• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Main






Title: Workshop on Watershed Management, Land Cover Change Analysis and Modeling of Land-based Sources of Pollution and Sediment Discharge to the MAR : Proce
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095898/00001
 Material Information
Title: Workshop on Watershed Management, Land Cover Change Analysis and Modeling of Land-based Sources of Pollution and Sediment Discharge to the MAR : Proce
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Mesoamerican Reef Alliance
Publisher: Mesoamerican Reef Alliance
Place of Publication: San Ignacio, Belize
Publication Date: September, 2006
Copyright Date: September, 2006
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095898
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
Full Text


SAID ^k R
)/FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPE UNE CIC WWF
W UNEP WCIC WWF
WRI


^,UNITED NATIONS
J-FO U NATION


Mesoamerican Reef Alliance ICRAN-MAR

Workshop on Watershed Management, Land Cover
Change Analysis, and Modeling of Land-based Sources
of Pollution and Sediment Discharge to the MAR


Proceedings

Galen University

SAN IGNACIO, BELIZE, AUGUST 15-18, 2006


Eric van Praag, Consultant for UNEP-WCMC
Joep Luijten, Consultant for UNEP-WCMC
Lauretta Burke, WRI
Liza Agudelo, ICRAN-MAR


September, 2006










List of Acronyms


BMP
CATHALAC
CLUE-S
DEM
GIS
IABIN
ICRAN-MAR
INEGI
JICA
LAC
LU/LC
MAR
MBRS
N-SPECT
SeaWifs
SERVIR
SIDA
SRTM
UNEP
UNF
UNFCCC
SAID
USGS
WCMC
WRI
WWF
WRIScS


Better Management Practices
Water Center for the Humid Tropics of Latin America & the Caribbean
The Conversion of Land Use and its Effects
Digital Elevation Model
Geographic Information System
Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network
Mesoamerican Reef Alliance
Institute Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica, M6xico
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Latin America and the Caribbean
Land use/Land cover
Mesoamerican Reef
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System
Nonpoint Source Polution and Erosion Comparison Tool
Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS)
Mesoamerican Regional Visualization and Monitoring System
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Foundation
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Geological Survey
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre
World Resources Institute
World Wildlife Fund
Watershed-Reef Interconectivity Scientific Study









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Organizing this workshop would not have been possible without the help and the
contributions provided by UNEP-WCMC, ICRAN, Galen University, WRI, USAID, UNF,
CATHALAC and WWF.

We also wish to thank the following individuals who made valuable contributions to the
workshop, provided training, organized the logistics, and provided general workshop
support: Lauretta Burke and Zachary Sugg (WRI), Lera Miles, Joep Luijten and Eric van
Praag (UNEP-WCMC), Liza Agudelo and Armeid Thompson (ICRAN-MAR), Jose
Vasquez (WWF), Emil Cherrington (CATHALAC), Melanie McField (Smithsonian), and
Carlos Rivas (SIDA). Special thanks to Galen University (Cayo, Belize) and to Marion
Cayetano, Rhondine Petrof, and Shannon Kenney for their kind support with
organization details.













TABLE OF CONTENTS




IN T R O D U C T IO N ........ .................................................................. 4
POLICY SESSION.... ........................... ..................................... 5
SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT GROUP REVIEWS................... ............................. 9
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 11
TE C H N IC A L SE SSIO N ............................................................................... ........ 15
A PPEN D IX 1. W workshop A genda.......................................................... ... ................. 17
APPENDIX 2. Policy Session Participants ........................................................ 21
APPENDIX 3. Technical Session Participants.................................................... 23
APPENDIX 4. Technical Session Evaluation Sheet.................................................. 24
APPENDIX 5. Summary of Technical Evaluation Results....................... ............. 26
APPENDIX 6. Technical Questionnaire................... ............................. 30
APPENDIX 7. Summary Of Results From Follow-Up Questionnaire............................. 31
APPEND IX 8. U seful Links .................................................................... ..... 34










INTRODUCTION


ICRAN-Mesoamerican Reef Alliance (ICRAN-MAR)
The International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN), was established in the year 2000
as an innovative and dynamic global partnership of many of the world's leading coral
reef science and conservation organizations. It is a collaborative effort that operates at
different levels to help to stop and reverse the decline in health of the world's coral reefs.
ICRAN partners create alliances around the world to facilitate inter-linked and
complementary actions in reef monitoring and management, at local, national, and
global scales.

In the ICRAN Mesoamerican Reef Alliance (ICRAN-MAR), several partners have come
together in a three-year initiative to support regional efforts in response to the Tulum
Declaration of 1997 for the conservation of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef (Mexico,
Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras). With the kind contribution of the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), and the United Nations Foundation
(UNF), and under the overall supervision of the United Nations Environment program
(UNEP), the ICRAN-MAR Alliance seeks to develop and facilitate innovative tools that
promote the voluntary adoption of best management practices in the areas of Tourism,
Fisheries and Watershed Management. The project therefore, offers a holistic approach
that recognizes the strong relationship between these three components and their
potential impact on the health of the Mesoamerican reef, and promotes and seeks
cooperation with other institutions and initiatives in the region.

The Watershed Management component of the ICRAN-MAR project was designed
recognizing that appropriate land use practices are critical for proper management of
watersheds in the Mesoamerican region, and to ensure that transport of sediment,
nutrients and other pollutants to the coral reef system is minimized. Developing
appropriate land use strategies requires gathering information on the potential impact of
different land use and development options in the region, as well raising awareness and
coordination with the different stakeholders.

ICRAN-MAR partners in the Watershed Management component contribute to these
regional efforts by forming alliances with the private sector to reduce the impact of
agricultural activities on the reef, and by developing innovative Geographic Information
Systems tools that can be used to simulate watershed dynamics and inform decision
makers in the Mesoamerican region.

With respect to the GIS tools, the work of the ICRAN-MAR project is complementary to
the ongoing and past work of other regional initiatives such as the MBRS, SERVIR and
IABIN-DGF projects. It is the first to engage a regional-scale analysis and spatial
modeling of the environmental impacts of watersheds on the Mesoamerican Reef. This
work also builds on the World Resources Institute's Reefs at Risk of the Caribbean
initiative.

The current proceedings summarize the dynamics and outcomes of a successful
workshop held in San Ignacio, Belize in August 2006, in which project partners
presented the results of two years of project implementation and requested feedback
from regional experts.









Watershed Management Workshop
The objectives of the meeting were twofold: inform regional participants of the land use
modeling results and the initial findings for the region, and train regional GIS technical
experts who could in turn become trainers of other experts in their particular countries.

The workshop was divided in two sessions: a Policy Session and a Technical Session.
The policy session was geared towards senior managers and decision makers of
participating institutions; its main objective was to help them understand the usefulness
and applicability of the data products and models developed by ICRAN-MAR for
watershed management. This session lasted for one and a half days and took place on
August 15th and the morning of August 16th.

The technical session's objective was to allow specialists from participating countries to
become familiar with and get hands-on training in the use of the data products and
models aforementioned. This session lasted for two and a half days and took place on
the afternoon of August 16th, and on August 17th and 18th.

Both sessions provided a great opportunity for national specialists to acquire new
technological knowledge, coordinate activities, plan their modeling efforts, exchange
experiences with colleagues from other countries, and acquire geospatial information
developed or collated by ICRAN-MAR.

The following sections provide an overview of the contents, results, discussions and
resolutions attained in the course of the two sessions of the workshop.

POLICY SESSION
The Policy Session was held on August 15 and the morning of August 16, 2003, at
Galen University in San Ignacio, Belize (see workshop agenda in Appendix 1).

Senior staff and specialists from national and regional institutions that deal with marine
and coastal issues attended the meeting (see list of participants to policy session in
Appendix 2).

