, capacity-

building

These ideas would serve as input to developing a common definition of “learning network” that would help guide subsequent planning activities.

SESSION 2: CONCEPTS, OBJECTIVES AND OPERATIONS OF LEARNING

NETWORKS: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Presentation and plenary discussion (Presenter and Facilitator: Paquita Bath) On behalf of Ms. Olivia Millard of the TNC-Asia Pacific Program, Ms. Bath presented some learning network concepts and ideas that have become widely accepted among learning network practitioners in different parts of the world. Commonly, said Ms. Bath, the term “learning network” is used to refer to a group of individuals and/or organizations with a shared concern or interest who voluntarily contribute knowledge, experience and/or resources for shared learning, joint action and/or to achieve a shared purpose or goal, and who rely on the network to support their own objectives. Ms. Bath emphasized that because membership is mostly voluntary, a learning network must be a two-way street for each member, who is expected to contribute to the network but whose involvement is largely also motivated by the idea of benefiting from the network’s shared experiences and knowledge. She said most successful learning networks are formal groups, that is, members formally agree to be part of the group.

Results of small group discussions in Session 1: Participant perspectives

on learning networks and their objectives


Traditionally, a learning network is defined as a group working across organizations and/or boundaries to collectively create, apply, and test solutions to common challenges. Collaborative, peer-driven learning networks are also sometimes called “communities of practice,” a term that connotes working and learning together, Ms. Bath said. She listed three typical reasons for forming a learning network:

1. To strengthen members’ capacity to use proven methods, tools, strategies or approaches. 2. To create best practices and the know-how to use them, by innovating, testing and

documenting new strategies, methods, tools or approaches. 3. To conceive and coordinate actions across boundaries to achieve particular objectives – the

CTI is a potential place to do this, Ms. Bath added. Ms. Bath asked participants to consider in their deliberations the following list of success factors that TNC has put together based on its experience in establishing and managing learning networks in several countries:

1. A clear strategic purpose based on actual needs and defined goals, with measurable outcomes and milestones.

2. An effective leadership able to manage activities and dialogue – Content expertise and (more importantly) process expertise are key requisites, said Ms. Bath. No coordinator can do it all; usually there’s a leadership team that understands that start-up takes time and that transition mechanisms must be put in place to anticipate changes in leadership.

3. Committed membership, meaning people must be motivated to be part of the network – Ms. Bath pointed out that some groups even have charters that define organizational policies and principles. In general, she said, it is important to bring people together who have a highly defined topic of interest and share a similar passion. Relationships are also important and must be nurtured to develop trust between members.

4. Well-designed and executed activities, based on members’ challenges and needs, and designed and executed to address such challenges and needs – Ms. Bath said the development of a website, for example, may not be an appropriate activity for a learning network that is made up solely of MPA managers with no access to the Internet.

5. Measurement and adaptive management to evaluate progress and outcomes and adapt activities to the learning network’s changing needs.

6. Documentation of lessons learned from both individual and collective action, published and shared to help others use the lessons.

7. Cost of network leadership, collective and local activities, network support and documentation and dissemination of lessons anticipated and adequate resources made available.

Standards and good practices for designing and operating effective learning networks


Ms. Bath noted that at least some of these success factors are evident in current practices. She cited the experiences of two learning networks that are widely regarded as successful models of shared learning through networking: the Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) Network and Micronesians in Island Conservation (MIC). With projects in eight countries, LMMA connects stakeholders around managed areas. Because most of the activities are countrywide, most of the sharing is happening in country networks, but the country networks also make a real effort to link up regionally and share their experiences with other member countries. MIC, on the other hand, was started in early 2000 to strengthen the collaborative skills of community leaders to advance conservation. Many of these community leaders have since created non-profits and developed a strong network and coherent group that helps advance conservation in Micronesia. Ms. Bath reminded participants that the CTLN must be based on a very clear strategic purpose, and that it is important to define who should be part of the network. She said that for the CTLN to be successful, members must really own it. Are people able and ready to put time into it? Is there a low-hanging fruit? Are there activities that the CTLN can start with to generate early successes, Ms. Bath asked, stressing that the successful establishment of any network would ultimately depend on its prospective members’ readiness to support it. Discussion Following her presentation, Ms. Bath answered questions from the participants. Q: The presentation emphasized that members’ involvement must be voluntary, but in the CTI context, could a learning network really work without a clear institutional commitment? A: The involvement of some of you here would probably be less personal than it is about it being your professional role. But if you did not care about the job, then you probably would not be doing it. My personal finding is that people who take the extra mile of documenting issues, solutions and experiences usually do have that personal commitment. Q: Does Internet technology change the way learning networks function? A: Social networking sites, especially Facebook, are becoming incredibly important tools for sharing information. I can see learning networks using social networking sites which are essentially free rather than spending time and money in developing their own networking tools. Using these popular sites lowers networking costs considerably and helps you keep up with what’s dynamic. Q: What exit strategy would you recommend that donors should employ to ensure the sustainability of a learning network? A: Admittedly, learning networks that have survived over time had adequate resources to begin with. Usually there are key people that are responsible for making sure that things are sustained and people continue to want to be part of the network. Funding support for the MIC lasted 10 years, over which time relationships had been built. Thanks to technology, the price tag has come all the way down, so I think it's possible even without a sponsor for a learning network to continue. But then again, adequate resources at the start or at the launch period are critical. Q: In the CTI context, we are building learning networks across states, which will entail protocols, diplomacy and other bureaucratic issues. Given this, what can the CTI do to build a relationship of trust among its learning network members?


A: We believe that the way that this planning meeting was designed – this whole process of learning together – really works. When you set up any of your learning networks, you have to encourage participation, not domination. You have to think through how you design your meetings. If you rely only on formal meetings to get consensus, it may be difficult to grow relationships and establish a solid foundation of trust among your members. Q: Could the CTLN be an informal network? Networks are sometimes like exclusive clubs, but here we also want to encourage free sharing of information among diverse groups. A: Informal networks are not designed to achieve measurable expectations and outcomes. Q: What is the strategic objective of the Micronesia initiative? A: The Micronesia initiative was organized to strengthen collaboration between communities in conservation and resource management, and to build the capacity of community leaders to take on a greater role in conservation. Q: Are there entry requirements for membership? How do you address disparity of skills, ages, interests, etc.? A: I will have to leave this question for tomorrow. For now, let me just say that learning networks can be designed so that you have a core group, and other members who are not part of the core group. There are different levels of effort depending on how much involvement from each member is required, and this is really a function of the network’s purpose.

SESSION 3: INTEGRATING CTI LEARNING NETWORK PERSPECTIVES Small group and plenary discussions (Facilitators: Paquita Bath and Surie Alip) Ms. Bath asked the participants to again break out into small group discussions where they would compare their own perspectives of a learning network with the ideas that were presented during Session 2. As in Session 1, participants were encouraged to move around between groups at regular intervals during the small group discussions, and then to come together to a plenary discussion in order to formulate a common definition. The following process questions were used to guide and stimulate discussion:

1. What points from the last presentation (Session 2) do you agree with? 2. What points do you disagree with?

During the plenary discussion, in answer to the first process question, the participants highlighted several points of agreement, in particular, the need for a clear strategic purpose, open communication and sharing of information, and effective leadership. A number of participants also pointed out the need for documenting the network’s experiences and lessons, and that documentation must be done as early as possible. The second process question was not directly answered. Instead the participants opted to focus on the potential challenges of establishing a regional learning network in the CTI context. There was much discussion on the challenge of establishing a network that would involve much non-government and private sector participation while operating within the government-to-government arrangements that characterize the CTI. Some participants also raised concern over implementation challenges that could arise from issues related to protocols and the mixed levels of information-sharing across government hierarchies. In addition, a number of participants pointed out that, because participation is “voluntary,” members must balance their personal commitment to the network with their professional, institutional or organizational obligations – that is, a person may be committed on a


personal level, but professional or organizational obligations prevent him or her from fulfilling certain commitments. On the other hand, people who hold the authority, official clout, and perhaps responsibility may exhibit little interest to commit to the work necessary to advance the network’s objectives. The following issues also came up in the discussions:

• Diversity of (and disparity among) members -- Although it adds value, diversity if not properly managed can pose a challenge to the effectiveness of the CTLN.

• Need for sustainability -- Resources must not only be adequate but sustainable.

• Different levels of expectations among network members – Expectations vary not only across member-states but also among individual members, e.g. senior officials, middle managers, practitioners, and “people on the ground.”

• Need to work side by side with informal networks – While the CTLN must have a formal structure, it also needs to work alongside informal networks that can help speed up its work.

• Managing membership dynamic – Membership must be properly managed to prevent one institution from dominating and pursuing through the network its own interests over those of the other members.

• Need to balance individual work credit with network credit – Policies and protocols must be established to ensure that, even as the network gets appropriate credit, the contributions of individual members are also properly acknowledged.

• Leadership challenge – Respected peer champions who can drive the network forward must be identified and motivated to take on a leadership role.

• Time challenges – Networks evolve over time; they take time to develop and they change as they go along and grow. Also, membership takes time to gel. Relationships of trust must be established early and they take time to build.

Ms. Bath noted that the participants’ perspectives of a learning network had been adequately captured by one of the learning network definitions she presented in Session 2, which read, “A learning network is a group working across organizations and/or boundaries to collectively create, apply, and test solutions to common challenges.” The participants agreed to adopt the proposed definition, slightly modified after two action words (“document” and “share”) were added, as follows:

“A learning network is a group working across organizations and/or boundaries to

collectively create, apply, test, document and share solutions to common

challenges.”

