TWO SAMOAS REEF RESILIENCE WORKSHOP

FOR MARINE MANAGED AREA PRACTITIONERS

Workshop Report

Sadie’s by the Sea,

Utulei, American Samoa
August 5 – 9th 2013

0
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This workshop was organized on behalf of the Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration with technical
assistance and funding from The Nature Conservancy, The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
Environmental Programme, NOAA International Program, NOAA/NCCOS/Biogeography Branch and the
Pacific Islands Managed and Protected Areas Community. All facilitators and presenters worked hard to
ensure the success of this workshop by helping to prepare relevant and useful presentations and
activities. The financial and technical assistance enabled workshop objectives to be successfully fulfilled
and useful outputs to be developed. Much of the material in the workshop was drawn from the recent
publication ‘Designing Marine Protected Area Networks to Achieve Fisheries, Biodiversity, and Climate
Change Objectives in Tropical Ecosystems; A Practitioners Guide.’ This new resource greatly enhanced
the productivity of the workshop for the participants and it is anticipated that the managers will draw
from it in their future work. Dr. Alison Green therefore deserves special thanks for her involvement in
this publication and her significant contribution to developing the agenda and carrying out workshop
activities. The work carried out by Matt Kendall of the NOAA/NCCOS/Biogeography Branch to provide
video simulations of larval connectivity and information from the Biogeographic Assessment of the
Samoan Archipelago is greatly appreciated. Carlo Iacovino dedicated time and effort to assisting with
the development of a logo that could be used throughout the workshop and in future endeavours (see
page 10).

The participants that attended this workshop dedicated a week of their time to ensure their participation
in all activities. They themselves, along with their respective colleagues and managers deserve
recognition for valuing the importance of this initiative and working hard to ensure positive outcomes.
Specifically, Faleafaga Toni Tipama’a (ACEO of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment in
Samoa) dedicated his time to participate in the workshop and represented the Two Samoas during the
opening and closing ceremonies and Selaina Tuimavave represented the Director of the Department of
Marine and Wildlife Resources in American Samoa. The Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration
should also be acknowledged for their hard work in striving to protect and enhance the resilience of the
marine and terrestrial ecosystems in the Samoan archipelago.

Left: Recent publication

‘Designing Marine Protected
Area Networks to Achieve
Fisheries, Biodiversity, and
Climate Change Objectives in
Tropical Ecosystems: A
Practitioner Guide.’ By Green
et al. 2013.

2
3
Report prepared by: Lucy Jacob

With contributions from: Kristine Buchhianeri1; Dr. Tim Carruthers2; Dr. Alison Green3; Trina Leberer3;
Magele Etuati Ropeti4; Pascale Salaun2 and Fatima Sauafea-Leau5.

Date: October 2013

Workshop Presenters and Facilitators: Paul Anderson2; Kristine Buchhianeri1; Dr. Tim Carruthers2;
Alice Lawrence6; Dr. Alison Green3; Bruce Jefferies2; Trina Leberer3; Magele Etuati Ropeti4; Fatima
Sauafea-Leau5; Autalavou Taua7; Steven Victor3; Dr. Philip Wiles2.

1 The Governor’s Coral Reef Advisory Group, American Samoa.

2 Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
3 The Nature Conservancy.
4 Secretariat of the Pacific Community.
5 NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Office.
6 The Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa.
7 The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Government of Samoa.

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Table of Figures............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Table of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

BACKGROUND
Background to the Workshop ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Workshop Agenda ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

MAJOR OUTCOMES OF WORKSHOP

Recommendations for Endorsement at Executive Level Two Samoas Meeting ................................................ 10
Two Samoas Marine Managed Area (MMA) Network Guiding Princples ............................................................. 11
Final Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

WORKSHOP CONTENT AND RESULTS OF WORKSHOP ACTIVTIES

Workshop Introductions .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Policy Frameworks Supporting MMA Networks in the Pacific Region .................................................................. 15
Climate Change Projections and Impacts......................................................................................................................... 15
Habitat Classification Exercise (Day 2) ............................................................................................................................... 20
Connectivity in MMA Network Design (Day 2) ............................................................................................................... 25
Ecological Design Principles for the Two Samoas MMA Network (Day 3) .......................................................... 30
Social and Cultural Considerations for MMA Networks (Day 3) .............................................................................. 37
Communicating the Importance of Designing Resilient MMA Networks (Day 3) ............................................ 39
Field Trip (Day 4) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Regional Linkages and Opportunities for Two Samoas (Day 5) .............................................................................. 46
Information Needs for Two Samoas (Day 5) ................................................................................................................... 46
Funding Proposal Development and Final Recommendations (Day 5)................................................................ 48

CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION

Workshop Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................................ 50
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
References ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………..56

5
TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 Two Samoas MMA Network Design Principles ............................................................................................. 12

Table 2 Overall recommendations that were consolidated during the Two Samoas workshop. ........... 13
Table 3 Summary of results from activity on climate change impacts to ecosystems in Samoa. ............ 17
Table 4 Exposure class developed for Upolu and Savaii during habitat classification exercise ................ 25
Table 5 Results of the activity on coral connectivity ................................................................................................... 28
Table 6 Ecological Design Principles selected by American Samoa and Samoa ............................................. 33
Table 7 Results from Ecological Design Principle Gap Analysis Activity for Samoa ...................................... 36
Table 8 Results from Ecological Design Principles Gap Analysis for American Samoa… ............................. 37
Table 9 Tabulated list of information needs for the Two Samoas ....................................................................... 50
Table 10 Results of evaluations question ‘how useful were the following presentations in terms of
implementing any outcomes from this workshop?’..................................................................................................... 88
Table 11 Results of evaluation question ‘what did you enjoy most about the workshop?’ ....................... 90
Table 12 Results of evaluation question ‘what did you enjoy least about the workshop?’ ........................ 90
Table 13 Results of Activity ‘Climate Change Impacts to coral reefs and fisheries.’ ................................... 73
Table 14 Table that was provided to the participants for the fish connectivity exercise …………………….75
Table 15. Table of social, cultural and economic guiding principles and prioritized needs for Samoa 78
Table 16 Table completed during ‘information needs’ for Two Samoas ........................................................... 83

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Result of Coral Reef Habitat Classification for Tutuila. .......................................................................... 23
Figure 2 Results of Coral Reef Habitat Classification Exercise for the Manu’a Islands…………………….…...24
Figure 3 Results of Coral Reef Habitat Classification Exercise for Rose Atoll and Swains Island………....24
Figure 4 Results of Coral Reef Habitat Classification Exercise f for Upolu and Savai’i. .............................. 26
Figure 5 Combined results of the habitat classification exercise for Samoa. . ................................................ 27
Figure 6 Bioregion map created from the habitat classification exercise for Samoa.. .................................. 33
Figure 7 Proposed strategy to assist with meeting MMA Network Design Principles for American
Samoa. ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 8 Responses to evaluation question ‘Do you think there was a good balance of presentations
and activities during the workshop?’ ............................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 9 Responses to evaluation question ‘What proportion of the information that you were given
was new to you?’ ...................................................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 10 Responses to evaluation question ‘How enjoyable were the activities that were carried out in
the breakout groups?’ .............................................................................................................................................................. 89
Figure 11 Response to evaluation question ‘Do you think the workshop objectives have been
successfully achieved?’ ............................................................................................................................................................. 91
Figure 12 Response to evaluation question ‘Do you think the workshop has helped to move the Two
Samoas Initiative towards achieving any of its goals and objectives?’ ................................................................ 91

6
TABLE OF ACRONYMS

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

ASDOC American Samoa Department of Commerce
ASEPA American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency
BIORAP Rapid Biodiversity Assessment
CAP Conservation Action Planning
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CFMP Community Based Fishery Management Program
CI Conservation International
CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort
CRAG Coral Reef Advisory Group
CRCP Coral Reef Conservation Program
CROP Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific
CTI Coral Triangle Initiative
DMWR Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (American Samoa Government)
EBA Ecosystem Based Adaptation
EO Executive Order
FADs Fish Aggregation Device
GIS Geographic Information System
HYCOM Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model
LMA Locally Managed Area
MACBIO Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Management in Pacific Island Countries and Atolls
MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Government of Samoa)
MC Micronesia Challenge
MMA Marine Managed Area
MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Government of Samoa)
MPA Marine Protected Area
MSP Marine Spatial Planning
NBSAP National Biodiversity and Strategic Action Plan
NMSAS National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS National Park Service
NTA No Take Area
NTZ No Take Zone
OA Ocean Acidification
PACIOCEA Pacific Ecosystem Analysis and Synthesis
PAN Palau Protected Areas Network
PIMPAC Pacific Islands Managed and Protected Areas Community
PIRO Pacific Island Regional Office (NOAA)
PLA Participatory Learning and Action
PLD Pelagic Larval Duration
PUMA Planning and Urban Management Authority (Government of Samoa)
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SMA Special Management Area
SOE State of the Environment
SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UNESCO United National Education Science and Culture Organization
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WWF World Wildlife Fund

7
BACKGROUND TO THE WORKSHOP

The Two Samoa’s Environmental Collaboration has been striving to enhance collaborative environmental
stewardship in the Samoan archipelago since 2007. In June 2011, three representatives from Samoa and
American Samoa participated in a workshop for ‘Trainers in Reef Resilience, Climate Change and
Resilient Marine Protected (MPA) Area Network Design’ in Palau, coordinated by The Nature
Conservancy (TNC). The training focused on MPA managers and was based around the TNC model for
reef resilience which highlights the importance of habitat representation and replication, critical areas,
connectivity and effective management for MPA networks. These managers felt that others in the region
would benefit from this knowledge and developed a proposal to seek funds for a similar opportunity in
Samoa. Additionally, the Two Samoa’s Environmental Collaboration (herein referred to as the Two
Samoas) has been discussing the formation of a network of Marine Managed Areas (MMA) in the Samoan
archipelago1 for several years. However, prior to this workshop, there had been no opportunity for
discussions about how to implement such a network.

Left: Bathymetric image showing the

underwater chain of islands and
Seamounts in the Samoan
archipelago. This image was
provided by Paul Anderson from
SPREP.

Originally this workshop was included as part of the 2012 funding application to the NOAA Coral Reef
Conservation Program’s (CRCP) International Cooperative Agreement funding opportunity. However, for
logistical reasons, partial funding for this workshop was provided directly to TNC by NOAA, as part of
an existing cooperative agreement. Because the workshop objectives were aligned with the Secretariat
of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme’s (SPREP) Strategic Plan and the Pacific Oceanscape
Framework, SPREP was able provide the additional funds needed to ensure the success of the workshop.
In addition, the Pacific Islands Managed and Protected Areas Community (PIMPAC) provided funds for
the field trip (including transportation, food and underwater slates).

Multiple meetings were held with the Two Samoas agencies in the lead up to the workshop. This
facilitated the process of finalizing the objectives/agenda and ensuring full engagement in the workshop
by all participants. Each participant was required to complete an online course on ‘Reef Resilience’ prior
to the workshop (full details available online at www.conservationtraining.org). The participants in
American Samoa completed this in their own time, whereas the participants from Samoa used the TEC
Computer lab at SPREP on the 26th and 27th June to complete the course. This provided an opportunity
for several facilitated activities to be carried out during the online course.

Participating Agencies/Ministries
The following is a list of Government bodies that participated in the workshop:
1. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Government of Samoa)
2. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Government of Samoa)
3. The Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (American Samoa Government)
4. The Department of Commerce (American Samoa Government)
5. National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa (U.S. Government, based in American Samoa)
6. National Park Service (U.S. Government, based in American Samoa)
7. NOAA Pacific Island Regional Office (American Samoa)
8. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Government, based in American Samoa)

1 The Samoan archipelago is made of several main inhabited islands (Upolu, Savai’i, Tutuila and the Manu’a
islands) with other smaller islands such as Swains and Rose Atoll in American Samoa and Monono and Apolima in
Samoa. The archipelago is divided politically but ecologically, culturally and geologically connected.
8
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

The final workshop objectives can be seen below:

Enhance knowledge of reef resilience principles and resilient Marine Managed Area (MMA)
network design amongst MMA practitioners in the Samoan archipelago.

Review existing MMAs in the Samoan archipelago in light of reef resilience principles.

Identify management /data needs in the Samoan archipelago and prioritize them for future
funding proposals

Identify mechanisms by which the Two Samoas can work towards developing a MMA network

WORKSHOP AGENDA

A copy of the agenda can be found in Appendix 2. Several modifications were made to this agenda,
including the consolidation of some activities in Day 3 to allow the workshop to finish a day earlier than
planned (due to the event of Father’s Day in Samoa). Each day ended with an opportunity for the
participants to review recommendations that came out from comments captured by rapporteurs and
with a brief verbal evaluation of the day (plus/delta). A summary of the agenda and workshop activities
can be found below.

Day 1 – Monday 5th August

Prior to any activities taking place, a brief introduction to the terminology to be used during the
workshop was provided. The term ‘Marine Managed Area’ (MMA) was used throughout the workshop
to cover any type of protected area in the ocean, whether certain fishing activities are allowed or not.
As the workshop developed, the terms ‘no-take area’ (NTA) and no-take zone (NTZ) were used to
describe areas closed to all type of fishing. This was followed by an introduction to some of the policy
frameworks supporting MMA networks in the Pacific region. The remainder of the day focused on
providing some important background information on climate change science and projections and the
projected impacts to coral reefs and fisheries. Activities were carried out with the intention of solidifying
the information in the presentations and providing opportunity to consider adaptation strategies etc.
The day culminated with an update on resilience projects carried out in Samoa and American Samoa.

Day 2 – Tuesday 6th August

The day began with a talk on ‘Designing Resilient MMA Networks to achieve Biodiversity, Fisheries and
Climate Change Objectives’. This was followed by an activity in which the participants created their own
‘bioregion’ map for their respective countries (two groups) based on the following factors: exposure;
run-off; any knowledge of differences in fish and coral community structure. The resulting bioregion
maps were incorporated into GIS layers for use on the following day.

The afternoon began with presentations on the development of the Palau Protected Areas Network
(PAN) and an update on connectivity studies in the Two Samoas. The second part of the afternoon
focused on connectivity and started with a short talk on oceanography and modelling which led onto
an activity based on larval simulations (from the HYCOM model) to better understand larval connectivity
of corals and other invertebrates. Following this, the participants were provided with tables of fish
movement ranges and carried out an exercise to better understand the home ranges of different species
and how this information can be used to inform MMA and MMA network design.

Day 3 – Wednesday 7th August

Participants were provided with a table of the key ecological design principles and asked to select which
they would like to apply in their respective countries. The two groups came together in plenary and
presented their answers enabling identification of any commonalities. Following this, the GIS ‘bioregion’
maps (from the Day 2 activity) were presented and along with some of the information that is available
on critical areas (e.g. seamounts and key biodiversity areas) etc. Each group was also provided with a
table showing the average width and total area of NTAs in each country. The participants were asked to

9
carry out a basic ‘gap analysis’ based on their selected design principles and the existing network of
NTAs. Both groups also made recommendations to facilitate meeting the design principles.

The afternoon focused on social/cultural and communication topics. Informative presentations were
made on these topics and a series of activities were carried out. These included the identification of
social/cultural design principles and data needs (which were later integrated with the ecological design
principles) and draft communication plans.

Day 4 – Thursday 8th August

The Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) led a field trip to snorkel in a variety of sites
(MPAs and none MPAs). Participants went in two groups to different sites and met later in the day to
share their observations with regards to resilience and MMA design.

Day 5 – Friday 9th August

This day started with a presentation on regional opportunities and linkages for the Two Samoas MMA
network. Following this, the participants were asked to validate the results of their gap analysis activity
from Wednesday and finalise any country specific and Two Samoas recommendations from this activity.
The next activities involved presenting each group with a table of their combined network design
principles (social/cultural and ecological) and using them to identify their information needs. There were
also a series of recommendations and data needs that had been identified throughout the week and
these were also provided to the participants to assist with this activity. The outcome was a list of separate
and combined information needs that could be used to help prioritize future activities and funding
proposals.

In the afternoon of the last day, two groups were formed. One group worked to finalize some
recommendations which would go forward to the next official Two Samoas meeting for endorsement.
The second group identified a set of potential proposals that could be written up in full for submission
to NOAA for the placeholder funds available and other funding opportunities.

ORGANISATION OF THIS REPORT

This report begins with the major outcomes of the Two Samoas Reef Resilience Workshop for MMA
Practitioners. This is in the form of overall recommendations, a table of MMA network design principles
for the Two Samoas and a set of final recommendations that were accumulated throughout the
workshop. These recommendations will be presented during the next executive level meeting of the
Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration.

The report is then broken down by themes based around activities that were carried out during the
workshop. The summary of each activity and the major results are presented. There are summaries of
the majority of presentations that were given in the Appendices at the end of the document. For those
talks that do not have a summary, a brief outline is presented in the document. However, copies of
presentations are available upon request from the author.

Activities are presented in the order in which they were carried out and the recommendations that were
made each day are presented at the end of the activities for that day. There are many supporting
documents in the Appendices. The report was organized in this way so that materials can always be
referred to in the future, as the Two Samoas work together to develop their MMA Network.

10
 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENDORSEMENT AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL
MEETING OF THE TWO SAMOAS ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATION
On the final day of the workshop, the workshop participants developed the following three overall
recommendations for endorsement during the next executive level meeting of the Two Samoas
Environmental Collaboration. These recommendations refer to some of the significant outcomes of the
workshop which are:

• The Marine Managed Area Network Design Principles selected during the workshop (Table 1).
• The Two Samoas Reef Resilience Workshop Final Recommendations (Table 2).

Recommendations

1. Recognize the recommendations (including priority projects) from the workshop and endorse
them via the updated Two Samoas Strategic Plan (e.g. highlight new areas in red).

2. Task Two Samoas to enhance the Strategic Plan by detailing actions within each Goal and
Objective, by identifying associated timelines, responsible agencies, and funding mechanisms.

3. Recognize overarching needs (possibly include in Objective 1 of Strategic Plan):

(a) Develop a network of MMA/MPAs which incorporates the MMA network design
principles (Table 1) to ensure connectivity across the archipelago and sustainable
management of our marine environment [under the Pacific Oceanscapes Framework].
This network should expand upon existing village/community-based MPAs, marine
reserves, sanctuaries, and special management areas.

(b) Establish a Two Samoas MMA Communications Working Group to develop and
implement a Two Samoas MMA Communications Strategy, using recommended actions
developed during this workshop (see Recommendation number 6 in Table 2).

(c) Establish a Two Samoas MMA Science Working Group to develop and implement
a Two Samoas MMA Science Strategy, using recommended actions developed during
the workshop (see Recommendation number 7 in Table 2).

Above: Logo designed by Carlo Iacovino from SPREP in collaboration with Two Samoas representatives and
workshop organizers. The logo was designed for the purposes of the workshop but can also be used by the Two
Samoas in future endeavours.

11
 TWO SAMOAS MARINE MANAGED AREA (MMA) NETWORK GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The following set of MMA network design principles was developed and validated during the Two
Samoas Reef Resilience Workshop for MMA Practitioners.

Table 1 Two Samoas MMA Network Design Principles developed on Day 3 of the workshop and added to/refined
throughout the workshop. This table contains a combination of ecological and social/cultural design principles.
These design principles are referenced in the overall recommendation 3a (previous page).