The objectives of the policy session were the following:
1) Inform policy makers and other potential information users of the information
outputs and tools that have been developed under this project.
2) Learn about the ICRAN MAR watershed project and the analytical components
on land cover change analysis, watershed delineation, hydrologic modeling and
circulation modeling.
3) Review scenarios of land cover change and provide feedback on these
scenarios.
4) Review results of predictive modeling of land-based sources of pollution and
sediment discharge to the Mesoamerican Reef
5) Raise awareness of the linkages between human activities on the land and
threats to the Mesoamerican Reef.
6) Identify policy questions/applications for the analytic tools, as well as future users
of the analytic tools.









During the morning of August 15 an introduction to the ICRAN-MAR project and the role
of its partners in the watershed component was offered, together with the following
keynote presentations:

Health of Corals and threats to the Mesoamerican Reef (by Melanie McField)
Dr. McField gave a thorough presentation on the most pressing threats (dredging,
tourism, aquaculture-overfishing, poor port management and shipping, climate
change, and natural disasters) to the Mesoamerican Reef (MAR). She discussed the
concept of a "healthy" reef and the different reef attributes (structure and function)
and human dimensions (drivers of change, social well being, and governance) that
must be taken into account when defining the level of disturbance (i.e. health).
Eventually we need to make use of the reef resources and we need to identify the
best ways to do so.

Conceptual evolution of watershed management in the Mesoamerican Region (by
Carlos Rivas)
Dr. Rivas presented the evolution of the watershed management efforts in the region
during the last 20-30 years. He began by introducing the topographic characteristics
of the region and the socio-economic drivers that have defined regional development
models, and the traditional agricultural uses of the land. Extractive economy, poverty
and expansion of the urban and agricultural frontiers have caused changes in the
landscape and the watershed dynamics over the past decades. The need to control
flooding and guarantee the provision of water resources to cover the increasing
needs of the population and industry led to the early watershed management efforts
imported from developed countries to the region. With time, there has been a shift
from anthropocentric ('rational/economic') to more biocentric ('sustainable') rationales
when developing strategies to manage watersheds. With this shift in mentality, the
social component is included and participatory planning is encouraged; however, the
strategies are not always economically attractive and very often conflicts arise. There
is a generalized need for more government support and development of coherent
policies for the sustainable use of the water resources.

Following the keynote presentations, Joep Luijten (UNEP-WCMC) and Lauretta Burke
(WRI) respectively offered an overview of the different methodologies and results in land
use change and hydrologic modeling1; immediately afterwards, Jose Vasquez (WWF)
presented results of the on-the-ground work with agricultural companies for the adoption
of better agricultural practices.

Overview of scenario development (by Joep Luijten)
Joep Luijten began his presentation by explaining the concept and descriptive nature
of the scenarios, and how they can inform policies. Scenarios are not predictions of
the future, but rather present "different assumptions about how current trends will
unfold, how critical uncertainties will play out and what new factors will come into
play" (UNEP, 2002). The 3 scenarios developed for this project were adapted from
the Global Environment Outlook 4 scenarios for LAC that will be released in 2007.
These scenarios looked at the current regional situation of the natural resources and

Please refer to the Workshop Data CD for detailed documentation on the development of the scenarios,
land use change modeling, and hydrologic and circulation modeling.









the potential situations by 2025 under three hypothetical world-wide and regional
situations (Markets First, Policy First, and Sustainability First). These scenarios
would have different impacts on the socio-economic and natural dimensions of the
region and could serve to influence decision makers.

Overview land use change modeling (by Joep Luijten)
Once the descriptive scenarios were developed, a multi-scale modeling approach
was applied to quantify the potential changes in land cover in the MAR. Three
models were utilized (International Futures, IMAGE, and CLUE-S) to explain the
dynamics of the different variables involved in land cover change processes. Thus,
the International Futures model estimates the proportion of regional land use change
that occurs in each country, and provides socio-economic drivers to the IMAGE
model. IMAGE in turn, is a global integrated assessment model that simulates the
rate of change in the region, and the proportion of change that occurs in each land
use type.
CLUE-S is the land use change (allocation) model and adds a spatial dimension that
simulates where land cover change occurs within the MAR region.
For quantification of the changes in land demand under each scenario the year 2000
was used as the base year because that was the year for which the latest land cover
data were available for most countries.

Overview of Hydrologic and Circulation Modeling for the MAR (by Lauretta Burke)
Lauretta Burke began her presentation highlighting that the purpose of this analytical
modeling exercise of the ICRAN-MAR was to model present and future impact of land
cover change and agricultural activities on coral reefs and identify land most
vulnerable to erosion. The outcomes of the modeling exercises could eventually
guide stewardship of vulnerable areas in the region. Likewise, the project sought to
identify tools and a methodology that could be easily be transferred to analysts and
land stewards in the MAR region for more detailed local application.
The first step in this exercise was to delineate the watershed for the region. Basins
were delineated from 90m resolution NASA SRTM data and 300 basins (of 5 km2
minimum size) were identified within the MAR region. This exercise took several
months and was especially difficult for the Yucatan peninsula due to the geological
characteristics of the terrain and the presence of underground rivers. She invited
participants to provide inputs to improve the accuracy of the delineation.
The following step was to run the "Nonpoint-Source Pollution & Erosion Comparison
Tool" (N-SPECT) to evaluate sediment and pollutant delivery into coastal waters. The
N-SPECT model, developed by NOAA, is in the public domain and is easy to run in
ArcMAP. N-SPECT provides estimates of erosion across the landscape as well as
sediment and pollutant (N and P) delivery and concentrations at the river mouths.
Using the land cover scenarios from CLUE-S, coupled with the N-SPECT hydrologic
model, sediment and pollutant delivery at 300 river mouths can be estimated. The
University of Miami is implementing a high resolution 4-dimensional model to examine
sediments and pollutants transport within the region's lagoonal system. The sediment
and nutrient transport predictions will be calibrated using the SeaWifs sensor.
Lauretta commented that the hydrologic results need to be calibrated (and validated)
using data from several sources. Project collaborators from Texas A&M University
are taking sediment samples; WVVF is taking sediment samples and is looking at









bioaccumulation of toxics in reef organisms. AGRRA reef assessments will be used
to examine the location of sediment impacts on coral reefs. She discussed the
limitations of the analysis and invited workshop participants to make
recommendations for data to calibrate the model.

Results of Hydrologic and Circulation Modeling (by Lauretta Burke)
Keeping all inputs but land cover equal, WRI produced estimates for the present day
and future scenarios of accumulated runoff, as well as accumulation and
concentration of sediment, nitrogen, phosphorous, and total suspended solids.
Annual model runs were implemented for current land cover, hypothetical natural land
cover, and the three 2025 scenarios for the MAR region. Analysis of results allowed
the identification of those areas with the highest sediment and nutrient delivery, and
of how much sediment and nutrient delivery has increased due to human activities. It
was also possible to see the influence that future land cover might have on sediment
and nutrient delivery, as well as the areas that are the most vulnerable to erosion, and
which parts of the MAR are affected by sediment and nutrients. Maps and summary
tables were presented, and later discussed with workshop participants.

Activities with Agribusiness for the adoption of Better Management Practices (BM Ps) (by
Jose Vasquez).
Jose Vasquez presented the efforts WWF is leading in the region to raise awareness
and persuade agricultural companies into the adoption of BMPs. He began by
highlighting that agrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) are known for their effect
on global reef health. In 2004 WWF conducted a preliminary monitoring analysis to
identify the levels of toxic substances in marine organisms and identified the need to
reduce the presence of particular 'priority' pesticides in the MAR. To accomplish this,
and to control soil erosion, they have engaged in conversations with some of the
major agricultural companies in the region, and are currently developing partnerships
for the adoption of BMPs in banana, citrus, palm oil, pineapple and sugar cane crops.
Based on the preliminary results presented by WRI and WCMC, WWF will select a
pilot watershed to collect specific data to validate the models, and to pursue the
implementation of BMPs.