Definition of learning network adopted during Session 3 of the CTI Regional

Learning Network Planning Meeting


SESSION 4: LEARNING NETWORK CONTEXT IN THE CORAL TRIANGLE REGION

Presentations Three presentations from the LMMA Network, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat, and Asian Development (ADB) were scheduled for this session to provide the meeting with additional perspectives, particularly on whether or not a regional learning network would be a right fit for the CTI and the goals it is trying to achieve. The ADB presentation was moved to a later session upon the request of the resource speaker. 1 - Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) Maxine Mary Anjiga, PNG Centre for Locally Managed Areas, Inc. Ms. Anjiga is the Executive Director of the PNG Centre for Locally Managed Areas, Inc. (CLMA), an organization that aims to build the capacity of communities to manage marine areas. PNG CLMA is now the country’s focal point for the Regional LMMA Network and serves as the coordinating organization of PNG’s marine community conservation learning network. Ms. Anjiga related that the LMMA Network was formed more than 10 years ago to improve conservation practices in locally managed areas and now has members in Fiji, Indonesia, Palau, Philippines, PNG, Pohnpei and Vanuatu. Speaking about her organization’s experience as a network member, Ms. Anjiga pointed out the LMMA Network’s diversity, and stressed that such diversity has been largely advantageous to members, who benefit from the tremendous learning opportunities that it creates across the region. Learning exchange is done through network planning, fundraising and cross-visits, Ms. Anjiga explained. She said the network has developed standardized tools for use across the region, although it has been a challenge to adapt the tools to specific sites that do things differently. Even now, practices are still evolving, she added – members have developed their own way of doing things to respond to site-specific needs. In PNG in the last 10 years, for example, the network was coordinated by WWF and then by TNC. The TNC staff members were very supportive, but because TNC had its own mission activities, network members felt they were taking up too much of their staff time and decided to formalize their own PNG LMMA network. Ultimately, people must be committed and have the patience to get things done, Ms. Anjiga said. She noted that while some people are paid to do certain work, a large part of the network’s mission is being accomplished by staff and volunteers who believe in the network’s purpose. Ms. Anjiga made special mention of the LMMA Network members’ willingness and readiness to work with CTI within a learning network system. She related that when they first heard about this CTI Regional Learning Network Planning Meeting, LMMA Network members wondered whether the CTI would duplicate what they were already doing because the countries involved were in the same geographic area. She said her colleagues had specifically requested her to convey to the body their hope that the CT6 governments would recognize the work being done by the LMMA learning networks present in their countries so that they could work together, replicate lessons and experiences, leverage resources and thus work more efficiently toward common goals. Discussion After her presentation, Ms. Anjiga answered questions from the floor. Q: How do you physically maintain your network?


A: The LMMA organizational structure includes country coordinators based in their own countries that make up the LMMA Network Coordination Team. At the country level, the networks are assisted by partner organizations that help them with logistics and other forms of support. We have country meetings, and at the regional level, the Network Coordination Team holds annual meetings to track progress and share lessons. The network also has committees to handle specific tasks. There is always communication across the network, within and

between countries. If there is an issue in one country, the country coordinator concerned raises the issue and the Network Coordination Team discusses it. Since 2007, the Network has employed a manager, who is based in Hawaii. Q: How do you deal with policy and regulation issues? A. When the network was first set up, the idea was to make things easy. Everything was done informally because the network was made up of local communities. Even now, although some of us in PNG have decided to formalize our network and we’re now talking about policies, everything remains informal and is always based on trust. At first, even I could not understand how this was possible, but as people worked together over time, as they spent more time together discussing how they could achieve their goals given few rules and no strict guidelines, they developed trust and the relationship grew and evolved. I still don’t know how it works, but I know that I can sit in a meeting and defend my argument and totally disagree with the person next to me but at the end of the day we can and will still work together. Member relationships and interactions are always based on trust, and the trust has built up over the years and it has become very strong. Q: How did the regional network develop? Were there already existing country networks before the regional network was established? And how do the different countries work together and exchange learning? A: In PNG, we already had community-based conservation activities going on, but there was no country network. Because of our community work, however, we were invited to join regional workshops and subsequently to participate in the regional network. Today we have country networks that are linked to each other through the regional network. We all come together as one regional network to learn from each other, but when we go back to our own countries it is up to us to find a way to use whatever knowledge we pick up from the regional exchange so that it benefits our local communities. We face different issues and apply different solutions, or use the same solutions differently, and when we go back to consult with each other, we bring our own experiences and learn from each other. No matter our differences, ultimately, we are united in one purpose – marine conservation.

Q: Would you recommend some basic principles or guidelines for setting up a learning network? For example, how should we link a local community with other communities in the regional network? If this network is under the CTI umbrella, how should we link up with other nations that are not CTI members? A: I can answer the part about linking a local community with other local communities. In PNG, we encourage cross-visits. We have not come to the point of formally inviting people to our sites, but

LMMA Network country members


when we hold network meetings, we organize field trips that create opportunities for community interaction. Your other question was about linking up non-CTI countries with the CTLN, which is the same question my colleagues at the LMMA Network are asking. I don’t know the answer to that, but perhaps some of our colleagues here can put forward some ideas. I do believe there is a way for all of us to connect. 2 - CTI-RPOA and Regional Priority Actions Eko Rudianto, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat Mr. Rudianto reported on the progress made so far in the implementation of the CTI RPOA, which he referred to as “the bible of the CTI.” The RPOA is based on the 2009 CT6 Leaders Declaration in Manado and is to be implemented through an NPOA to be adopted by each country. It has five goals:

Goal 1: Priority seascapes designated and effectively managed. Goal 2: Ecosystem approach to management of fisheries and other marine resources fully

applied. Goal 3: MPAs established and effectively managed. Goal 4: CCA measures achieved. Goal 5: Threatened species status improving.

Mr. Rudianto said initiatives have been taken to form thematic working groups (TWG) that will help promote the implementation of the RPOA. He noted that work on Goal 4 (MPAs) has made much progress, followed by CCA and, more slowly, EAFM. Work on Goals 1 and 5 has barely started, he added. Mr. Rudianto also reminded the participants about the nine priority actions adopted at the SOM6 held in Jakarta last year, namely:

1. Goal 1, Action 1: Adopt a general “model” for sustainable management of seascapes. 2. Goal 2, Action 1: Collaborate to develop a “common regional framework for legislation and

policy” that would support EAFM; drawing on this, strengthen regional and national legislation, policies and regulations.

3. Goal 2, Action 2: Improve enforcement of policies and laws on illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing through greater collaboration.

4. Goal 3, Action 1: Jointly establish overall goals, objectives, principles, and operational design elements for a Coral Triangle Marine Protected Areas System (CTMPAS) centered on priority MPA networks.

5. Goal 3, Action 3: Build capacity for effective management of the CTMPAS. 6. Goal 4, Action 1: Identify the most important and immediate adaptation measures that

should be taken across all CT countries, based primarily on analyses using existing models. 7. Goal 4, Action 3 and 4 (combined): Complete and implement a region-wide early action plan

for CCA and conduct capacity needs assessments and develop capacity programs on CCA measures

8. Goal 5, Action 3: Complete and implement a region-wide sea turtles conservation action plan.

9. Goal 5, Action 5: Complete and implement a region-wide marine mammals conservation action plan.

Mr. Rudianto described the CTI as “a series of meetings,” with six SOMs completed so far. Administrative support is currently provided by the CTI Interim Regional Secretariat based in Indonesia. Realistically, Mr. Rudianto said it could take another two years for the CTI Regional Secretariat to be organized and take over the interim secretariat’s work, because member countries have to go through their own internal processes to firm up their national commitments.


Mr. Rudianto said that, as well as each CT6 country having its own NCC, the CTI has agreed to form six TWGs focused on different priority areas. Despite an agreement to do so within one month from the last SOM, however, these TWGs have yet to be formally organized, Mr Rudianto observed. He cautioned the participants against taking on too many new ideas that could divert attention from the nine priority actions that the CT6 countries have already agreed on, and urged them to refocus their efforts on the RPOA “before everybody goes too far from the original priority actions that we agreed and have to do.” Mr. Rudianto concluded his presentation by encouraging the participants to think about how the CTLN would fit in the CTI organization. “Do we want the CTLN to function as an informal gathering of experts or do we want it to be administered by one of the TWGs, perhaps the capacity-building working group?” he asked. SESSION 5: RESULTS OF CTC’S SURVEY AND CONSULTATIONS ON THE

PROPOSED CORAL TRIANGLE LEARNING NETWORK Presentation (Presenter: Rili Djohani, CTC) To prepare for this planning workshop and to provide context to the proposed CTLN, CTC conducted consultations with the CT6 governments and partners and an online survey on existing national and regional learning networks and institutions. Ms. Djohani presented an overview of the results of the consultations and survey, which she said provided a snapshot of what at this point people would like to see from the CTLN. For the online survey, more than 150 people were approached, and 56 of them responded, she reported. Most of the respondents were from universities and academic institutions, and interestingly, most were interested in MPAs and MPA-related activities. Ms. Djohani highlighted the following survey results:

• Most respondents were interested in MPAs. • On the question of having a cross-cutting learning network, most respondents indicated that

capacity building was their main concern, followed closely by policy/governance/management and coordination issues, and then knowledge management (KM), and to a lesser extent, conservation and development financing.