Principle TWO SAMOAS NETWORK DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Number

1 Integrate traditional/cultural knowledge into the decision making processes.

2 Ensure that a balance of bottom up and top down approaches are used in all
programs incorporating Fa’a Samoa.
3 Represent at least 20% of each habitat in no-take areas. Include habitats that are
connected through movement patterns of key species.
4 Where feasible, replicate protection of habitats by including at least three widely-
separated examples of each habitat in no-take areas.
5 Ensure no-take areas include critical habitats, including important aggregation sites
(e.g. Spawning, feeding and nursery areas).
6 Ensure no-take areas include special or unique sites (and sites of
cultural/traditional importance) e.g. habitats that are isolated (remote atolls) or
important for rare and threatened species (e.g. turtle nesting areas and other
species/habitats).
7 Include resilient sites in no-take areas, including areas most likely to survive climate
change impacts (refugia). Additional assessments may be needed (e.g. ocean
acidification monitoring)
8 Provide guidance to communities for applying minimum sizes to no-take areas,
depending on objectives (e.g. fisheries management, biodiversity protection), key
species and how far they move, and if other effective marine resource management
methods are in place outside no-take areas.
9 Separate no-take areas by a variety of distances from 1 to 20 km (with a mode of
~1-10km).
10 Ensure no-take areas are in place for the long-term (~10 years), preferably
permanently and have additional shorter term no-take areas to fit with community
objectives.
11 Provide guidance on carefully managing opening of short term no-take areas to
ensure that benefits are not lost (e.g. by selective harvesting of less vulnerable
species or managing fishing gear/effort)
12 Provide alternatives to support community livelihood and food security (e.g. FADs
and aquaculture and non-extractive uses)
13 Integrate no-take areas with other existing fishery and Ecosystem Based Adaptation
(EBA) management tools.
14 Increase and/or expand existing no-take areas to ensure the restocking and
recovery of marine/fisheries resources and habitats.

12
 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TWO SAMOAS REEF RESILIENCE WORKSHOP
FOR MMA PRACTITIONERS

The following set of recommendations was consolidated and validated during the Two Samoas Reef
Resilience Workshop for MMA Practitioners.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENDORSEMENT AT TWO SAMOAS MEETING

Table 2 Overall recommendations that were consolidated from the cumulative recommendations made each day
of the workshop. These recommendations are referenced in the overall recommendations 1, 3b and 3c (page 10).

GOVERNANCE
1. Recognise the report from the Two Samoas Reef Resilience Workshop and consider the
recommendations for endorsement.
2. Utilize recommendations from workshop to strengthen the actions in the Two Samoas
strategic plan.
3. Incorporate workshop recommendations into the Two Samoas strategic plan.
4. Provide timelines on actions in strategic plan to assist with updating respective plans in each
country.
5. Assess opportunities for Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration to be used to inform
Government-wide planning processes and policies.
COMMUNICATION
6. Establish a Two Samoas Communications Working Group to clarify the campaigns across both
countries and what each country will do individually (Two Samoas coordinators and education
divisions)
a. Develop a Marine Managed Area communication plan for the Two Samoas, taking
traditional, cultural and religious principles into consideration.
b. Recognize the need for increased communication to communities, particularly on
potential impacts of ocean acidification.
c. Provide information and guidelines (and practical help) for alternative livelihoods
(aquaculture, FADs, microcredit schemes, handicrafts, “green fees”, etc.).
d. Support Le Tausagi travel to Samoa for a possible partnership week to develop strong
linkages in outreach between the Two Samoas.
e. Establish an archipelago-wide outreach campaign on nearshore marine management
approaches including no-take areas for long term sustainability of resources.
f. Facilitate the translation of the ‘Guide for Designing Resilient Locally Managed Areas
in Tropical Marine Environments: A Guide for Community Based Managers’ into
Samoan and provide training for local community outreach specialists in the Two
Samoas.
g. Establish the terminology that the Two Samoas will use for ‘marine managed areas’ or
‘marine protected areas’.
h. Finalize (and differentiate) the wording that will be used for ‘no-take area’ in Samoan
and English for the Two Samoas Initiative.
i. Carry out evaluation of effectiveness of communication plans.
ECOLOGICAL
7. Develop and implement an ecological network across the Two Samoas archipelago.
a. Design system of marine managed areas with connectivity across the archipelago.
b. Consider adopting similar guiding principles for size and spacing of community-based
protected areas based on community needs.

13
 c. Review the design of existing no-take zones in light of new information on fish
movement and habitats.
d. Investigate common management approaches for species with large-scale home
ranges.
e. Discuss the potential for large-scale protected areas for some species such as sharks
and turtles that may move between the Samoan Islands.
f. Establish how to carry out habitat representation and replication in the Two Samoas
(E.g. whether to use the same categories or have different ones).
g. Determine definition of the extent of the network boundary (i.e. 20% of what?), and
whether to have the same definition (e.g. 100m depth contour or 1 mile from reef
crest)
h. Consider options for a data atlas for the Two Samoas to carry out effective Marine
Spatial Planning (MSP)
MANAGEMENT
8. Encourage use of natural adaptation solutions to provide primary protection while supporting
secondary ecosystem services and retention of intact habitats.

9. Support processes for integrated spatial planning for marine and coastal areas at multiple
scales, including support at a community level.
10. Improve wetland management including replanting of native species and use ecosystem based
approach to fisheries management.

11. Incorporate Climate Change policies into existing fisheries policies.

12. Have ecological and social guiding principles (side by side) to ensure effective implementation.

14
 WORKSHOP INTRODUCTIONS

At the outset of the workshop, Faleafaga Toni Tipama’a (the Assistant Chief Executive Officer of the
Department of Conservation within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, in Samoa) was
invited to say a prayer. Following the prayer, opening remarks were made by Selaina Tuimavave (the
Deputy Director of the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources in American Samoa). She discussed
the issue of food security as being in the hearts of many local people and stated that she hoped the
workshop would result in strategies that could assist the Two Samoas in addressing this issue. Faleafaga
was then invited to make some remarks on behalf of the Samoan delegates and the Two Samoas
Environmental Collaboration. During his remarks, he stated that it is the hope of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment to take the Two Samoas Initiative to the next level and achieve its global
recognition in a similar way to the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) and the Micronesia Challenge (MC).

Above: Selaina Tuimavave (left)providing opening remarks for the workshop and Faleafaga Toni Tipama’a (right)
speaking on behalf of the Samoan Government and the Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration.

Trina Leberer (Director for TNC’s Micronesia Program and overall facilitator for the workshop) carried
out an icebreaker activity to discover and record peoples’ expectations for the workshop. Each person
was given an opportunity to publically state their expectations for the workshop (summary of all
expectations can be found in below).

Summary of the workshop expectations from participants and facilitators

• Identification of recommendations for Two Samoas to present at SIDS meeting and develop
proposals for future funding. One participant also hoped for increased understanding about the
next steps.
• Enhanced communication and productivity of the Two Samoas
The expectations of seven of the participants related to the Two Samoas. Specifically, finding
commonalities between the Two Samoas was mentioned along with improving
communication/networking in Two Samoas programs. Enhancing the regional needs of the Two
Samoas was highlighted as was strengthening the Two Samoas partnership in terms of climate
change.
• Improved management strategies
Eight people had expectations relating to improving existing management particularly in relation to
strengthening community-based approaches in addition to transferring technology to communities
to increase understanding. Specific management techniques mentioned included ridges to reefs
concepts and reef resilience monitoring protocols. One expectation related to developing strategic
programs to combat changing needs.
• Sustainable Fisheries was identified by one participant.

15
Following the ice breaker activity, a set of ground rules for the workshop was presented by Trina who
placed these where they could be viewed during the workshop.
Ground Rules
1) Please turn cell phones off/silent
2) Please come on time
3) Please think holistically
4) Please participate but don’t dominate
5) Please listen respectfully
6) We are all equals here
7) Please speak up.

POLICY FRAMEWORKS SUPPORTING MMA NETWORKS IN THE PACIFIC REGION

The first presentation of the workshop was provided by Dr. Tim Carruthers (Coastal and Marine Adviser
at SPREP). He provided an introduction to some of the policy frameworks supporting MMA networks in
the Pacific region. A summary of this talk, entitled ‘Policy Frameworks and Pacific Regional Context:
relevant policies, programmes and projects in the SW Pacific’ can be found in Appendix 3.
.

Left: Workshop participants

listening to a presentation by
Dr. Tim Carruthers on Day 1 of
the workshop.

CLIMATE CHANGE PROJECTIONS AND IMPACTS

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON SAMOAN MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

A presentation was given by Dr. Philip Wiles on ‘Climate Change Projections and Science’. He explained
climate variability, provided background information on how climate predictions are made and
summarized the key climate projections for the Samoan region. A full summary of this talk and the
projections can be found in Appendix 4. The following activity was carried out.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY

Participants were divided into four evenly mixed groups and allocated one of the following climate
predictions (for the next 40 years or by 2055).

Group 1: Increased ocean temperatures (0.5 to 1.75 °C)

Group 2: Sea Level Rise (10-30 cm)
Group 3: Ocean Acidification (Aragonite Saturation State Ωar 3.2-3.7)
Group 4: Increased Heavy Rainfall Events (1 in 20 year event becomes much more common)

The groups were asked to answer the following questions:

16
 1) Identify resources that would be affected by their climate variable.
2) Identify the impacts on these resources and the rest of the ecosystem (including human
communities).
3) Identify management mechanisms to adapt to these climate changes.

Left: An example of the flip chart

from the Ocean Acidification group
for the activity on climate change
impacts to Samoan marine
ecosystems.

RESULTS OF ACTIVITY

The results for this activity are summarized in the table below:

Table 3 Summary of results from activity on climate change impacts to ecosystems in Samoa. This activity was
carried out on Day 1 of the workshop and the results were summarized from flip charts made during the activity
and notes from presentations made by each groups.

Climate change Resources Impact Management mechanisms

threat Affected
Increase in ocean - Corals - Coral and giant clam - Reduce sedimentation and
temperature - Fish bleaching erosion.
- Shellfish - Loss of habitat - Create watershed
- Sea cucumber - Indirect impacts to management areas
(e.g. Lollyfish) humans through - Increase MMAs
- Trochus niloticus reduced food security - Reduce fishing pressure
- Giant clams and coral reef health and stress to reefs

Increased ocean - Corals - Inadequate supply of - Assessment of sea grass

acidification - Crustaceans seafood (food security) sites
- Crustose Coralline - Loss of habitat and - Preliminary OA
In Tutuila Island, Algae nursery/ spawning areas assessment in selected
by 2055 the - Other species - Recovery rate will be areas and inform
aragonite with a shell made slow due to low communities about issue.
saturation will be of aragonite. aragonite - Propose integrated
LOW management approach.

Sea Level Rise - Coral reefs - Inundation of coastal - MMAs (replication of

(SLR) - Seagrass areas will affect villages habitats)
- Mangroves - Inundation will affect -Protect areas that are
- Beach/sand turtle nesting sites important for regeneration.
- Coastal areas - reefs unable to grow - Carry out spatial planning
- Marine Life fast enough to keep up - Retain spaces inland for
- Fisheries with SLR and opening of mangrove to move back etc.
- Carry out education and
new space
outreach on the issue
- Loss of nursery area
(mangrove etc.)

17
 - loss of habitat and - Educate communities
productivity; about negative impacts of
- sedimentation on reefs seawalls
- movement/ relocation - Look for soft solutions
- Loss of income
- Tourism affected
- culture and heritage
Increase in - All coastal - Erosion, sediments and - Better development
Heavy Rainfall resources nutrients cause pollution planning i.e. linking
- Watershed and of drinking water and planning with coastal
marine ecosystems agriculture resource managers (e.g.
- Communities. - Development and PUMA in Samoa)
- Drinking water infrastructure affected - Outreach and education
- Agriculture - public health and but don’t call climate
- Fisheries safety issues from change a ‘disaster’
nutrient contamination - Develop overall watershed
- Fisheries affected by management plans
habitat degradation - Use MMAs.

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS TO CORAL REEFS AND MANGROVES

Magele Etuati Ropeti (Coastal Fisheries Management Officer with SPC) presented on two topics: ‘The
Climate Change Impacts to Coral Reefs and Mangroves’ and ‘Climate Change Impacts to Coastal
Fisheries’. His materials were taken from the publications ‘Vulnerability of Tropical Marine Fisheries and
Aquaculture to Climate Change’ (Bell et al. 2011) and ‘Priority Adaptations to Climate Change for Pacific
Fisheries and Aquaculture’ (Johnson et al. 2012). The outline of his second presentation can be found in
Appendix 5.

Magele discussed the impacts of coral bleaching to reefs and the effect of ocean acidification to corals
and other animals dependent on aragonite availability. He also described the effects of increased storms
and heavy rainfall along with sea level rise. The participants learnt that while coral reefs are not predicted
to disappear completely, they are expected to become more simplistic in terms of their ecosystem. On
the topic of mangroves, the group were informed about their vulnerability to sea level rise and their
ability to adapt, providing human barriers do not obstruct them.

In his presentation on climate change impacts to coastal fisheries, Magele made the distinction between
demersal fish (bottom dwelling), nearshore pelagics (e.g. Skipjack tuna) and invertebrates which all have
different vulnerabilities. The participants learnt that the projected decline in coral reefs by 2100 is
predicted to result in a 65% decline in reef fish abundance and diversity. The negative effect of increased
temperature on fish reproduction and growth rates was also explained as were the predicted effects of
ocean acidification on invertebrates. On a positive note, the group learnt that there was a projected
increase (10%) for the Two Samoas in availability of tuna stocks due to predicted changes in their
distribution.

18
 Above left: Magele Etuati (SPC) presenting information on climate change impacts to fisheries and right
Tauvae Su’a (MAF in Samoa) and Joe Paulin (NMSAS in American Samoa) presenting their selected
priority adaptations

ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Participants were divided into four groups (the same mixed groupings as the previous activity were
used). Each group was asked to consider the three following questions for a period of 20 minutes. Five
minutes were allocated for each group to present their results to each other and take questions.

1. What did you find most interesting about the presentations?

2. What connection can you see to this workshop?
3. What priority adaptations or opportunities can you see for Samoan communities?

ACTIVITY RESULTS

Below is a summary of the results (the full tabulated results can be found in Appendix 11).

Lessons Learned

Some species will increase in numbers (e.g. skipjack).

Re-evaluate fishing regulations.
Find alternative food sources.
License issues to fishing boats.
Strengthen current management of fisheries in marine environment.
Design MMAs/MPAs as a management tool.
Communities depend on coastal resources and will need to find additional sources of protein
with increased impacts of climate change.
Aquaculture should be encouraged.
Projected 65% decrease in fish abundance and diversity with coral reef lost.

Connections

Opportunity to work together using holistic approach (tatou galulue faatasi).

Coastal fisheries are now and will continue to be important.
Two Samoas share fishery resources (tuna).

Priority Adaptations

Create sustainable fisheries by having better management e.g. MPAs with regulations,
policies and no take zones. Establish enforcement and monitoring, improved education and
outreach and strengthen MPAs at community level.
Promote aquaculture of native species (freshwater eels; freshwater prawns; giant clams;
Trochus niloticus; tuna caging/jacks/offshore fisheries); hatcheries; Mariculture; Aquaponics
(currently being trialed in Samoa).
Promote alternative sources of protein (e.g. pig farms) and allow fisheries to recover.

19
 Promote and strengthen ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (including
replanting of native plant species in watershed and wetland management).
Improve awareness and outreach (local and national level).
Encourage use of FADS (inshore and offshore).
Encourage other income-generating activities e.g. tourism, farming and handicrafts.
Create diversity of income for sustainability.

UPDATE ON RESILIENCE PROJECTS IN THE TWO SAMOAS

The first day of the workshop concluded with short presentations from Kristine Bucchianeri, the
Coordinator of the Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG) in American Samoa and Autalavou Taua, a
Principle Fisheries Officer with the Ministry of Fisheries in Samoa. They both provided informative
updates about activities related to resilience that are being carried out in their respective countries. The
summaries of these talks can be found in Appendix 6 and Appendix 7.
RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM DAY 1

The following set of recommendations was collated throughout the day from rapporteurs and
facilitators. These were presented and validated at the end of day 1. At this time, any additional
recommendations were also added.

• Encourage use of natural adaptation solutions to provide primary protection while supporting
secondary ecosystem services and retention of intact habitats.

• Investigate and provide recommendations on the effectiveness of hard versus soft solutions
to sea level rise and storm damage.

• Seek mechanisms to map Seagrass beds throughout the Two Samoas to understand potential
amelioration of the effects of ocean acidification, and potential carbon sequestration,
identifying sites that may support resilience to ocean acidification.

• Recognize the need for increased communications to communities, particularly on potential

impacts of ocean acidification.

• Support processes for integrated spatial planning for marine and coastal areas at multiple
scales, including support at a community level.

• Assess opportunities for Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration to be used to inform

Government wide planning processes and policies.

• Provide information, guidelines and practical help for alternative livelihoods (aquaculture,
FADs, microcredit schemes, handicrafts etc.) to support food security in local communities.

• Improve wetland management, including replanting of native species and use ecosystem
based approach to fisheries management.

• Design system of marine managed areas with connectivity across the archipelago.

• Establish the terminology that the Two Samoas will use for ‘marine managed areas’.

• Support Le Tausagi travel to Samoa for a possible partnership week to develop strong
linkages in outreach between the Two Samoas.

• Incorporate Climate Change policies into existing fisheries policies.

20
21
 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION EXERCISE (DAY 2)

Dr. Alison Green gave a presentation on the ‘Biophysical Principles of MPA Network Design to Achieve
Climate Change, Fishery and Biodiversity Objectives’. In addition to information on the benefit of no-
take areas (NTAs), Alison presented some recent scientific advances regarding fish connectivity,
vulnerability and recovery times in NTAs. Much of the information for this presentation came from the
newly published guide on the topic (Green et al 2013). A full summary of Alison’s talk can be found in
Appendix 8. Following this informative talk, participants were requested to carry out the following
activity.
ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Participants were divided into four groups (depending on the countries/islands that they represent).
They were each presented with a large map of their respective islands (Groups 1 and 2: Savaii and Upolu;
Group 3: Rose and Swains followed by Tutuila and Manu’a; Group 4: Tutuila and Manu’a). The maps had
basic habitat zones on them (e.g. reef flat, reef crest etc.) taken from the Millennium Coral Reef Mapping
Project (IMaRS USF 2005). The maps had been created by Paul Anderson (SPREP) and generously printed
by Travis Bock from the American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA).

Each group was given 30 minutes to identify key environmental areas (areas with distinct coral and fish
communities) or ‘bioregions’ that are affected by exposure and run off. Once each group had completed
their own maps; they had an opportunity to discuss and combine their maps (for those that had worked
on the same islands) for Tutuila, Upolu and Savai’i. The final habitat classifications were presented to
each other and given to Paul Anderson to turn into a printed GIS version (for use in another activity).
Figure 1 and Error! Reference source not found. show the resulting GIS maps that were made from
this activity.

ACTIVITY RESULTS
Tutuila
The two groups came up with similar results for Tutuila which were only slightly revised for the final
presentation (i.e. when the two groups came together). The first major difference to be noted in both
groups was the difference between north and south (based on exposure to the prevailing winds).
Subdivisions were also made on the eastern and western points of Tutuila (around Amanave and Alao)
where winds are strongest, currents diverge and eddies are present. It was noted that inner bays have
different communities to outer bays and other coastal areas. Offshore banks and lagoons were also
noted to have unique coral and fish assemblages. Figure 1 shows the combined result of this bioregion
assessment for Tutuila.

Manu’a
One group subdivided the Manu’a Islands (Ofu, Sili and Olosega) by exposure (north and south) but did
not note any other differences. However, they spent the majority of their time discussing Tutuila. The
other group who had more experience diving around the reefs of the Manu’a islands noted several
unique sites and differences in communities (particularly on Ta’u). They identified the large coral heads
on the south west of the island as being unique and recognised a subdivision by the stream in the south
of Ta’u and a difference from point to point in the north of Ta’u. Figure 2 shows the results of the second
group for Manu’a.

.Swains Island and Rose Atoll (Muliāva)

One group worked on Rose Atoll (Muliāva) and Swains Island. They identified highly exposed areas on
the eastern sides of the coral atolls and a less exposed areas on the west (leeward) side of the islands.
Areas with medium exposure were identified as the north and south of Swains and the west of Rose
Atoll. The channel (ava) in the north of Rose Atoll was delineated as being different. In addition, an
area of ‘good coral coverage’ was identified in the north west of Rose Atoll and an area of coralline algae
was noted in the south (Figure 3).

22
Figure 1 Result of Coral Reef Habitat Classification from Day 2 of the workshop for Tutuila. The yellow lines show divisions between the different identified ‘bioregions’. This map
also shows the two no-take areas in green (Fagamalo and Fagatele) and the other MMAs outlined in back. The different colours relate to the Millennium Coral Reef Habitat
Assessment ((IMaRS USF 2005).