In the afternoon participants broke into four national groups (Honduras, Belize, Mexico,
and Guatemala) to review the modeling results by country Each group presented a
summary of their observations and suggestions at the plenary session in the morning of
August 16 (see summaries in the following section).

Data dissemination through the Mesostor portal (by Emil Cherrington)
During the morning policy session on August 16, the representative from the Water
Center for the Humid Tropics of Latin America & the Caribbean (CATHALAC)
presented briefly on how the ICRAN-MAR Project's data and information products will
be disseminated through the USAID-supported Regional Visualization & Monitoring
System (SERVIR) at: http://servir.nasa.cathalac.org or http://servir.nsstc.nasa.gov.
Mr. Cherrignton mentioned that the MAR data will be added to the variety of public
domain spatial datasets and satellite imagery already available through SERVIR for
the Mesoamerican region. As such, long after project completion, researchers and
decision-makers will continue to have access to the rich database developed by the
ICRAN-MAR Project regarding land-based impacts on the Mesoamerican Reef









ecosystem. With regard to synergies between these two USAID-supported initiatives,
SERVIR and the ICRAN-MAR Project have collaborated on data development, and
SERVIR representatives provided technical support during the August 2006 Regional
Watershed Modeling workshop in Belize.

During the discussion session, Dr. Barbara Best Coastal Resources and Policy
Advisor for the Office of Natural Resources Management with USAID, and Cognizant
Technical Officer for the ICRAN-MAR Alliance presented on opportunities for
partnerships within the region and on a broader spatial scale. In particular she
described the USAID Global Development Alliance, which works through public-private
partnerships, and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), through which
Central American countries could access financial support for follow-up activities in the
region. She highlighted the emphasis these initiatives give to capacity building efforts,
water issues, and tourism, and encouraged participants to communicate the results of
this workshop's discussions to their governments and seek additional funding for
capacity building. As another opportunity for capacity building Dr. Best recommended
linking US Universities with local Universities.


SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT GROUP REVIEWS
BELIZE
1. The watershed boundaries look good, but must be re-drawn to reflect the 18 major
watersheds of Belize. Small coastal watersheds must be merged with larger ones
rather than leaving them out.
Note: In response to this, Lauretta Burke mentioned that N-SPECT calculates using
much larger watersheds, with the smaller coastal watersheds being merged, though
she emphasized that these larger watersheds are incorrect because they reflect the
combined catchments of multiple rivers that drain into the sea.
2. N-SPECT outputs need to be explored further / validated.
3. Land Use scenarios the group would like to know more about how the scenario
narratives were translated to IMAGE 2 outputs.
4. Numerous possible applications of project outputs exist (e.g. overall land use
planning, reporting to UNFCCC).
5. The results are good and reveal worthwhile / critical investment of effort.

MEXICO
1. Model validation is necessary and accurate data is missing. Mexican colleagues
encourage workshop participants to develop a campaign to collect field data to
calibrate the models.
2. A legend should be added to the maps to clarify that the results are estimates.
Mexican participants can contribute recent national data to jointly validate the
models.
3. Some aspects of the N-SPECT and CLUE-S methodologies are not clear in
particular with respect to concepts and variables. For example, it is not clear what
were the criteria to reduce the LU/LC classes in the GEO scenarios.









4. Meteorological sporadic or extraordinary events should be incorporated into the N-
SPECT model. Evaluate the possibility to run the model for different time periods
(e.g., quarterly, monthly).
5. The Markets First and the Policy First scenarios showed similar results. Evaluate if a
new or intermediate scenario can be created. The scenarios for a 25-year period
don't show drastically different results.
6. The Yucatan Peninsula should be treated as a special case in the N-SPECT model
since its underground water flow is difficult to estimate. The Mexican group
estimated that the preliminary model results are not representative of the real flow
dynamics and should be taken out of the maps (or highlighted as preliminary). Need
to incorporate the results of the JICA study on underground water flow into N-SPECT
(when it becomes available).
7. The N-SPECT model does not show "real" results for Yucatan and can lead decision
makers to judge that the sediment and pollution flow to the MAR is not significant.
8. Keep in mind that the Yucatan peninsula does not suffer from what is normally
termed as soil erosion. Instead, if suffers from dissolution of the bedrock due to soil
characteristics.
9. Consider including higher resolution data for the Rivera Maya to pinpoint the effects
of large coastal developments (e.g., Cancun, Playa del Carmen).
10. Consider the development of a special N-SPECT model only for the Yucatan
Peninsula.

GUATEMALA
1. First impression of the work is very good, but there is the need to incorporate more
detailed data and national datasets.
2. It is essential to calibrate the model and adjust its variables.
3. Results seem logical, but are they significant?
4. Recommendation to look at extreme events, not necessary a second Hurricane
Mitch, but something more dramatic than the monthly and annual data that the
models have used. Looking at rainfall events could be a good first step.
5. Recommendation to create maps that better illustrate the differences between the
scenarios. This is not clear from the maps presented, though maps highlighting the
differences are presented in the CLUE-S technical report on the training CD.
6. Further information is needed about the assumptions that were made and restrictions
of the models/methodologies. Joep Luijten mentioned that for CLUE-S some
information of this nature can be found in the technical report on the training CD.
7. It must be made clear that if two scenarios show the same percentage land cover for
a particular land use type, there could still be significant differences in the spatial
distribution of land use. Thus, just having a table that lists the percentages of area
covered by each land use type is misleading.
8. Need to include socio-economic variables in the models. For example, if the area of
forest decrease with 5%, what is the $ value of the change? How much do the
changes affect tourism?
9. Largest differences on forest and cropping. Application is useful for sustainable
forest management and integrated watershed management.









HONDURAS
1. The delineation of watersheds looks good but small coastal watersheds should be
merged with larger adjacent ones so that the overall delineation better matches the
country's official watersheds.
2. Would like to see a method to include dams in the model. At present there is a
hydro-power dam in the Ulua watershed and the Honduras team will be interested in
calculating the accumulation of sediment behind the dam. How could this variable
(i.e. existence of dams) be incorporated into the model?
3. Results will help the team prioritize areas where reforestation programs and soil
conservation programs could take place.
4. The results are valuable for decision-makers in both the private and public sector.
This would be an excellent tool for the land-use planning that recently started in
Honduras.
5. Work collaboratively at the regional level to promote the use of the same GIS
technologies for better management of natural resources.
6. The datasets and products provided by ICRAN-MAR in the workshop are not final;
instead they should be viewed as intermediate products that need to be refined at
the national level to provide scientific information useful for decision-making.
7. The model should include socio-economic data that can be presented to decision
makers.
8. Participants should reach a formal compromise whereby they agree to apply and
improve the models provided in accordance with the local capacities and existing
informational needs.
9. Need to work at higher resolutions: 90 or 30 meters. It should be noted that such
small resolution are not practical when the models are applied to a country or the
MAR region as a whole because the required simulation times would be far too long.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The policy session ended with a two-hour review, conducted by the whole group, on the
ICRAN-MAR watershed component and the workshop results and follow-up activities; it
centered on the need to inform policy makers in participating countries about the results
of the ICRAN-MAR exercise, and on the need to provide follow-up support to agencies
that decide to use the models and datasets produced by the watershed component of
ICRAN-MAR.