• Most respondents were interested in tools and references, professional events and experiences, peer experiences and informal sharing.

• Respondents saw the best practices network as the most effective way to share lessons and strategies.

• Respondents felt that local NGOs should be part of the CTLN, both as drivers and recipients of learning.

• Almost 90% of respondents were interested to contribute time and other resources.

• Meetings/workshops were the most

CTC Survey results showing respondents’ views on the types of

organizations that should be involved in the CTLN.


preferred mode of direct communication. • Emails were seen as the most important/accessible type of indirect communication. • Most respondents said funding should initially come from donors or private organizations,

but to promote sustainability, the CTLN should eventually be financed by the CT6 governments or supported by an endowment or revolving fund.

• All respondents said they were already part of a learning network but responded positively to the question on whether or not the CTLN would add value to existing learning networks.

• Respondents expressed concern that the learning network could put too much focus on one area that takes away attention and resources from other areas, e.g., undue focus on policy might hinder implementation on the ground.

Ms. Djohani also presented the results of consultations at the SOM6 in Jakarta, which revealed the following CT6 countries’ priority concerns that the proposed CTLN could address:

1. Indonesia – To mainstream understanding of capacity development and involve [in the CTI] a network of universities.

2. Malaysia – To develop training modules for CTI and build up learning network universities, in addition to the Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS).

3. PNG – To build a network that would identify and if necessary develop alternative livelihood opportunities and link these to marine conservation.

4. Philippines – To bring down conservation and management concepts and policies from ‘the elite’ (experts and policy makers) to practitioners and front-line managers; to develop alternative livelihoods by demonstrating the direct, concrete social economic implications of conservation issues to local communities.

5. Solomon Islands – To keep the spirit of CTI high through regional learning exchange. 6. Timor-Leste – To develop a step-by-step approach to capacity building and opportunities

for outreach field trips and sharing awareness programs Ms. Djohani put forward four possible learning networks for the body to consider based on the results of the survey and CT6 consultations:

1. MPA Peer Network/s 2. CTI Learning Support Network 3. Ecosystem-based Management Network 4. CTI Secretariats Learning Network

The full report can be made available on request by email, according to Ms. Djohani. SESSION 6: STRATEGIC PURPOSES FOR THE CORAL TRIANGLE LEARNING

NETWORKS Small group discussions (Facilitators: Paquita Bath and Surie Alip) Ms. Alip started the session with a quick review of the last session, and then turned the session over to Ms. Bath, who proceeded to describe the session mechanics. This session was the first part of a three-part exercise designed to draw out the participants’ views on what strategic purpose or purposes the CTLN might best serve. In this session, the participants’ primary task was to identify the specific challenges facing CTI that a learning network could address and formulate a purpose statement for each proposed learning network. The session involved small group discussions, with one participant assigned to “host” each table. At the beginning of the discussions, participants were encouraged to move to a new table and “meet new people.” Otherwise free-wheeling, the discussions were guided by ideas from previous participant discussions and the last session’s (Session 5) presentations, as well as by the following pre-determined process questions:


1. Can you articulate a strategic purpose? 2. Are there clear target participants? Do they feel the need for a learning network? 3. Will it benefit all CT6 countries? 4. Are there champions? Leaders?

Ms. Bath reminded the participants to be guided in particular by the five CTI goals and nine priority actions that Mr. Eko highlighted in his presentation. She also advised them to use ideas from Ms. Djohani’s presentation, which suggested four possible learning networks that the CTI could pursue. A suggestion from the floor was made for the body to also consider in their deliberations the CTC survey results which showed the cross-cutting learning network themes that respondents were most interested in. There was also request for the CTI Interim Regional Secretariat to help the participants identify potential obstacles to establishing the CTLN by explaining further Mr. Eko’s observation that some working groups were progressing much faster than the others; Mr. Suseno said the question would be addressed later. Ms. Bath stressed that there was no pre-conceived agenda and that participants should think broadly and remember that the CTLN was meant to be a regional effort and should benefit all countries, particularly in terms of addressing the challenge of advancing the CTI goals and priority actions. The participants were given 45 minutes in small group discussions to identify the challenges. At the end of the session, each group pinned their discussion down to “top two challenges.” SESSION 7: IDEAS LISTED Small group and plenary discussions (Facilitators: Paquita Bath and Surie Alip) Presentation (Presenter: Abbie Trinidad, Asian Development Bank) This session is the second part of a three-part exercise (which started in Session 6) to identify the areas of concern that the CTLN could best address. The small group discussions continued, but participants were asked at the beginning of the session to join a new table and review, discuss, and rewrite that table’s outputs from the previous session (“top two challenges”) into a positive statement that expressed what the CTLN could do to address the challenge (“purpose statement”). A presentation by Ms. Abbie Trinidad on the ADB-KM program served as additional input to the plenary discussion. This presentation was originally scheduled to be a part of Session 4, but was moved to this session upon the resource speaker’s request. Ms. Trinidad presented the highlights of a two-day workshop on Regional Needs Assessment and State of the Coral Triangle report (SCTR) that immediately preceded this CTI Regional Learning

Cross-cutting learning network themes that CTC survey respondents were

most interested in.


Network Planning Meeting. That needs assessment workshop was held under the ADB Regional Technical Assistance (RETA 7307) Project, “The Regional Cooperation on Knowledge Management, Policy and Institutional Support to the CTI.” Citing the need to connect the two activities, Ms. Trinidad underscored the knowledge processes that constitute ADB’s KM framework, namely, knowledge capture and creation, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge sharing and dissemination, and knowledge use. She said the CTLN can contribute to these knowledge processes, and conversely, although the KM program’s three focal areas do not specifically cover the five CTI goals or RPOA, they are cross-cutting and can contribute to all CTI goals and activities. The KM project is focused on sustainable financing, economics and payment for ecosystem services (PES), and the preparation of the SCTR. The CT6 country KM teams communicate with each other and work together within NCCs as well as with other CT countries and therefore they are “in themselves a community of practice – they are also learning networks,” Ms. Trinidad said. The KM teams are tasked to write short reports, translate technical reports to user-friendly reports, maintain website and set up repository or databases, she added. In particular, Ms. Trinidad said she hoped that the CTLN would consider working in the area of PES or economics. Noting a lack of PES and economics expertise in the NCCs, she pointed out that there are in fact many reports that are already available and could be useful for policymaking but do not get into the hands of policymakers. Ms Trinidad estimated that there are currently 40 PES experts that the CTI can tap to assist in its work. She recommended that the NCC at the country level and the Regional Secretariat at the CTI level should serve as the node of the PES network and formally invite experts to be part of the CTLN so that expert information when needed could be made more readily available to the CT6 countries and communities. Session 7 ended with a plenary discussion on the outputs of the small group discussions. Similar ideas were grouped together, terminologies clarified, differences defined and the list narrowed to eight objectives, as follows:

1. To share knowledge and best practices in ecosystem-based management. 2. To share knowledge and best practices in support of EAFM. 3. To build bridges between policy, science and management; integrate CTI goals (establishing

linkages between geographies and thematic working groups), address communication and information access issues across the CTI.

4. To facilitate a common understanding of CTI goals. (This was added after some participants noted “a lack of understanding of what CTI is, its goals and the terminologies used among CTI members,” and that communication between members to promote understanding of the issues affecting CTI is “a long-term, continuing process.”)

5. To share knowledge and best practices in PES. 6. To share knowledge and best practices in MPA management. 7. To facilitate the sharing of knowledge to improve capacity and address issues related to lack

of manpower, funding, and expertise. 8. To develop, document and share management tools, peer-to-peer learning between CT6 as

well as non-CTI countries.


SESSION 8: VOTE FOR PRIORITY OBJECTIVES

Plenary discussion (Facilitators: Paquita Bath and Surie Alip) This session was the third and final stage of the objective-setting process that started in Session 6. During this session, the outputs of Session 7 were put to a vote to identify the three or four priority objectives that the participants believed they should focus on during the planning exercises scheduled for Day 2. Voting was done individually, and not by government delegations. By majority vote, the body selected four main areas for further discussion and deliberation:

1. Ecosystem/integrated approach to CTI goals

2. Tools 3. Broader CTI support 4. Fisheries learning network

SESSION 9: DAY 1 REVIEW

The CTI Regional Learning Network Planning Chair, Mr. Suseno, summed up the day’s activities, noting in particular the following major outcomes:

1. A shared understanding and common definition of a learning network: A learning network is a group working across organizations and/or boundaries to collectively create, apply, test, document and share solutions to common challenges.

2. An agreement on four priority areas for planning:

a. Ecosystem/integrated approach to CTI goals b. Tools c. Broader CTI support d. Fisheries learning network

Mr. Suseno commended the participants for their enthusiasm and hard work, and the meeting adjourned for the day.

Participants’ top pick as CTLN priority:

Ecosystem/integrated approach to CTI goals


DAY 2 SESSION 10. OVERVIEW OF DAY 2 Ms. Bath, Lead Facilitator,, opened the second day of the CTI Regional Learning Network Planning Meeting with an overview of the day’s activities. The participants would spend most of today in workshops/small group discussions to develop a roadmap for each proposed learning network, with only one presentation by the Lead Facilitator at the beginning of the day, and the presentation of commitments by delegations to end the two-day meeting. SESSION 11. STRUCTURES FOR LEARNING NETWORKS Presentation (Presenter: Paquita Bath, Lead Facilitator) Ms. Bath’s presentation described the different learning network structures in current practice. She noted that the network objectives generally determine the number of members a network will have, and that the broader the objectives, the bigger the number of members, and therefore the higher the cost of starting up and maintaining the network. Ms. Bath explained five different learning network structures:

1. Closed Network – This network structure generally involves small groups. People in this network interact with people with very similar interests or with whom they have a close affinity. There is a high level of trust among members and people in the network are likely to know what is going on throughout the network. The disadvantage is that members do not generally get perspectives or ideas from outside the network.