23
Figure 2 Results of Coral Reef Habitat Classification Exercise from day 2 of the workshop for the Manu’a
Islands. Top left shows the divisions that were identified between bioregions for Ta’u and bottom right
shows the divisions that were identified between bioregions for Ofu and Olosega.

Figure 3 Results of Coral Reef Habitat Classification Exercise from day 2 of the workshop for Rose Atoll and
Swains Island. Left shows the divisions that were identified between bioregions for Swains Island and right
shows the divisions that were identified between bioregions for Rose Atoll.

24
Samoa
Two groups developed bioregion maps for Upolu and Savaii. In the final combined map (Figure 5), 11
distinct bioregions were delineated around Savaii and 14 around Upolu (including a separate bioregion for
Apolima Island). During the exercise, the prevailing winds were noted to be from the south east (trade
winds) although the groups did not delineate a north/south division in coral/fish assemblages on this basis
(as was the case for Tutuila). Dr. Alison Green suggested there may be a north/south divide in fish
assemblage that could be distinguished by analysis of detailed fish surveys (i.e. full biodiversity assessment
for Samoa). The Ministry of Fisheries informed the group that they collect data of indicator species during
their surveys (e.g. Damselfish and Butterflyfish) in addition to fishery species. One of the recommendations
from this activity was to analyse this data in order to establish whether or not the fish communities in the
north and the south are different. This group devised an exposure classification system for the exercise
(Table 4).

Table 4 Exposure class developed for Upolu and Savaii on the basis of the habitat classification exercise on day 2 of
the workshop. The four exposure classes are represented by different colours in Figure 5.

A Very High Exposure.

Crest/cliffs
B High Exposure
No reef crest
C Moderate exposure
Mangrove/river mouth
D Low Exposure.
Lagoon/Sand/Reef

Upolu
For the exposure classes that these two groups defined (Table 4), the following delineations were made:
one area of high exposure (crests and cliffs) in the south (1); four areas of high exposure (no reef crest) in
the west (1), south (1) and northeast (2); five areas of moderate exposure (mangrove and river mouth) in
the north (2) northeast (1) and south (2) and four areas of low exposure (lagoon, sand and reef) in the east
(1), west (1) and north (2). It is noteworthy that the western and eastern delineations are comparatively
large (see Figure 5).

Three rivers and several areas of Seagrass were identified in Upolu (see Figure 4). The northern and
southern sides of Upolu to the east were described as having similar habitat and being coral-dominated.
An area important for the Palolo2 fishery was identified in the south of Upolu and areas important for
pelagic fisheries were identified in the eastern (off Lalomanu) and western (Apolima) tips of Upolu. A
category for mangrove and sediment was created and areas were identified in the north and south of
Upolu.
Savai’i
For the exposure classes that the two groups defined (Table 4), the following delineations were made: two
areas of high exposure (crests and cliffs) in the north-west (1) and south (1); three areas of high exposure
(no reef crest) in the north (1), east (1) and southeast (1); two areas of moderate exposure (mangrove and
river mouth) in the north (1) and south (1) and four areas of low exposure (lagoon, sand and reef) in the
east (1), west (1) and northeast (2).

One area of lagoon was identified in the south with mangrove and sediment habitats. The south-west and
western portions of the island were noted to be similar in habitat with some areas of cliff. The north-
western tip (Falealupo) was described as highly exposed and important for pelagic fisheries. The northern
and eastern coasts were separated into areas with coral reef and those with no coral reef (i.e. cliffs). Several
locations important for fish spawning were identified. A site important for Palolo was identified in the
south east of Savaii. There was some discussion around the sites that were identified as having Palolo and
the issue of whether or not these sites actually have more Palolo or whether they are more accessible for
Palolo fishing.

2
The Palolo worm (Palola viridis) is a species of invertebrate in the Eunicidae family. They live in tropical coral reefs.
The annual Palolo fishing event centres around their spawning time which is usually approximately 1 month after the
full moon in October. It is a traditional activity in Samoa to await the Palolo and take part in fishing activities with
the family and other village members (during the night time).
25
 Figure 4 Results of
Coral Reef Habitat
Classification Exercise
from day 2 of the
workshop for Upolu
and Savai’i. The two
posters show the
results of the same
exercise from two
groups before they
were combined.

26
 Figure 5 Combined results of the habitat classification exercise from day 2 of
the workshop for Samoa. The four exposure classes are A: Very High Exposure,
Crest/cliffs (Dark Green); B: High Exposure, No reef crest (light green); C:
Moderate exposure, Mangrove/river mouth (yellow) and D: Low Exposure.
Lagoon/Sand/Reef (red).

CONNECTIVITY IN MMA NETWORK DESIGN (Day 2)

A presentation by Steven Victor (TNC) used a case study from the Palau Protected Areas Network (PAN) to
describe how too much data is not necessarily a useful thing and that the quality of the data is very
important when designing MMA networks. A summary of this talk can be found in Appendix 9. Following
this, was an informative presentation from Alice Lawrence and Tafito Aitaoto (DMWR) on connectivity
studies that have been done and are ongoing in the Two Samoas. This included information on the Global
Drifter Program, the Biogeographic Assessment of the Samoan Archipelago (Kendall and Poti 2011),
Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) surveys in American Samoa, Global Positioning System (GPS)
Drifters, analysis of the demographic patterns of certain fish species and an upcoming study of genetic
connectivity in the archipelago. A summary of this talk can be found in Appendix 10.
At lunch time the workshop participants were invited on an impromptu tour of the new National Marine
Sanctuary of American Samoa’s Ocean Center. This brief visit was very much enjoyed by the participants
who were able to learn about the new sanctuary units and witness the ‘science on a sphere’, an interactive
rotating globe invented by NOAA that can play dynamic animated images of the ocean, solar system and
atmosphere.
The remainder of the afternoon focused on connectivity with practical exercises designed to help the
participants understand how to consider and incorporate connectivity into MMA network design.

CORAL CONNECTIVITY
Dr. Philip Wiles gave a short presentation prior to the exercise on coral connectivity using materials that
had been provided by the NOAA Biogeographic team. The presentation provided background information
on the large-scale currents in the region and described the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM)
model which was used by the NOAA Biogeographic Assessment team (Kendall and Poti 2011) to carry out
larval simulations in the region. He discussed the limitations of the model (e.g. the fact that it does not
take into account the capacity of larvae to migrate vertically) and the life-cycle of coral larvae.
The HYCOM model has a nine kilometre grid size and can be used to ‘seed’ up to 800,000 particles which,
although they are generally passive, will ‘swim’ towards land once they are within a settlement zone (there
27
are 9km, 18km and 36km settlement zones within the model). The model uses October as the dispersal
month as this coincides with annual mass spawning events for species such as Palolo and certain corals.
This is the time of year when the South Equatorial Counter Current is active. Philip used information
provided by the NOAA Biogeographic Team to describe the predicted impact of climate change on larval
transport. The two salient points regarding climate change were that (1) The metabolism of the larvae will
increase meaning that they are likely to reach competency and settle earlier (i.e. not to travel as far thus
reducing connectivity of distant areas) and (2) increased acidity of the ocean with climate change will cause
a higher mortality rate among coral reef and fish larvae.

ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Four groups were each assigned one of the following areas: Wallis and Futuna; Savai’i, Manu’a and Tokelau.
Each group had one facilitator and a laptop showing a larval simulation in the form of a video for their
particular location that ran for 100 days. They were given several examples of species such as coral
spawners (e.g. Acropora sp.) that have an average pelagic larval duration (PLD) of approximately 14 days
and those such as Porites sp. that have an average PLD of 70 days (Victor 2013 pers. comm.) in addition to
the coconut crab that has an average PLD of 20-28 days (Wilson and Harrison 1998).

The groups were required to watch the video and pause it at 7 days, 28 days, 56 days and 100 days. In this
way they could observe the distance that passive larvae could be carried in the ocean currents (large- scale
currents) for different periods of time. Participants were requested to discuss how other islands are seeded
by the group’s source islands after each of the 4 time periods and how this information would affect the
location of proposed ‘reserve areas’ for corals with different PLDs. They were also asked to discuss how
climate change might be expected to alter these results.

ACTIVITY RESULTS

Table 5 Results of the activity on coral connectivity using larval simulations from the HYCOM model provided by the
NOAA Biogeographic Team. These results are summarized from flip chart sheets created during the activity.

Days Wallis and Futuna Savai’i Manu’a Tokelau

7 No connectivity NW then south SW (no connectivity) SE towards Swains

28 NE Fijian islands East through Tokelau South to Niue and South to Rose Atoll,
and Swains with Tonga with a little Manu’a, a little to
connectivity to going north then Tutuila and south to
American Samoa east to Rose Atoll Niue
56 Savaii and Upolu American Samoa, Majority SW to Fiji East towards Upolu
Swains Island, Rose Tokelau, Wallis and and west to Samoa. but the early stages
Atoll, Tonga, Tokelau, Futuna and Kiribati Some north to larvae head east.
Tuvalu and Kiribati Tokelau
100 Tutuila, Manu’a rose, Remain in same From Tokelau it takes
Rarotoga, Tokelau areas and spread to a long time for the
and Fiji (a lot) Fiji, Cook Islands and larvae to reach the
Kiribati. Samoan Islands.

CORAL CONNECTIVITY DISCUSSIONS

Participants enjoyed this activity as it enabled them to better understand how the Samoan Islands relate
to nearby islands in terms of larval connectivity. More information was requested on the PLDs of different
corals and invertebrates as this information is sometimes hard to find. However, generally the results
showed that within the first month of a spawning event (when most Acroporids would be expected to
settle) there was some connectivity between Savaii and Tutuila, Tokelau and American Samoa and Manu’a
and Rose atoll. Wallis and Futuna could only be a source to Samoa for species with a PLD longer than 28
days and to American Samoa for species with a PLD longer than 56 days.

28
Discussion around the limitations of these models (e.g. the fact that they do not take into account small
scale currents around the islands that could be influenced by tidal flushing, bathymetry and coral reef
dynamics) led to a recommendation being developed to consider the expansion of fine scale current
modelling within the archipelago.

Left: Frank
Pendleton from
the USFWS is
demonstrating the
larval simulation
from Wallis Futuna
whilst presenting
the results from his
group.

29
FISH CONNECTIVITY

This activity related to information that had been provided by Dr. Alison Green in her earlier talk on
biophysical design principles for MMAs. Alison gave a brief introduction to the participants about the
activity and then provided them with the materials needed to complete the activity. The results aren’t
published here because they will be refined to develop a final product for use when more time is
available. Prior to the workshop, the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources in American Samoa and
the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in Samoa had been asked to provide a list of their key fishery
species (i.e. those species that they wish to protect inside their respective MMAs). This actually resulted in
a list of 28 species from 11 families which can be found in Appendix 12. These species were a mixture of
key fisheries species (21) and species of concern (7) including some invertebrates.

ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Participants were divided into four mixed groups and provided with two tables. The first table was a
summary of movement patterns of adult and juvenile coral reef and coastal pelagic fishes, with
recommendations for NTA size based on twice the home range. This table was still in the process of being
finalized and published by Dr. Green and other authors. The second table (

Table 11 in Appendix 12) had four blank columns which the participants were requested to fill in for each
of their key fishery species. The column headings were:

1) Adult/juvenile home range habitat(s).

2) Home range size.
3) Spawning migration or ontogenetic shift.
4) No-take area size/location (recommended).

In addition to the information above, participants were also able to access the internet for the ‘fishbase’
website and coral reef fish identification guides (Allen et al. 2003) for information on habitat preferences
etc.

FISH CONNECTIVITY DISCUSSIONS

The participants commented that this was an extremely useful activity and some of the outcomes were
developed into recommendations from Day 2 and the final workshop recommendations (Table 2). They
said that this approach would be a good tool to use with communities as it enables scientific information
to be used in management decisions. People were also surprised by how few species are likely to be
protected within small NTAs that are common in their home countries.

One individual comment from a manager at the Ministry of Fisheries (MAF) in Samoa was that most of the
fish that they are trying to protect are the species that are found in fish markets and that through this
exercise, they had learnt that their no-take zones (NTZs) are not big enough or correctly located to protect
them. They also found that some of the invertebrates should be protected. The possibility of working with
two villages for one NTZ (in order to have a larger NTZ) was mentioned by the facilitator but the experience
from the MAF was that it is not easy to get two villages sharing one fish reserve [no-take zone] and that
this is unlikely to be feasible.

Another recommendation that came out from this exercise was to fill in some of the missing home range
data for key fishery species to the table that was provided. This would include species such as Atule
(Selar crumenophthalmus) which is an important fishery species that also has cultural significance, and
invertebrates such as lobster. Alison also proposed that it would be possible to provide information on
the recommended duration of NTAs for key species determined by the information on the life history of
the species. This could enable well-informed management of NTAs when they are opened (e.g. to only
allow fishing of certain species) as is carried out at certain locations in Fiji.

30
 Left: Representatives from American Samoa
working on an activity during the workshop.

Left (centre): Tepora Toliniu from DMWR

presenting the result of American Samoa’s
Ecological Design Principles Gap Analysis.

Left (lower): representatives from Samoa working

on their Ecological Design Principle Gap Analysis.

Right: participants from Samoa during the

workshop.

31
 RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM DAY 2

The following set of recommendations was collated throughout the day from rapporteurs and facilitators.
These were presented and validated at the end of day 2. At this time, any additional recommendations
were also added.

• Establish an archipelago-wide outreach campaign on the benefits of no-take areas to encourage the
communities to protect their fisheries.

• Consider adopting similar guiding principles for size and spacing of community-based protected
areas, based on community needs.

• Finalise the wording that can be used for a no-take area in Samoan and English for the Two Samoas
Initiative.

• Facilitate the translation of the ‘Guide for Designing Resilient LMAs in Tropical Marine Environments:
A Guide for Community Based Managers’ into Samoan and provide training for local community
outreach specialists in the Two Samoas.

• Conduct analysis of the fish and coral diversity data for Samoa to identify any geographic
community differences.

• Review design of existing no-take zones in light of new information on fish movement and habitats.

• Investigate common management approaches for species with large-scale home ranges.

• Establish how to carry out habitat representation and replication in the Two Samoas (e.g. whether to
use the same categories or have different ones).

• Discuss the potential for large-scale protected areas for some species such as sharks and turtles that
may move between the Samoan Islands.

• Investigate options to create income-generating tourism activities (e.g. Palau and NMS).

• Conduct surveys for Trochus niloticus in American Samoa to see if connectivity can be established
between Samoa and American Samoa.

• Identify differences and similarities in habitats and fish/coral community compositions in the Two
Samoas.

• Refine habitat stratification maps and complete a mapping exercise for the whole archipelago.

• Consider expansion of fine-scale current modeling in the archipelago.

• Complete some of the missing home range data for key fishery species (e.g. Atule and
inverts/lobster).

32
 ECOLOGICAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR THE TWO SAMOAS MMA NETWORK (Day 3)

The Two Samoas (Samoa and American Samoa) were divided into country groups and asked to select which
Ecological Design Principles they would like to apply in their respective countries (from the list of 9 below).
These principles are taken from the recent publication ‘Designing Marine Protected Area Networks to
Achieve Fisheries, Biodiversity, and Climate Change Objectives in Tropical Ecosystems: A Practitioner Guide’
(Green et al. 2013) and the numbers in brackets reference the design principles as they appear in the guide.

1. Represent 20-40% of each habitat in NTAs. Include habitats that are connected through
movement patterns of key species (2).

2. Replicate protection of habitats by including at least three widely-separated examples of each

habitat in NTAs (3)

3. Ensure NTAs include critical habitats, including important aggregation sites (e.g. spawning,
feeding and nursery areas). (4)

4. Ensure NTAs include special or unique sites e.g. habitats that are isolated (remote atolls) or
important for rare and threatened species (e.g. turtle nesting areas). (14)

5. Include resilient sites in NTAs, including areas most likely to survive climate change impacts
(refugia). (13)

6. Apply minimum sizes to NTAs, depending on key species and how far they move, and if other
effective marine resource management methods are in place outside of NTAs. (7)

7. Separate NTAs by a variety of distances from 1 to 20 km (with a mode of ~1-10km). (8)

8. Ensure NTAs are in place for the long-term (20-40 years), preferably permanently. (5)

9. Include additional shorter-term NTAs if required. (9).

After each country had worked on this activity independently, there was a plenary session in which they
discussed their selections for each principle and came up with a set of Two Samoas Ecological Design
Principles. In general, the representatives of the Two Samoas that were present in the workshop were
supportive of all of the proposed ecological design principles and only provided a few recommendations
or caveats to the principles (e.g. to represent 20% of each habitat in NTAs and ensure that NTAs are in
place for 10 years). These slightly revised ecological design principles went forward into the final list of
Two Samoas Network Design Principles (see Table 1). The annotated ecological design principles can be
found in Appendix 13.

Table 6 Ecological Design Principles selected by American Samoa and Samoa with comments made during the
breakout groups in in the plenary session (for the Two Samoas).

Principle American Samoa Samoa Two Samoas

Represent 20-40% of each Yes (20% as per Yes (20-25%) Yes (at least 20%)
habitat in NTAs. Executive Order) NBSAP – 15%
MPA Master Plan, protected
Fishery Local Action State of
Strategy, Environment report
MPA network strategy Strategy for Dev. Of
Samoa
Replicate protection of habitats
Yes Yes Yes
Ensure NTAs include critical
habitats, Yes Yes Yes

33
 Ensure NTAs include special or Yes
unique sites Yes (include culturally Yes
important sites too)
Include resilient sites in NTAs,
Yes Yes (assessments Yes
needed)
Apply minimum sizes to NTAs,
Yes Yes Yes
(guidelines for (guidelines for
different objectives different objectives
e.g. species) e.g. species)
Separate no-take areas by a
variety of distances from 1 to 20 Yes Yes Yes
km (with a mode of ~1-10km). (already exists so
need to strengthen)
Ensure NTAs are in place for the
long-term (20-40 years), Yes Yes Yes
preferably permanently. (try to have longer (at national level but (Need to have
term; existing need to be more good information
programs have 2-10 flexible at for communities to
yrs. Need outreach community level. achieve this)
first) Existing programs
close for 5-10 yrs.
Could open for
certain species)
Include additional shorter-term
NTAs if required. Yes Yes Yes

Ecological Design Principle Gap Analysis

Following the selection of Ecological Design Principles, Paul Anderson from SPREP presented the two maps
that had been created using GIS following the habitat classification exercise on day 2 (Figure 1 and Error! R
eference source not found.). Each of these maps also had the NTAs represented and had an
accompanying table of NTA size (average width and total area). Paul explained some of the information
that is available on critical areas (e.g. Seamounts and Key Biodiversity Areas) for each country and showed
a high resolution bathymetric map for the archipelago which highlights the connectivity of the islands
(Page 5).

ACTIVITY SUMMARY

The participants were then divided back into their country groups and asked to go through each of the
design principles (prioritizing numbers 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, refer to page 28). The participants therefore needed
to establish the percentage (approximate) of each bioregion was already protected inside NTAs; whether
there were replicate NTAs for each bioregion; whether critical areas were protected and whether the size
and spacing of the NTAs was sufficient to protect their key species etc. Both groups also made
recommendations to facilitate meeting the design principles.

ACTIVITY RESULTS

SAMOA

The result of the exercise for Samoa can be seen in Figure 6.

34
 Figure 6 Bioregion map created
from the habitat classification
exercise on day 2 for Samoa.
NTAs are shown in green and the
numbers represent the number of
NTAs in each of the identified
bioregions.

35
As previously described, the group representing Samoa developed an exposure class for Upolu and
Savai’i. For this exercise, they calculated how many MMAs they had in each exposure class. The results
(Table 7) demonstrated that the high exposure classes were under represented in their existing network.
They also added an extra habitat class named ‘Seamount’ and decided to investigate the possibility of
adding Seamount(s) to their existing network.

Table 7 Table developed by the Samoan group during the Ecological Design Principle Gap Analysis Activity on
Day 3 of the workshop.