A summary of the main issues raised during the review follows:

Results are useful for some specific purposes. The MAR-drainage-wide
watershed analysis was regarded as ambitious. Participants recognize the
amount of effort that went into the analysis; appreciate the region-wide
comparable results; but recommend that the results be shared with instructions
about appropriate and inappropriate use. These are estimates of sediment and
nutrient delivery from coastal watersheds given current land cover and given
several scenarios of future land cover.
Scenario results are not that different: Differences between the scenarios are
not large; most participants had expected to see greater contrasts. This could be
related to the relatively short time period (2000-25) or be because the scenarios









are too general and are unable to adequately reflect critical changes that appear
on a local level or in the immediately coastal areas.
* Model results need to be validated. There is a need to better calibrate the
models and validate model results. There is ongoing work with SeaWifs (with the
University of Miami) and there are data from the WRISC project that can be used
to evaluate the estimates for several watersheds. WRI asked participants to
provide data for validation.
* Information can influence policy. A participant asked how ICRAN-MAR can
use results to preserve forests. Lauretta Burke responded that having a good,
integrated information infrastructure (to support sound spatial analysis) and
having channels to decision-makers is key.
* Local application of modeling tools will produce the most useful, detailed
results. Technology transfer and capacity building is an important part of the
workshop. Participants will be able to use local data (as inputs and for validation),
and therefore can do more detailed analysis and obtain more accurate results
back in their agencies.
* Results are not final: The analysis results are not a final product. ICRAN-MAR
needs to build capacity to use the models offered during the workshop within the
region, so that people can use local information to refine results and validate the
modeling.
* Extreme Events. The N-SPECT modeling focused on mean annual precipitation.
Extreme events such as hurricanes and tropical storms are the major source of
sediment. It would be valuable to model extreme events and the seasonality of
discharge.
* Clarification on N-SPECT Units. The MBRS representative thought that the N-
SPECT model outputs were "relative" and not in meaningful units. WRI's
experience is that N-SPECT output is in liters for discharge and kilograms for
sediment and pollutants.
* Basin Delineation style. There was some discussion of the MAR basin
delineation, focusing on the small coastal watersheds. Many participants would
prefer to have these small watersheds lumped into the larger, adjacent basins.
WRI cannot do such lumping, as it would be inconsistent with hydrologic flow
within the DEM. However, N-SPECT uses an algorithm that does merge small
adjacent watersheds. These results are provided on the data CD.
* Yucatan. WRI acknowledged that the basin delineation for the Yucatan is not
very good due to underground rivers and few perennial surface rivers. The group
from Mexico also pointed out this limitation, and mentioned that JICA is now
working on estimating underground water flow. As policy-makers will dismiss the
Yucatan results, they encouraged WRI to consider excluding the basins in the
Yucatan from the results, or issue strong and appropriate disclaimers about the
problems with the model in the Yucatan.
* Scenario results. The analysis of change in sediment between natural and
current land cover is striking and clearly shows the extent of human impact. The
results of the N-SPECT modeling for the three future land cover scenarios,
however, do not look very different. This is because









a) the land cover scenario data sets are not so extremely different
b) the results are presented at the basin-level. WRI can explore
presenting them at the sub-watershed level.
* Management Practices. Due to the lack of regional data on agricultural crops
and the fact that the management practices module of the N-SPECT model is not
yet implemented, WRI's analysis focuses on the impact of land cover change on
sediment and pollutant delivery. It would be very valuable to include
management practices in the model in the future.
* Dams. Some participants asked WRI to look into the possibility of incorporating
dams into the N-SPECT model as a sediment trap. WRI will research the issue
further.
* Relevance of Results to Policy. There was discussion of the difficulty of moving
from analysis results to changes in policy. The inclusion of socio-economic
values was encouraged.
* Erosion monitoring. WWF is monitoring soil erosion on citrus, palm oil and
sugar cane plantations. This data would be very valuable if WRI could, under a
future project or future project phase, attempt to include different crops and
management practices in the hydrologic analysis.
* Economic Valuation. Several participants encouraged including economic
variables in the results, such as the value of lost soil, lost agricultural productivity,
and damage to coral reefs. The models are very technical and the simulation
results are very scientific. It is essential to make this information more accessible
to decision-makers by adding monetary values to some of the results.
* National datasets: Participants pointed out that for some countries (and for
certain regions inside countries) there are newer or more detailed datasets that
could be incorporated into future versions of the models.
* Running models at a smaller scale. The models should be run at higher
resolutions (30 meter or 90 meter) when operated in the countries. The Mexican
participants highlighted the need of more detailed models for coastal areas to
analyze the impact of coastal development (e.g., new golf courses, hotels).
* Land use demand for scenarios. Participants expressed the desire for more
details about the use of the International Futures and IMAGE models for
calculating the future demand (i.e., area) for each land cover type and why we
chose to use these models. As these models were not covered during the
training, participants wanted to know whether they could deploy these models
themselves to analyze different parameters (e.g. different population growth
rates). What alternative methods are available for calculating land demand?
* Explanatory factors (location factors). Participants struggled with the concepts
and practical application of the explanatory factors (location factors) that were
used as part of the land use modeling methodology. This is arguably the most
complicated part of the CLUE-S model development. Participants wanted to
know whether they could include additional location factors.
* Land Cover Validation. Participants asked whether the land cover data had
been validated by WCMC. No validation was undertaken. It should be noted that
WCMC used well-known land cover data from reputable sources. The Ecosystem









Map datasets were created as part of a multi-year, multi-partner effort. Validation
of these third-party datasets was not part of the project plan.
*Follow-up activities. Participants expressed their desire to be part of a group
that helps move this work forward. A participant mentioned that existing national
groups dealing with water issues or geospatial issues could lead this task.










TECHNICAL SESSION


The technical session was held at the GIS lab of Galen University on the afternoon of
August 16 and on August 17 and 18. Twenty-two participants from Honduras,
Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico attended (see the list of participants in Appendix 3).

The objective of the technical session was to provide hands-on training so that
participants can carry out their own watershed analyses in the future. Training was
provided in hydrologic modeling using ArcMAP GIS, the Nonpoint Source Polution and
Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) and the CLUE-S models, and as well as guidance
on datasets developed by the watershed component of the ICRAN-MAR project. These
tools allow users to delineate watersheds; model runoff and sediment and pollution loads
at river mouths across the region, and simulate land use changes under alternative
scenarios. SERVIR Viz software was also distributed to participants by Emil Cherrington
on behalf of the Mesoamerican Regional System for Visualization & Monitoring
(SERVIR), hosted at CATHALAC, Panama.

During the first component of this session (afternoon of August 16) Lauretta Burke (WRI)
explained and conducted an exercise on how to delineate watersheds using the SRTM
90-meter dataset and Spatial Analyst tools available in ArcMAP. A detailed explanation
of how the MAR watersheds were delineated was offered. In addition, Lauretta guided
an exercise on evaluating the vulnerability of land to erosion (on a grid cell basis).

On August 17 Zachary Sugg (WRI) led a training session on the use of the N-SPECT
model for estimating river runoff and sediment and pollutant loads. Participants ran the
model using different land use scenarios for several MAR watersheds. WRI gave each
participant a CD containing the model software, the results of running N-SPECT for
different land use scenarios for the MAR region, and the complete MAR watershed
delineation, together with a wide array of white papers and background documents that
provide in-depth information about the model.

On August 18 Joep Luijten (WCMC) gave training in land cover change modeling using
the CLUE-S model. First he introduced the model and the different types of input
parameters and the datasets that define different scenarios. Much of the day was spent
in hands-on exercises. Initially a small sample dataset was used that allowed the
participants to rapidly become familiar with the model's user-interface and analyze the
effects of changes in selected model parameters. In the afternoon participants looked at
some more advanced model features and worked with the complete dataset for Belize.
Joep provided to participants a CD that contained the CLUE-S model software, the
complete datasets for Belize, Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, the MAR GEO
scenario results (25 year period), and background materials.

An evaluation sheet presented to participants can be found in Appendix 4, and a
summary of the results of the evaluation in Appendix 5.

Participants also filled out another questionnaire designed to help ICRAN-MAR evaluate
what type of follow-up activities are useful and can be supported by the project. Most
participants clearly identified a need for additional training/outreach in the MAR
countries, in the short term, at two different levels:









LEVEL 1. Training/outreach seminars for managers and decision-makers:
Participants recommended the organization of seminars targeted at managers
and decision makers on the basic functionality and the usefulness of the
models, emphasizing how their results can be incorporated into decision-
making. The models should be tested using local and national data at high
resolutions in order to improve their results and facilitate their use in the
national context.