2. Elephant-Tail Network – Members are directly connected to only two other people in the network. This may describe some government bureaucracies which have some kind of top-down structure, said Ms. Bath. In this network, members have the potential to know their friends’ friends who have different perspectives, but they are less likely to know what is going on in other parts of the network.

3. Isolated Clusters – In this type of network structure, groups of people with similar affiliations, geography, or race/ethnicity are barely connected with each other. This type of network is characterized by solidarity and the comfort of similarity, but people only tend to hear one perspective and are unlikely to know what is happening in other clusters, which can lead to discrimination. Ms. Bath noted that some CTI groups that were described in earlier presentations sounded somewhat like isolated clusters, where there were very good people working in specific areas but they were not necessarily connected with other groups or

people working outside their respective networks. 4. Hub-and-Spoke – This is the classic/typical structure

where a “peer learning network” is first established. One person or entity (the hub) controls the flow of information within the network. The hub can be a very efficient way of spreading information, but people in this network are less likely to know what is going on in other parts of the network independent of the hub, and if a person left this network, it would be likely to fall apart.

5. Smart Network – This type of network consists of a core of close connections between clusters and a periphery of loose connections that bring in new perspectives and resources.

Smart network


Ms. Bath said the LMMA network appeared to be a smart network, and could be the network structure applicable in the CTI setting. She reckoned that the CTI would benefit best from a type of network that is focused on national concerns but also have interconnections at the regional level. The MIC, on the other hand, appeared to use two different models at different times, Ms. Bath observed – being a trust-oriented network, it basically functions as a closed network, but if needed, it also reaches out to other networks, following the smart network model. Ms. Bath concluded her presentation saying successful learning networks can have a viral dimension, a way of expanding that cannot be documented in any formal way. As more and more people use the information shared, she explained, the network grows on its own so that it becomes difficult for experts to track its progress. SESSION 12. ROADMAPS FOR THE CORAL TRIANGLE LEARNING NETWORKS Small group discussions (Facilitators: Paquita Bath and Surie Alip) Leading up to the main activity of the day, Ms Bath presented for review and further discussion the priority areas of concern that came out of the first day’s discussions. She noted in particular the proposed network on “tools,” which she said would be difficult to organize because “it had no clear purpose.” Tools would be needed in every thematic area, she pointed out. She suggested that “tools” be subsumed under the topic area “CTI broader support,” which was concerned with capacity building issues and providing assistance to the CTI NCCs and TWGs. The body agreed. There was also a suggestion from the floor to initiate discussions on a learning network for MPAs, given the high level interest for MPAs evident in the results of the CTC survey. This, too, was accepted by the body. Mr. Suseno, the Meeting Chair, suggested that a small group discussion on clearinghouse issues should also be organized. As an alternative, Ms. Bath suggested that clearinghouse issues be discussed in every topic area. After further deliberation, the body reached a consensus to develop roadmaps for learning networks in the following areas:

Ecosystem/integrated approach to CTI goals – This network is envisioned to work toward a common understanding of and approach to implementing CTI and its goals, a clear understanding of the ecosystem approach to coastal and marine resource management (as it applies to CTI), and linking initiatives and sharing knowledge and best practices across CTI countries and networks, and with non-CTI countries and networks. Broader CTI support – The main tasks of this proposed network would be to provide assistance to the CT6 TWGs and NCCs, create opportunities for networking for the CTI, provide legal support for trans-boundary and capacity-building issues, promote CTI goals and the implementation of the RPOA, and link science, policy and management. Ecosystem approach to fisheries – This proposed learning network would be expected to promote the application of EAFM in the CT6 countries, and promote the sharing of EAFM knowledge and best practices.

MPAs – The primary objective of this network would be to promote sharing of MPA knowledge and best practices between CT6 countries, communities and MPA practitioners within as well as outside the CT region.


The participants were divided into four groups according to their topics of interest, and each group was provided with a template on which to record the results of their discussions. Discussions were guided by the following process questions: 1. What is your network

purpose? (You have to have a clearer statement of purpose than you already have.)

2. What are the measurable outcomes (name two only)? What does success look like? Even when you have a broad purpose, you must have something concrete to do that contributes to achieving the broader purpose.

3. What networks already exist in the same topic area? 4. Who are the target participants? (Identify structure and tools.) 5. Who are the champions/leaders/sponsors? 6. What are the next steps? 7. What is your timeframe for accomplishing specific steps/objectives? 8. What kind of and how much resources are needed? What are the sources? 9. Where does the learning network fit in the CTI structure? (Note: The network may fall into

any one of the nine priority actions.) SESSION 13. PRESENTATION OF ROADMAPS Plenary presentations and discussions (Facilitators: Paquita Bath and Surie Alip) After the small group discussions, the roadmaps for the four proposed learning networks were presented and discussed in plenary session. Roadmap Planning Notes and Discussions 1 – Learning network to promote an integrated/ecosystem approach to CTI goals Purpose: To integrate the five CTI goals in geographies across the CT6.

Measurable outcomes:

The completion of the following two sets of tools and mechanisms will initially serve as a measure of the network’s performance:

1. Guidelines for implementation of each of the goals to develop a clear understanding of the CTI goal statements and specific targets under each goal.

2. Guidelines for integrating the goals at appropriate geographies to guide practitioners/area managers to integrate the five CTI goals into their work. These will probably be more of a planning tool for area managers.

Existing network: Partnerships for Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Charting roadmaps for the CTLN


Target participants: Area managers at different geographic levels, such as specific MPAs, network of MPAs or larger scale protected areas such as seascapes.

Network structure and responsible working group: The capacity building working group will be the core working group and will serve as integrator by coordinating with other working groups dealing with the five CTI goals. This higher level group will be tasked with coordination development of the products, tools and methodologies that will be brought down and disseminated to the target participants. There are already existing efforts to integrate the CTI goals into local initiatives. For example, in the management of the Verde Island passage in the Sulu-Sulawesi seascape, an MPA network design has been developed based on fish egg and larval dispersal, and a network of MPAs has been identified based on sources and sinks. Vulnerability assessment for climate change has also been completed, and adaptation recommendations have been formulated based on the assessment results. The Verde Island Passage now benefits from two networks of MPAs in two provinces – one network is in Batangas, where members meet regularly and have elected a chairman, and the other network, which also meets regularly, is in Mindoro. Conservation International (CI) facilitates meetings between these two networks to discuss issues. This is one platform that we can build on and develop to support the CTLN.

Champions: The following individuals can support and champion this proposed learning network: Prof. Dr.Ridzwan Bin Abdul Rahman (UMS), Ms. Rili Djohani (CTC), Mr. Jamal Jompa (Indonesian CTI Secretariat), Dr. Alan White (TNC), Mr. Scott Atkinson (CI, to promote local government participation), and Gov. Edgar Chatto (Bohol, Government of the Philippines). Champions from within the capacity-building working group and from PEMSEA need to be identified, as well as a geographic manager, a competent individual within a geography that is already engaged in this process of trying to integrate the CTI goals. Jane Lubchenco (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) was also mentioned but not included in the list.

Next steps:

1. Identify country-level networks to build on. 2. Get country approval and link country-level networks regionally through the SOM, TWG or

Regional Secretariat.

Interaction between the regional level and the sites is important because the areas will be bringing in their experience in fine-tuning the products and the guidelines later on. Discussion Q: The first meeting of a planned CTI Local Government Network will meet in mid-May. Could this perhaps be the start of this network? A: Yes, and this was the reason why Bohol Gov. Chatto was identified as a champion. Another suggestion was to engage the League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) in the process.

Q: Did you think about linking this network with the MPA TWG? A: We are still figuring out the best place for engagement.

Q: What are the next steps for this group? Who is responsible for moving this forward?


A: The next step could be for the TWGs to meet and draft the guidelines for each of the goals and the guidelines for the integration so that they can be presented to the SOM7 in Kuala Lumpur in June. The capacity-building working group was identified as the primary working group for this. If this group is not already operational, then it needs to be organized and its TOR established, including becoming lead for this learning network. The same goes with the M&E and other working groups. Then the different working groups can meet to strategize on what their next steps should be. Q: Perhaps the sites that have already been identified through the MPA workshop that happened in Phuket can be a part of this network? A: This is where your actual reaching out to prospective network members can start. 2 – EAFM learning network General purpose: To exchange relevant knowledge, tools and best practices in support of EAFM. Specific objectives:

1. Assist in resolving national and sub-national trans-boundary management issues. 2. Harmonize management principles, improve and share knowledge to ensure that the

EAFM TWG has access to knowledge in the network. 3. Inform understanding of EAFM and how it can be put into operation.