Code Exposure Class/Habitat # of MMAs Notes

(not no-take)
A Very High Exposure. 2
Crest/cliffs
B High Exposure 5
No reef crest
C Moderate exposure 18 Includes Safata MPA
Mangrove/river mouth
D Low Exposure. 50 Includes Aleipata MPA
Lagoon/Sand/Reef
E Seamount

Inclusion of Highly Exposed Areas

Some discussion was held around the issue of including exposed areas that have no communities living
nearby. The group felt that it might be easy to establish MMAs in these sites, but hard to manage (e.g.
enforce and monitor) them without the help of communities. They would like to investigate the
feasibility of this.

Protection of Critical Areas

The group identified Apolima and Manono Islands (in the Apolima strait between Upolu and Savai’i) as
critical areas due to the fact that they were submitted to UNESCO to be considered for world heritage
status in 2006. The World heritage application states that the ‘The fringing coral reefs system around
these islands are intact and rich in fish and shell fish species’ and that ‘recent cetacean studies have
sighted whales and dolphins in the seas around these islands mostly close to Apolima’. These islands
already have villages with NTAs but consideration might be given to the size or location of these NTAs.
Vaisala (in the north of Savai’i) was also identified as a critical area due to spawning groupers and high
resilience. This site already has a NTA and a coastal FAD to redirect fishing pressure away from the
lagoon.

Other critical areas that were identified by the group were Mata-ole-Alelo (a cultural site) in northern
Savai’i; spawning Mullet in the east of Savai’i; the north-western tip of Savai’i (Falealupo) and Pasco sea
bank (shared with Wallis and Futuna) to the northwest of Samoa. On the topic of sea mounts, the group
stated that they would like to consider mechanisms to protect sea mount habitat and proposed
biodiversity assessments (e.g. through the deployment of deep sea cameras) for these areas.

Other Areas for Possible Expansion of Existing Network

The group proposed that Five Mile Reef in the north of Upolu could be a potential NTA. It currently
allows scuba fishing for certain fish species. They also discussed the possibility of extending certain
terrestrial National Parks down to include the marine area (e.g. Cornwall Estate in western Savai’i, Mauga
o Salafai National Park in north-eastern Savai’i and Ole Pupu Pue National Park in southern Upolu). The
group suggested that they could investigate the feasibility of this through community consultation and
they noted that the low number of coastal villages in some of these areas means there could be a
potential to make NTAs in these locations.

Additional Recommendations

The group felt that increasing and encouraging the use of FADs to redirect fishing pressure away from
protected areas was important. They also proposed to increase the number of NTAs or extend existing
NTAs to ensure the restocking and recovery of fish species in Samoa. Recommendations from this
activity were inserted into the overall recommendation for the workshop.

36
 Left: Samantha Kwan
from MNRE
presenting the results
of the Ecological
Design Principle Gap
Analysis Activity for
Samoa on Day 3 of
the workshop.

AMERICAN SAMOA

The group from American Samoa began this exercise by numbering their ‘bioregions’ and calculating
the approximate percentage of the coastline already protected by (a) some type of MMA and (b) a no
take area. The results (Figure 1) show that only two bioregions (2 and 13) had 20% of the coastline
represented by NTAs. These areas are in Fagatele Bay (southeast Tutuila) and Fagamalo (northwest
Tutuila). The remaining 15 bioregions do not have any NTAs with the exception of number 4 (northeast
Tutuila) which had approximately 1% protected due to a no-take zone in Sailele CFMP. The bioregions
highlighted in yellow in Table 8 represent those which currently have no protected areas at all.

Table 8 Table created by the American Samoa group during the Ecological Design Principles Gap Analysis. This
table contains estimations of the percent of each bioregion that is protected by either a MMA or a NTA.

Bioregion Estimated % of Estimated % of Location

Number coastline ‘no- coastline ‘MMA’
take’
1 0 50 (CFMP) NW (Poloa)
2 25 (No-take) 25 (CFMP) NW (Fagamalo)
3 0 50 (NPS) N (Fagasa and Pago Pago))
4 1 (CFMP) 6 (NPS/CFMP) NE (Vatia, Sailele Masausi and Aoa)
5 0 0 NE (Tula)
6 0 50 (NMS) SE (Aunu’u)
7 0 20 (NMS) SE (Aunu’u)
8 0 5 (CFMP/NMS) SE (Alofau, Amaua & Auto)
9 0 10 (CFMP) S (Alega)
10 0 100 (CFMP/SMA) S outer harbour (Aua)
11 0 100 (SMA) S inner harbour
12 0 0 SW (Vaitogi)
13 40 (NMS) 60 (NMS) SW (Fagatele and Fagalua)
14 0 0 SW (Taputimu & Vailoatai)
15 0 0 SW (Leone)
16 0 50 (CFMP) SW (Amanave)
17 0 100 (SMA) S (Nu’uuli Pala)

Prioritize Under Represented Bioregions

The group of managers representing American Samoa recommended prioritizing bioregions
surrounding the villages of Tula, Alao, Vaitogi, Leone and Nu’u Setaga as these bioregions currently
have no MMAs.

37
Protection of Critical Areas

The group identified several areas that they considered to be critical including the mangrove and
lagoon in Nu’uuli, wetland in Leone, resilient sites (e.g. Ofu pools, Airport pools, Fagatele, Amanave and
the outer bay at Vatia) and oceanographic hotspots (Pola, Tula and Amanave). This group
recommended that it would be useful to continue oceanographic surveys to map the local currents and
identify other oceanographic hotspots. They concluded that additional survey data was needed on
turtle nesting areas, fish spawning sites and seagrass areas. They also stated that maps of mangroves
and seagrass areas would be useful.

Other Areas for Possible Expansion of Existing Network

In addition to prioritizing those bioregions that are not currently represented in the network, the group
stated that initial work should begin on combining existing CFMPs with NTZs and increasing their size
in order to try to achieve MMA network objectives. They also recommended investigating the feasibility
of replication for bioregions as this might not always be practical (e.g. in small bioregions that are
already highly protected). They stated that prioritizing the critical areas described above (particularly
once additional data is obtained) would be another way to expand the network and would keep in line
with following the guiding principles selected.

Proposed Strategy to Achieve MMA Network Design Principles

This group had the opportunity to briefly discuss their proposed strategy to attempt to achieve the
ecological design principles selected earlier in the day. Figure 7 illustrates the proposed strategy that
was developed.

Develop communication strategy Collaborate with interested

(prioritize CFMP villages) villages to try to develop NTAs

Work with villages from one

Refine bioregions bioregion to achieve design
principles

Figure 7 Proposed strategy to assist with meeting MMA Network Design Principles for American Samoa. The initial
communication strategy will be carried out in parallel to scientific work to refine the bioregion maps. Once
communities show interest in establishing a NTA, the agencies will work with them. However, if communities are not
interested, the communication strategy will be further developed and continue. The agencies also plan to work with
communities from one bioregion together.

Notes for Possible Modification of Data Layer

1. The group wished to have it recognized that when working with this version of the bioregion
map in the future (Figure 1) the division between bioregion 5 (Tula) and 6 (Alao) should be
removed. This would create 16 bioregions for Tutuila rather than 17.

2. They would also like to have the lines between 6 and 7 (west of Aunu’u) and 12 and 13 (Vaitogi
and Fagalua) extended to make them easier to see.

3. Add sheltered bays for definition of C (exposure definitions are similar to Samoa, see Table 4)

38
Outcomes of Plenary Discussion

Once each group had finalized their gap analysis activity, they made a presentation to the other group.
This resulted in discussion between the two groups and various recommendations. These are listed
below.

• Sea turtles. Tracking data has shown that some travel from American Samoa to Fiji. One turtle
recently went to Savai’i and one went from Rose Atoll to Upolu. The Two Samoas would like to
identify ways in which they can manage and protect turtles together.

• Cetaceans. Humpback whales migrate through both Samoas and it is possible that smaller
cetaceans might migrate between the islands. Consideration should be given to ways in which
these species can be managed and protected together.

• Fish Movement. Given that there are only around 50 miles between the Two Samoas, it would be
a useful exercise to determine which fish are likely to roam between them (e.g.
sharks/snappers/emperors). This information should be used to manage them collaboratively.

• Data Atlas. Bioregion analysis for the whole archipelago would enable habitat replicates to be
made between the islands. This could culminate in the development of a data atlas for the Samoan
archipelago including data layers for turtle nesting, cetacean movements and habitat layers etc.
This would assist with marine spatial planning (MSP) for the archipelago.

• Seamounts. There are seamounts between Manu’a and Tutuila (as determined by a NOAA sonar
swath). The group therefore hypothesized that there could be seamounts between the Two Samoas.
If this is the case, ownership should be determined and protection of these habitats should be
prioritized and encouraged. These seamounts (if they exist) could be stepping stones for certain
species that migrate between the Two Samoas. This could possibly be ascertained from the
Seamount Biogeosciences Network (http://earthref.org/SC/SMNT-133S-1762W/).

• Quantify habitat. There are no formal definitions of the coral reef habitat for the Two Samoas. If
the Two Samoas senior level group endorse the target to have 20% representation of habitats inside
NTAs, a definition will be needed. The NOAA Biogeographic team used 150m as the cut off for
their analysis (this being the maximum depth that mesophotic coral communities are usually found
at). For Samoa, ‘near shore’ has been defined as one mile from the reef crest (CI, MNRE and SPREP
2010).

Left: Plenary
discussion of the
gap analysis
activity for
ecological design
principles.

The notes from this activity were typed up and presented back to the participant groups on the morning
of Day 5 for validation. They were asked to identify any recommendations that they wished to go
forward for their own countries and for the Two Samoas. These recommendations were added onto
the overall recommendations from the workshop (Table 2).
39
 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MMA NETWORKS (Day 3)

Fatima Sauafea-Leau from NOAA PIRO in American Samoa gave a presentation in which she discussed
the importance of integrating social, cultural and economic considerations with ecological information
when designing MMA networks. Fatima described the importance of the Samoan culture in decision-
making and highlighted the relationship between social structure and Samoan culture. She talked
about the importance of understanding the stakeholders’ short and long term goals and described ways
to incorporate social and cultural information into decision-making processes (e.g. enabling
communities to collaborate and find acceptable solutions and incorporating indigenous and traditional
knowledge into decision-making).

Fatima described the different community processes, many with similar approaches that the various
environmental programs are facilitating in American Samoa. In order to better gain community support
and buy-in at the same time as enhancing the coordination of management authorities, a collaborated
and integrated process was recommended. This will assist in planning, developing, and implementing
management using an ecosystem approach with strong collaboration between all partners and
communities. Fatima provided some successful models from New Zealand, Samoa and American
Samoa.
ACTIVITY SUMMARY

The participants were divided into the country groups (due to the fact that the social and cultural
considerations may be unique to the situation in each country) and asked to identify social and cultural
guiding principles for the Two Samoas MMA network and discuss what priority information is needed.
In order to help them with this task, Fatima provided them with the following three questions.

1) List social and cultural guiding principles for the Two Samoa MMA Network
2) Identify social and cultural needs
3) Prioritize at least 5 needs.
ACTIVITY RESULTS
The two countries approached this activity in different ways and their results are presented below.
Various recommendations were made following this activity which were incorporated into the overall
recommendations for the day. Several of these were guiding principles that were later added to the
ecological design principles to make a set of overall network design principles for the Two Samoas MMA
network (Table 1).

SAMOA

The Samoan group developed a table (

Table 12 in Appendix 14) with their social, cultural and economic guiding principles. The key guiding
principles from the table are summarized below along with the five social/cultural and economic needs
that this group identified.

Social Guiding Principles

1. Consider the ability of communities to accept new concepts/approaches (i.e. is there management
amongst neighbouring communities?).
2. Consider community’s obligations to family, church, village etc.
3. Consider existing village rules (e.g. no fishing activity carried out within the village marine
boundaries at certain times).
4. Conduct a socio-economic survey to assess the needs of the communities and their perception on
fisheries/marine resources.

Cultural Guiding Principles

1. Develop program design based on Fa’a Samoa culture (bottom up approach).

2. Integrate traditional/cultural knowledge to the decision-making processes (e.g. significance of
Moso’oi bearing fruits and Samoan proverbs etc.)
3. Consider local/traditional uses of resources (e.g. sponges for medicines, mangroves for tapa).
4. Take species of cultural importance into account when making management decisions (e.g. turtle,
mullet etc.)

40
Economic Guiding Principles (Includes Alternatives)

1. Create opportunities to generate income from non-extractive activities.

2. Ensure sustainability of programs by offering alternatives to secure livelihoods and food provision
(e.g. FADs, aquaculture, restocking, translocation programs and non-fisheries activities e.g.
handicrafts and organic farming).

Prioritized Social/Cultural and Economic Needs for Samoa

1. Collate all existing information for decision-making processes including traditional knowledge
related to fisheries/marine resources, village rules and regulations, data and reports assessments/
surveys.
2. Carry out education and awareness programs and attempt to incorporate into school curriculum
(liaise with Ministry of Education Science and Culture).
3. Ensure sufficient fish and invertebrates available for consumption and income, taking into account
cultural obligations to feed guests/communities during special occasions (e.g. village fono, churches,
etc.).
4. Secure financial and technical resources.
5. Investigate the feasibility of diverting some of the country’s departure tax to an environmental fund
to assist with programs.

AMERICAN SAMOA

The American Samoan group highlighted the importance of outreach during this session and came up
with the suggestion to use village outreach to try to get buy-in for programs. They stated that it was
necessary to streamline approaches to communities (i.e. do not have multiple agencies going separately
to the village) and recommended that CRAG could assist with the coordination of this, maintaining a
database to record outreach activities and timelines. They also proposed expanding the ‘Le Tausagi’
education group. In addition, they stated that identifying key community champions could assist with
village outreach and decision-making processes.

Social and Cultural Guiding Principles

1. Respect the authority of the village council and operate through a combination of bottom-up and
top-down approaches.
2. Use faith-based organizations to assist with outreach and development of management
programs.
3. Carry out adaptive management.
4. Recognize local governance and local knowledge.
5. Identify village needs.

Discussion on Cultural Fees

There was some discussion on the issue of a ‘cultural fee’ or customary donation that is made to the
communities during an ava ceremony which is customary when introducing a new program. The
donation is given in exchange for the ava. The Samoan representatives were interested to know whether
the same took place in American Samoa. A representative from the NMSAS stated that this is also the
case in American Samoa. The representative from NOAA PIRO agreed that cultural fees during the
initial village council meeting are usually necessary but stated that at times it has been possible to
establish programs in the communities without making this donation (e.g. in Amouli and Faga'alu). In
the case of Faga’alu, the village did not have a high chief at the time and the Mayor was responsible for
organising the activities. In the case of Amouli, the high chief was already engaged in a related project
meaning that there was no need for a village “inu” or village council meeting. It therefore depends on
who you work through and if it is possible to find a Champion such as the village Mayor, then the
cultural fee may be avoided.

However, some programs might fail if the village councils are not involved in the proper way so this
issue is an ongoing concern. Some programs are able to get grants that can assist with this cultural fee,
but in other cases, employees may pay it out of their own pocket.

COMMUNICATING THE IMPORTANCE OF DESIGNING RESILIENT MMA NETWORKS

(Day 3)
41
Fatima Sauafea-Leau provided a presentation on the importance of having an effective communication
plan. She shared some of the barriers to communication (e.g. lack of trust and misinformation) and
described some of the different ways that communication can be carried out. Fatima described the
benefits of communication with the whole range of stakeholders and provided some useful
communication techniques (below). She reminded participants that the communication tools should
be made appropriate for the Samoan culture. Fatima provided several examples of successful
communication strategies (e.g. The Big Mamma Campaign started in the Mesoamerican reef in 2004 by
WWF with help from NOAA and local partners).

• Have a clear message that is consistent at all levels of the organization;

• Ensure that any staff members who communicate daily with the public are good communicators;
• Celebrate successes widely and loudly (cultivating relationships with local and national media can
help here);
• Keep in touch with supporters and let them know how much they are appreciated;
• Provide opportunities for people to be involved in protected area operations through volunteer
programs, joint management with local communities, and “Friends of the Marine Park” or “Fish
Bank” groups;
• Translations of terms such as MPA, MMA and no-take area into Samoan should be clear and
consistent.
• Be honest and realistic. This builds trust.
•
ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Participants were divided into four mixed groups and asked to develop a Communication Plan for the
Two Samoas MMA Network. They were provided with the following headings in a table and asked to
identify the key messages that would assist with achieving their priority ecological and social/cultural
principles.

Key message(s) Communication Materials Time Budget

Approach

ACTIVITY RESULTS

The ‘raw’ results can be found in Appendix 15

Key Messages

The following message ideas were developed by the various groups. Several other messages were
identified but not developed and can be found in Appendix 15 (Group D).

1) To protect marine environment ‘Fish (and invertebrates) for the future’ (identified by three
groups)

2) To explain the reason why large NTAs are needed (due to the large home range of some species
such as Groupers, Humphead Wrasse, Goatfish and Unicornfish)

3) Use alternative food sources e.g. pig, chicken, tilapia, sea grape.

4) “Seu le manu ae tagai I le galu’’ meaning “catch the birds but watch the waves”

Communication Approaches

42
Several possible communication approaches were identified for all messages with the exception of
number two, for which the group identified ‘awareness and demonstration projects in consultation with
communities’.

In general, preferred communication approaches involved the media (TV advertisements, TV

documentaries, talk shows, Radio, newspaper) and village outreach (using consultation and facilitation
approaches). Competitions and puppet shows were also identified as useful approaches, along with
the development of a school curriculum. One group identified the monitoring of the site as an approach
to engage communities to protect their resources for the future.

Materials

Common materials included posters, slides, pamphlets, public service announcements etc. The group
working on key message 3 identified fish movement tables for their message. Social media such as a
Facebook page and a You Tube video were identified and success stories (particularly photos) were
selected for key message 1. One group requested a boat with trailer, outboard motor and fuel to carry
out monitoring.

Timeline

Average time scale for the activities was 1-2 years.

Budget

Budgets ranged from $500 per month to $120,000 as a one off cost. Groups also identified sponsorship
(e.g. Digicel and Bluesky in Samoa) and in-kind contributions (including technical support) to ensure
sustainability. One group specified their costs to include fuel for the boat (to do monitoring) and a
cultural fee of WST$200 in addition to other regular materials.

Left: Fatima Sauafea-

Leau giving a
presentation on
Communicating the
Importance of
Establishing Resilient
MMA Networks.

43
 RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM DAY 3

The following set of recommendations was collated throughout the day from rapporteurs and
facilitators. These were presented and validated at the end of day 3. At this time, any additional
recommendations were also added.

• Present report from this workshop at next Two Samoas meeting for endorsement.

• Incorporate recommendations from workshop to strengthen the actions in the Two Samoas
strategic plan.

• Provide timelines on recommendations to assist with updating current strategic plans in each
country.

• Provide timelines on recommendations to assist with updating current strategic plans in each
country.

• Determine how to define the extent of the Two Samoas MMA network boundaries (e.g. 20%
of what?) and whether to have the same definition (e.g. 100m depth contour or 1 mile from
reef crest). It was recommended to look into the Fisheries Bill in Samoa for a definition.

• Place ecological and social guiding principles (side by side) to ensure effective implementation.

• Clarify which of the key species for the Two Samoas have high and low vulnerability and
recovery rates to fishing.

• Consider species with larger home ranges that can be managed collaboratively by the Two
Samoas (e.g. cetaceans/sharks/sea turtles/fish to be determined).

• Investigate potential for corridors (e.g. Seamounts) between island groups in the archipelago.

• Consider options for a data atlas for the Two Samoas to carry out effective MSP.

• Integrate traditional/cultural knowledge into the decision making processes (social design
principle).

• Ensure balance of bottom up and top down approaches are used in all programs, incorporating
Fa’a Samoa (social design principle).

• Conduct socioeconomic survey to assess the needs of communities and their perceptions on
fisheries/marine resources (particularly in prioritized areas).

• Carry out evaluation of effectiveness of communication plans.

• Establish a Two Samoas communications working group to clarify the campaigns across both
countries and decide what each country will do individually (Two Samoas coordinators and
education divisions should be on this).

• Develop a MMA communication plan for the Two Samoas.