LEVEL 2. Technical training for GIS and ICT specialists: Responses to the
questionnaire also clearly show that the countries could benefit from additional
in-depth training in the models. Participants requested additional training that
will reach a broader group of specialists on each country.

The following general recommendations were also offered by the technical group:
Offer additional and more in-depth training on the CLUE-S and N-SPECT
models that incorporates:
o the use of national and local datasets,
o detailed explanations of the parameters used,
o a review of the methodologies used for the creation of the model input
datasets.
Increase efficiency of the training by offering train-the-trainers workshops,
where national specialists learn the basic operation of the models and are able
to conduct seminars geared towards decision-makers.
Support remote technical assistance to participants who implement the models
in order to support their use in real scenarios.
Assist in the creation of a technical users' group whose core will be formed by
workshop participants. The group can offer its members basic technical
assistance and support on the use of the models provided in the workshop.
ICRAN-MAR could support it with seed funding needed to start its operation.
WCMC and WRI will evaluate the feedback received from participants, will contact
participants to ascertain their current needs, and will design and conduct follow-up
activities to the extent possible with remaining ICRAN-MAR funds during the first
semester of 2007.

The follow-up evaluation sheet presented to participants can be found in Appendix 6,
and a summary of the results of the evaluation can be found in Appendix 7.











APPENDIX 1. Workshop Agenda


PART 1: POLICY WORKSHOP

Policy Workshop on Land-based threats to the Mesoamerican Reef (Duration: 1.5 days)

Goals:
1) Inform policy makers and other potential information users of the information outputs and
tools that have been developed under this project.
2) Learn about the ICRAN MAR watershed project and the analytical components on land
cover change analysis, watershed delineation, hydrologic modeling and circulation
modeling.
3) Review scenarios of land cover change and provide feedback on these scenarios.
4) Review results of predictive modeling of land-based sources of pollution and sediment
discharge to the Mesoamerican Reef
5) Raise awareness of the linkages between human activities on the land and threats to the
Mesoamerican Reef.
6) Identify policy questions / applications for the analytic tools, as well as future users of the
analytic tools.

Day 1 Tuesday August 15 (All-day Policy Workshop)

Facilitator: Eric Van Praag,

08:30 Registration
09:00 National Anthem
09:03 Invocation. Father Kevin Nederman at the Sacred Heart Parish
09:05 Opening remarks, introduction to the ICRAN-Mesoamerican Reef Alliance (ICRAN-MAR
Project). Liza Agudelo, Project Coordinator
09:10 Workshop goals, introductions of participants and organizers. Eric Van Praag, UNEP-
WCMC Consultant
09:30 Key note presentation: Health of Corals and threats to the Mesoamerican Reef. Dr.
Melanie McField, Healthy Reefs Initiative.
09:50 Key note presentation: "Conceptual evolution of watershed management in the
Mesoamerican Region". Dr. Carlos Rivas, Senior Advisor for Mesoamerica, Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
10:10 Overview of the Watershed Theme (Component) of the ICRAN-MAR project. Lauretta
Burke, World Resources Institute

10:20 Coffee/Tea Break

10:40 Overview of scenario development. Joep Luijten, UNEP-WCMC
Scenario studies with regional land use change modeling
Adaptation of GEO-4 scenarios for the MAR region; storylines
Discussion/feedback
11:20. Overview land use change modeling. Joep Luijten, UNEP-WCMC
Quantification of change in land demand (IFS, IMAGE models)
Modeling the allocation of land overtime and space (CLUE-S model)
Model results. Changes in land use distribution over time.
Discussion/feedback

12:15 Lunch











13:15 Overview of Hydrologic and Circulation Modeling for the MAR. Lauretta Burke, WRI
Watershed delineation
Vulnerability analysis
Hydrologic analysis using N-SPECT
Circulation modeling
Model calibration
14:00 Results of Hydrologic and Circulation Modeling. Lauretta Burke, WRI
How much has sediment and nutrient delivery already increased due to human
activities?
Which coastal areas are most heavily impacted at present?
How much is sediment and nutrient delivery likely to increase under future scenarios?
14:30 Review of results by participants
Review of watersheds
Review of sediment and nutrient delivery estimates
Discussion

15:15 Coffee/Tea Break

15:40 Results from activities with Agribusiness for the adoption of Better Management
Practices. Jose Vasquez, WWF Honduras
16:00 Group Discussion. Four country breakout groups to:
review of land cover change scenarios and hydrologic model results;
discussion of potential policy applications of the modeling tools;
discussion of alternative pathways of development for region

17:30 Close for day


Day 2 Wednesday August 16 (Policy Session morning only)

09:00 Brief review of modeling results from previous day
09:15 Plenary:
Feedback from break groups (in open discussion format) on:
utility and validity of the land cover scenario modeling;
utility and validity of hydrologic / sediment transport modeling
10:00 Discussion
policy applications of these tools
alternative pathways for development in the region

10:30 Coffee/Tea Break

10:45 Introduction to the Data CD and data products
11:30. Closing Discussion

12:00 Lunch


PART 2: TECHNICAL WORKSHOP

Technical workshop on land cover change modeling and hydrologic modeling for different
scenarios for the Mesoamerican Reef (Duration: 2.5 days)

Goals:
1) Learn how to delineate basins (watersheds) from digital elevation data










2) Learn how to use ArcMAP Spatial Analyst to identify land most vulnerable to erosion.
3) Learn how to use the Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-
SPECT) extension to evaluate the impact of land cover change on sediment and nutrient
delivery to the coastal zone.
4) Understand how to perform a statistical analysis of explanatory factors of land use
patterns, and the different data that must be collected and prepared.
5) Learn how to install and use the CLUE-S model for analyzing different scenarios of land
cover change (for this data for a smaller area will be used)
6) Learn how the data collection, data preparation and the use of the model as it been done
for the MAR region, country by country, and review results.

Day 2 (Wednesday August 16) (Technical session afternoon only)

Overview and Watershed Delineation

13:30 Overview of Model Components \ Program and Workshop Goals.
a) Models and associated software
b) Order of analysis
14:00 Introduction to Data CD for MAR region
14:30 Watershed Delineation (using Spatial Analyst)
Includes discussion of Sinks, flow direction and flow accumulation, "burning of rivers,"
delineation of basins, identification of pour points
Prepare DEM for later use in N-SPECT delineation

15:30 Break

15.45 Spatial Analysis Erosion Vulnerability Analysis (using Spatial Analyst)
Derive slope;
use map calculator to combine grids to map relative vulnerability to erosion
Summarize by watershed

17:30 Close for day


Day 3 Thursday August 17 Erosion and Pollution Modeling using N-SPECT

9:00 Introduction to N-SPECT
a. Overview of the N-SPECT modeling Tool
i. Capabilities / Functions
ii. RUSLE
iii. Where data and outputs live
iv. Processing time estimates
10:00 Watershed Delineation Using N-SPECT
b. Preparing the DEM
c. Options
d. Exercise on watershed delineation
11:00 Erosion and pollution analysis using N-SPECT
e. Data requirements
f. FACTORS
g. Options
h. Outputs

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Exercise on erosion modeling
14:00 Exercise on Local Effect modeling (RUSLE)











Break


15:00 Exercise on pollutant modeling
16:00 Discussion on implementation of other scenarios

17:00 Close


Day 4 (Friday 18th August) Land cover change modeling and the CLUE-S model

09:00 Introduction to land use change modeling and the CLUE-S model
Different types of land use change models
History and applications of CLUE-S in the world
CLUE-S model structure and key input files
Separate regression analysis of driving factors in SPSS
10:00 Introduction to case study area (Sibuyan island, Philippines)