Measurable outcomes: 1. Management principles harmonized. 2. Knowledge improved and shared; knowledge packages developed, distilled and delivered. 3. EAFM TWG has access to network knowledge. 4. Improved management of resources (governance, economic resources, and biological

Roadmap for proposed learning network to promote an integrated/ecosystem approach to CTI goals


resources). Existing EAFM network: The group could not identify a specific learning network that directly worked in EAFM but agreed that several institutions would be involved, such as, the LMMAs, POs, Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission (as a sharing forum), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC, as a repository of technical information), loose academic affiliations, NGOs, fisheries and aquatic resource management councils (FARMCs), and LGUs.

Network structure: The network will have a strong central coordinator (hub of national coordinators) with strong funding and a real and clear mandate to take care of the network. National coordinators will be funded as well. From within this hub of coordination activity, linkages will be established with LGUs, NGOs, academe, and the Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission. Information can be sourced from and through Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), SPC, KM portal, and other CT outlets and filtered to the LMMAs, POs and the managers who need such information. Internet technologies will be used, but offline access will be established as well to serve people who do not have digital capability or Internet access. Coordinators will act as filtering mechanisms to find out what information is needed, distil the information, and make sure that the information that is being provided is relevant and meaningful.

Champions: The NCCs and country working groups, specifically the focal people for fisheries, should be the lead champions at the country level. At the regional level, the US CTI Support Program, Regional Secretariat, NGOs with fisheries interests, and other people with interest in moving the network forward can be the lead champions.

Steps (2011-13):

1. Identify financing for start-up and maintenance; write financial proposal. 2. Identify and employ salaried staff. 3. Conduct an inventory of partnerships and relationships, and integrate into mainstream

EAFM. 5. Get website content/database operational (2011). 6. Spark/trigger demand, promote the network, educate people about the network.

Resources needed:

1. Funding 2. Central and national coordinators 3. Relevant content that people can deliver through the network 4. Publicity, incentive for people to contribute 5. Sufficient resources to meet demand and ensure relevance of products

Responsible working group: Capacity-building Discussion Q: What do you mean by offline access? A: If you are someplace where there is no Internet access or the connection is impossibly slow, you want to be able to put the information in print, or on a hard drive or a CD. You cannot send out the whole information system but there are ways to shrink the data and get out just the relevant information. This is why we emphasize the need to identify what information is relevant to particular users. Q: Would it not be more appropriate to put the EAFM learning network under the EAFM working group and not the capacity-building working group?


A: We need to have a discussion about appropriate placement, to justify why it should be under capacity-building or EAFM. Q: How do we take this to the next step? Who is going to help write this proposal? A: The EAFM working group is not yet functional, but it is already being organized – they seem to be the best group to take this up. If the terms of reference (TORs) or this roadmap needs to be approved by the SOM, then the steps toward SOM approval must be identified. Dr. Robert Pomeroy and Mr. Nygiel Armada have taken a lead role in EAFM and can move this proposed EAFM network forward with the EAFM working group. Q: Will all four proposed learning networks be pursued? A: Right now, we are just putting forward our best ideas. Each proposal will have to be reviewed by the Regional Secretariat and the donor community. Resources will have to be identified and CT6 approval will be needed. 3 – MPA learning network Purpose: MPA established and effectively managed Specific objectives:

1. To connect site managers across the CT6 to improve their capacity to manage MPAs. 2. To connect existing MPA networks and leaders across CT6. 3. To catalyze/accelerate learning by supporting linkages between site managers, leaders and

existing networks.

Measurable outcomes: 1. Number of people in MPA learning networks

Roadmap for proposed CT EAFM learning network


2. Number of countries engaged in the regional network 3. Level of knowledge 4. Level of participation

Existing networks:

1. LMMA 2. MPA Support Network (MSN) 3. International Union for Conservation of Nature-World Commission on Protected Areas

(IUCN-WCPA) 4. CTI MPA working group 5. Coral Reef Information and Training Center (CRITC), Indonesia 6. Mitra Bahari

Target participants:

1. Site managers 2. Existing MPA leaders 3. Scientists 4. Government personnel

Network structure: Network will be linked to the MPA working group. Learning tools:

1. Regional or local workshops that provide opportunities to exchange information 2. Exchanges/cross-visits, both short- and long-term 3. Internships, e.g. four- to five-month internships for MPA managers 4. Mentoring 5. Pilot-testing of existing tools 6. Action research

Other modes of communication / learning exchange: Facebook or Internet social networking sites, texting Champions:

1. MPA managers 2. Local government units (LGUs) 3. Existing networks

Next steps:

1. (Months 1-2) Confirm the leading organizations for the networks; identify funding, write proposal. The CTC has a grant from the CTI and can assist in the preparation of the proposal.

3. (Months 3-4) Coordinate with the MPA working group, NCCs, and Regional Secretariat; survey, identify institutions that will participate in the network.

4. (Months 5-6) Design network, determine development cost. 5. (Months 7-12) Get funding, present to the SOM; once recognized or approved by the SOM,

implement project. Resources needed:

1. People 2. Funding

Responsible working group: MPA working group Discussion


Q: Would it not be better if the CTLN sat within the capacity-working group rather than a thematic working

group? The capacity-building working group might be in a better position to see connections across the different learning networks. If the learning networks are sitting within different thematic working groups, the opportunities for cross-realization may be limited. A: This is a long-term issue that needs to be looked at, whether there are synergies that can be tapped if the learning networks are within the same group. Q: What channels will be used to bring this idea to the SOM? A: Our group here has representatives from several countries. When we get back, we will present this proposal to the NCC and then maybe it can be submitted to the Regional Secretariat for inclusion in the SOM agenda. We need Mr. Suseno’s clarification on this. Q: What kind of MPAs will be included in the network? A: Some of the MPA networks, like the LMMAs, will sit in the management group and link with the individual MPAs. 4 – Network to promote broader CTI support for NCCs / TWGs Purpose: To increase capacities and share best practices among NCC/TWG members so that they can more effectively implement not only specific programs but also their overall and specific mandates.

Measurable outcomes:

1. Relevant knowledge products developed, shared and used.

Roadmap for proposed CT MPA learning network


2. Best practices identified, shared and replicated. 3. Perceived increased capacity to do NCC/TWG work better. (The group spent considerable

time discussing this topic because they were trying to decide if the mandate of evaluating the work of CTLN is an NCC mandate or that of the CTLN itself.)

Existing learning network: The group could not identify any existing learning network focused specifically on assisting the CTI-NCC/TWGs.

Network structure: The Regional Secretariat will be the regional hub – every communication with regard to the program implementation and evaluation will have go through the hub to systematize coordination and exchange of communication, but the members may also communicate directly among themselves.

Modes of communication / learning exchange: Training; face-to-face meetings; web-based channels; distribution of knowledge products

Champions and other possible sources of support:

1. Regional Secretariat (champion) 2. CTC (champion) 3. NCC (champion) 4. ADB (sponsor) 5. Australia (possible sponsor) 6. USAID (sponsor)

Next steps:

2. Develop concept, protocols and TOR (April 2011) 3. Recommend and propose to the SOM7 (June/July 2011) 4. Invite members (August 2011) 5. Conduct needs assessment/training orientation (October 2011) 6. Implement (Jan 2012)

Resources:

1. Experts on learning networks 2. Management consultants 3. Funds for meetings, training, and knowledge products

Responsible working group: Capacity-building working group (The group felt there were very limited vehicles through which this learning network could be brought into the CTI system.) Discussion Q: Are the sponsorships you listed confirmed or are they just possible sponsors? A: We had somebody from USAID in the group – Rene (Acosta) – and he had no objection when we put up USAID there. But yes, we still consider these merely as possible sponsors. ADB and USAID are listed based on the work we are doing with them now. For example, this meeting is sponsored by USAID. Australia, on the hand, is already working with the capacity-building working group. Q: We asked what the ADB KM support would be and Abbie (Trinidad) said she will try to facilitate perhaps some hardware support to be used by the CTLN. Can this be confirmed?

A: It's unfortunate that we don’t have anyone from ADB to confirm or who can talk to us about the CTI-RETA (regional technical assistance) but I think this learning network would be an important component of the CTI-RETA. If we look at the CTI RETA for the Pacific, one of the components


there is using the Pacific roundtable as a regional learning forum. Q: By “knowledge products,” do you mean thematic products to support the CTI goals or broader-themed products to support the NCC operations? A: NCC operations, so they’re different from what might have been planned for the other learning networks.

Q: The way we are approaching the development of the learning networks now, it seems that the networks are separate. Will we eventually put them together under a single CTLN? This goes back to the question about whether we want the capacity-building working group to be some kind of central organization. A: There are very different types of members and activities, so perhaps we can aim for a smart network – everyone can be a member of whatever group or groups one might be interested in, and all groups are open access. This is one potential model, with the hub perhaps managed by the appropriate working group or the Regional Secretariat.

Q: How about having a clearinghouse to match knowledge needs with providers and resources? Perhaps this would fit people’s ideas of a sort of pan-Coral Triangle learning network. A: The smart network is actually a good network model to use. There are ways of designing communication regimes to facilitate that kind of connection. Members can access information through the hub but there would also be connections between and among the peers. We just came out of the KM workshop which talked about establishing KM platforms that plan to provide services to the CTI. No matter how we understand the learning network concept, it should fall under the mandate of the Regional Secretariat as a specific subset (the Secretariat has a broader mandate) but at the same time extend beyond it. For example, we talk about the MPA network, which will be beyond what you would expect the Secretariat to be coordinating on any level even with the CTC as provider. You would want some KM structure where the Secretariat could keep abreast of and analyze developments in this area and somehow be connected with those efforts, so that they could perhaps push its integration with the other CTI goals and hopefully serve a catalytic role for promoting MPA best practices across the region. So I think what we want is for the Regional Secretariat to be on top of some clearinghouse KM structure which would facilitate and coordinate multiple learning networks.