44
 FIELD TRIP (Day 4)

On the fourth day of the workshop, a half day field trip was organized and paid for with financial support
from PIMPAC. Participants were picked up by bus from Sadie’s by the Sea and taken to the Market Place
Conference Room where they enjoyed a light breakfast and short briefings from DMWR Biologists. The
four sites that the groups would be visiting were described along with a range of assessment criteria.
The participants could choose between going to two sites towards the east of Tutuila (Sailele and
Alofau) or two sites towards west (Faga’alu and Amanave). There was one bus for each region.

Each participant was provided with an underwater multi-page slate and asked to use this to record
information about the sites in which they would snorkel. Each region had at least one MMA and others
that could be seen on the journey. They were asked to look out for the following:

• Evidence of high and low resilience (including coral habitat, algal cover, herbivore populations,
sedimentation, water quality, recruitment)
• Habitats protected inside MMAs.
• Size and spacing of MMAs relevant to others in the area (including connectivity if known) in
relation to target fish species.
• Fish populations (are juveniles and adults present? Are predatory fish such as Groupers
present?).

Left: Representatives from Samoa,

American Samoa and TNC at
Utulei beach fales, following the
field trip

Amanave (West)
The group that visited Amanave met with the Pulenu’u (village Mayor) and attained his blessing to visit
the site. Afa Uikirifi and Tafito Aitaoto shared some information about this site which has been in the
CFMP program since 2009 and was badly affected by the Tsunami of 29th September 2009. The group
discovered that fishing is currently allowed in the CFMP area but that the community is considering
closing it again (or possibly zoning it). A conflict arising between some chiefs in the village has caused
a suspension of activities in the site.

Amanave exhibited high water quality and evidence of high coral recruitment as can be seen on page
43(d). The participants observed a reasonably strong current and possible connectivity from the no-
take area in Fagamalo (concluded from current surveys that have been carried out by DMWR). They
also observed a lack of large fish, in particular predatory fish with slow reproduction rates.

Faga’alu (West)
Time limitation only allowed for a short snorkel at this site. The group was briefed beforehand about
an area near the school that suffers from land-based sources of impact, in particular from a quarry near
the stream. However, 100 meters away from the stream, healthy coral can be found and also a
population of resident Hawksbill and Green Turtles. Fatima Sauafea-Leau also provided an update on
the Faga’alu Watershed Management Program in which the community has gone through a series of
processes (Participatory Learning and Action or PLA and Conservation Action Planning or CAP) and
45
developed a management plan for their site. Faga’alu has also been selected as one of the NOAA
priority watersheds. The group that snorkelled in this site observed relatively healthy reefs (with low
diversity as can be seen on page 43e) and reasonable water quality.

Sailele (East)
The group that went to Sailele were informed about the history of the CFMP Program which was
established in 2005 and is the only community to have established a no-take zone within their CFMP
area. Tepora Toliniu from DMWR introduced the group to the site and led them on a snorkel in the reef
flat. The group observed good water quality, relatively healthy coral reefs and evidence of coral
recruitment. The group were surprised not to see more fish inside the no-take given its size and
duration. Poaching was not believed to be the cause of this relatively low abundance and more
investigation is needed. The group did however note species of Butterflyfish which they took to be
indicators of a healthy reef. They noted a stream in the village but observed the water quality to be
good and did not identify any resulting reef impact from the stream.

Alofau (East)
Alofau has been in the CFMP since 2001 and fishing has been prohibited for most of this time, although
the site has recently been re-opened. The group observed a stream in the village contributing to heavy
sedimentation and algal growth in parts. They also observed some damage, possibly from a cyclone or
tsunami. In other areas, the coral reef was relatively healthy and they saw some reefs that appeared to
have high resilience with no bleaching and moderate diversity, particularly near the channel and in
some of the deeper pools. They noted a lack of large fish species, in particular predators that are slow
to reproduce (e.g. Groupers).

Discussion
The two groups presented these findings to each other in informal surroundings (see below) and had
some lively and informative discussion about their observations. The topic turned to management and
while the groups felt that the coral reefs appeared to be showing good signs of recovery following
damage (e.g. good coral recruitment), there were still some areas that needed improved land
management practices (e.g. Faga’alu). Dr. Alison Green voiced her concern at the low numbers of
Groupers and other predatory species (that are often targeted by the fisheries and could be unable to
recover if the current levels of fishing are sustained). Other participants agreed with this observation.
One proposal made by Alison was to have a temporary ban on fishing Groupers in order to give these
species opportunity to recover. This suggestion is something for the fishery managers in American
Samoa to consider and discuss in the appropriate forums. Some of the Samoan representatives
commented that they see more, larger-bodied fish when snorkelling on the reef flats in Samoa. The
reef flats are more extensive in Samoa and the reef slopes are also less accessible to most fishers.

Representatives from the Two

Samoas discussing their
observations from the field trip at
Utulei beach fales.

46
A B

C D

E F

Fieldtrip photos taken in Sailele (A, B, C and F)

and Alofau by the group that went to the east
region (A and D).

47
A B

C D

E F

Fieldtrip photos taken in Amanave (A, B, C, D and F)

and Faga’alu by the group that went to the west
region (E and G).

G
48
 REGIONAL LINKAGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR TWO SAMOAS (Day 5)

Presentation from SPREP

The final day of the workshop was opened with a talk by Bruce Jefferies on behalf of Tim Carruthers and
himself from the SPREP Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Division. In his presentation, he
summarized some current projects and programmes that have goals aligned to the Two Samoas
initiative, specifically in relation to working towards reef resilience through integrated management
planning and development of networks of protected areas. These include projects such as Pacific
Ecosystem Analysis and Synthesis (PACIOCEA), Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Management in Pacific
Island Countries and Atolls (MACBIO), and some other potential projects. Bruce described how the CROP
agency Marine Sector Working Group, with representation from all the CROP agencies, is charged with
supporting the Ocean Commissioners Office in the implementation of the Pacific Oceanscape
Framework, and therefore is actively working to find support (technical and financial) for members in
achieving these goals, including MSP and the development of networks of protected areas.

This presentation highlighted the fact that there is not currently a transboundary marine management
initiative in Polynesia and that the Two Samoas initiative therefore has high potential for additional
interest and opportunities for support. Bruce also showed some slides and provided information from
the recent Rapid Biodiversity (BIORAP) assessments in Nauru and Savai’i and described a new project
in integrated MSP in Tonga with potential for ecosystem-based management and a zoned MMA
network.
Discussion Based on Presentation
There was some lively discussion following this presentation in which Faleafaga (the ACEO of MNRE)
stated that he wished for SPREP to continue their good work and be even more engaged in the Two
Samoas Initiative. A question was asked about American Samoa’s involvement in the Marine Round
Table working group (for invasive species and terrestrial areas) and the Access Benefit Sharing group.
Bruce stated that the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas has funding for four people to sit
on this group and SPREP has funding for one person from each Country (Samoa and American Samoa)
to attend the 9th Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in Fiji in December 2013.
The issue of American Samoa’s involvement in SPREP meetings was also raised and the suggestion to
forward emails to ASDOC and DMWR in addition to the point of contact (ASEPA) was made. Since the
workshop, American Samoa’s Ocean Resource Manager has made contact with the SPREP Director to
find out how to gain greater involvement with SPREP in the context of the ‘Two Samoas.’

INFORMATION NEEDS FOR TWO SAMOAS (Day 5)

The facilitators spent some time on Day 4 to consolidate the recommendations from Days 1 to 3 and
integrate the social design principles into the ecological design principles, creating one set of ‘MMA
Network Design Principles for the Two Samoas’ (Table 1). A set of ‘data needs’ for the Two Samoas was
teased out of the existing recommendations. The following activity was carried out in order to validate
and finalize a set of information needs for the Two Samoas. This will help to guide activities for the
Two Samoas Initiative and could also assist in the development of funding proposals, etc.
ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Participants were divided into the country groups and given the following sets of documentation:

1) Two Samoas Network Design Principles and Data needs (drafted from workshop materials and
can be seen in Appendix 17).

2) Recommendations made during the Two Samoas Reef Resilience Workshop for Marine
Managed Area Practitioners (Appendix 16).

They were asked to identify their information needs in order to be able to achieve each of the design
principles in a Table 13 (Appendix 17). The two groups then came together in a plenary session to

49
share their results with each other and develop a combined list of information needs for the Two Samoas
(below). The ‘raw’ results from this exercise can be found in Appendix 17.
.
ACTIVITY RESULTS

Table 9 List of information needs for the Two Samoas. This list was developed from the Information Needs
activity carried out on Day 5 of the workshop. The numbers in column 2 refer to the design principles in Table 1.

DESIGN
TWO SAMOAS INFORMATION NEEDS PRINCIPLE
REFERENCE
1) Collate existing information on traditional and cultural knowledge and share 1
with each other.
2) Collate data on key species and movement patterns. 3
3) Develop better habitat maps (investigate using same classification system)? 3
4) Develop better information on localized currents. 3
5) Collect and/or analyse data to identify some of the differences and 3
similarities in habitats and fish/coral community compositions in the Two
Samoas.
6) Collect and collate data on critical areas for migratory species. 5
7) Seek mechanisms to map Seagrass beds (or ground truth existing maps) 5 and 6
throughout the Two Samoas.
8) Identify culturally important sites on maps as appropriate. 6
9) Investigate potential for corridors (e.g. seamounts) between island groups in 6
the archipelago.
10) Carry out coral reef resilience assessments using standard protocol and 7
sharing survey teams between the Two Samoas.
11) Refine fish movement table, adding further data where required for key 8
species.
12) Develop collaborative communication plan for the Two Samoas. 8
13) Translate, print and train staff from both Samoas in using the new LMA 3 8
guide.
14) Share successes and lessons learned from each place (e.g. come together 8
twice a year to evaluate effectiveness). Insert this into TS agenda for annual
meetings.
15) Carry out surveys for Trochus niloticus in American Samoa to see if 8 and 9
connectivity can be established between Samoa and American Samoa.
16) Collate guidance on which key species benefit from no-take areas of 10
different durations (completed by Dr. Alison Green).
17) Collate information for duration of existing no-take areas. 10
18) Collate information from Fiji on temporary closures (completed by Dr. Alison 11
Green).
19) Include other management options initially in the planning process (e.g. 11
small herbivores only or certain fishing types).
20) Develop and promote acceptable alternatives to fishing, preferably in the 12
initial planning processes.
21) Attain technical and financial support from partners (e.g. SPC, SPREP, NOAA 12
etc.).
22) Collect information on level of dependence on resources. 12
23) Collect information on the effectiveness of management alternatives (e.g. 12
CPUE after FAD deployment)
24) Collate information on effectiveness of FADs in general. 12
25) Investigate and provide recommendations on the effectiveness of hard 13
versus soft solutions to sea level rise and storm damage (make available to
the public).

3
LMA Guide refers to the Guide for ‘Designing Resilient Locally Managed Areas in Tropical Marine Environments:
A Guide for Community Based Managers’
50
 FUNDING PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (Day 5)

The last activity of the workshop (prior to the evaluation and closing) involved the participants dividing
into two groups, focused on separate tasks. One group worked to develop some funding proposal
ideas based on the outcomes of the workshop. The second group was tasked to finalize some overall
recommendations that would go forward to the next Two Samoas Executive level meeting (expected
later in 2013).

FUNDING PROPOSAL IDEAS

The MNRE in Samoa has a placeholder budget for approximately US$20,000 from NOAA for projects
related to the Two Samoas . It is also anticipated that there will be other upcoming opportunities for
funding. The breakout group (facilitated by the CRAG Coordinator, Kristine Bucchianeri) carried out a
brainstorming activity where they came up with the following two proposal activities. They went on to
develop the outlines for three proposal ideas (1) coral reef mapping, 2) education and outreach, 3)
expand and increase size of no-take zones.

Results of brainstorming activity

1. Coral Reef Resilience Assessment

a. Create an accurate and consistent baseline of all areas, but specifically areas where less data is
available/data gaps exist.
b. Incorporate traditional knowledge and culturally important sites.
c. Key species identification and movement patterns.
d. Current mapping, to identify key areas to protect
i. Use ADCP. Agencies can utilize boats and staff time
ii. Need: batteries, fuel, technical support

2. Habitat Mapping
a. Critical Area Mapping
i. Identify and classify all types of habitat
b. Coral reef rapid assessment to establish baseline of data in less studied areas to support
mapping.
Proposal Ideas
1) Coral Reef Mapping
Identify areas where data gaps exist (3 months).
• Dedicated literature review (ecological and socioeconomic)
• Use data to complete a Principal Component Analysis (potentially using Dr. Alison
Green’s data) to identify gaps
Survey areas using agreed upon protocols (6 months)
Create Habitat Maps for American Samoa and Samoa (3 months)
• Include cultural sites
Hold meeting with relevant players from Two Samoas to consolidate information and create
Two Samoa’s MMA Network.
Report back to Two Samoa’s steering committee.
Report back to communities (possibly create outreach materials etc.)

2) Education and Outreach

To support implementation of Two Samoas education and outreach working group.
Once working group is created, their first task will be to create a cohesive education and
outreach campaign to be used across the Two Samoas MMA network.
• Will be focused on a high priority issue from the Two Samoas strategic plan
• Can utilize and expand upon existing resources from SPREP, SPC and other partners.
• Create a multi-faceted campaign which could include:
- Media (TV, Radio, Newspaper, Billboards, social media).
- Community outreach.
- High level government official awareness.
-

51
3. Expand and Increase Size of No Take Areas
To provide most up-to-date information on no take areas to the communities who have
established them.
• Assess size and habitat of established NTAs and create a presentation for each to
inform communities on what species of fish their no take area is currently protecting
and what else could be protected with different expansion/design options.
• Utilize science and presentation from TNC/Dr. Alison Green
• Conduct community consultations.
• Create pre and post evaluations.
• Includes a general awareness raising media campaign on the importance of NTAs.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO HIGH-LEVEL TWO SAMOAS MEETING

The second breakout group was tasked to develop a set of recommendations for endorsement at the
next high level Two Samoas meeting. This group identified the three recommendations which can be
found at the beginning of this workshop report on page 9.

CLOSING CEREMONY

At the end of the final day, each participant was provided with a certificate to commend them for their
attendance and contributions to the recommendations.

Above : Trina Leberer and Bruce Jefferies presenting workshop certificates to Afa Uikirifi from DMWR (left) and
Ulusapeti Tiitii from MAF (right).

52
 WORKSHOP EVALUATION

Each participant was provided with an evaluation form (Appendix 18) and asked to complete it on the
last day of the workshop. A total of 19 forms were completed and the results can be found in Appendix
19. Overall, the participants found all presentations to be useful (Table 14) and noted a good balance
of presentations and activities (Figure 7). There was a lot of variation in the amount of background
knowledge of the topics (Figure 8) among participants, which was something that was already known
by the workshop organizers. Overall, there were positive responses regarding how much the
participants enjoyed the workshop activities. The most common response (n=10) to what people
enjoyed the most (open ended) related to the sharing of information and working together with
colleagues and counterparts (Table 15). One person wrote the following:

“How the Two Samoas compromised (and agreed) on critical and sensitive ecological issues was
amazing. I hope for this effort will be put to good use and continue to the next level.”

The ‘new science’, particularly the information on fish movement also scored highly. The majority of
respondents said that there was nothing they enjoyed least (Table 16). Where responses were received
for this question, they related to the length of the workshop and the number of documents given for
discussion during certain activities.

The majority of people thought the objectives had been successfully fulfilled (Figure 10). Comments
included the need for more time to develop the next steps, the need to task individuals/agencies with
certain actions and recognition that although there is still work ahead, there is already improved
coordination to help make things happen. The majority thought that the workshop had helped to move
the Two Samoas forward (Figure 11). Comments highlighted the importance of the recommendations
that have been made for the Two Samoas and the fact that the key players now understand the
importance of the MMA network design principles.

Respondents were asked to identify a ‘take-home’ message from the workshop and seven of these
related to the fact that MMAs and NTAs are a tool for fishermen and the need to find an effective way
of communicating this. Other messages included the use of scientific information to inform
management decisions and the strengthening the work of communities and colleagues. Many positive
comments were received about the organization and overall management of the workshop and several
constructive comments related to the management of the breakout groups and lower productivity
towards the end of the workshop.

53
 CONCLUSION

The level of participation in this workshop (close to 100%) demonstrates the degree of motivation that
exists between the Two Samoas environmental managers at present. The recommendations and MMA
network design principles that have been developed clearly show that there is a strong desire to move
forward in protecting the resources collaboratively. The managers present during this meeting have
developed some ambitious goals and wish to present these during the upcoming SIDS meeting in 2014.
This report along with the recommendations will first be presented during the next high level Two
Samoas meeting (later in 2013). Providing these plans are endorsed, it is anticipated that support (both
financial and technical) will be available for the Two Samoas as they work together to develop their
archipelago wide MMA network.

Samoa is in the process of hiring a Two Samoas Coordinator and the CRAG Coordinator in American
Samoa already undertakes coordination of Two Samoas activities. These individuals will be able to work
on incorporating the outlined activities from this document into the Two Samoas Strategic Plan and
begin to ensure their effective implementation. However, in the meantime, the fisheries managers from
American Samoa and Samoa have both returned to their working environments with new information
and tools that they can begin to use with the communities to improve management of MMAs. There
was significant interest in translating the ‘Guide for Designing Resilient LMAs in Tropical Marine
Environments’ into Samoan for use with communities in the Two Samoas and it is anticipated that SPREP
and TNC will find a way to ensure that this takes place.

The concept behind the Two Samoas (two countries, one culture) has many parallels with the marine
environment (many islands, one ecosystem) and it is something that Samoan people can relate to.
Providing that the Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration team continues with their productive
collaboration, the marine environment and the people it supports stand to benefit in the long term.

Representatives from American Samoa and Samoa along with facilitators from TNC
and SPREP on the final day of the workshop.

54
55
 REFERENCES

1. Allen, G., Steene, R., Humann, P., DeLoach, N. 2003. Reef Fish Identification Tropical Pacific.
ISBN: 9781878348364.

2. Bell, J.D., Johnson, J.E., Hobday, A.J. 2011. Vulnerability of Tropical Pacific Fisheries and
Aquaculture to Climate Change. Noumea, New Caledonia, Secretariat to the Pacific Community.

3. Conservation International – Pacific Islands Programme, Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 2010. Priority Sites for
Conservation in Samoa: Key Biodiversity Areas. Apia, Samoa. 32pp.

4. Green, A., White, A., Kilarski, S. (Eds.) 2013. Designing Marine Protected Area Networks to Achieve
Fisheries, Biodiversity, and Climate Change Objectives in Tropical Ecosystems: A Practitioner
Guide. The Nature Conservancy and the USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership, Cebu City,
Philippines. viii + 35 pp.

5. IMaRS-USF and IRD (2005). Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project (validated maps). UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge (UK), http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/13

6. IMaRS-USF (2005). Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project (unvalidated maps are unendorsed
by IRD, and were further interpreted by UNEP-WCMC). UNEP World Conservation Monitoring
Centre. Cambridge (UK), http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/13

7. Johnson, J., Bell, J. & De Young, C. 2013. Priority adaptations to climate change for Pacific fisheries
and aquaculture: reducing risks and capitalizing on opportunities. FAO/Secretariat of the Pacific
Community Workshop, 5–8 June 2012, Noumea, New Caledonia. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Proceedings No. 28. Rome, FAO. 109 pp.

8. Kendall, M. Kendall, M.S. and M. Poti (eds.), 2011. A Biogeographic Assessment of the Samoan
Archipelago. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 132. Silver Spring, MD. 229 pp.

9. Wilson, J.R., Harrison, P.L. Marine Biology. 1998. Settlement-competency periods of larvae of three
species of scleractinian corals.