10:15 Break

10:30 Practical CLUE-S
System requirements and installation. Demo vs. full version
Exercise 1: Learning to know the user-interface and displaying results.
Overview of input data files and model parameters files
Exercise 2: Parameter files and simulating alternative scenarios

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Practical CLUE-S (continued)
Regression equation parameters files and probability surfaces
Land use conversion matrix and conversion sequences
Creating land use requirement (demand) files
Spatial policies and area restriction files
Conversion elasticities and crop rotations
Exercise 3: Creating new area restriction and land requirement files

14:30 Background on the MAR land use change scenario simulations, and
CLUE-S data sets for Belize, Guatemala, Mexico and Honduras
Separate data and simulation per country
Calculation of the land demand for different scenarios
Dynamic and static driving factors; protected areas data

14:45 Break

15:00 MAR simulations, continued
Regression equations and probability surfaces
Exercise 4: Working with actual scenario data for Belize

16:30 End













APPENDIX 2. Policy Session Participants


Name Organization Country Email
Liza Agudelo ICRAN-MAR Belize lagudelo@icran.org
Leonel Aquino MARN Guatemala laquino@marn.gob.gt
Barbara Best SAID US BBEST@USAID.GOV
Ed Boles University of Belize Belize ubboles@yahoo.com
Lauretta Burke WRI US LAURETTA@wri.org
Ramon Carcamo Fisheries Department Belize ramalive@yahoo.com
Laura Carrillo ECOSUR Mexico Ic_oceanografa@yahoo.com.mx
Fernando Castro CONAP Guatemala Guatemala fercastro@conap.gob.gt
Shalini Cawich WWF Belize shalini@wwfca.org
Marion Cayetano Galen University Belize mcayetano@galenu.edu.bz
Ivis Chan Belize Audubon Society Belize research@belizeaudubon.org
Emil Cherrington CATHALAC Panama Emil.cherrington@cathalac.org
Edgar Ek Land Information Center Belize edgar_ek@yahoo.com
Ramon Frutos Meteorological Department Belize rfrutos01@yahoo.com
Jose Herrero USAID/MIRA FUCSA Honduras jherrero@mirahonduras.org
Sergio Hoare WCS Belize shoare@wcs.org
Joshua Lopez Ministry of Natural Resources Belize jal20075@hotmail.com
Joep Luijten UNEP-WCMC UK joepluijten@yahoo.com
Miguel Martinez Tuna WWF-Central America Guatemala mmartinez@wwfca.org
Melanie McField Healthy Reefs Initiative Belize mcfield@btl.net,mmcfield@wwfca.org
Jan Meerman Belize Tropical Studies Belize meerman@biological-diversity.info
Nestor Meneses USAID/MIRA Honduras nestor.meneses@gmail.com
Nelson Muioz SERNA Honduras nmunoz@serna.gob.hn
Efrain Novelo US Embassy Belize NoveloER@state.gov












Name Organization Country Email
Juan Manuel Nuiez Centro Geo M6xico jnunez@centrogeo.org.mx
Gerardo Rios CONANP Mexico grios@conanp.gob.mx
Carlos Rivas SIDA Honduras carlos.rivas@sida.se
Julianne Robinson TNC Belize Belize jrobinson@mail.usf.edu
Jose Rodriguez Rocha INEGI Mexico jose.rodriguez@inegi.gob.mx
Victor Romero Benitez INEGI Mexico manuel.romero@inegi.gob.mx
Antonio Salaverria Unidad de Pesca Guatemala antoniosalaverria@gmail.com
Linda Searle Seasports Belize Belize info@seasportsbelize.com
Zachary Sugg WRI US zsugg@wri.org
Armeid Thompson ICRAN-MAR Belize athompson@icran.org,chicarule@yahoo.com
Victor Valencia Universidad del Valle Guatemala vhval976@yahoo.es
Eric van Praag UNEP-WCMC Venezuela evan@cantv.net
Jorge Enrique Vargas MARN Guatemala enriquevargasm@marn.gov.gt
Jose Vasquez WWF Honduras jvasquez@wwfca.org
Mary Vasquez MBRS / SAM Belize queenconch@mbrs.org.bz
Mauricio Mejia WWF Belize mmejia@wwfca.org
Ramadan Salazar CONANP Mexico litbiosl6mm@hotmail.com
Roy E. Polonio TIDE Belize banjahni@yahoo.com
Mauro Salazar WWF Guatemala msalazar@wwfca.org
Candy Gonzalez BELPO Belize belpobz@starband.net
Aldo Cansio (for Martin
Aldo Cansio (for Martin Department of Environment Belize envirodept@btl.net
Alegria)












APPENDIX 3. Technical Session Participants


Name Organization Country Email
Barbara Best SAID US BBEST@USAID.GOV
Ramon Carcamo Fisheries Department Belize ramalive@yahoo.com
Laura Carrillo ECOSUR Mexico Ic_oceanografa@yahoo.com.mx
Marion Cayetano Galen University Belize mcayetano@galenu.edu.bz
Ivis Chan Belize Audubon Society Belize research@belizeaudubon.org
Emil Cherrington CATHALAC Panama Emil.cherrington@cathalac.org
Ramon Frutos Meteorological Department Belize rfrutos01@yahoo.com
Sergio Hoare WCS Belize shoare@wcs.org
Joshua Lopez Ministry of Natural Resources Belize jal20075@hotmail.com
Miguel Martinez Tuna WWF-Central America Guatemala mmartinez@wwfca.org
Jan Meerman Belize Tropical Studies Belize meerman@biological-diversity.info
Nestor Meneses USAID/MIRA Honduras nestor.meneses@gmail.com
Juan Manuel Nuiez Centro Geo Mexico jnunez@centrogeo.org.mx
Gerardo Rios CONANP Mexico grios@conanp.gob.mx
Julianne Robinson TNC Belize Belize jrobinson@mail.usf.edu
Victor Romero Benitez INEGI Mexico manuel.romero@inegi.gob.mx
Antonio Salaverria Unidad de Pesca Guatemala antoniosalaverria@gmail.com
Victor Valencia Universidad del Valle Guatemala vhva1976@yahoo.es
Jorge Enrique Vargas MARN Guatemala enriquevargasm@marn.gob.gt
Jose Vasquez WWF Honduras jvasquez@wwfca.org
Mary Vasquez MBRS / SAM Belize queenconch@mbrs.org.bz
Mauricio Mejia WWF Belize mmejia@wwfca.org
Ramadan Salazar CONANP Mexico litbiosl6mm@hotmail.com
Roy E. Polonio TIDE Belize banjahni@yahoo.com
Aldo Cansino Department of Environment Belize envirodept@btl.net












APPENDIX 4. Technical Session Evaluation Sheet


EVALUACION DEL TALLER
Proyecto ICRAN-MAR

Taller sobre Manejo de Cuencas, Modelaje de Escenarios de Cambio en la Cobertura
Terrestre y Modelaje de Descarga Hidrica de Sedimentos y Nutrientes

San Ignacio, Belice, 15 18 de Marzo de 2006


Agradecemos su tiempo para responder algunas preguntas que nos permitirin mejorar aspects del curso y
evaluar su impact. Utilice la siguiente escala de valores para responder a las preguntas:
[1 = muy pobre, no adecuado, no util, 5 = muy bueno, muy buena capacidad, muy util]

1. El curso
Marque con un circulo el valor de su respuesta


iQud tan util result el taller para Ud.?
iFueron valiosas las presentaciones de la Secci6n de
Politicas?
Las sesiones te6ricas fueron:
Las sesiones practices fueron:
El nivel de los instructors fue:
La calidad del entrenamiento fue:
iFue el curso compatible con sus intereses,
conocimiento previo y responsabilidades laborales?:
iQud tan util fue el entrenamiento en CLUE-S?
iQud tan util fue el entrenamiento en N-SPECT?
iQud tan util fue el component sobre ArcMAP
y herramientas hidricas?