Roadmap for proposed learning network to promote broader CTI support to NCCs / TWGs


SESSION 14. COMMITMENTS FOR STRATEGIES AND NEXT STEPS In this session, the meeting shifted to a more formal mode, in order to generate statements of commitment from the country delegations. Ms. Bath called on Planning Meeting Chair Sukoyono Suseno to preside over the session. In his short remark to open the session, Mr. Suseno explained the need for each delegation to define and articulate what their next steps would be, country by country, so that the Regional Secretariat will know how the process can move forward. He then introduced US CTI PI Chief of Party Peter Collier, who spoke about ongoing efforts by various organizations to support the CTLN process. Mr. Collier noted that one of the issues that CTI Interim Regional Secretariat First Secretary Rudianto Eko raised in his presentation was that the CTI needed to focus on the work of the TWGs to get them activated and to advance the regional priority actions. He suggested that rather than viewing development of a CTLN as “something extra,” it could better be considered as an integral and necessary component to support, advance and expand the efforts of the CTI Technical Working Groups. Given that each working group would be a small group of about perhaps six CTI country representatives with a few supporting partners, they would necessarily need to coordinate efforts, or become networked, with other partners and committed practitioners throughout the region in order to achieve their mandates. Another reason for promoting the CTLN, he said, was to increase connectivity, because with so much learning going on across the region, it is important to capture knowledge in an organized and systematic way and make such knowledge readily accessible in a timely manner to the Regional Secretariat, NCCs, TWGs, partners, implementers, practitioners and others who might need it. Mr. Collier reminded the participants that there are organizational partners that the US CTI Support Program is already assisting or planning to assist at the regional level, especially in the areas of learning, networking and training. He cited the CTC, with whom the Program has provided a grant and is in continuing discussions on how to provide additional support to the Regional Secretariat to address that KM challenge, and the University of Rhode Island (URI), which is a recipient of a grant to support CCA training. He revealed that some members of a small network of URI alumni have developed case studies and are undertaking work to support CCA initiatives in their countries. The URI network is seminal but is already up and running to some extent, Mr. Collier said. Negotiations are also underway for another grant on CCA for the University of the Philippines-Marine Sciences Institute (UP MSI) in collaboration with other partners. In addition, the US CTI Support Program is working with UMS on a proposed set of training modules on integrated coastal and marine resource management and ecosystem approaches that will be made available to all CT6 countries. Mr. Collier said that, before this meeting, the key challenge was to figure out how to promote connectivity and how to make knowledge capture, replication and dissemination happen because it would be such a shame, for example, if UMS does a brilliant course on ecosystem-based management (EBM) and ICM and nothing is shared after that one course.” He assured the participants that the US CTI Support Program will continue to help the NCCs to promote connectivity and learning exchange in the CTI and will remain committed to partner with concerned institutions to move the CTLN forward. Responding to Mr. Collier’s assurance of support, Mr. Suseno said he was encouraged to see that CTI is a dynamic and open organization that is willing to develop cooperation and collaboration within and outside the region. He noted that the roadmaps for the four proposed learning networks have an implementation timeframe of between one year and three years, so it was crucial for the country delegations present in this meeting to begin defining their country commitments to implement in the


next few months the next key steps toward establishing the CTLN. He then formally invited the participants to “express your kind support for the CTLN process.” Participants were divided into country groups to discuss their commitments, which they presented to the body in plenary session.

Statements of Commitment by Country Delegations Malaysia Presenter: Subramaniam Chitdrakantan, National Oceanography Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation We want to start up a national learning network so we can be on par with the rest of the region. We are encouraged to set up a CTI Learning Center at UMS for all CT6 countries, which will support the learning network to promote an ecosystem/integrated approach to the CTI goals. We will bring up this proposal to the NCC for their kind consideration so that they can support the proposal when it is brought up to the SOM. Papua New Guinea Presenter: Therese Kamau Kas, Manus Program, The Nature Conservancy We are not qualified to make a commitment for our government because we do not have government delegates here. But as valued partners and members of the NCC, we are confident of our government’s support because our programs, especially the PNG Marine Program, are aligned with the CTI goals. At the country level, we already have a CLMA network, where coordination, discussion and networking among members happen. With our partners, we are ready to support a CTI-wide network that we can link our work to. As soon as we have the minutes of this meeting, we will work as members of the NCC to bring this up to the SOM for discussion. Solomon Islands Presenter: Senoveva Mauli, The Nature Conservancy Field Office, Solomon Islands I am sorry that we have no government representatives here and cannot commit in our government’s behalf. But from what I have seen from the discussions here, there is not much difference between what we are trying to achieve and our own NPOA, so I believe our government will support the proposed CTLN. Already, we have in our country a network called the Solomon Islands LMMA network (SILMMA) that our government hosts. We see this as an indication that the government will also support the CTLN. When the minutes of this meeting become available, we can endorse the CTLN proposal to the NCC for submission to the SOM. Indonesia Presenter: Jamal Jompa, NCC CTI Indonesia We have four main items in response to Mr. Suseno’s request for country commitments:

• Assure the government and NCC members that the CTLN is an integral and necessary part of the CTI to support regional goals and RPOA.

• Bring the learning network process into the appropriate NCC mechanisms dealing with relevant concerns.

• Ensure that the results of this meeting are taken up during the NCC meeting. To support this effort, we have some existing national networks or sea partnerships patterned after the Sea Grant model that we plan to strengthen through the CTLN. In addition, we have a training and capacity-building program for MPAs that we have developed with support from the Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) and NOAA, which we can bring into the CTLN.


• Use the NCC channel to recommend the CTLN proposal to the Regional Secretariat through the capacity-building working group, so that it can be included in the agenda of the next SOM.

Timor-Leste Presenter: Alexio Leonito Amaral, National Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Timor-Leste We have three main ideas that we want to mention here to demonstrate our commitment to the CTLN process:

• The Timor-Leste government has already committed to support every single activity that will be conducted under the CTI umbrella.

• At the community level, in the coming months, we would like to adopt the LMMA, and we would like see how the learning network process can support our communities. If you would allow us, we would like to visit your country to learn from you to improve our community knowledge and experience. Timor-Leste is a new country, and government staff like me representing our country would like to learn from you how to manage our resources.

• If we can reach a consensus on how this learning network process can happen at the regional level, we will commit to include the CTLN proposal in our country agenda for the next SOM.

Philippines Presenter: Jessica Muñoz, NCC Philippines / Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources We want to bring this proposal to the NCC, so we can see where it fits in our NPOA framework. In the meantime, we have several existing opportunities for networking that we can perhaps link to the CTI process. For example, we have the MSN, which has evolved into a truly functional network with attainable objectives; almost all of us in this delegation are members of this network. We also have other partnerships that we can grow further and perhaps eventually bring into the CTLN, such as our partnerships with commercial fishers, LMP, and the academe. We cannot force the networking process, but we will try to build on our existing partnerships, and the first step is to bring this proposal to the NCC, in particular to Undersecretary Gerochi, then we can perhaps link it to the first meeting on KM and identify the financial and human resources that we can tap to help move the process forward.

SESSION 15. CONCLUDING REMARKS In his closing remarks, Mr. Suseno thanked all delegates and organizers for their enthusiasm and commitment to bring forward the CTLN, and specifically commended the women in attendance for their active participation and for giving the meeting “some gender balance.” Urging the participants to present the CTLN proposals to their respective NCCs and “come back to us with more fruitful and constructive ideas,” Mr. Suseno officially adjourned the two-day meeting.

Meeting Chair Sukoyono

Suseno: It is crucial… to

implement in the next few

months the next key steps

toward establishing the CTLN.


III. ANNEXES A1. AGENDA: CTI REGIONAL LEARNING NETWORK PLANNING MEETING

Day 1: March 17, 2011, Auditorium C Asian Development Bank

8:30-9:00 Registration

9:00-9:30 Opening Remarks

DENR Undersecretary Manuel Gerochi, NCC-Philippines Mr. Eko Rudianto, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat Ms. Safira Warili Hawari Djohani, Coral Triangle Center

9:30-9:45

Call to Order Overview of Meeting Agenda

Mr. Sukoyono Suseno, Vice Chair, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat / Regional Learning Network Planning Meeting Chair Ms. Paquita Bath, Lead Facilitator

9:45-10:30 Session 1: Thoughts on and Experiences with Learning Networks

Facilitated small group discussions

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-11:15 Session 2: Concepts, Objectives, and

Operations of Learning Networks: A Global Perspective

Ms. Paquita Bath, Lead Facilitator

11:15-12:00 Session 3: Integrating Coral Triangle Learning Network Perspectives

Facilitated small group and plenary discussions

12:00-1:00 Lunch

1:00-1:30

Session 4: Learning Network Context in the CT Region

• CTI RPOA and Regional Priority Actions

• ADB Knowledge Management • Locally Managed Marine Areas

Mr. Eko Rudianto, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat

Ms. Abbie Trinidad, ADB

Ms. Maxine Mary Anjiga, PNG

CLMA

1:30-2:00 Session 5: Results of CTC’s Survey and Consultations

Ms. Rili Djohani, Coral Triangle Center

2:00-2:45 Session 6, Part 1: Strategic Purposes for the CT Learning Networks


2:45-3:00 Break

3:00-3:30 Session 6, Part 2: Strategic Purposes for the CT Learning Networks


3:30-4:15 Session 7: Ideas Listed Facilitated plenary discussion

4:15-4:45 Session 8: Vote for Priority Objectives Facilitated plenary discussion

4:45-5:00 Session 9: Review of Day 1

Mr. Sukoyono Suseno, Vice Chair, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat / Regional Learning Network Planning Meeting Chair


Day 2: March 18, 2011, Auditorium C Asian Development Bank

8:30-9:00 Registration

9:00-9:15 Session 10: Overview of Day 2


9:15-9:30 Session 11: Structures for Learning Networks

Ms. Paquita Bath, Lead Facilitator

Presentation / Facilitated small group discussions

9:30-10:30 Session 12, Part 1: Roadmaps for the CT Learning Networks


10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-12:00 Session 12, Part 2: Roadmaps for CT Learning Networks


12:00-1:30 Lunch

1:30-3:30 Session 13: Share Roadmaps Group presentations / Facilitated plenary discussion

3:30-3:45 Break

3:45-4:45 Session 14: Commitments for Strategies and Next Steps

Country discussions / presentations

4:45-5:00 Session 15: Concluding Remarks


5:00 Adjourn


A2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND RESOURCE PERSONS CTI INTERIM REGIONAL SECRETARIAT

Saad, Sudirman Chairman, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Mina Bahari II Bldg, 7th Fl., Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia Suseno, Sukoyono Vice-Chair, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Mina Bahari II Bldg, 7th Fl., Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia Rudianto, Matheus Eko First Secretary, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat Directorate General of Marine, Coast and Small Islands Affairs Mina Bahari II Building, 7th floor Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16 Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia 10110 Ph: 62 8118 0259 3 Email: [email protected] Inkiriwang, Perry General Affairs Coordinator, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Mina Bahari II Bldg, 7th Fl., Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia Darmawan Coordinator for the CTI Interim Regional Secretariat, Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Mina Bahari II Bldg, 7th Fl. Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16 Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia Ph: 62 811 1874482 Email: darmawan@indo,net.id

D E L E G A T I O N S

INDONESIA

Prasmadji, Narmoko Executive Secretary, National Secretariat of the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF) Directorate General of Marine, Coast and Small Islands Affairs Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Mina Bahari II Building, 17th Fl., Jl. Medan Merdeka Timur No.16, Jakarta Pusat 10110, Indonesia Ph: 62 21 3860532 Email: [email protected] Jompa, Jamal Secretary of Indonesian CTI Secretariat Division, NCC CTI Indonesia Jl. Tebet Timur Dalam II, No. 45, Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Ph: 62 812 4230107 Email: [email protected] Dirhamsyah Scientist, Research Center for Oceanography (RCO), Indonesia Institute for Sciences (LIPI) Jalan Pasir Putih I, Ancol Timur North Jakarta, Indonesia Ph: 62 815 86161-333, 62 21 64713850 Email: [email protected] MALAYSIA Chitdrakantan, Subramaniam Assistant Secretary, National Oceanography Directorate (NOD), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation Aras 6, Blok C4, Kompleks C, Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan 62662 Putrajaya, Malaysia Ph: 60 3 8885 8207 Fax: 60 3 8889 3008 Email: [email protected]


Yap, Wei Sin Second Secretary, Embassy of Malaysia in Manila, Philippines Ph: 63 917 522 2264 Email: [email protected] Komilus, Connie Fay Senior Lecturer, Universiti Malaysia Sabah Jl. UMS, 88400, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mungkaje, Augustine Senior Lecturer/Acting Director Discipline of Biological Sciences/ Motupore Is. Research Centre University of Papua New Guinea P.O. Box 320 University Waigani, MC. D Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea Ph: 675 326 7660 Email: [email protected] Virobo, Maino Executive Manager, Policy Coordination and Evaluation Wing, Environmental Information and Science Division, Department of Environment and Conservation P O BOX 6601, Boroko, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea Ph: 675 301 4516 / 675 7 166 6117 Email: [email protected] Tio, Yvonne Executive Manager, Marine Environment Division, Department of Environment and Conservation P O BOX 6601, Boroko National Capital District Papua New Guinea Ph: 675 301 4514 / 675 7 157 1356 Email: [email protected], [email protected]

PHILIPPINES Manuel, Gerochi Undersecretary for Staff Bureaus and Project Management, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Visayas Ave., Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 63 32 926 2567 / 63 2 928 1205 / 63 2 929-6626 Loc. 2019 / 2038 / 2153 Lim, Mundita Director, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Center, Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 924 6031 to 35 Loc. 203 / 204 Fax: 63 2 920 4417 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Laroya, Lynette T. Senior Ecosystems Management Specialist Protected Area and Wildlife Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Center, Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines Tel: 63 927 267 9598 Fax: 63 2 924 0109 Email: [email protected] Muñoz, Jessica Supervising Aquaculturist NCC Representative-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources PCA Annex Bldg., Commonwealth Ave., Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 453 3299 Email: [email protected] Baskinas, Luz Teresa Vice President for Project Development and Grants, WWF-Philippines 4th Flr. JBD Building, 65 Mindanao Avenue, Bagong Pag-asa, 1105 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 632-920-7923 Fax: 632-426-3927 E-mail: [email protected]


Delos Reyes, Pablo Department of Environment and Natural Resources Visayas Ave., Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City Philippines Email: [email protected] Bandejas, Katherine Department of Environment and Natural Resources Visayas Ave., Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City Philippines Email: [email protected] Avelino, John Department of Environment and Natural Resources Visayas Ave., Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City Philippines Email: [email protected] SOLOMON ISLANDS Mauli, Senoveva Marine Scientist, The Nature Conservancy Field Office, P.O. Box 759, Honiara, Solomon Islands Tel: 677 20940 Fax: 677 26814 Email: [email protected] Sulu, Reuben John Assistant Lecturer – Science The University of the South Pacific – Solomon Islands Campus PO Box 460, Honiara, Solomon Islands Ph: 677 21307 Email: [email protected] TIMOR-LESTE Amaral, Aleixo Leonito CTI National Focal Point National Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Rua Presidente Nicolau Lobato Dili, Timor-Leste Ph: 670 7375655, 670 7312310 Email: [email protected]

Amaral, Anselmo Lopes Conservation and MPA Responsible Officer, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Rua Presidente Nicolao Lobato Comoro, Dili, Timor Leste Ph: 670 729 3852 Email: [email protected] Carvaho, Narciso Almeida de Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Rua Presidente Nicolao Lobato Comoro, Dili, Timor Leste Ph: 670 731 2322 Email: [email protected] Fernandes, Augusto Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Rua Presidente Nicolao Lobato Comoro, Dili, Timor Leste Ph: 670 731 2311 / 670 723 6180 Email: [email protected] PARTNERS/RESOURCE PERSONS ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Aliño, Perry Professor, Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 922 3962 Email: [email protected] Drilon, Marilou Natural Resources Economist, Southeast Asia Department, Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Ave., Ortigas Business Center, Pasig City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 632 4444 Email: [email protected] Gomez, Edgardo Emeritus Professor, Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 4357417, 63 9219140755 Email: [email protected]


Quibilan, Miledel Christine Project Coordinator, Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, Inc. UPMSI Bldg., Velasquez St., U.P. Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 4357417, 63 9219140755 Email: [email protected] Trinidad, Annabelle Team Leader and Environmental Economics and PES Specialist, Asian Development Bank PRIMEX, Rm 504, Manila Luxury Condominium, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 633 9052 Email: [email protected] Cantin, Egilde Senior Conservation Finance Specialist, Asia Pacific Resource Centre, The Nature Conservancy 51 Edmonstone St., South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Ph: 61 7 3214 6900 Email: [email protected] ALIGNING VISIONS Bath, Paquita President, Aligning Visions 10450 Allenby Way, Truckee CA 96161, USA Ph: 1 530 587 3625 Email: [email protected] ARC CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR CORAL REEF STUDIES Kool, Johnathan T. Postdoctoral Researcher 10 Angus Smith Drive Townsville, QLD Australia 4812 Ph: 61 4 2889 9947 Email: [email protected] AUSTRALIAN CTI ALLIANCE Fernandes, Leanne Director and Principal Consultant, Earth to Ocean P.O. Box 643, Townsville, North Queensland, 4310 Australia Ph: 61 7 4725 1824, 61 434524051 Email: [email protected]

CORAL TRIANGLE CENTER Djohani, Rili Executive Director, Coral Triangle Center Jl. Danau Tamblingan no. 78, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia Ph: 62 361 289 338 Email: [email protected] Sulchan, Aaman CTI Learning Network Program Support, Coral Triangle Center Jl. Danau Tamblingan no. 78, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia Ph: 62 361 289 338 Email: [email protected] Amin, Imran Marine Policy Manager, The Nature Conservancy Indonesia Program Graha Iskandarsyah 3rd Fl., Jl. Iskandarsyah Raya No. 66C,. Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta 12160, Indonesia Ph: 62 21 7279 2043 Email: [email protected] CORAL TRIANGLE SUPPORT PARTNERSHIP (CTSP), REGIONAL & NATIONAL Atkinson, Scott Regional CTI Coordinator, Conservation International 3204 Aninanina PL, Honolulu, HI 96816, USA Ph:1-808-342-2335 E-mail: [email protected] Kamau Kas, Theresa Manus Program Manager, The Nature Conservancy P O BOX 408, Lorengau, Manus Province, Papua New Guinea Ph: 675 7187 0988 or 675 7672 7835 Email: [email protected] Kassem, Kenneth Head of Marine Conservation, WWF Malaysia Suite 1-6-W11, 6th Fl, CPS Tower, Centre Point Complex, No. 1, Jalan Centre Point, 88800 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia Ph: 60 195 361 910 Email: [email protected]


Knight, Maurice Chief of Party, Coral Triangle Support Partnership - Regional Coordination Team One Wolter Place Building Mezzanine Floor, Jl.Wolter Monginsidi No.63B, Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta, 12180 Indonesia Ph: 62-21-739-4457 Email: [email protected] Gunawan, Tiene CTI Senior Policy Specialist, Conservation International Jalan Pejaten Barat 16 A Kemang Jakarta, Indonesia 12550 Ph: 62-21-7883-2564 E-mail: [email protected] Pomeroy, Robert CTSP Consultant 44 Overlook Ave, Mystic, CT 06355 USA Ph: 1 860 405 9215 Email: [email protected] Verheij, Eric Conservation Director WWF-WMPO PO Box 8280, Boroko, National Capital District III, Papua New Guinea Ph: 675 320 0149 Email: [email protected] White, Alan Senior Marine Scientist, The Nature Conservancy 923 Nu-uanu Ave., Honolulu, HI 96817 USA Ph: 1-808 687 6218 E-mail: [email protected] Arroyo, Luli Head of Policy, Coral Triangle Program WWF Philippines 4th Flr. JBD Building, 65 Mindanao Avenue, Bagong Pag-asa, Quezon City, 1105 Philippines Tel: 632-920-7923 Fax: 632-426-3927 Email: [email protected]

Palma, Joel Vice President for Programs, WWF Philippines 4th Flr. JBD Building, 65 Mindanao Ave., Bagong Pag-asa, 1105 Quezon City, Philippines Tel: 632-920-7923, 639209477951 Fax: 632-426-3927 Email: [email protected] Romeo, Trono Country Executive Director, Conservation International Philippines Dilliman, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines Ph: 63 2 924 8235 Email: [email protected] Lokani, Paul Melanesia Program Director, The Nature Conservancy P.O. Box 2750, Boroko, National Capital District III, Papua New Guinea Ph: 675 323 0699 Email: [email protected] PNG CLMA Anjiga, Maxine Mary Executive Director, PNG Centre for Locally Managed Areas Inc (PNG CLMA) Suite 3, Level 2, Malagan House, Baroko National Capital District, Papua New Guinea Ph: 675 346 2147, 675 7306 0125 Email: [email protected] UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND Ricci, Glenn Coastal Management Specialist, Coastal Resources Centre at University of Rhode Island 220 South Ferry Rd, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA Ph: +62 82146472426 Email: [email protected]


US CTI SUPPORT PROGRAM INTEGRATOR Collier, Peter Chief of Party, US CTI Support Program Integrator Chartered Square Building 29th Floor, Unit 2902, 152 North Sathorn Road, Bangrak, Bangkok 10500, Thailand Ph: 662 637 8517/18/19 Fax: 662 637 8520 Email: [email protected] Mattich, Nives Deputy Chief of Party, US CTI Support Program Integrator Chartered Square Building 29th Floor, Unit 2902, 152 North Sathorn Road, Bangrak, Bangkok 10500, Thailand Ph: 662 637 8517/18/19 Fax: 662 637 8520 Email: [email protected] Tighe, Stacey Senior Regional Coordinator, US CTI Support Program Integrator Chartered Square Building 29th Floor, Unit 2902, 152 North Sathorn Road, Bangrak Bangkok, 10500, Thailand Ph: 1 808 554 3657 (Hawaii), 62 811 909376 (Indonesia) Email: [email protected] Jatulan, William Technical Specialist, US CTI Support Program Integrator Email: [email protected] Armada, Nygiel Technical Specialist, US CTI Support Program Integrator Email: [email protected] Floren, Jessie US CTI Support Program Integrator B1 L5 Alta Monte Village, Danglag, Consolacion, Cebu, Philippines Ph: 63 32 255 7766 Email: [email protected] Sia, Asuncion IEC Specialist, US CTI Support Program Integrator Email: [email protected]

USAID

Acosta, Renerio Regional Environmental Program Specialist, Regional Environment Office, USAID Regional Development Mission Asia Athenee Tower, 25th Floor, 63 Wireless Rd. Lumpini, Patumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand Ph: 66 2 257 3000 Ext. 3285 Fax: 66 2 257 3099 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Lawson, Janet USAID Manila Email: [email protected] Reeves, Kelly USAID Manila Email: [email protected]


A3. REGIONAL EXCHANGE PARTNERS

Coral Triangle Center (CTC) Established in 2000 and based in Bali, the Coral Triangle Center (CTC) was originally set up as the hub for The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) marine conservation program in support of MPA networks in Indonesia and the CT region. Since then, CTC has established itself as an independent regional training and learning center for marine conservation. It develops local and regional capacity for marine conservation through training and education, field testing and leveraging management practices, promoting learning networks and collective action, and developing public and private partnerships to address marine conservation issues. Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) The Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) is a five-year project of the US CTI Support Program executed through a cooperative agreement with USAID to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This includes a consortium of WWF, Conservation International (CI), and TNC. The CTSP works with government, private sector, and local partners to catalyze transformational change by assisting governments with enabling policy support, strengthening capacity building and institutions, building constituencies, and building decision support capacity. CTI Interim Regional Secretariat

The CTI Interim Regional Secretariat is hosted by the Government of Indonesia and resides in Jakarta. The Secretariat provides long-term, wide ranging support to the CTI governments and partners for implementation of the CTI Regional Plan of Action, particularly through direct support for the various coordination mechanisms. The CTI Regional Secretariat provides coordination, technical, and communications support for CTI-related activities such as the ministerial and senior official meetings, the technical working groups, partners, and the national coordination committees.

Philippine NCC The Philippine NCC, headed by officials from the DENR and DA, oversees and coordinates the integration and implementation of the Philippine CTI NPOA including the CTI RPOA. It acts as the national coordination body for the Philippines regarding CTI regional processes and represents the Philippine government in meetings, conferences, fora, and workshops pertaining to the CTI. It is also tasked to review and endorse policy and project proposals related to NPOA implementation. US CTI Support Program Integrator The US CTI Support Program Integrator (PI) provides overarching coordination support to the USG for the implementation of US CTI Support Program. The PI is responsible for coordinating inputs from various U.S. Government (USG) agencies and partners, and for facilitating a unified USG response to the CTI. Activities include the following: facilitate networking and cooperation; promote information exchange; provide administrative support to USAID’s Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA); support communications and alliance building among USAID, USG, and other donors to harmonize assistance to the CTI; and provide technical support to the CTI mechanisms to facilitate implementation of the CTI Regional and National Plans of Action.


A4: PARTICIPANTS’ BREAKDOWN BY GENDER AND ORGANIZATION

A4.1. Gender

Country Delegates

Male 15 65%

Female 8 35%

TOTAL 23 100%

CTI Interim Regional Secretariat

Male 5 100%

Female 0 0%

TOTAL 5 100%

Partners/Resource Persons

Male 22 61%

Female 14 39%

TOTAL 36 100%

OVERALL TOTAL

Male 41 64%

Female 23 36%

TOTAL 64 100%

A4.2. Country Delegates’ Institutions

Government 19 82.6%

Academe, NGOs and CBOs 4 17.4%

TOTAL 23 100%


A5: LIST OF PRESENTATIONS Speeches and presentations from the CTI Learning Network Planning Meeting can be viewed electronically at the US CTI Support Program Integration Portal at www.uscti.org under the Workspaces Section. Photos from the Exchange can also be viewed at the Document Library Section under the Photo Gallery folder and Events sub-folder. To access the portal log in through username: coral and password: triangle (non-case sensitive).

1. Opening Remarks Manuel Gerochi, Undersecretary for Staff Bureaus and Project Management, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines

2. Opening Remarks Sudirman Saad, Chair, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat

3. Opening Remarks Rili Djohani, Executive Director, Coral Triangle Center

4. Overview of the Coral Triangle Initiative and Call to Order Mr. Sukoyono Suseno, Vice Chair, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat

5. CTI Regional Learning Network Meeting Agenda and Workshop Flow Paquita Bath, President, Aligning Visions / Lead Facilitator

6. Learning Networks: Lessons and Good Practices Paquita Bath, President, Aligning Visions / Lead Facilitator, on behalf of Olivia Millard, TNC-Asia Pacific Program

7. Thoughts on and Experiences with Learning Networks

Surie Alip. Co-Facilitator

8. Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) Maxine Mary Anjiga, Executive Director, PNG CLMA

9. CTI-RPOA and Regional Priority Actions

Eko Rudianto, First Secretary, CTI Interim Regional Secretariat

10. Results of the Coral Triangle Center’s Survey and CT6 Consultations Rili Djohani, Executive Director, Coral Triangle Center

11. Asian Development Bank Knowledge Management Project Abbie Trinidad, Team Leader and Environmental Economics and PES Specialist, ADB

12. Structures for Learning Networks Paquita Bath, President, Aligning Visions / Lead Facilitator

cti regional learning network meeting

Documents

session proceedings

learning network context

coral reefs

coral triangle region

opening program

international development

us agency

united states agency