56
57
 APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix 1 Participant and Facilitator List ....................................................................................................................59
Appendix 2 Workshop Agenda ...........................................................................................................................................61
Appendix 3 Talk Summary; Policy Frameworks and Pacific Regional Context ................................................63
Appendix 4 Talk Summary; Climate Change Impacts on Samoan Marine Ecosystems ................................64
Appendix 5 Talk Summary; Climate Change Impacts to Coastal Fisheries .......................................................66
Appendix 6 Talk Summary; Update on resilience projects carried out in Two Samoas ...............................67
Appendix 7 Talk Summary; Status of Community-based management & Reef resilience program in
Samoa .............................................................................................................................................................................................68
Appendix 8 Talk Summary; Biophysical Principles for Designing Resilient MMA Networks .....................69
Appendix 9 Designing Resilient PA networks; How Much Biophysical Data is Needed .............................71
Appendix 10 Talk Summary; Ecological Connectivity in the Samoan Archipelago ......................................72
Appendix 11 Results of Activity on Climate Change Impacts to Coral Reefs, Mangroves and Fisheries
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................73
Appendix 12 Table for Fish Connectivity Exercise .......................................................................................................75
Appendix 13 Annotated Ecological Design Principles ..............................................................................................77
Appendix 14 Results of Social and Cultural Design Principles and Information Needs Activity..............78
Appendix 15 Communication Plans ..................................................................................................................................79
Appendix 16 Consolidated Recommendations for the Two Samoas MMA Network ...................................81
Appendix 17 Results of Activity on Information Needs ............................................................................................83
Appendix 18 Evaluation Form .............................................................................................................................................87
Appendix 19 Evaluation: Summary of Results ..............................................................................................................88

58
 Appendix 1: Participant and Facilitator List

Participants and Facilitators in the Two Samoas Reef Resilience Workshop for Marine
Managed Areas Practitioners
August 5-9th, 2013

Participants Email Address Affiliation

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Faleafaga Togi Tipamaa toni.tipamaa@mnre.gov.ws
Government of Samoa
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Joe Teo joe.teo@mnre.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Juney Ward Juney.Ward@mnre.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Moeumu Uili moeumu.uili@mnre.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Samantha Kwan samantha.kwan@mnre.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Autalavou Tauaefa autalavou.taua@maf.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Justin Aiafi justin.aiafi@maf.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Tauvae Faiva tauvae.sua@maf.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Tevita Apulu tevita.apulu@maf.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Ulusapeti Tiitii sapeti.tiitii@maf.gov.ws Government of Samoa
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources
Afa Uikirifi afauikirifi@yahoo.com
American Samoa Government
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources
Alice Lawrence alicelawrence.mpa@gmail.com
American Samoa Government
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources
Tafito Aitaoto tafito.mpa@gmail.com American Samoa Government
American Samoa Government
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources
Tepora Toliniu poratoliniu@gmail.com
American Samoa Government
United States National Park Service
Bert Fuiava Bert_Fuiava@nps.gov
American Samoa
United States National Park Service
Dr. Tim Clark Tim_Clark@nps.gov
American Samoa
American Samoa Coastal Management Program
Sandra Lutu sandra.lutu@doc.as
American Samoa Government (DOC)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Frank Pendleton Frank_Pendleton@fws.gov
American Samoa
Joseph Paulin joseph.paulin@noaa.gov National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa
Veronika Mortenson veronika.mortenson@noaa.gov National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa
NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program
Hideyo Hattori hideyo.hattori@noaa.gov
American Samoa

59
Facilitators Email Address Affiliation
NOAA Pacific Island Regional Office
Fatima Sauafea-Leau Fatima.Sauafea-Leau@noaa.gov
American Samoa
Coral Reef Advisory Group
Kristine Bucchianeri kristine.bucchianeri@doc.as
American Samoa
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
Magele Etuati Ropeti etuatir@spc.int
New Caledonia
The Nature Conservancy
Trina Leberer tleberer@tnc.org
Micronesia Program
The Nature Conservancy
Steven Victor svictor@tnc.org
Micronesia Program
The Nature Conservancy
Dr. Alison Green agreen@tnc.org
Asia Pacific Region
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Dr. Tim Carruthers timc@sprep.org
Programme, Samoa
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Paul Anderson paula@sprep.org
Programme, Samoa
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Dr. Philip Wiles philipw@sprep.org
Programme, Samoa
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Bruce Jefferies brucej@sprep.org
Programme, Samoa
Lucy Jacob Lucyjacob.mpa@gmail.com

60
 Appendix 2 Workshop Agenda
Monday 5th August 2013

7.30 Breakfast
8.00 – 8.30 Welcome from the Deputy Director of the Department of Marine Selaina
and Wildlife Resources Tuimavave
8.30 – 9.00 Introduction and expectations Trina Leberer
(TNC)
9.00 - 9.35 Presentation: Policy Frameworks and Pacific Regional Context Dr. Tim
Carruthers
(SPREP)
9.35 – 10.20 Presentation: Climate Change Impacts on Samoan Marine Dr. Philip Wiles
Ecosystems (SPREP)
Break
10.35 – 11.20 Activity: climate change science Dr. Philip Wiles
11.20 – 12.05 Presentation: Climate Change Impacts to Coral Reefs and Magele Etuati
Mangroves Ropeti (SPC)
Lunch
13.00 – 13.45 Presentation: Climate Change Impacts to Coastal Fisheries Magele Etuati
Ropeti
13.45 – 14.45 Activity: climate change impacts to corals and fisheries

Break
15.00 – 15.30 Presentation: Update on resilience projects carried out in Two Ulusapeti Tiitii
Samoas & Autalavou
Taua (MAF,
Samoa) &
Kristine
Bucchianeri
(CRAG, AS)
15.30 – 16.00 Recommendations, evaluation and wrap up Trina Leberer
Tuesday 6th August 2013
7.30 Breakfast
8.00 – 9.30 Presentation: Biophysical Principles for Designing Resilient MPA Dr. Alison Green
Networks to Achieve Fisheries, Biodiversity and Climate Change (TNC)
Objectives and Importance of No-Take Areas

9.30 – 10.30 Activity: Habitat classification for the Samoan Archipelago Dr. Alison Green
Break
0.45 – 11.30 Presentation: Designing a Resilient Protected Areas Network: Steven Victor
How Much Biophysical Data is Needed? (TNC)
11.30 – 12.10 Presentation: Ecological Connectivity in the Samoan Archipelago. Alice Lawrence
& Tafito Aitaoto
(DMWR)
Lunch
13.10 – 14.10 Activity: Connectivity; application of current models in MMA Dr. Philip Wiles
network design.
14.10 – 15.10 Activity: Fish connectivity; implications for MMA network design Dr. Alison Green
in the Two Samoas.
Break
15.30 – 16.00 Recommendations, evaluation and wrap up. Trina Leberer
Wednesday 7th August 2013

7.30 Breakfast
8.00 – 9.00 Activity: Identification of biophysical design principles for the Two Dr. Alison Green
Samoas
9.00 – 10.00 Presentation: Current Network of MMAs in the Samoan Paul Anderson
Archipelago (habitat representation/zones and critical areas) (SPREP)
Break

61
 10.15 – 11.30 Activity: Application of design principles to gap analysis Dr. Alison Green
11.30 – 12.00 Recommendations based on results of activity. Trina Leberer
Lunch
13.00 – 14.00 Presentation: Communicating Importance of Designing Resilient Fatima Sauafea-
MMA Networks that Include No-Take Areas Leau
14.00 – 14.45 Activity: Develop draft communication plan for the Two Samoas Fatima Sauafea-
Leau
Break
15.00 – 15.30 Presentation of communication plans
15.30 – 16.00 Recommendations, evaluation and wrap up Trina Leberer
Thursday 8th August 2013

7.45 Pick up from Sadie’s by the Sea Aiga buses

8.00 – 9.00 Snack breakfast and briefing at the Market Place Conference Room DMWR
Conference
Room
9.00 - 12.00 Field Trip – snorkelling at sites in the east and west (two groups). Leaders:
Sites to demonstrate high and low resilience and include a MMA. Dr. Doug Fenner
& Alice Lawrence
12.00 – 13.00 Lunch at Utulei beach fales
Discussion on observations and presentations by participants.
How could resilience principles be implemented at sites?
Friday 9th August

7.30 Breakfast
8.00 – 8.45 Presentation: Regional linkages and opportunities for the Two Dr. Tim
Samoas Carruthers &
Bruce Jefferies
(SPREP)
8.45 – 9.15 Presentation of biophysical goals/design principles and maps Lucy Jacob
created from Wednesday’s activity
9.15 – 10.30 Activity: identify high priority biophysical information needs, and Dr. Alison Green
develop an action plan for collecting this information.
Break
10.50 – 11.45 Discuss Two Samoas plans for MMA network based on outcome Trina Leberer
of biophysical discussions/activities
Lunch
12.45 – 13.30 Presentation: Social and Cultural Aspects of MMA Network Fatima Sauafea-
Design Leau
13.30 – 14.30 Activity: identify high priority social and cultural information Trina Leberer
needs, and develop an action plan for collecting this formation.
Break

14.45 – 15.30 Discuss Two Samoas plans for MMA network based on outcome Trina Leberer
of social and cultural discussions/activities
15.30 – 16.00 Recommendations, evaluation and Wrap up Trina Leberer

Saturday 10th August 2013

7.30 Breakfast
8.30 – 9.00 Recap of day five outcomes and exercise to select activity for pre- Trina Leberer
proposal
9.00 – 10.30 Finalize recommendations for presentation at next Two Samoas Group A
meeting
9.00 – 10.30 Develop draft proposal for NOAA funds for follow up project Group B
Break
10.45 – 11.30 Groups A and B present recommendations/draft proposal (for
comment)
11.30 – 12.00 Evaluation, wrap up, certificates and close workshop Trina Leberer
12.00 – 12.30 Lunch
62
 Appendix 3 Talk Summary; Policy Frameworks and Pacific Regional Context

Title of Talk: Policy Frameworks and Pacific Regional Context

Date and time: Monday 5th August, 9.00am
Presenter: Dr. Tim Carruthers (SPREP)
Email: timc@sprep.org

Workshop Objective(s):
• Introduction to workshop purpose, facilitators and participants.

Objectives of talk:
• Provide a context for integrated approaches to reef resilience, marine spatial planning and the
establishment of networks of managed marine areas
• Present some of the multiple ongoing management approaches in a marine planning context
• Introduce different types of MMA networks; social, ecological, governance

Background:
At the highest level, the Pacific Plan has a strong focus on sustainable development, balancing
resource use and maintenance of intact ecosystems. The Pacific Island Regional Ocean Policy (PIROP)
was strongly focused on sustainably developing, managing and maintaining the health of the Pacific
Ocean. The PIROP was a fundamental basis to the Pacific Oceanscape Vision, developed into the
Pacific Oceanscape Framework, with a focus on practically linking marine management approaches
and specifically using processes such as marine spatial planning to assist in integrated marine
management approaches. Pacific island leaders have therefore repeatedly endorsed processes that
integrate marine management and encourage mechanisms that link management approaches for
sustainable development while maintaining intact ecosystems.
Summary of key points:
• Key policies supporting integrated marine planning include the Pacific Oceanscape, Pacific
Island Regional Ocean Policy and the Pacific Plan.
• Key treaties and conventions highly relevant to integrated marine planning in the Pacific
include Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Noumea Convention (Pacific
regional environment convention).
• Multiple approaches to management currently occurring in Pacific islands incorporate many
principles and practices that directly support integrated marine planning and the
establishment of networks of marine managed areas.
• There are different types of MMA networks to meet multiple needs, they can focus on social,
ecological or governance aspects of interconnection between managed areas.

Additional Resources:
Pacific Plan: (currently under review)
http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Pacific_Plan_Nov_2007_version.
pdf
Pacific Oceanscape Framework
http://sprep.org/att/publication/000937_684a.pdf
Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy:
http://www.forumsec.org.fj/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/PIROP.pdf

63
 Appendix 4 Talk Summary; Climate Change Impacts on Samoan Marine Ecosystems

Title of Talk: Climate Change Impacts on Samoan Marine Ecosystems

Date and time: Monday 5th August; 9.35 am
Presenter: Dr. Philip Wiles
Email: philipw@sprep.org

Workshop Objective(s):
• Provide participants with up to date information on climate change science and impacts to
marine ecosystems.

Objectives of talk:
To outline the basics behind climate change science, i.e. what are the global causes of climate change,
and what will the impacts be around Samoa. The method of predicting the changes and impacts will
be touched on, but the main focus of this talk will be on what those impacts are, and with what
confidence we can make those predictions.

Key factors addressed will be:

• Temperature (both atmosphere and ocean)
• Sea level
• Ocean pH
• Ocean currents and stratification
• Cyclones
• Rainfall

Background:
There is unanimous consensus among the scientific community that the global climate is changing,
and strong consensus that this is caused by anthropogenic emission of heat-trapping gasses (or
Green House Gasses - GHGs).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Assessment Report 4 (AR4) in
2007 which summarized the latest climate change science. The next publication, Assessment Report 5
(AR5) is due out in September 2013, however the essential science and impacts is expected to not
change significantly.

Two publications have focused on assessing the outcome from AR5 in the Pacific region. One of
these is the two volume Climate Change in the Pacific which is produced by the Pacific Australia
Climate Change Science and Adaptation Programme (PACCSAP), focuses on the Independent Pacific
states and is produced by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) and the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The other is the Climate Change and Pacific
Islands: Indicators and Impacts which is a report for the Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment
(PIRCA) and focuses on the United States Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPIs).

American Samoa and Independent Samoa are in the unique position that the Samoan archipelago is
covered by both of these reports, and the broad scale climate features are similar for both states.

This presentation will go over the science of climate change, note the role of climate variability, and
examine the climate projections (and our confidence in them) for the Samoan archipelago.

Summary of key points:

• Temperatures have risen noticeably over the past 50 years, and are very likely to continue to
rise by approximately 1°C by 2055 and 2.5°C by 2100.
• Sea Level has risen at approximately 3mm/year over the past 30 years, and is very likely to
continue to rise (10-30cm by 2055, and 18-59cm by 2100).
• Ocean pH has dropped by about 0.1 units since pre-industrial levels, and is very likely to
continue to decrease. The associated Aragonite saturation level (Ωar) is expected to reach
critical levels (of around 3.5) for corals towards the middle of this century.
• Because cyclones are rare events, no trend has been detected since reliable monitoring has
been established. Cyclones are likely to become less frequent, but more intense in the future.

64
 • There is no clear trend in rainfall around the Samoan archipelago, and the expected changes
in the future are unknown.
• The surface of the ocean is expected to warm faster than at depth, hence increasing
stratification, which could reduce nutrient supply to the surface waters and therefore decrease
oceanic primary productivity.

Key Conclusions:
We are very confident of some projected climate changes and not so confident of others. However,
many of these changes could have profound impacts on marine ecosystems and the fisheries they
support.

Effective implementation of MMAs is one method of enhancing resilience. How this is done in
practice in the Samoan Archipelago will be developed over the course of this workshop.

Additional Resources:
All of these are available free of charge.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Assessment Report 4 (www.ipcc.ch),

Pacific Australia Climate Change Science and Adaptation Programme

(www.pacificclimatechangescience.org).

Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment (http://www.pacificrisa.org/projects/pirca/)

Bell JD, Johnson JE and Hobday AJ (2011) Vulnerability of Tropical Pacific Fisheries and Aquaculture to
Climate Change. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia
(http://www.spc.int/climate-change/fisheries/assessment/)

Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M and Perry A (2011). Reefs at Risk Revisited

(http://www.wri.org/publication/reefs-at-risk-revisited)

65
 Appendix 5: Talk Summary; Climate Change Impacts to Coastal Fisheries

Title of Talk: Climate Change Impacts to Coastal Fisheries

Date and time: Monday 5th August; 1.00 pm
Presenter: Magele Etuati Ropeti
Email: etuatir@spc.int

Workshop Objective(s):
• Provide participants with up to date information on climate change science and impacts to
coral reefs and fisheries.

Objectives of talk:
• Share available information and understanding possible impacts of climate change to Coastal
Fisheries
• Identify implications of changes to fisheries and for food security
• What are options available for adaptation?

Background:
• Materials presented are from the SPC’s “Vulnerability of Tropical Pacific Fisheries and
Aquaculture to Climate Change: Summary for Pacific Island Countries and Territories”

Summary of key points:

Refer to SPC Policy Brief: Coastal Fisheries and Climate Change
Projected changes to Coastal Fisheries
Participants to complete:

Identify priority adaptations

Participants to list:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Key Conclusions:
• Identifying priority adaptations and opportunities for Samoan communities

Additional Resources:
http://www.spc.int/climate-change/fisheries/assessment/e-book/
http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/Brochures/Anon_12_PolicyBrief16_ClimateCoastal.pdf

66
 Appendix 6 Talk Summary; Update on resilience projects carried out in Two Samoas

Title of Talk: Update on resilience projects carried out in Two Samoas

Date and time: Monday 5th August 3.00pm
Presenter: Kristine Bucchianeri
Email: kristine.bucchianeri@doc.as

Workshop Objective(s):
• Update participants on resilience projects already implemented and ongoing.

Objectives of talk:
To share information on ongoing resilience projects in American Samoa

Background: American Samoa’s Resource Management Agencies are actively working on

management strategies to increase social and ecological resilience, conducting research on different
coral habitats and undertaking education and outreach to increase community understanding and
awareness of Resilience.

Summary of key points:

• Creation of the Assessment and Rapid Reef Response Plan (formerly the Bleaching Response
Plan)
o Reef Resilience Workshop (June 2012): The ARRR Plan was presented to over 50
people, including representatives from over 10 government agencies and students, to
increase awareness and understanding on coral reef resilience issues and get
feedback on the Plan.
o Reef Resilience Education and Outreach Program: An outcome of this workshop is
continuing education and outreach to villages on Reef Resilience.
• Research
o Dr. Doug Fenner – “Surveying Reefs for Resilience” to better understand the effects of
heat and currents on corals in back reef pools on Tutuila.
o National Parks, Stanford University and other partners – Testing Coral Resilience to
temperature in Manu’a.
• Amouli Climate Change Resilience Model: Creation of a community based climate change
resilience plan, based on a sea level inundation model.
• Education and Outreach
o Climate Change Workshop: Facilitated by PIMPAC, this workshop focused on
incorporating Climate Change Education and Resilience into ongoing outreach
efforts. Future events are being planned to further create materials and utilize the
knowledge learned.
o Le Tausagi Environmental Cooperative continues to plan and implement educational
activities, including topics of Ecological and Social Resilience.
Key Conclusions:
Activities on Resilience are ongoing in American Samoa.

Additional Resources:
http://www.centerforoceansolutions.com/news-events/featured-stories/super-corals-lend-hope-reef-
survival-warmer-oceans

http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/impacts/ocean-warming/coral-bleaching/

67
 Appendix 7 Talk Summary; Status of Community-based management & Reef resilience
program in Samoa

Status of Community-based management and Reef resilience program in Samoa

Date and time: Monday 5th August; 3.15 pm Presenter: Autalavou Tauaefa, Email:
autalavou.taua@maf.gov.ws

Workshop Objective(s): Enhance knowledge of reef resilience principles and resilience MMA
network design amongst MMA practitioners in the Samoa archipelago.

Objectives of talk:
• Update participants on resilience projects already implemented and ongoing.

Background:
The decline in inshore catches of fish and shellfish in Samoa, due to human activities, overexploitation,
destructive fishing methods and the aftermath of the two cyclones in 1990 and 1991 (Ofa and Val), has
greatly reduced the availability of marine protein resources, causing concerns for the nutritional status
of coastal village communities. In an effort to manage our coastal resources; Samoa has implemented
a community based fisheries management program since 1995. The program empowers local
communities to manage their own resources and feel responsible for their own actions and in decision
making. A range of resource management undertakings and conservation measures are incorporated
by communities into their own management plans. Reciprocally, to support community undertakings,
the Fisheries Division has undertaken to provide various forms of assistance, technical training and
management initiatives. The program was recently reviewed to incorporate the elements of the
ecosystem approach to managing fisheries and marine resources in which a Community-based
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (CEAFM) was developed. The model emphasizes the
management of fisheries within an ecosystem context by local communities with government and other
agencies. To date, there are 96 coastal villages participating in the program.

Summary of key points:

Village management actions have included the banning of explosives, chemicals and plant-derived fish
poisons; banning the smashing of corals to catch fish; enforcing national laws on fish size regulations;
controlling the use of nets and underwater torches for fishing at night; collecting and removing crown-
of-thorns starfish; banning the removal of beach sand (sand mining) and the dumping of rubbish in
lagoon waters. Village bylaws have been developed and enforced by the village themselves.