2. Resultados del entrenamiento en N-SPECT
iUd. se siente capaz de?:

Realizar una delimitaci6n de cuencas
Calcular escorrentia (runoff) y acumulaci6n de sedimentos
Calcular acumulaci6n de contaminants
Calcular local effects (erosi6n local)
Utilizar sus propios datos en el modelo N-SPECT

3. Resultados del entrenamiento en CLUE-S
iUd. se siente capaz de?:

Entender los distintos datos y parimetros de entrada
Preparar los datos de entrada para CLUE-S
Visualizar los resultados de CLUE-S en un SIG
Preparar y comparar sus propios escenarios para CLUE-S
(land demand, area restriction files)
Trabajar con los datos de su pais contenidos en el CD
Calcular nuevos coeficientes de regresi6n utilizando
software de estadisticas y el manual de CLUE-S


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5










4. Desarrollo del curso
Evalue el curso de acuerdo a los siguientes criterios

Habilidad de transmitir conocimiento de former clara
Habilidad de general interns en los temas
Capacidad de transmitir conocimiento sobre el modelo
CLUE-S a otros especialistas
Capacidad de transmitir conocimiento sobre el modelo
N-SPECT a otros especialistas

5. Recursos del curso
Ofrezca su opinion sobre los siguientes recursos

El sal6n de entrenamiento:
Los computadores:
El material audiovisual:
El material impreso:
El CD de entrenamiento:
La traducci6n simultinea (sesi6n de political)
La traducci6n en la sesi6n t6cnica


1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4


6. Agenda
Agradecemos sus comentarios sobre la agenda del curso. iLe pareci6 correct? iSe cubrieron los temas con
el tiempo adecuado? ,Hay temas que se debieron dar mas a fondo o mas ripido? iQud aspects de la
agenda se pueden mejorar?
(See summary of responses in Appendix 5)

7. Por favor especifique c6mo los temas ofrecidos en el curso le apoyarin en su trabajo
(See summary of responses in Appendix 5)

8. ZPiensa que usard estos models en el future? Por favor especifique su respuesta para CLUE-S y N-
SPECT y el tipo de aplicaciones donde los usaria?
(See summary of responses in Appendix 5)


9. iC6mo visualiza que los resultados de los models serin presentados y explicados a tomadores de
decisions y autoridades? Favor explicar:
(See summary of responses in Appendix 5)


10. Comentarios generals:
(See summary of responses in Appendix 5)











APPENDIX 5. Summary of Technical Evaluation Results.


Question 6: Please provide comments on the workshop agenda: was it appropriate? Did it offer
enough time to cover each topic correctly? Are there topics that should have been covered in
more detail? Can the agenda be improved?

Summary of responses:
Responses suggested that it would be useful to:
Provide more information on the development of the scenarios and on the generation of
the model parameters.
Have additional time (i.e., longer workshop) to cover some of the topics in more detail.
Explain better where the models' input data came from and how it was developed.
Provide more time to complete the exercises.
Give more time to explain the CLUE-S model.
Have the workshop in one language only or using instant translation. Too much time
was lost due to the need to translate to Spanish.

Question 7: How will the training received help you in your work?
Summary of responses:
It supports some agencies' mandate to monitor watersheds.
It offers tools useful for decision-making.
It is useful in evaluating the hydrological cycle and sedimentation patterns.
It complements one agency's work, where satellite imagery is being used to model
hydrological resources.
It supports some agencies' need to identify and measure threats to turtle nesting and
feeding sites.

Question 8: Are you likely to apply these models? Please refer to CLUE-S and N-SPECT
specifically and explain how these models could be used by your agency.
Summary of responses:
CLUE-S will be very useful for modelling vegetation cover in NPAs in Mexico.
N-SPECT won't be useful for the Yucatan Peninsula, unless underground water flow is
incorporated into the model.
One responded wishes to test both models in an area with great environmental
degradation and to evaluate the results.
The USAID MIRA project will use N-SPECT as part of its watershed project component.
Some agencies will use the models to simulate the impact of major climatic events.
N-SPECT will prove useful for the scientific community and general decision makers
who need better information on sedimentation and pollution patterns.
N-SPECT can be useful in estimating community health needs/status/trends in
Southern Belize.
The models will be most useful if national datasets can be incorporated and tested.
Some agencies will compare N-SPECT results with existing model results.










Some agencies commented that further training in the use of CLUE-S is needed since
the model is so complex.
CLUE-S will be useful for planning land use in the framework of UN conventions such
as UNCCD and UNFCCC.
The set of models is useful for explaining the connections between forest cover and the
health of the sea.

Question 9: How can the model results be presented and explained to senior management and
decision makers?
Summary of responses:
ICRAN-MAR should train more specialists in the use of the models, who in turn will
inform decision makers locally about the models' benefits.
The countries should run the models using national and local datasets in order to
generate a greater impact when presenting to decision makers.
In presenting the results, we should emphasize the economic impact of misguided
management decisions, both through greater pollution and sedimentation, and through
impacts of land cover changes on the tourism sector.
Special care should be taken in explaining the "relative nature" of the results, lest
decision makers consider the model results as absolute value predictions.
There is a need to prepare training material for different types of seminars geared at
users with different needs.

Question 10: General comments.
Summary of responses:
Need to incorporate socio-economic variables in the models.
Need to translate all the training and support material to Spanish.
Need to conduct follow-up activities.
Need to establish a MAR monitoring network that will allow for the calibration and
improvement of the models and for comparing the different outputs and scenarios.

Many of the responses commented on how useful the workshop was and thanked the organizers
for conducting it.













ICRAN MAR WATERSHED WORKSHOP EVALUATIONS
5-Excellent 4-Good 3-Average 2-Below Average 1-Poor
Que tan util result el taller para ud 63% 33% 7% 7%
Fueron valiosas las presentaciones de la section de political 27% 33% 27% 13%
Las sessions teoricas fueron 20% 53% 13% 7% 7%
Las sesiones practices fueron 67% 13% 7% 13%
El nivel de los instructors fue 60% 27% 13%
La calidad del entrenamiento fue 40% 40% 13% 2%
fue el curso compatible con sus interests, conocimiento previo y responsabilidades laborales 43% 43% 7% 7%
que tan util fue el entrenamiento en CLUE-S 60% 33% 7%
Que tan util fue el entrenamiento en N-SPECT 47% 40% 7% 7%
que tan until fue el component sobre Arc Map y herramientas hidricas 46% 27% 7% 13% 7%
.0 Ud se siente capaz de
Realizar una delimitacion de cuencas 40% 47% 13%
calcular escorrentia (runoff) y acumulaci6n de sedimentos 33% 53% 13%
calcular acumulaci6n de contaminants 20% 60% 20%
Calcular local effects (erosion local): 27% 53% 20%
Utilizar sus propios dates en el model N-SPECT 27% 40% 27% 6%
entender los distintos datos y parametros de entrada 29% 50% 14% 6%
preparar los datos de entrada para CLUE-S 33% 33% 20% 14%
Visualizar los resultados de CLUE-S en un SIG 47% 33% 13% 7%
. Preparar y comprar sus propios escenarios para CLUE-S (land demand, area restriction files): 20% 47% 20% 13%
Trabajar con los datos de su pais contenidos en el CD 21% 50% 21% 8%
Calcular nuevos coeficientes de regresi6n utilizando software de estadisticas y el manula de CLUE-S 7% 43% 43% 7%
4.0 Evalue el curso de acuerdo a los siguientes criterios
habilidad de transmitir conocimiento de former clara 33.30% 47% 7% 13.30%
habilidad de general interest en los temas 33% 27% 27% 13%
capacidad de transmitir conocimentos sobre el model CLUE-S a otros especialistas: 33% 33% 27% 7%
Capacidad de transmitir conocimiento sobre el modelo N SPECT o otros especialistas 33% 27% 33% 7%
0 Ofrezca su opinion sobre los siguientes recursos
El sal6n de entrenamiento 40% 47% 13%
los computadores 33% 47% 13% 7%
el material audiovisual 40% 33% 20% 7%
el material impreso 33% 47% 13% 7%
el CD de entrenamiento 57% 29% 7% 7%
La traducci6n simultanea 13% 27% 27% 27% 6%
la traducci6n en la sesi6n tecnica 53% 33% 7% 7%