Fisheries Division supports village communities in monitoring of fish habitats, status of the resources
and research on potential fisheries development. To relieve inshore pressure, communities are assisted
with other alternatives such as translocation of T. niloticus and farming of sea grape and giant clams.
Tilapia fingerlings are introduced to village where there are natural lakes and ponds. Coastal Fish
Aggregating Devices (FAD) are fabricated and deployed near shore to diversify their fishing techniques
such as trolling, bottom fishing and small scale long lining. In addition, regular demand-based technical
training workshops in farming methodology, monitoring and management skills, fishing techniques
and alternate livelihoods are held. The program has also strengthened and broadened community
understanding and awareness on adverse impacts of climate change and adaptation initiatives to build
resilient communities.

Key Conclusions: Community involvement and motivation result in the ownership of fisheries
management actions and regulation and sustainable development. Therefore, Fisheries Division
continues to work closely with coastal communities to promote the optimum and ecologically
sustainable use of the fishery resources and strengthen the need for greater awareness on the impacts
of climate change and adapt resilience measures in particular to the marine environment and coastal
communities.
Additional Resources: The program also aims to work in partnership with other partners/agencies to
further strengthen the importance of reef resilience and its implication for effective adaptation,
sustainable management and development.

68
 Appendix 8 Talk Summary; Biophysical Principles for Designing Resilient MMA Networks

Title of Talk: Biophysical Principles for Designing Resilient MMA Networks to Achieve Fisheries,
Biodiversity & Climate Change Objectives (and the Importance of No-Take Areas)

Date and time: Tuesday 6th August, 8.00am

Presenter: Dr. Alison Green
Email: agreen@tnc.org

Workshop Objective(s): Enhance knowledge of reef resilience principles and resilient MMA network
design amongst MMA practitioners in the Samoan Archipelago.

Objectives of talk: Provide latest scientific advice regarding: how to design MMA networks to
maximize their benefits for fisheries management and biodiversity protection in the face of climate
change; and the importance of no-take areas (NTAs).

Background:
Overfishing, degradation and loss of key habitats due to local and global threats are undermining
food security, livelihoods and long term sustainability of coral reefs and associated ecosystems. If well
designed and effectively managed, networks of MMAs (particularly NTAs) can reduce local threats, and
contribute to sustaining fisheries and conserving biodiversity in the face of global threats such as
climate change.

Previously, biophysical design principles have taken account of biological and physical processes to
recommend how to design MMA networks to achieve fisheries, biodiversity or climate change
objectives. While there are many similarities among existing principles for achieving each of these
objectives, there are some differences that provide conflicting advice. In this presentation I’ll provide
concise, user friendly advice regarding how to design MMA networks to achieve fisheries, biodiversity
and climate change objectives simultaneously. I’ll also describe some recent scientific advances
regarding fish connectivity, vulnerability and recovery times in NTAs, and how they’ve modified our
approach to MMA network design.

Summary of key points:

There are 15 biophysical principles that field practitioners can use to design MMA networks to achieve
fisheries, biodiversity and climate change objectives simultaneously:

1. Prohibit destructive activities throughout the management area.

2. Represent 20-40% of each habitat within NTAs (depending on fishing pressure and if there is
additional effective protection in place outside of reserves). [Include habitats that are
connected through movements of key species.]
3. Replicate protection of habitats within NTAs.
4. Ensure NTAs include critical habitats (e.g. spawning, feeding and nursery areas).
5. Ensure NTAs are in place for the long-term (20-40 years), preferably permanently.
6. Create a multiple use MMA that is as large as possible.
7. Apply minimum and variable sizes to MMAs (depending on key species, how far they move,
and if other effective marine resource management methods are in place).
8. Separate NTAs by 1 to 20 km (with a mode between 1 and 10 km).
9. Include an additional 15% of key habitats in shorter-term NTAs.
10. Locate MMA boundaries both within habitats and at habitat edges.
11. Have MMAs in more square or circular shapes.
12. Minimize and avoid local threats.
13. Include resilient sites (refugia) in NTAs.
14. Include special or unique sites in NTAs.
15. Locate more protection upstream.

These principles should be used in combination with important social, economic and political
considerations in MMA network design. Thus there are often information gaps or socio-economic,
cultural, political and other reasons that can prevent the full application of all the principles. When
required to compromise, field practitioners should aim to achieve as many principles as possible, and
prioritize them in the order presented above. Adaptive management systems should also be used that
will allow managers to improve protection as more information becomes available.
69
Key Conclusion:
If MMA networks are designed based on the biophysical principles above (and they are effectively
managed), they will maximize their benefits to fisheries management and biodiversity protection in
the face of climate change.

Additional Resources:
Fernandes, L, Green, A., Tanzer, J., White, A., Alino,P.M., Jompa, J., Lokani, P., Soemodinoto, A., Knight,
M., Pomeroy, B., Possingham, H., Pressey, B. 2012. Biophysical principles for designing resilient
networks of marine protected areas to integrate fisheries, biodiversity and climate change
objectives in the Coral Triangle. Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy for the Coral
Triangle Support Partnership, 152 pp.
http://www.uscti.org/uscti/Resources/MPA%20Network%20Design_Principles_Full%20Report_FIN
AL_CTSP_Jan_23_2012.pdf

Green, A., White, A. 2013 Policy Brief: Using Marine Protected Area Networks to Achieve Fisheries,
Biodiversity and Climate Change Objectives.
http://www.uscti.org/uscti/Resources/MPA%20Network%20Design%20Policy_Brief_Final_saveas.p
df

Green, A., White, A., Kilarski, S. (Eds.) 2013. Designing marine protected area networks to achieve
fisheries, biodiversity, and climate change objectives in tropical ecosystems: A practitioner guide.
The Nature Conservancy, and the USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership, Cebu City,
Philippines. viii + 35 pp.
http://www.uscti.org/uscti/Resources/MPA%20Practitioner%20Guide%20Final%207Mar13.pdf

70
 Appendix 9. Designing Resilient PA networks; How Much Biophysical Data is Needed

Title of Talk: Designing a Resilient Protected Areas Network: How Much Biophysical Data is Needed?
Date and time: Tuesday 6th August, 10.45am
Presenter: Steven Victor (TNC)
Email: svictor@tnc.org

Workshop Objective(s):
• Enhance knowledge of reef resilience principles and resilient MMA network design amongst
MMA practitioners in the Samoan Archipelago.

Objectives of talk:
• Provide a case study of how biophysical design principles have been applied in a Pacific
Island Context
• Explain some of the lessons learned

Background:
In 2006, an eco-regional assessment was conducted in Palau with key stakeholders to provide
synthesis of current biodiversity knowledge to inform the planning and implementation of a
nationwide protected areas network (PAN).

Summary of key points:

Because of the lack of data at that time, the process did not take into consideration
(1) Coral reef resilience to climate change based on biological field data ,
(2) Biological patterns of connectivity within the Palau main archipelago, and
(3) Socioeconomic factors.

Furthermore, the application of the principle of representation and replication of major habitat types
did not take exposure into account for some coral reef habitats [e.g. it did differentiate between coral
reefs on the east (windward) and the west side (leeward) of the Northern Reefs).

Key Conclusions:
Since 2006, there now exist additional biophysical data that could improve the ecological design for
the Palau Protected Areas Network as well better integrate fisheries into the design of the network.
The planning process to revisit and improve the design of the network also aims to determine the
minimum set of biophysical data that are needed to design an effective protected areas network.

Additional Resources:
http://www.reefresilience.org/pdf/PALAU_ERA-FINAL.pdf

71
 Appendix 10. Talk Summary; Ecological Connectivity in the Samoan Archipelago

Title of Talk: Ecological Connectivity in the Samoan Archipelago.

Date and time: Tuesday 6th August, 11.30am

Presenter: Alice Lawrence and Tafito Aitaoto

Workshop Objective(s):
• Provide an update on ongoing and upcoming connectivity projects.

Objectives of talk:
• Review current hypotheses of connectivity in the archipelago
• Provide a summary of various research conducted
• Draw conclusions on the connectivity in the archipelago
• Provide some hypotheses on appropriate network of MPAs

Background: The various islands in the Samoan Archipelago have common geological origins. This
has engendered interest on the degree of ecological connectivity in the archipelago. Understanding
connectivity is critical in the spatial design of a network of MPAs. The degree of connectivity can be
inferred from several studies that focused on various aspects of the ecology in the archipelago (e.g.
oceanography, fish movement patterns, fish demography and coral species assemblage analyses).

Summary of key points: There are indications that some islands are ecologically isolated in the
archipelago. On the other hand, some islands show degrees of connectivity. Future work on
population genetics will add additional insights on archipelago-wide connectivity.

Key Conclusions: Current available data on connectivity from various studies should be used as a
guide in establishing the network of MPAs in the archipelago.

Additional Resources:

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/pdfs/samoa_report.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115525795/Coastal-Currents-in-American-Samoa

72
 Appendix 11 Results of Activity on Climate Change Impacts to Coral Reefs, Mangroves and
Fisheries

Table 10 Results of Activity carried out on Day 1 of workshop ‘Climate Change Impacts to coral reefs and fisheries.’
Four mixed groups were asked to discuss 3 topics (1) What was interesting from the presentations; (2) what
connections they could see and (3) which priority adaptations they would use in their existing programs.

Lessons learned Connections Priority Adaptations

Group 1 • Sustainable fisheries
– better management
(MPAs,
regulations/policies/n
o take zones,
enforcement and
monitoring, education
and outreach)
• Promote
aquaculture of
native species
(freshwater eels;
freshwater prawns;
giant clams; T
niloticus, tuna
caging/jacks/offshore
fisheries)
• Promote alternative
sources of protein
and allow fisheries to
recover
• Promote and
strengthen
ecosystem based
approach to
fisheries
management – need
better education and
outreach
Group 2 - Aquaponics –
trialling in Samoa
- Coastal FAD (pelagic
fishing)
- Strengthen
implementation of
MPAs at community
level
- Replanting of native
plant species
(watershed
management)
- Awareness (local and
national level)

Group 3 • Availability of tuna fish • FADS (inshore and

• Re-evaluate fishing offshore)
regulations • Aquaculture
• Alternative food sources (freshwater/hatcheries
• Aquaculture /Mariculture
• License issues to fishing • Wetland
boasts management

73
 • Strengthen current • Other sources of
management of fisheries in protein e.g. pig farm
marine environment • Other income
• Design MMAs/MPAs as a generating activities
management tool e.g. tourism farming
and handicrafts

Group 4 • Some species will increase in • Opportunity to • Aquaculture

numbers (e.g. skipjack) work together development in Two
• Communities depend on using holistic Samoas
coastal resources and will approach (tatou • FADs
need to find additional galulue faatasi) • MPAs
sources of protein with • Coastal fisheries • Diversify for
increase in CC are now and will sustainability
• Aquaculture should be continue to be • Needs more science
encouraged important and new policies
• 65% decrease in fish • Two Samoas
abundance and diversity with share fishery
coral reef lost resources (tuna)

74
 Appendix 12 Table for Fish Connectivity Exercise

Table 11 Table that was provided to the participants (4 groups) for the fish connectivity exercise on day 2 of the
workshop. The species in Column 1 had been collected from the participants prior to the workshop as the priority
species that they wish to protect through their MPAs and fisheries management. Participants were provided with
tables of fish movement and asked to fill in the information from columns 3-6.

Key fisheries species (F) and species of concern (SC), their habitats and movement patterns, and
recommended size and location of NTAs.
Family/Species Cat Adult/Juv Home range Spawning NTAs
home size migration or size/location
range ontogenetic
habitat(s) shift
Acanthuridae (AS) F
Acanthurus lineatus (AS, S) F

Ctenochaetus striatus (AS, S) F

Naso lituratus (S) F

Naso unicornis (S) F

Scaridae (AS) F

Cetoscarus bicolor (S) F

Chlorurus japanensis (AS) F

Scarus oviceps (AS) F

Scarus rubroviolaceus (AS) F

Bolbometopon muricatum SC
(AS)
Labridae

Cheilinus undulatus (AS) SC

Siganidae

Siganus argenteus (S) F

Siganus spinus (S) F

Holocentridae (AS) F

Myripristis berndti (S) F

Sargocentron tiere (AS) F

Lutjanidae

Lutjanus kasmira (AS) F

75
Lethrinidae

Lethrinus amboinensis (S) F

Lethrinus rubrioperculatus (AS) F

Mullidae

Mulloidichthys flavolineatus, SC
M.vanicolensis (AS)
Serranidae (AS) F

Epinephellus maculatus (S) F

Epinephelus lanceolatus (AS) SC

Carangidae (AS) F

Selar crumenophthalmus (AS) F

Carcharhinidae

Carcharhinus melanopterus SC
(AS)
Triaenodon obesus (AS) SC

Invertebrates

Tridacna squamosa, T.maxima SC

(AS)
Panulirus sp. (AS) F

Octopus sp. (AS) F

Palola viridis / Eunice viridis F

(AS)
Holothurian (AS) F

76
 Appendix 13 Annotated Ecological Design Principles

Annotated Ecological Design Principles for the Two Samoas.

Annotations highlighted in yellow were added to the original design principles following the exercise
on Day 3 of the workshop to identify Ecological Design Principles for the Two Samoas. These
annotations were verified in plenary and went forward to the final set of Network Design Principles for
the Two Samoas (Table 1).

TWO SAMOAS COMBINED ECOLOGICAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES

1) Represent at least 20% of each habitat in NTAs. Include habitats that are connected through
movement patterns of key species.
2) Where feasible, replicate protection of habitats by including at least three widely-separated
examples of each habitat in NTAs.
3) Ensure NTAs include critical habitats, including important aggregation sites (e.g. spawning,
feeding and nursery areas).
4) Ensure NTAs include special or unique sites (and sites of cultural/traditional importance) e.g.
habitats that are isolated (remote atolls) or important for rare and threatened species (e.g.
turtle nesting areas and other species/habitats).
5) Include resilient sites in NTAs, including areas most likely to survive climate change impacts
(refugia). Additional assessments may be needed (relate ocean acidification discussion from
day 1)
6) Provide guidance to communities for applying minimum sizes to NTAs, depending on
objectives of no-take areas. (e.g. for key species and how far they move, and if other effective
marine resource management methods are in place outside of NTAs).
7) Separate no-take areas by a variety of distances from 1 to 20 km (with a mode of ~1-10km).
8) Ensure some NTAs are in place for the long-term (~10 years?), preferably permanently and
have additional shorter term NTAs to fit with community objectives.
9) Provide guidance on carefully managing opening of short term NTAs to ensure that benefits
are not lost by selective harvesting of less vulnerable species or managing fishing gear/effort
10) Provide alternatives to support community livelihood and food security (e.g. FADs and
aquaculture and non-extractive uses)
11) Integrate NTAs with other existing fishery and EBA management tools

77
 Appendix 14 Results of Social and Cultural Design Principles and Information Needs Activity

Table 12. Table of social, cultural and economic guiding principles and prioritized needs for Samoan group in the
activity carried out on day 3 of the workshop.
Social Cultural Economic Alternatives Cultural/social needs
Ability of Consider Ensure FADs, 1.Collate all existing
communities to programs sustainability aquaculture, information for decision
accept new design of programs restocking making processes;
concepts/approaches based on by offering and • Traditional
(management, our Fa'a- alternatives translocation knowledge related to
amongst samoa to secure programs, fisheries/marine
neighbouring culture livelihoods non-fisheries resources
communities) (bottom up and food activities • Village rules and
approach) security.. (handicrafts, regulations
organic • Data and reports
farming) (assessments/surveys)
Consider Available 2. Education and
communities opportunities awareness/outreach
obligations to family, to generate • Incorporate into
church, village.... incomes school’s curriculum
sources (non- (liaise with MESC)
extractive
users)
Consider existing 3. Enough fish/invert for
village rules (e.g. no consumption, and income
fishing activity sources
carried out within the Cultural obligations to
village marine feed guests/ communities
boundaries at certain during special occasions
times ) (e.g. village fono,
churches, etc.)
Integrate traditional/cultural 4. Resources
knowledge (ITK) into the decision • Financial
making processes (e.g. significance • Technical
of Moso'oi bearing fruits and the
ripening of sea urchin gonads
ready for consumption, proverbs,
etc.)
Consider 5 Create environment tax
local/traditional uses
of resources (e.g.
sponges for
medicines,
mangroves for tapa)
Conduct a socio-
economic survey to
assess the needs of
the communities and
their perception on
fisheries/marine
resources
Consider
species of
cultural
importance
(e.g. turtle,
mullet,
etc.)

78
 Appendix 15 Communication Plans
Group A

Principles Key messages Communication approach Materials Time Cost

20-40% Why we need Presentations Posters 1-2yrs 75K
representati a big NTA Consultation Charts (fish (us) in
on in NTAs Fish range Media outlets (e.g. TV range) kind
(Groupers and commercial) Displays $50
Humphead Involve the community in Slides (US)$
Wrasse/goatfis the monitoring Swags
h/unicorn fish Develop module in marine Infomercial
science curriculum PSA
Skits/puppet show Lesson plans
Displays Puppets
TV talk show e.g. talk back Reports
PPT presentation Articles
Social network
USE TEK to inform message
Alternative USE Work with relevant Displays, For pilot $120K
support or ALTERNATIVE stakeholders and conduct brochures, study (2 (US) In
sustainable food sources awareness and trials in yrs.) kind
food e.g. pig, demonstration projects. selected sites ongoing $100k
sources chicken, Community consultation. with displays. afterward (US)
tilapia, sea Trainings (communities and Presentations s for 5
grape. business) and trainings. yrs.
Group B

Key message Communication Materials needed Time needed Budget

approach
To protect ‘village meetings S – 1`week $500/art/month
marine Media and TV AS – 1 day $250
environment shows (depending
‘FISH FOR Newspaper Art/printing design on type)
FUTURE Posters and /paper/printing
brochures Bus stop
Signs (roadside) banners/billboards
Bus stops signage

Host and designer info

Website and data photos
success stories. You
tube video. Facebook
(social media)
Guests/topics/info and
data. TV station and
TV show host
(weekly) Teachers, info, books,
(see website list) DOE
buy-in
School
curriculum

Group c

Key Messages Communication Materials Needed Time Proposed

Approach Needed budget
“seu le manu ae education/awareness video, TV, PowerPoint 1 year ST$10,000.00
tagai I le galu’’ catch /competitions/docum projector, info sheets, with in-kind
the birds but watch entaries pamphlets, posters support from
the waves’ etc. Bluesky and
Digicel
79
fish for the future facilitation whiteboards, info 2-5 yrs. US$100,000 +
approach/meetings/c sheets, posters, video in-kind support
onsultation, presentation, maps, = sustainability
advertisements, TV transportation etc.
ads,
Education/outreach

Group D

Key Messages Communication Materials Time Proposed budget

Approach Needed Needed
Increase Co-management $$$$$$$$$ At least a *Cultural Fee
fish/invert in the approach ( including MONTH USD$200.00
future cultural fee *Stationeries =
Awareness and Stationeries (flip USD$10,000.00
outreach campaigns charts/presentati 6months Awareness: info
ons sheets/TV &Radio
Baseline and Dingy/trailer/out advertisements/articles/p
ongoing Monitoring board motor osters/billboards/printing
of the site = USD$20,000.00
Fuel for
dingy/outboard:
USD$1,000
Miscellaneous costs: =
USD$2,000.00
TOTAL: USD$33,200.00
In Kind: Technical
People need our Ecosystem services $$$$$$$$$
resources Stationery
We need STUFF
Investing for your
FUTURE
Impacts of human
activities on the
marine /fisheries
resources
Working together
as a community to
manage and
protect marine
/fisheries
resources

80
 Appendix 16 Consolidated Recommendations for the Two Samoas MMA Network

Recommendations made during the Two Samoas Reef Resilience Workshop for Marine
Managed Area Practitioners

August 5-9th 2013

Sadie’s by the Sea – American Samoa
Recommendations for Endorsement at Two Samoas Meeting

13. Present report from this workshop at next Two Samoas meeting for endorsement
14. Utilize recommendations from workshop to strengthen the actions in the Two Samoas strategic
plan.
15. Incorporate workshop recommendations into the Two Samoas strategic plan
16. Provide timelines on recommendations to assist with updating current strategic plans in each
country
17. Assess opportunities for Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration to be used to inform
Government wide planning processes and policies.
18. Communications Working Group - Establish a Two Samoas communications working group to
clarify the campaigns across both countries and what each country will do individually (Two
Samoas coordinators and education divisions)
a. Develop a Marine Managed Area communication plan for the Two Samoas
b. Recognize the need for increased communication to communities, particularly on
potential impacts of ocean acidification.
c. Provide information and guidelines (and practical help) for alternative livelihoods
(aquaculture, FADs, microcredit schemes, handicrafts, “green fees”, etc.).
d. Support Le Tausagi travel to Samoa for a possible partnership week to develop strong
linkages in outreach between the Two Samoas.
e. Establish an archipelago wide outreach campaign on the benefits of no-take areas to
encourage the communities to protect their fisheries
f. Facilitate the translation of the ‘Guide for Designing Resilient LMAs in Tropical Marine
Environments: A Guide for Community Based Managers’ into Samoan and provide
training for local community outreach specialists in the Two Samoas.
g. Carry out evaluation of effectiveness of communication plans

19. Ecological Network

a. Design system of marine managed areas with connectivity across the archipelago.
b. Consider adopting similar guiding principles for size and spacing of community based
protected areas based on community needs.
c. Establish the terminology that that the Two Samoas will use for ‘marine managed areas’
or ‘marine protected areas’.
d. Finalize the wording that can be used for a ‘no-take area’ in Samoan and English for the
Two Samoas Initiative.
e. Review design of existing no-take zones in light of new information on fish movement
and habitats.
f. Investigate common management approaches for species with large scale home ranges.
g. Discuss the potential for large scale protected areas for some species such as sharks and
turtles that may move between the Samoan Islands.
h. Establish how to carry out habitat representation and replication in the Two Samoas (E.g.
whether to use the same categories or have different ones).
i. Determine definition of the extent of the network boundary (i.e. 20% of what?), percent
coverage for habitat (20%), and whether to have the same definition (e.g. 100m depth
contour or 1 mile from reef crest) – Note: can review fisheries bill for definition
j. Consider options for a data atlas for the Two Samoas to carry out effective Marine
Spatial Planning.

Management Guiding Principles

20. Encourage use of natural adaptation solutions to provide primary protection while supporting
secondary ecosystem services and retention of intact habitats.
21. Support processes for integrated spatial planning for marine and coastal areas at multiple scales,
including support at a community level.
81
22. Improve wetland management including replanting of native species and use ecosystem based
approach to fisheries management.
23. Incorporate Climate Change policies into existing fisheries policies.
24. Have ecological and social guiding principles (side by side) to ensure effective implementation.
Recommendations for American Samoa
1. Encourage greater interaction between CRAG and the Governor’s office (through the coral
point of contact). Investigate possibility of CRAG creating annual report for the Governor’s
office.
2. Ensure economic development is compatible with natural resource conservation – determine
where they fit into the socioeconomic development priority of the current administration
3. Integrate traditional knowledge
a. Identify key community players from each key region (e.g. bioregions)
4. Represent at least 20% of each habitat in no take areas.
a. Define boundaries of target areas. What data already exists (e.g. GIS layers)? Need to
understand movement patterns (e.g., currents and adults/juveniles) and bioregion
boundaries.
5. Replicate protection of habitats
a. Note: links to bioregion analysis. Need MARXAN analysis to identify areas for
potential no-take zones, including training for MARXAN.
6. Ensure no take areas include critical habitats
a. Need to review existing information (e.g., turtle/fish reproduction areas, resilient
areas).
7. Ensure no-take areas include special sites
a. Identify isolated habitats and to make sure those are included. Can link Rose to Two
Samos to strengthen conservation.
8. Include resilient sites.

Recommendations for Samoa

1. Propose the declaration of the Five mile reef as a potential no-take area under certain
conditions.

2. Strengthen and establish the protection of highly exposed coastline of Upolu and Savai’i.

3. Develop a Bleaching Response Plan.

4. Carry out community consultations and look for opportunities to extend national park down
to marine area (e.g. Cornwall on SW Savaii /Mauga o Salafai NP; NE Savai’i/ Ole Pupu Pue).

82
 Appendix 17 Results of Activity on Information Needs

TWO SAMOAS NETWORK DESIGN PRINCIPLES & INFORMATION NEEDS

Table 13 Table completed during ‘information needs’ activity on Day 5. Each group was provided with the
design principles in Column 1 and asked to fill in their respective needs in column 2. Column 3 was completed in
a plenary session.

Design principle Country Comments Info needs for Two Samoas

Integrate traditional/cultural
knowledge into the decision
making processes.
Represent at least 20% of each
habitat in NTAs. Include
habitats that are connected
through movement patterns of
key species.
Where feasible, replicate
protection of habitats by
including at least three widely-
separated examples of each
habitat in NTAs.
Samoa Needs to collate. - Share results with each
AS needs to better other
understand the key players
in each community
AS - Collate existing and
expand to other areas.
Samoa - Consider key - More data on key species
species and how far they and movement patterns
move. - Better habitat maps for
Samoa – Ground truth the Two Samoas
habitat maps with better (investigate using same
info. classification system)?
AS – better understand - Better information on
boundaries of target areas. localized currents
AS – look at existing GIS
layers and other data.
AS – better understand
movement patterns e.g.
currents and adult
movement
AS – need additional data
AS – PCA of fish and coral to
better define bioregions.
AS – fill gaps in tracking
studies for key species
(Atule and Groupers/HH
wrasse)
AS – fine scale current
studies.
Samoa - Need information - As above
including habitats
identification and
geographic community
differences
AS – as above

Ensure NTAs include critical
habitats, including important
aggregation sites (e.g.
spawning, feeding and nursery
areas).
Ensure NTAs include special or
unique sites (and sites of
cultural/traditional importance)
e.g. habitats that are isolated
(remote atolls) or important for
rare and threatened species
(e.g. turtle nesting areas and
other species/habitats).
Samoa - Already exist but
consider KBA’s included e.g.
5 mile reef
AS – need to review existing
info (turtle and fish
recruitment and resilient
areas)
As above
- Collect and collate data
on critical areas for
migratory species
- Identify culturally
important sites on maps
as appropriate

83
Include resilient sites in NTAs,
including areas most likely to
survive climate change impacts
(refugia).
Provide guidance to
communities for applying
minimum sizes to NTAs,
depending on objectives of no-
take areas (e.g. consider key
species and how far they move,
and if other effective marine
resource management methods
are in place outside of NTAs).
Separate no-take areas by a
variety of distances from 1 to
20 km (with a mode of ~1-
10km).
Ensure some NTAs are in place
for the long-term (~10 years),
preferably permanently and
have additional shorter term
NTAs to fit with community
objectives.
Carefully manage opening of
short term NTAs to ensure that
benefits are not lost by
selective harvesting of less
vulnerable species or managing
fishing gear/effort.
Provide alternatives to support
community livelihood and
food security (e.g. FADs and
aquaculture and non-extractive
uses)
AS – carry out assessment of
whole area for resilience
(field)
Samoa – need assessment
of resilient areas
Refer to no. 2
AS – create standardized
presentations/training
tools/outreach groups and
methodology for targeting
those communities
(cohesive plan between
agencies)
Samoa - Already exists, this
can aid working in close
collaborations between
communities
Samoa - Define distances
between all no-take zones in
similar habitats in Two
Samoas (to see if there are
any gaps
>20km)
AS – consider in the future
as more no-take areas are
established
AS - Need to enhance
existing campaign efforts to
promote no take areas and
long term closures at all
levels (decision makers to
community)
AS – better education and
outreach before opening to
inform about gear types and
effects
Samoa – consider lessons
learned from other MPAs
and methods used in those
places
AS – include other
management options
initially in the planning
process (e.g. herbivores only
or certain fishing types)
Samoa - need to promote
and develop alternatives
AS – same as Samoa
84
- Coral reef resilience
assessments for both
(standard protocol and
share survey teams)
- Refine fish movement
table and key species
where further data
required
- Develop collaborative
communication plan
- Translate, print and train
for using new LMA guide
- Share successes and
lessons learned from each
place (e.g. come together
twice a yr. to evaluate
effectiveness). Insert this
into TS agenda for annual
meetings.
- Ali to provide advice on
what key species benefit
from no-take areas of
different durations
- Collate information for
duration of existing no-
take areas
- Ali to disseminate info
from Fiji (on temp
closures)
- Include other
management options
initially in the planning
process (e.g. herbivores
only or certain fishing
types)
- need to promote and
develop alternatives
- Need technical and
financial support from
partners (e.g. SPC, SPREP,
NOAA, etc.)

Integrate NTAs with other
existing fishery and EBA
management tools.
AS – education materials
needed
Samoa – strengthen existing
management program
AS – assess how other
habitats in MPA area
contribute to ecosystem
- Identify alternatives with
communities in initial
planning processes
- Collect information on
level of dependence on
resources
- Monitor effectiveness of
management alternatives
(e.g. CPUE after FAD
deployment)
- Collate information on
effectiveness of FADs
- Shared outreach materials
- Learn lessons from Palau
on integration of fishery
management and
Protected Area network
(Indonesia also)

Data Needs
1. Investigate and provide recommendations on the effectiveness of hard versus soft solutions to sea
level rise and storm damage.
Samoa: Need further studies and also make available to the public for awareness

2. Seek mechanisms to map Seagrass beds throughout the Two Samoas to understand potential
amelioration of the ocean acidification, and potential carbon sequestration, identifying sites that
may support resilience to ocean acidification.
Samoa Need more information including ground truthing map for Seagrass beds

3. Carry out analysis of the fish and coral diversity data for Samoa to identify any geographic
community differences
Samoa Need more info to identify any geographic information

4. Carry out surveys for T. niloticus in American Samoa to see if connectivity can be established
between Samoa and American Samoa.
Samoa Need information on T. niloticus connectivity established btw the Two Samoas

5. Identify some of the differences and similarities in habitats and fish/coral community compositions
in the Two Samoas.
Samoa Need to collate and identify the differences in similarities

6. Refine habitat stratification maps and complete a mapping exercise for the whole archipelago.
Samoa: Need more help from Paul on maps (SPREP)

7. Consider expansion of fine scale current modeling in the archipelago

Samoa: Need updated modelling

8. Fill in some missing home range data for key fishery species (e.g. Atule/inverts/lobster)
Samoa: Need to update and identify gaps

9. Consider carrying out activities to look at duration of no-take zones based on latest fish information
(lessons learned from Fiji).
Samoa: Lessons learned from other countries/programs are important

10. Clarify which of the key species for the Two Samoas have high and low vulnerability and recovery
rates to fishing
Samoa: Only for some species, so need to work on other species

11. Investigate potential for corridors (e.g. seamounts) between island groups in the archipelago
Samoa: Need more info on seamount corridors
85
12. Conduct socioeconomic survey to assess the needs of communities and their perception on
fisheries/marine resources (particularly in prioritized areas).
Samoa: Need to update information

86
 Appendix 18 Evaluation Form
EVALUATION FORM

1) How useful do you think the information from the following presentations will be in terms of
implementing any outcomes from this workshop (1 = extremely useful; 5 = not useful at all)?
Presentation Usefulness (1-5)
a) Policy Frameworks in Pacific Regional Context
b) Climate change Impacts on Samoan Marine Ecosystems
c) Climate change impacts to Coral Reefs and Mangroves
d) Climate Change Impacts to Coastal Fisheries
e) Update on Resilience Projects in Two Samoas
f) Biophysical Design Principles for Designing Resilient MPA
Networks
g) Case study from Palau
h) Ecological Connectivity in Samoan Archipelago (DMWR)
i) Social and Cultural Aspects of MMA Network Design
j) Communicating Importance of Designing Resilient MMA Networks
k) Regional Linkages and Opportunities
2) Did you think there was a good balance of presentations and activities during the workshop
(please circle)?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Somewhat
Comments:
3) What proportion of the information that you were given was new to you (please circle a number)?
None of it All of it
1 2 3 4 5
4) How enjoyable were the activities that were carried out in breakout groups?

Extremely
Not at all
enjoyable
enjoyable
1 2 3 4 5
5) What did you enjoy most about the workshop?
6) What did you enjoy least about the workshop?
7) Do you think that the workshop objectives have been successfully achieved (please circle a
number)?
Partially
Not at all Completely
Comments: 1 2 3 4 5

8) Do you think that this workshop has helped to move the Two Samoas Initiative towards achieving
any of its goals and objectives?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Somewhat
Comments:

9) If you could take one message home to share with your colleagues from the workshop, what
would it be?
10) Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

Fa’afetai Lava!

87
 Appendix 19 Evaluation: Summary of Results

WORKSHOP EVALUATION

Each participant was provided with an evaluation form (Appendix 18) and asked to complete it on the
last day of the workshop. A total of 19 forms were completed and the results can be found below.

Evaluation Results
Participants were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 how useful the following presentations were in terms
of implementing any outcomes from the workshop (1 = extremely useful and 5 = not useful at all).
Table 14 shows the average score allocated for each presentation.
Table 14 Results from question 1 of the evaluation form ‘how useful were the following presentations in terms of
implementing any outcomes from this workshop (1 = extremely useful and 5 = not at all useful). N = 19.

Presentation Title Average

Score
a) Policy Frameworks in Pacific Regional Context 2
b) Climate change Impacts on Samoan Marine Ecosystems 1

c) Climate change impacts to Coral Reefs and Mangroves 1

d) Climate Change Impacts to Coastal Fisheries 1
e) Update on Resilience Projects in Two Samoas 1
f) Biophysical Design Principles for Designing Resilient MPA Networks 1
g) Case study from Palau 2
h) Ecological Connectivity in Samoan Archipelago (DMWR) 1
i) Social and Cultural Aspects of MMA Network Design 2
j) Communicating Importance of Designing Resilient MMA Networks 1
k) Regional Linkages and Opportunities 2

Figures 8 to 10 illustrate the results of questions 2 to 4 on the evaluations form.

Do you think there was a good balance of presentations and

activities during the workshop?
20
18
Number of Respondents

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Yes No Somewhat
Response

Figure 7 Responses to evaluation question ‘Do you think there was a good balance of presentations and activities during
the workshop?’ Participants had a choice of 3 responses: Yes, No and Somewhat. N = 19.

88
 What proportion of the information that you were given was
new to you? (1 = none of it; 5 = all of it)?
8
7
Number of Respondents
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5
Response

Figure 8 Responses to evaluation question ‘What proportion of the information that you were given was new to you?’
Participants were requested to circle a number between 1 and 5 (1 = none of it and 5 = all of it). N = 19.

How enjoyable were the activities that were carried out in the
breakout groups? (1= not at all enjoyable, 5 = extremely
enjoyable)

12
Number of respondents

10

0
1 2 3 4 5
Response

Figure 9 Responses to evaluation question ‘How enjoyable were the activities that were carried out in the breakout
groups?’ (1 = not at all enjoyable and 5 = extremely enjoyable). N = 19.

Participants were asked what they enjoyed most and least about the workshop. These were
open ended questions from which the results have been collated into themes. The results can
be found in Table 15 and
Table 16 (below). One response to the question about what was enjoyed most was:

“How the Two Samoas compromised (and agreed) on critical and sensitive ecological issues was
amazing. I hope for this effort will be put to good use and continue to the next level.”

89
Table 15 Results of evaluation question ‘what did you enjoy most about the workshop?’ Results were collated into themes
or topics where multiple responses related to the same topic. N = 19.

What did you enjoy most about the workshop (open ended)? Number of
responses
1. Sharing information and actively participating in group activities and discussions 10
2. Learning about new science to assist with management activities (particularly 6
information on fish movement and implications for NTA design).
3. Field trip 4
4. Being involved in a Two Samoas Initiative. 4
5. Presentations 2
6. Mapping activity 1
7. Good, flexible time management during the workshop 1
8. Model of currents showing dispersal of larvae 1
9. Enjoyed activities on Day 2 and found them to be productive and informative 1
10. Practitioner’s guide on designing MPA Networks 1
11. Everything 1
12. Energizers 1
13. Food 1
14. Workshop T-shirt 1

Table 16 Results of evaluation question ‘what did you enjoy least about the workshop?’ Results were collated into themes
or topics where multiple responses related to the same topic. N = 19.

What did you enjoy least about the workshop Number of

responses
1. Nothing 11
2. Workshop was long with consecutive days (low productivity on Day 3 and Day 5) 3
3. Too many similar documents given for discussion 1
4. Shorter breaks (10 mins instead of 15 mins) 1
5. Energizers 1
6. Tired moments 1
7. Need more information on Two Samoas management activities prior to workshop 1
8. More field days 1

Figure 10 show the results of a question relating to the workshop objectives. Participants were also
given the opportunity to comment following this question. In general the comments received were
positive but several constructive comments related to needing more time to develop the next steps the
need to task individuals/agencies with certain actions and the recognition that although there is still
work ahead, there is already improved coordination to help make things happen.

Figure 12 relates to the Two Samoas goals and objectives. Participants were also given the opportunity
to comment on this and 6 comments were received. These were all positive and highlighted the
importance of the recommendations that have been made for the Two Samoas and the fact that the
key players now understand the importance of the MMA network design principles.

90
 Do you think the workshop objectives have been sucessfully
achieved?
(1 = not at all, 5 = completely)
14
Number of respondents
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5
Response

Figure 10 Response to evaluation question ‘Do you think the workshop objectives have been successfully achieved? (1 =
not at all, 3 -= partially, 5 = completely). N = 19.

Do you think this workshop has helped to move the Two

Samoas Initiative towards achieving any of its goals and
objectives?
20
18
Number of respondents

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Yes No Somehwat
Reponse

Figure 11 Response to evaluation question ‘Do you think the workshop has helped to move the Two Samoas Initiative
towards achieving any of its goals and objectives?’ N = 19.

TAKE HOME MESSAGES

Participants were asked to identify one message to take home to share with their colleagues. A range
of answers were given which are summarized by theme below.

MMAs and NTAs are a tool for fishermen (7 messages)

The importance of working together to protect reefs and achieve connectivity to sustain food security
and livelihoods was highlighted. Several messages emphasized the importance of having long term
no-take areas to benefit communities and fishermen. One person mentioned the importance of finding
a positive way of translate information for communities.

Using Scientific Information (3 messages)

91
Three messages related to the use of scientific information (biological and social) to enable
communities to make better decisions. Particular information mentioned included that on: resilient
areas; movement of species; importance of protecting predators such as Groupers.

Strengthen work of colleagues and communities (3 messages)

Strengthening the skills and knowledge of colleagues and communities was highlighted, as was the
importance of selecting the relevant information for particular programmes

Climate change (2 messages)

The importance of having climate change impacts and adaptations understood at any level was
highlighted but the positive aspect of being able to ‘battle against it’ was also mentioned.

Two Samoas Initiative (2 messages)

The importance of strengthening the Two Samoas Initiative and continuing the collaborative work
between the Two Samoas for a ‘reef resilient’ society was highlighted.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

Participants were given the opportunity to make additional comments. These are summarized below.

Positive Feedback (8 comments)

These comments related to the organization and coordination of the workshop. They provided thanks
to the donors, coordinators, facilitators and also the waitresses and food at the venue. One comment
gave thanks for making it so simple for all involved to understand fully and appreciate the treasures in
our ocean. One person wrote ‘Ocean divides us, ocean will unite us’.

Constructive Feedback (7 comments)

Four comments related to having future workshops to assist with implementing the recommendations
from this workshop, particularly the establishment of a network of NTAs and an evaluation of the goals
set. It was also proposed to include the new Two Samoas Coordinator and evaluate the status of work
implemented/achieved by the coordinator.

One comment related to the activities being more productive on the first two days of the workshop and
expressing a desire for more time to plan the next steps on the final days of the workshop. One person
also stated that there were too many activities and another final comment was that the break out groups
needed better direction (preferably with a nominated facilitator).

92
93