Watershed Workshop Evaluations


80%

70%

60%

50%
*"

I 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


* 5-Excellent
U 4-Good
O 3-Average
O 2-Below Average
S1-Poor


Evaluation Questions


Il 1I IIJI II IUl .I.I.I iiI U1 Ii lJIItI











APPENDIX 6. Follow-up Technical Questionnaire


EVALUATION DE OPORTUNIDADES PARA CAPACITACION Y SEGUIMIENTO

Proyecto ICRAN-MAR

Taller sobre Manejo de Cuencas, Modelaje de Escenarios de Cambio en la Cobertura Terrestre y
Modelaje de Descarga Hidrica de Sedimentos y Nutrientes
San Ignacio, Belice, 15 18 de Marzo de 2006

Nombre:
Instituci6n:
Teldfono:
Email:

Agradecemos su tiempo para responder algunas preguntas que nos permitirhn planificar potenciales
actividades de capacitaci6n posteriores al taller

1. iQue tipo de entrenamiento adicional y complementario consider que se podria ofrecer a Ud. y
su instituci6n relacionado con los temas cubiertos en el taller?

(See summary of responses in Appendix 7)

2. Por favor indique que instituciones de su pais consider que podrian beneficiarse de una
capacitaci6n similar a la ofrecida durante el taller actual (indique para cada una nombre de
persona contact y lista especialistas que deben asistir).

(See summary of responses in Appendix 7)

3. Por favor describe los beneficios que tendria una capacitaci6n adicional para su instituci6n y
para otras instituciones de su pais.

(See summary of responses in Appendix 7)

4. ZQu3 temas ofrecidos durante el taller consider de mayor interns para su instituci6n (u otras
instituciones de su pais) para una future capacitaci6n? Por favor describe.

(See summary of responses in Appendix 7)

5. ZCuenta su instituci6n con un laboratorio SIG adecuado para ofrecer capacitaci6n similar a la
ofrecida en el taller? En caso contrario, por favor indique si conoce de otra instituci6n que
podria ofrecer un laboratorio adecuado para el entrenamiento.

(See summary of responses in Appendix 7)

6. ZQu6 entrenamiento adicional es requerido para garantizar que los resultados de los models
apoyen acciones concretas?

(See summary of responses in Appendix 7)











APPENDIX 7. Summary of Results Follow-Up Questionnaire.


The following table offers a summary of the responses to the following questions:

1. What additional training do you consider should be offered to your institution
associated with the topics offered in the workshop?

and,

6. What additional training is required to guarantee that the results of the models support
concrete actions?



Support field data collection to improve the models UNIPESCA
Organize a seminar for decision makers to explain the benefits of the models UNIPESCA
Centro GEO
Development of scenarios CONANP
Better explain the use of certain parameters and details of the model not CONANP
covered during the training
Basic GIS training for non-specialists to allow them to benefit from the CONANP
models
More detailed training of the models using local datasets to develop ECOSUR
parameters appropriate to the MAR region INEGI
Training on the generation of the model input datasets ECOSUR
INEGI

Training to develop better source data as input for models, such as USAID MIRA
precipitation grids or land cover maps.

Training to establish a methodology to validate N-SPECT using real data Hydrology and
from selected MAR watersheds Meteorology
Service (HMS)
Assist to establish a national network that monitors erosion and Hydrology and
sedimentation in river channels Meteorology
Service
Test the models incorporating local datasets. Ideally, have countries validate TNC Belize
these datasets previously
Guidelines to collect data for model calibration TIDE Belize
Support the establishment of a regional network of specialists on the TIDE Belize
modeling tools
Obtain funding for additional follow-up support TIDE Belize
Training in ArcGIS 9 and basic GIS data handling to improve the data input WCS Belize
to the models HMS

Economic valuation of the different model scenarios Univ. Valle
Organize a seminar that shows how the results of the models can be used to Univ. Valle
solve real problems
Support policy formulation based on model results MARN
Development of indicators to assist the testing of the models MARN
Concept and context of general scenario development MARN










Summary of responses to Question No 2: Please indicate which institutions in your country
can benefit from training such as the one offered in this workshop.

Mexico: Universities (related to agronomy and environment), disaster management unit
of the government. CONANP, CONAFOR, Amigos de Sian Koan, CINVESTAN
(Merida), PRONATURA, UQROO, EPOMEX, Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, Comisi6n
Nacional de Agua, CONABIO, SEMARNAT, INEGI, Secretaria de Marina.

Honduras: Direcci6n de Recursos Hidricos, COHDEFOR.

Belize: Private sector (e.g., fruit growers). SATTIM, YATCHE, TASTE, TIDE, Belize
Agricultural Health Authority, Agricultural Department, Department of Oil and Mining,
Belize University, Program for Belize.
Guatemala: Instituto de Hidrologia, Vulcanologia y Meteorologia (INSIVUMEH),
Secretaria General de Planificaci6n (SEGEPLAN), Instituto de Estadistica (INE),
Institute Geografico Nacional, Ministerio de Agricultura (MAGA), Instituto Nacional de
Bosques (INAB), Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas, Ministerio del Ambiente
(MARN).


Summary of responses to Question No 3: Please describe the benefits of further training to
your institution and other institutions in your country.
Mexico:

Spread of results to a wider public.

Change of attitude by decision-makers. Development of sensitivity to themes such as
water management.

Better GIS capacity for technicians and planners.

New users will improve the model results and will help improve the input datasets.

Development of legislation using scientific data.

Centro GEO could consider training trainers on the models to spread these
technologies in Mexico.
Belize:

Better developmental planning.

Identify areas with threat from runoff.

Establishment of mitigation measures for natural disasters.
Guatemala:

Stimulus to use new technologies and methodologies at the national level.
Summary of responses to question No. 4: What topics offered in the workshop do you
consider more important for future training.
Mexico:

Pollution.
Deforestation.
CLUE-S (4 responses) and IMAGINE (1 response).
N-SPECT for watershed analysis (3 responses).










Honduras:

N-SPECT.
Belize:

CLUE-S (2 responses).
Development of better land use policies.
Water quality and monitoring of sedimentation.
Development of scenarios

Guatemala:

N-SPECT.

Summary of responses to Question No 5: Which institutions in your country have GIS labs
where additional training could be offered?
Mexico: Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas, MAGA. Ministerio de Agricultura, ECOSUR,
INEGI, Centro GEO.
Honduras: Zamorano.
Belize: TNC Belize, Land Information Center.
Guatemala: Universidad del Valle.










APPENDIX 8. Useful Links

Introduction and Key Note Presentations:

http://www.icranmar.org
http://www.healthyreefs.orq/


Land Cover Modeling and Scenarios:

http://www.ifsmodel.org/
http://www.mnp.nl/image/
http://www.cluemodel.nl/
http://www.unep.orgq/eo
http://www.scenariosforsustainability.ora


Hydrologic Circulation Modeling:

http://reefsatrisk.wri.org


GIS data dissemination links

Biodiversity and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize:
http://www.biodiversity.bz
Belize Clearing House Mechanism: http://www.chm.ora.bz
The Mesoamerican Regional System for Visualization & Monitoring SERVIR:
http://servir.nsstc.nasa.gov
N-SPECT page: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/cwq/nspect.html

Watershed modelling discussion group
htto://arouos.aooale.com/arouo/mar-watersheds




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs