FINAL REPORT
ANNUAL REVIEW 2007
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY
By LES CLARK, RAY RESEARCH LTD
March 2007

PUBLISHED BY
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Project
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
P.O. Box 629
Honiara
Solomon Islands
T (677) 21124
E barbara.hanchard@ffa.int
W www.ffa.int/gef
DESIGN & LAYOUT
Hatamara Graphics Company Limited
T (679) 338 5261
E hatamara@connect.com.fj
Reproduction and dissemination of material in this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes are
authorised without any prior written permission provided that the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in
this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited.

OFMP ANNUAL REVIEW 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS
The key recommendation of this review is that the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Secretariat
should implement a programme of targeted support to some, generally smaller FFA Members,
using both the resources of the Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFMP) and other FFA
staff resources to strengthen, improve and speed up implementation of the in-country activities
under the law/policy/institutional reform/compliance component. This work should be targeted
at Pacific small island developing States (SIDS) that are struggling to participate in the Western
and Central Pcific Fisheries Commission and to meet their Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention (WCPFC) obligations, especially the reporting obligations, and might involve support
to establish or strengthen national consultative processes for OFMP activities and oceanic fisheries
management where this is appropriate. It should draw on a broad range of FFA resources including
the availability of FFA technical staff in-country, attachments and FFA workshops, especially
those associated with monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) and the WCPFC Technical and
Compliance Committee (TCC).
The other recommendations are that:
·
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) contribution to the OFMP should be
speedily re-designed and committed, to include activities are appropriate, high
quality, and can be effectively implemented within the remaining Project life;
·
the OFMP should seek to create opportunities for improved linkages with
Indonesia and the Philippines;
·
there should be more engagement with the Pacific Islands Regional Environment
Programme (SPREP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) focal points;
·
the opportunity provided by the quality of the Knowledge Management Strategy
Consultancy Report should be taken to seriously consider the role and shape
of information/ understanding/awareness/communication in oceanic fisheries
management generally, as well as within the OFMP specifically;
·
OFMP-supported meetings should be planned to reduce the impact/burden of the
regional meetings schedule;
·
a Baseline Study should be prepared;
·
revisions to OFMP budgets needed to manage the impact of exchange rate
movements and associated cost movements should ensure that the planned level of
commitment to in-country activities is maintained;
·
consideration should be given to the preparation of a simple analysis of co-financing
to assist the Mid-Term Review team; and
·
The OFMP should support the preparation of a simple summary of the
achievements and shortfalls of WCPFC commitments by SIDS, based on the
information in the Annual Part II Reports.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
4
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

1 THE PROJECT
1.1 BACKGROUND

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Waters (IW) Programme is supporting the Pacific
Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFMP) as the second phase of GEF/IW support for
Pacific Small Island developing States (Pacific SIDS) efforts to enhance the management of the oceanic
resources and protect the environment of the Western Tropical Pacific Large Marine Ecosystem.
In the initial pilot phase, the GEF IW South Pacific Strategic Action Programme (SAP) Programme
supported from 2000 the implementation of an IW Pacific Islands project, including a pilot phase of
support for three years for the Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Component, which underpinned
successful efforts to conclude and bring into force the Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Convention
(WCPFC).
In the OFMP second phase, GEF/IW is supporting Pacific SIDS efforts as they participate in the setting up
and initial period of operation of the new Commission that is at the centre of the WCPFC. It supports
them as they reform, realign, restructure and strengthen their national fisheries laws, policies, institutions
and programmes to take up the new opportunities which the WCPFC creates and to discharge the new
responsibilities which the Convention requires.
1.2 LOGIC

The logic of the OFMP flows from the structure of the IW Pacific Islands SAP1.
It has two goals, targeting:
· global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of transboundary oceanic
fishery resources in the Pacific Islands region and the protection of the biodiversity of the Western
Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem; and
· enhanced contributions to Pacific SIDS sustainable development from improved management of
transboundary oceanic fishery resources and from the conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity
generally.
It has two objectives, addressing the two major deficiencies in management that were identified by
the IW Pacific Islands SAP as the ultimate root cause underlying the concerns about, and threats to,
International Waters in the region. They are:
· The Information and Knowledge objective:

to improve understanding of the transboundary oceanic fish resources and related features of
the Western and Central Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem.; and
· The Governance objective:

to create new regional institutional arrangements and reform, realign and strengthen national
arrangements for conservation and management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources.
1
The key elements of the IW SAP relating to oceanic fisheries are set out in Attachment A
Final Report Annual Review 2007
5
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

It has two major technical components associated with the two objectives:
1. the Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement Component; aimed at providing improved
scientific information and knowledge on the oceanic transboundary fish stocks and related ecosystem
aspects of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem (WTP LME) and at
strengthening the national capacities of Pacific SIDS in these areas.
2. the Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening Component; aimed
at assisting Pacific SIDS as they participate in the earliest stages of the work of the new WCPF
Commission and at the same time reform, realign and strengthen their national laws, policies,
institutions and programmes relating to management of transboundary oceanic fisheries and
protection of marine biodiversity.
And a third project support component:

3. the Coordination, Participation and Information Services Component; aimed at effective project
management, complemented by mechanisms to increase participation and raise awareness of the
conservation and management of oceanic resources and the oceanic environment.
1.3 IMPLEMENTATION

Key features of the implementation of the Project for the purpose of this review include:
Implementing Agency:
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Executing Agency:
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), supported by
the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC),
the World Conservation Union (IUCN),
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the
Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA)
Participating Pacific SIDS:
Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati,
Marshal Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
Project Duration:
5 years
GEF Financing:
US$10,946,220
GEF Approval (by the CEO):
May 2005
Implementation Start:
October 2005
Final Report Annual Review 2007
6
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

2 THE REVIEW

2.1 PROJECT MONITORING & EVALUATION
This annual review is one part of a Project monitoring & evaluation framework2 that also includes:
· quarterly narrative & financial reporting;
· annual reporting combining the Annual Performance review of the GEF and the Performance
Implementation Review of UNDP (the APR/PIR);
· annual Regional Steering Committee meetings to consider the APR/PIR;
· annual GEF Performance Results framework;
· annual reviews;
· mid-term review;
· terminal report;
· terminal evaluation; and
· post-project evaluation.

The annual reviews are scheduled to be undertaken in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th years as short informal reviews
to identify risks to project performance and propose adjustments to address those risks. The reviews
are relatively small pieces of work, budgeted at US$10,000 each compared to the US$50,000 budgeted
for the mid-term review, and so are designed to address specific elements of the Project rather than
provide the kind of comprehensive assessment to be undertaken by the mid-term review. This is the
first annual review, undertaken around the end of the 2nd year of the Project life, with less than half the
Project budget spent, and this timing provides opportunities to identify adjustments that can still be
made. Because it was undertaken early in the project life, it focuses on aspects related to inputs, since
in most cases it is too early to comprehensively and realistically measure achievement of outputs and
outcomes.
By comparison, the mid-term review is unlikely to be completed and reviewed until well into the 3rd year
of the Project life, when most of the budget will have been spent and much of the balance committed,
so that there will be a stronger element of identifying lessons learned, looking for opportunities to
add value to activities already substantially under way and looking at needs for sustainability of impacts
beyond the Project life.
2.2 REVIEW OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review as set out in the terms of reference are:
· to identify specific issues, difficulties or problems in the implementation and performance of the
Project that involve risks to the achievement of Project objectives, particularly any such aspects that
might not have been identified in the Project reporting and review processes to date; and
· to make recommendations for necessary amendments and improvements for the implementation
of the project associated with the risks identified.
2
See Section J of the Project Document
Final Report Annual Review 2007
7
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

In addition, the terms of reference drew attention to some specific issues that had been identified and
required the review to:
review and highlight the issues, difficulties and problems faced, lessons learned and successes achieved,
paying particular attention to, among other things:
· Thelevelofprojectawarenessbystakeholders;
· Impactsofnegativefinancialevents(salaryincreases,exchangeratelossesetc)ontheoverallproject
budget;
· The value and delivery of the project and overall progress by countries in meeting their Commission
commitments;
· Identificationofactivitiesandoutputsnotontargetandrecommendwaysinwhichtoaddressmatters
(briefly);
· ImpactofscheduleofregionalfisheriesmeetingsonbenefitsthatPacificSIDSshouldincurfromthe
project;and
· LevelofcommunicationacrosslineministriesatnationallevelsonmattersrelatingtotheCommission
and country obligations.
2.3 APPROACH

The process of this review included:
i A preliminary review of project documentation including the Project Document, and documentation
from the Regional Steering Committee meetings, including the national reports;
ii Interviews in the margins of the fourth session of the WCPF Commission with representatives of
seven of the 15 Pacific SIDS participating in the Project and more general discussions with several
others, and an interview with an SPC/OFP programme manager. The interviews focused on the
effectiveness of Project inputs and outputs as well as the specific issues highlighted in the terms of
reference noted in Section 2 above. The interviews were informal, for the purpose of this review,
taken as not representing official government views, nor cleared with governments. The results of
the interviews with the national officials are summarised in Attachment B;
iii Meetings with FFA staff, particularly the Project Coordinator in Honiara, and review of various
project documents held by the Project Coordinating Unit;
iv Preparation of a draft report; and
v Review of the draft report by the Project Coordinator, and FFA and SPC;
Within the limited budget and scope of the Review, it was not possible to meet with UNDP, IUCN,
WWF or PITIA representatives.
The draft report of the Review was completed in March 2007.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
8
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

3 FINDINGS

3.1 PROJECT DESIGN

3.1.1 Project Document

The Project Document is regarded by FFA and SPC as a very good project documentation. The Project
Coordinator reports following the Project Document "religiously" as an accurate guide for project
implementation. In part, this positive assessment may reflect the close involvement by those agencies
in its preparation. Country representatives also seem to have no significant problems with the Project
Document. There are indications that UNDP may have found the Document harder to work with,
but as noted below, there was no direct contact with UNDP as part of this review process. Lack
of involvement by UNDP Fiji with the project preparation work may contribute to any difficulties
experienced by UNDP at around 250 pages in total including compulsory and optional annexes, the
Project Document is not going to be easy for anyone to work with that was not involved in the original
design work. However, the length and associated complexity seem to result directly from the GEF and
UNDP requirements.
The quality of the Project Document seems at least to reflect lessons learned from this aspect of Phase
I, and therefore is seen to be a major improvement on the Phase I Project Document, which was
described in the Phase I Terminal Evaluation Report in this way:
"......theProDocfellshortofexpectations.Itdidnotprovideadequateguidancetothoseimplementing
theOFMproject;itdidnotbuildonpastachievementsandlearnfrompastexperiences;projectdesigndid
notseemtoidentifyproblemsituationsadequatelyandtheirrootcauses;itwasweakintermsofstrategic
planning,preparatoryworkandimplementationstrategies;havingidentifiedsomerisksitprovidednorisk
managementstrategies;itfailedtounifythetwocomponentsandnosynergieswereplanned."
Overall, the Project Document seems to be serving well to guide OFMP implementation, and no
significant issues were addressed in the review with the Project Document.
3.1.2 Project Financing
Project activities are financed by a mix of GEF grant funds in US dollars and a substantial volume of
co-financing from a range of sources. The decline in the US dollar has created some difficulty, but this
has been addressed by increased co-financing from other sources so that there have been no apparent
problems with the level of financing for the Project in its first two years. The adequacy of the level of
financing for the remaining three years of the Project will depend on exchange rate movements and the
ability of FFA and Pacific Community (SPC) to continue to access additional co-financing to compensate
for any losses in the real value of the Project's financial resources due to foreign exchange movements
and other cost increases. This and other issues associated with the project finances are covered in
Section 3.3.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
9
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

3.1.3 Risk Analysis & Management
One of the two objectives of this Review is:
toidentifyspecificissues,difficultiesorproblemsintheimplementationandperformanceoftheProjectthat
involveriskstotheachievementofProjectobjectives
On the surface, the OFMP has "relatively high risks" as one member of the GEF Council noted when
the Project was submitted for approval, because it involves a relatively small volume of assistance to be
delivered to a large number of small administrations spread over a wide area, highly leveraged against
co-financing, and targeting institutional establishment and strengthening in the management of oceanic
fisheries where the record in other regions globally is not good.
Two factors reduce these risks and are therefore important to Project risk management:
a) the Project buys in to the established administration, programmes, networks and governance
processes of two agencies with a good record of delivery in oceanic fisheries management in the
Pacific, the FFA and SPC. However, it also involves delivery by World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the
Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA) and IUCN which do not have the same background
of delivery of this kind of assistance with attendant higher risks; and
b) most of the oceanic fisheries in the region takes place in the waters of coastal states, particularly
Pacific SIDS and the Philippines, making them more accessible in some ways to management
processes than the largely high seas oceanic fisheries in other regions. However, this accentuates
the importance of the quality of national management in these coastal states.
Against this background, the Logframe in the Project Document includes a comprehensive set of
assumptions and risks. A more summarised and updated set of risks is identified in the UNDP Atlas
Project Management system.
Attachment D includes an informal assessment of the extent of the risks included in the Logframe
based on information available for this Review.
The analysis identifies a small number of risks at the input/implementation level. The following notes
address the implications of these risks. Responses to these risks are included in the later sections of the
report. The major risks identified include:
i) failure to make progress on the IUCN activities: this failure puts at risk some of the seamount-
related outcomes, but the consequences are not very serious for the Project. The IUCN activities
and the seamount elements more generally were rather "tacked on" to the OFMP at a late stage in
the Project design to take advantage of a planned visit to the region by a deep-sea research vessel
to increase awareness of issues associated with deep sea fisheries management. Other elements of
the seamount-related work have been carried forward effectively by Pacific Community Oceanic
Fisheries Programme (SPC/OFP). The research voyage was cancelled because of reasons beyond
IUCN control. The failure of this activity represents a lost opportunity, but should have little risk to
wider Project outcomes. In fact, there might be opportunities in the current setting to redirect the
resources and IUCN's contribution to even more effective activities than those originally planned;
Final Report Annual Review 2007
10
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ii) The struggle of some Pacific SIDS, especially some of those with smaller fisheries
administrations to participate effectively in the WCPFC, including meeting their Commission
obligations, and to implement the necessary national reforms and strengthening; this risk is
important because it goes to the core of the Project. The risk associated with WCPFC participation
is not widespread, with Pacific SIDS generally perceived, and perceiving themselves, as participating
effectively, but there are some Pacific SIDS "just scraping through" as one put it. In terms of meeting
WCPFC obligations, the risk is greater. There are too many Pacific SIDS at this stage who are not
meeting their basic annual reporting obligation, which is not in itself major, but may be an indicator
of deeper difficulties with meeting obligations, and needs to be addressed;
iii) Lack of commitment to National Coordinating Committees (NCCs): the interviews and
the third Regional Steering Committee (RSC3) annual report indicate a range of experience and
performance with respect to the establishment and operation of NCCs. The NCCs were an
important feature of the OFMP design as a response to the need for coordination of OFMP activities
and improved inter-agency coordination in oceanic fisheries management. The mixed performance
of the Project in this respect requires both some consideration in greater depth than is possible
in this Review, and a response, particularly in Pacific SIDS where poor national coordination is
identified as a risk to successful implementation of OFMP activities and enhanced oceanic fisheries
management; and
iv) Weak OFMP knowledge management processes: as discussed more specifically in Section 3.2.4,
these processes are weak in the OFMP. The strength of consequences of this risk is not clear. The
consequences are probably less than they would be in many other project settings because there is a
great deal of sharing of experience and learning from the experience of others between Pacific SIDS
through the huge volume of regional oceanic fisheries management activities, especially the various
workshops and meetings. There is also a significant effort being made through an environmental
non-governmental organisations (ENGO) and an industry non-governmental organisations (INGO)
to promote broader participation and communication of the Project values. However, given the
importance of information, understanding and awareness in the Project, this aspect needs attention.
For the other areas of significant risk identified in the risk analysis at the output or outcomes level, it
is generally either too early to assess the level of risk or the risks relate to broader issues beyond the
Project implementation. These include:
i) whether surveillance and compliance operations can be sufficiently effective in the long term to
avoid widespread IUU fishing damaging stocks;
ii) whether Pacific SIDS will have the level of commitment and understanding to make available the
resources necessary for effective management and take the hard decisions necessary to conserve
stocks; and
iii) whether Commission Members more generally will be prepared to accept scientific advice and
adopt and implement effective conservation and management measures, especially in the high seas.
An additional risk that is not directly addressed within the OFMP, but could be, is that of linkages
with Indonesia and the Philippines. The risk arises because around 25 percent of the total Western
and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) catch is taken in their waters, and the quality of data and level of
research undertaken on those fisheries is significantly lower than that available for other WCPO oceanic
fisheries. The problems with data in particular are a major source of uncertainty in the assessments of
WCPO tuna stock status.

Final Report Annual Review 2007
11
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

3.1.4 Linkages
Project activities are very closely linked with the major relevant initiatives in oceanic fisheries management
in the region because they are integrated into the work programmes of the FFA and SPC/OFP. This is a
source at the same time of one of the Project's major strengths, and one of its major weaknesses. The
Phase I Project had the same feature which was nicely characterised by the Terminal Evaluation team
in this way:
By"investing"itsresourcesinanorganizationlikeSPCwhoseOFPhadon-goingresearchactivitiesdirectly
relatedtotheaimsandobjectivesoftheOFMProject;andintheFFAwhosefisheriesmanagement
activities mirrored and extended those proposed under the OFM Project, GEF has benefited from a
broaderinputofexpertiseandresourceswhichwouldnothavebeenavailableotherwise. Ithastherefore
obtained an incremental result, broader than it would have been able to achieve on its own with its
available resources, even though this result is somewhat more difficult to extract and quantify
on its own(emphasisadded).
At Phase II, the strengths of the approach of integrating the OFMP within the FFA and SPC/OFP
programmes have if anything been greater than in Phase I. This time perhaps because the two agencies
and the FFA Member fisheries personnel were deeply involved in the design of the Project and the
timeframe is longer (5 years compared to 3 for the pilot Phase I), the OFMP funded activities are
generally more central elements of the FFA and SPC/OFP work programmes, and have led to greater
leverage of ideas and additional resources than in Phase I.
At the same time, the weaknesses of the approach of integrating the OFMP with the FFA and SPC/
OFP are also still apparent. National fisheries personnel that participate in the governing councils of the
FFA and SPC/OFP programmes are typically aware of what the OFMP does and does not do. Other
national fisheries personnel involved in oceanic fisheries personnel will usually be aware of particular
OFMP funded activities within the FFA and OFMP programmes from the "branding" on workshops
etc. Nevertheless, it is also sometimes difficult for national fisheries personnel to be able to coherently
identify OFMP-funded activities within the FFA and SPC/OFP programmes.
Two other broader linkages merit consideration:

a) with SPREP, the GEF and national GEF focal points; SPREP attend meetings of the Commission and
the Forum Fisheries Committee, the governing council of the FFA, and make valuable contributions
in both gatherings, but have little involvement in other oceanic fisheries activities. The OFMP Project
Document identifies SPREP as a potential member of the RSC, but it has apparently not attended.
FFA and SPREP might wish to review whether SPREP participation in the RSC would add value
to the Project and to oceanic fisheries activities generally, or whether these purposes are already
adequately served by SPREP participation at the Commission and WCPFC.

In terms of contact with GEF, the OFMP probably does not have the same richness of participation
and involvement in GEF activities as some other GEF Projects a lean Project Coordination Unit
(PCU), no significant budget for participation in GEF activities, remoteness from most GEF gathering
venues, the existing travel load on key Pacific SIDS project participants, and the project design
focus on technical activities rather than knowledge management related functions all apparently
contribute to this outcome one Pacific SIDS interviewee who had attended a GEF IW Conference
noted with some ambivalence that other GEF project budgets included large elements for "getting
together". One question worth further consideration and beyond this Review is whether it would
have been more beneficial to give greater priority in the budget to providing resources for OFMP
participation in a wider range of GEF, especially GEF IW, activities.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
12
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The Project Coordinator maintains contact with GEF national focal points, visiting them when
in-country and emailing information about in-country activities. This is unlikely to be sufficient to
keep the national GEF focal points very well informed about the OFMP, especially as many of the
GEF focal points are themselves carrying a large range of responsibilities, especially in the smaller
countries. The PCU is unlikely to be able to do much more in this direction within its limits, but
it seems useful to provide guidance encouraging those involved in organising any form of OFMP
in-country technical activity to ensure that GEF national focal points are informed and where
appropriate, invited to participate. This could be included in the Communications and Information
guide/handbook for OFM activities; and

b) with Indonesia and Philippines: the case for a linkage with Indonesia and the Philippines is made above.
As background, the inclusion of Indonesia and Philippines in the OFMP was considered during the
project design but put aside because of the institutional and legal difficulties. Subsequently, fisheries
data has strengthened the case for a similar approach to enhancing oceanic fisheries management
in Indonesia and the Philippines, and the WCPFC is sponsoring design of a GEF-funded project in
this direction. In the meantime, while Indonesia and the Philippines are not beneficiaries of the
OFMP and so Project funds can not be used to support their participation in Project activities,
FFA in particular should consider options for Indonesia and especially Philippines to participate
in appropriate OFMP activities, especially workshops, in the manner that SPC/OFP supports
Philippine participation in the OFMP funded stock assessment workshops and the recent Tuna Data
Workshop.
3.1.4 Design Issues to be Addressed
Two key related design issues emerge from the analysis above as needing to be addressed. These
could be feasibly addressed at this early point in a way that would contribute to achievement of Project
outcomes. They are under-resourcing of the PCU; weakness at national level in establishing Project
coordinating structures and formulating and implementing national activities, particularly under the law/
policy/institutional /compliance component.
The PCU is lightly resourced for a project of this magnitude and complexity, with a budget of around
12 percent of the total budget3. In particular, there are no resources specifically directed towards
coordination with participating Pacific SIDS and formulation and implementation of national activities.
The PCU has only one professional staff member, the Project coordinator. The assumption underlying
this feature of the Project Design was that Pacific SIDS would be able to formulate and implement
activities with resources made available from the OFMP without substantial support. The basis of this
assumption was:
a) Pacific SIDS had been closely involved with the design of the Project and had stressed the need for
the Project to deliver more benefits at national level, including identifying needs in each country that
the Project could address;
b) Pacific SIDS had the capacity to establish internal coordination mechanisms and formulate and
implement OFMP-supported activities with relatively little support; and
c) With the activities embedded in the FFA and SPC/OFP programmes, OFMP national activities would
be supported through broader interaction between Pacific SIDS and the two agencies.
3
Based on the Component 3 budget excluding monitoring and evaluation and NGO funding
Final Report Annual Review 2007
13
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

As a result of the low level of resources in the PCU and weaknesses in the pattern of establishment
and operation of national consultative committees, the progress in formulating and implementing
national activities has been mixed as can be seen from the pattern of responses in the interviews to the
question relating to the effectiveness of OFMP inputs at national level, especially from the law/policy/
institutional component. Some countries, such as Cook Islands have been able to approach the Project
as the design anticipated with a good understanding of what they needed and how to get support
from the OFMP. Others have not been able to proceed in this way, relying on prompting and support
from the Project Coordinator and with the Project Coordinator being also responsible for all the
project management activities, her capacity to visit countries and follow up with support for formulation
and implementation has been limited especially in the first 18 months of the Project, with the result
that delivery of assistance to some Pacific SIDS has been slow to start up. It is noticeable that some
of the countries in which OFMP national activities have been slow to develop are also some of the
countries in which the participation analysis in Attachment C suggests there has been less effective
engagement with the WCPFC processes, and where greater OFMP support might be most needed and
most valuable. Notwithstanding these comments, some of the streams of in-country assistance in the
law/policy/institutional component such as the Institutional Strengthening Project (ISP) design activities,
dockside boarding and inspection training programmes and legal reviews are now developing effectively.
The slowness in start-up of delivery of national assistance in some Pacific SIDS from FFA in some
elements of the law/policy/institutional component is the greatest single weakness in Project
design and delivery identified in this Review. Taken together with the lower level of engagement
by some Pacific SIDS in the WCPFC identified in section 3.2.3 of this report, this weakness requires a
specific response from FFA. This response should involve a programme of targeted support to some,
generally smaller FFA Members (perhaps including without being exclusive Kiribati, Niue, Tokelau,
Tonga, Tuvalu) using both the resources of the OFMP and other FFA staff resources to assist such
countries to formulate and implement OFMP activities, as part of a broader programme of assistance
for preparing for, and participating in WCPFC activities. This issue is taken up further in relevant later
sections of this report and features in the Recommendations.
Other design aspects that merit attention based on the analysis above are:
· the need for speedy re-design and commitment to IUCN-implemented activities;
· creating opportunities for improved linkages with Indonesia and the Philippines; and
· more engagement with SPREP and GEF focal points
Final Report Annual Review 2007
14
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

3.2 PROJECT DELIVERY
3.2.1 Volume & Quality of Inputs
No apparent problems, risks or substantial issues with the volume and quality of inputs for the OFMP core
activities implemented by FFA and SPC/OFP have been identified in the Review. There is a completely
highly positive response from Pacific SIDS to the quality of inputs from national representatives, including
the FFA and SPC/OFP staff appointed, in-country and external consultants and capacity-building activities
presented.
Overall, the quality of participants in training activities is regarded as good, although it is recognised
in some countries it can be challenging to find appropriately qualified personnel for participation in
scientific workshops. One issue raised is that it would be helpful to have papers for workshops in the
law/policy/institutional component made available earlier.
The capacity building activities are particularly highly regarded, including the stock assessment
workshops, assistance from SPC/OFP for WCPFC Part I report preparation, monitoring support,
TUFMAN database development, National Tuna Fisheries Reports, WCPFC meeting briefs, management
options workshops, MCS working group, legal analyses and compliance staff training are all noted in
the interviews in highly favourable terms. Some of these core activities of the Project, such as the
stock assessment workshops are being delivered at higher levels than planned with co-financing support
Examples are the annual rather than two-yearly stock assessment workshops and the management
options workshops now being delivered in three sub-regions as well as the overall annual regional
workshop, which are regarded as having a substantial contribution not just to the capacities of Pacific
SIDS and the effectiveness of their participation in the Commission, but also to the quality of measures
being adopted by the Commission.
It is early to judge the quality of the NGO implemented inputs, but the early contribution from WWF
is regarded very highly.
The IUCN delivery failure is a problem but there is time to correct this and there is an opportunity for
redirecting resources committed to those activities positively.
In terms of input volumes, the Project overall seems to be on track apart from the IUCN component
and the issues noted above with the slowness of start-up of delivery of in-country activities in some
Pacific SIDS. This is confirmed by the pattern of disbursements as discussed in Section 3.3.2.
3.2.2 Management, Coordination And Operational Issues

A substantial part of the design of the Project and its apparent initial operational success, is based on the
long-established working relationship between FFA and SPC/OFP. This may not always be completely
smooth the recent initiative to fold FFA into SPC for example didn't help but it is very effective, and
the two organisations clearly work together well.
The relationship with UNDP Suva is newer. The pilot phase was implemented through UNDP Apia,
which is closely involved with SPREP, but the phase II implementation was transferred at a late stage
in the project design to UNDP Suva. It seems the implementation may have been initially challenging
to UNDP since it is a large and complex project in which they had very little involvement in the design
activities, but FFA and SPC/OFP indicate that the relationship with UNDP Suva is working well.
The relationship between FFA and WWF is excellent, assisted by the involvement of a WWF staff
member in the project design, and the working relationship with the Pacific Islands Tuna Industry
Association is developing well.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
15
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

At a broader operational level, there has to be some underlying concern about the risks to project
operations from political instability in Fiji and Solomon Islands, but the FFA Headquarters in Honiara
and the UNDP Fiji office have shown resilience in relatively difficult conditions in the past and can
be expected to have the necessary backup plans in place if conditions worsen and threaten OFMP
operations.

NCC Weakness
One clear weakness in coordination is the mixed performance of the establishment and operation of
National Consultative Committees (NCC). In the Project Document, the NCCs are designed to serve
the dual purposes of national coordination of OFMP activities and enhancing national coordination of
oceanic fisheries management.
The NCCs were an important design feature for the GEF. The apparent rationale is to secure broader
stakeholder participation in Project activities. That is understandable. A decade ago, donors might
have been prepared to grant funds to FFA and SPC more or less to go forth and do good work in
association with the national fisheries agencies. But now there is a much greater emphasis on stakeholder
involvement to ensure the appropriateness and effectiveness of development activities, and donors
want to see coordination structures that ensure stakeholder involvement, and this was a particularly
weak aspect of the Phase I project.
However, there are wide differences between Pacific SIDS in their sizes and approaches to Government.
Five of the 15 Pacific SIDS have populations of less than 20,000 four have less than 10,000 all of these
with a Cabinet of six Ministers or less holding multiple portfolios, very small fisheries administrations,
and a large external aid programme. The administrations of these countries generally have a very
limited number of formal inter-agency structures with most of the key functions relevant to fisheries
included in a small number of agencies with very broad functions or falling under one or two Ministers
and largely coordinated at that level. For some of the smaller countries, who most need the assistance
of the OFMP, donor coordination arrangements are a fatiguing burden, to nobody more so than the
Environment Service, usually a single officer or two, and seen as an essential member of every donor's
national coordination arrangements. For projects where there is a large in-country programme or
activity, nationally executed, with substantial involvement of the national stakeholders in shaping the
activities, national consultative structures are essential and welcome. But the OFMP is regionally
executed; much of its in-country activity is provided in terms of standardised training and advisory
modules that have been designed and are reviewed at regional level, especially in the monitoring and
science component; the level of funding of individual in-country activities is relatively small and there
may not be separate in-country activities in every participating country every year; and establishing a
separate OFMP national coordination mechanism, as one senior interviewee from a smaller country
noted, is simply "not worth it".
On the other hand, the Papua New Guinea fisheries administration is structured as an Authority, run
by a Board including representatives of key agencies and the private sector, with at least sporadic
consultations with broader stakeholders including NGOs that have all the necessary elements to serve
as an NCC.
The result has been difficulties in establishing NCCs in some countries. This doesn't mean that an NCC
is not useful, or even necessary in some Pacific SIDS, or that improved national coordination is not
required it definitely is in many Pacific SIDS, but maybe one size doesn't fit all. This is an issue that
also deserves closer attention by the mid-term review. In the meantime, however, there is a need to
look at ways to improve OFMP activity coordination and coordination of oceanic fisheries management
in countries where in-country OFMP activities are lagging and where lack of national coordination is
contributing to difficulties that a Pacific SIDS may be having in participating effectively in the WCPFC
and meeting WCPFC obligations.

Final Report Annual Review 2007
16
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Effect of the Regional Meeting Schedule
One operational issue that has emerged as particularly significant in the operation of the OFMP is that of
the impact of the regional meeting schedule. The record of the RSC3 includes the following:
"TheCommitteenotedthenumerousfisheriesmeetingsandtheimpactthisagendaoneffective
participation. It was suggested that the FFA plan and prioritize the meetings to minimize the
undertakingoftoomanymeetings."
This issue also features in some of the annual OFMP reports. In the interviews, there was a systematic
difference between some Pacific SIDS that acknowledged there were a lot of meetings but considered
they were important and needed to be worked around, including through better scheduling, and others,
typically smaller countries to whom coastal fisheries and other priorities were relatively important, who
were more concerned about the impact of the heavy meeting schedule.
This is a perennial and perhaps intractable issue. After a mission where key contacts in some countries
were not available because they were away at regional and international meetings, an FFA legal
consultancy report4 in 2003 identified as one of the constraints on implementation of UNCLOS
an increasingly high, even excessive, level of demand for participation placed on key national level
personnelbytheinternationalandregionallevellawandpolicymakingsystem-therelativelackof
integrationoftheinternationalandregionalagencieshassignificantimpactatanationallevel;
Since then, the position has got a lot worse with additional WCPFC, and WCPFC-related, meetings.
The meeting schedule clearly has an impact on some OFMP activities. There were occasions when the
Project Coordinator had to defer country visits because key personnel were off-island; participation in
some meetings and workshops is not complete or includes less appropriate personnel because of the
travel load; and the RSC is clearly shorter than some would like and scheduled to fit in with in with other
meetings, which also affects who comes to it. One activity that seems to have been particularly affected
is the attachment programmes in the two technical components, where heavy travel loads have made it
difficult to synchronise availability of the national attachment participants and the relevant regional experts.
In practice, the regional meeting and travel load has become a limiting factor on regional and national
fisheries activities generally, perhaps less marked on oceanic fisheries/ OFMP activities than some others,
because of the higher priority attached to WCPFC-related activities than to others.
The situation is not likely to change. As reflected in the prominence given to fisheries, especially oceanic
fisheries, at the Forum in 2007, fisheries is if anything, becoming even more prominent regionally. The
international and regional setting for oceanic fisheries management is also becoming more prominent
and more complex as fishing presses up more closely against biological limits. Within the WCPFC, there
are some elements that will want increased meetings, precisely because of the difficulties that Pacific
SIDS face in participating in them. There are likely to be few, if any, options for managing the meeting
and travel load to reduce its impact. The organisations involved already make a substantial effort to
prioritise and programme meetings. Possibilities include:
a) replacing regional meetings with more nationally focused activities. The scope for this is likely
to be limited, since there are between 14 and 20 plus Pacific SIDS involved in regional fisheries
activities, and few activities are large enough to sustain that number of separate in-country activities
as alternatives to regional activities, such as in-country courses or workshops. Even if they are, very
few can put on workshops or courses in every country in the same year. Most can only manage to
deliver three - five national workshops or courses each year, which means it takes several years to
deliver a programme to all Pacific SIDS. Steps in this direction include:
4
Constraints Affecting the Implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Pacific Island States: A Report to the
Forum Fisheries Agency and other Pacific Regional Agencies
Final Report Annual Review 2007
17
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

i) sub-regional activities: the FFA sub-regional Management Options Workshops were highly
regarded in the interviews, particularly because they allow more depth of participation.
They also reduce travel time since the venues are closer and allow three countries to host
the meetings each year.
ii) Transferring functions to national institutions, particularly training activities;
b) Improved planning; in the last two years, some regional meetings have been organised on short
notice, as the organisations come to terms with the WCPFC schedule, disrupting national planning.
This year the FFA activities are better planned, and the FFA website calendar includes most regional
fisheries meetings which is helpful, but some are still missing; and
c) Choice of venue: geography now plays a bigger role. Fiji has usual y been the centre of gravity
for regional meetings. With the establishment of the WCPFC Headquarters in Pohnpei, there
are now more meetings in northern areas (in 2007, the three major WCPFC meetings were in
Guam, Honolulu and Pohnpei, in 2008 they wil be in Pohnpei, Port Moresby and Korea) which
are harder, longer and more expensive for countries such as Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau
and Tonga. A conscious effort to hold OFMP and other non-WCPFC meetings in a venue such as
Fiji might partial y redress some of this change in geography.
3.2.3 Participation
Two participation-related issues were important in the design phase of the Project and remain key
issues, both needing attention. They are effective participation of Pacific SIDS in the Commission; and
participation by Pacific SIDS in OFMP activities.

Throughout the MHLC and Prep Con processes leading up to the establishment of the Commission,
Pacific SIDS emphasised the importance of their effective participation in the Commission they saw
themselves as dependent on the region's tuna resources; these resources could not be effectively
managed without their full participation; and they did not want to be, and could not afford to be,
bystanders in the process. The importance of this issue was heightened by a series of GEF-funded study
tours to attend meetings of tuna commissions in other regions where large fishing states, including the
EU, Japan and the US were seen brutally over-riding the interests of developing coastal states, especially
smaller developing coastal states, by being able to dominate the processes of those commissions,
especially technical meetings. In response, Pacific SIDS put specific provisions into the WCPFC Rules of
Procedure and Financial Regulations to fund Pacific SIDS participation and limit the numbers of sessions
of WCPFC meetings.
Attachment C provides some measures of participation by Pacific SIDS in the Commission and by
comparison, in OFMP activities.
The first seven columns in Attachment C list the numbers of Pacific SIDS participants in the WCPFC
Scientific Committee (SC), Technical & Compliance Committee (TCC) and the Commission itself.
Broadly, the data indicates a healthy level of participation. The only cases where Pacific SIDS did not
attend WCPFC meetings were apparently due to visa difficulties, and there have been an average of
around 50 Pacific SIDS participants at each WCPFC meeting, more at the Commission sessions, less
at the Committee meetings. Within this data, there are however large differences. Countries such as
Papua New Guinea and Marshall Islands consistently send delegations of three or more, helped by
industry participation. On the other hand, countries such as Niue, Kiribati, Tokelau and Tonga typically
send a single representative using the WCPFC funding. At these meetings, it is difficult for a single
person to be effective, especially when it is not the same person attending all the meetings, because
of the volume of material, the complexity of discussions, the amount of informal work that is done on
the side and the importance of continuity in the discussions. Some measure of the difficulty that small
administrations face in participating in the WCPFC processes is given by the estimates in the table of
Final Report Annual Review 2007
18
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

the amount of time scheduled for WCPFC-related meetings in 2007. Overall, this is estimated to have
required around 79 days, or over 11 weeks, of time to participate in the Commission meetings and
key FFA Workshops. Some officials from Pacific SIDS administrations attend all of these meetings,
and the list does not include the various technical workshops and SPC and FFA governance meetings
(Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC) and Heads of Fisheries). Over time, despite Pacific SIDS opposition,
the number of WCPFC meetings is increasing because of pressure for the WCPFC to make progress
and large fishing state preference to work through technical working groups rather than have work
undertaken by the WCPFC Secretariat. The WCPFC load is on top of, not instead of, most of the
fisheries meetings that were held previously.
This data is supported by the information from interviews and national reports that indicate that Pacific
SIDS consider that they are participating effectively in the WCPFC, but that it is a strain. Comments note
Pacific SIDS inexperience in this setting, and that Pacific SIDS participation is noticeably still dependent
on a small number of experienced participants. This participation is also strongly supported by, and
dependent on OFMP-funded and other support from FFA and SPC/OFP. Overall, the effectiveness
of Pacific SIDS participation, despite the difficulties listed is one of the major positive features of the
early period of the WCPFC, and a major success of the Project. However, performance is uneven,
and some additional targeted effort is appropriate to support Pacific SIDS having particular difficulty in
participating.
The eighth and ninth columns list the submission of WCPFC reports the WCPFC Part I report (fishery
overview and science) and the Part II reports (compliance). This data provides a less satisfactory picture
of Pacific SIDS involvement in the WCPFC. Four of 15 Pacific SIDS apparently did not submit Part I
reports for 2007 by December 2007, and six apparently did not submit Part II reports. Provision of
the annual reports is the most basic obligation of Commission members. Continuing failure to provide
reports at this level would undermine the effectiveness of Pacific SIDS participation and Commission
programmes and measures; and represent a significant risk to the achievement of planned outcomes of
the OFMP. SPC/OFP provides support to Pacific SIDS to prepare Part I reports, and this was noted in
interviews as a valuable output of the OFMP. FFA does not apparently provide similar support, at least
in any systematic way, for the preparation of Part II reports. A systematic effort needs to be made to
correct the non-reporting. Opportunities for this include directed efforts by FFA and SPC/OFP through
attachments and country visits, and inclusion of work on WCPFC Annual reports within the work
undertaken in workshops such as the sub-Regional Management Options Workshops and the Stock
Assessment or Monitoring Workshops.

3.2.4 Knowledge Management
Knowledge management is a relatively new concept to participants in the OFMP. A recent OFMP
report5 describes it this way:
"managingknowledgecanbethoughtofasaprocessmaximizingbestuseofwhatisknown.The
sharingofknowledgetransformsitintoinformation;theactofthatsharingbeingcommunication.
Whatever the wording chosen or level of language used, the ultimate aim is usually the same:
managingknowledgeallowsanorganizationorprojecttostore,access,transformanddisseminate
informationtosupportthegoalofeffectivecommunication"
Knowledge management has become an important instrument to development agencies especially in
connection with environmental programmes as a means of increasing programme impacts. To UNDP-
GEF, the objective of its knowledge management efforts is to "leverage lessons learned from projects,
and to replicate successes". Typically, there is an element of advocacy in knowledge management efforts
of "getting the message out".
5
Knowledge Management Strategy: OFMP draft report by Lisa Williams-Lahari
Final Report Annual Review 2007
19
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Knowledge management efforts are treated in a fairly cursory manner in the Project Document. There
is no discussion of it in the text, but the structure of the Project does include an Output 3.1.2: Knowledge
managementprocessidentifyinginnovative,bestpracticeandreplicableideaswithintheProjectandrelevant
totheProjectandactiveinvolvementwithIW:LEARN and including KnowledgeManagementComponents
for Website/page, newsletters, and progress reports.
In the event, relatively little has been done in this direction. There is a Project logo and website, and
OFMP activities are more clearly identified with the Project than in Phase I, but there are no Project
newsletters as such, though newsletters are produced within some of the Project's components, the
structure and language of progress reports in the UNDP & GEF system makes them relatively limited
in value to a broader audience, and the OFMP webpage is dry. Against this background, the OFMP
Knowledge Management Strategy report prepared by Ms Williams-Lahari provides an excellent rationale
and proposal for a comprehensive knowledge management strategy for the Project, recommending the
following ten elements:
1. Analysis of information and knowledge needs of National Focal points;
2. Electronic Reference Group;
3. Communications and Information guide/handbook for all OFM project meetings and
activities;
4. Media, information and Knowledge management roundtable or workshop for national
focal points and partners and stakeholders;
5. Training for key stakeholders in IW: LEARN and the global GEF Project Information
Management System (PIMS) and other relevant database systems;
6. Development of a Pacific GEF database for the FFA website to ensure ownership and
broader access to IW: LEARN or the UNDP/GEF PIMS;
7. Development of a directory/database of Pacific KM facilitators;
8. Pacific media internships to drive mainstream understanding, reportage, and support
information outputs;
9. Regional workshop for Fisheries/Marine/Environment information officers on linking their
work plans to OFM Information Strategy; and
10. Launch of two key electronic discussion and information lists on OFM issues one open
and the other restricted

Some context might be useful in considering these proposals. The Phase I project was criticised by
the Terminal Evaluation Team for failing to address public participation in the Project's activities. In
response, the project design includes provision and funding for an environmental NGO and an industry
NGO to be enrolled into Project implementation in order to promote non-governmental stakeholder
and public awareness of oceanic fisheries management issues and strengthen NGO participation in
oceanic fisheries management. This was in itself an innovative step which introduced a communication/
advocacy element, but kept it at some distance from the key agencies in the Project. The latest
proposals would involve the FFA in particular in media, information and communications-related areas
far beyond its current involvement. In part, the limited current involvement of FFA and SPC/OFP in
these areas reflects attitudes from the member governments that do not encourage the secretariats of
the organisations to present views separately from the members. Releases for the public media tend
to be brief statements covering particular meetings, often tightly negotiated in clearance processes
between members. The websites of the FFA and SPC/OFP provide relatively little information suitable
for non-technical readers such as students or media personnel researching a story (compared to say the
SPREP website), and neither appears to be very actively involved currently in generating material for
distribution beyond their designated technical audiences. However, the current programme of invited
visits by Pacific Island Heads of Government to FFA Headquarters in Honiara provides an example of
the value of increased media coverage of oceanic fisheries management issues.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
20
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The position of the WCPFC Secretariat is probably even more limited three months after the fouth
session, there is not even a record of the meeting available because the Commission members have
apparently not even been able to agree on a record of what they said.
A measure of the interest or support (or difficulty?) of this issue for FFA members may be the failure
of even a single FFA member to respond to an email questionnaire sent out to gather information for
the Knowledge Management Strategy Report. Nevertheless, Ms Williams Knowledge Strategy Report
provides a good basis for discussion on strengthening the knowledge/information/circulation/advocacy
package of activities related to oceanic fisheries information and deserves the close attention of the FFA
and SPC/OFP Secretariats and Pacific SIDS. Full implementation of the recommendations is not likely to
be possible even if they were accepted because of funding implications, but some could be, and others
deserve attention in a longer term, broader perspective within the organisations involved, especially
the FFA. The recommendation for a Communications and Information Guide/Handbook for all OFM
project meetings and activities seems a particularly useful way to make more effective use of OFMP
resources for increasing awareness and promoting understanding given the limits in PCU capacity in this
direction. Among other options, those involved in OFMP project activities could be guided to involve
national GEF focal points and to actively pursue opportunities for media exposure of the Project's
activities.
3.2.5 Monitoring and evaluation
The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy sets the objectives for monitoring and evaluation of GEF
projects as:
a) promoteaccountabilityfortheachievementofGEFobjectivesthroughthe
assessment of results, effectiveness, processes and performance of the partners
involvedinGEFactivities.;and
b) promotelearning,feedbackandknowledgesharingonresultsandlessonslearnedamongthe
GEFanditspartners,asbasisfordecision-makingonpolicies,strategies,programmanagement,
andprojectsandtoimproveknowledgeandperformance.
Effective monitoring and evaluation of Pacific Island regional activities and programmes is difficult.
The reporting processes are very heavily oriented towards reporting up to the funding agencies, in
this case the GEF and UNDP. The technical capacities of these agencies are limited and remote, and
there is typically very little feedback on technical elements. UNDP Fiji is best placed to play an active
external role because it is closely involved in monitoring the Project through the level and pattern of
disbursements, and can pick up in particular whether some activities are failing to be implemented, and
is able to attend the RSC meetings and meet with Pacific SIDS personnel independently in the process
of its work in the region.
External evaluations by consulting teams are also difficult. They can usually only visit a limited number of
countries as well as the Executing and Implementing Agency head offices, and also usually are scheduled
to meet with Pacific SIDS representatives on some other occasion where the representation might or
might not be appropriate.
RSC meetings are difficult to organise within the tight regional fisheries meeting schedule. They almost
always have to be piggybacked on another meeting, which means the pattern of participants is heavily
influenced by the content of the associated meeting, the RSC meetings have to be brief, and the content
may be overshadowed by the other meeting(s). National focal points are appointed at a range of levels.
Initially, they tended to be senior officers but in some cases that responsibility is passed on to other
personnel with a lesser work and travel load. The result is some national focal points who would like
the chance to become more involved in the Project with a longer RSC meeting and additional sessions,
and others who can't afford more than the one day currently programmed.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
21
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

However, two additional elements add in a very positive way to the monitoring & evaluation framework
of the OFMP. They are:
a) the written national reports presented to the RSC, which reflect a substantial effort and provide a
very good review of the key aspects of the Project at both the input, output and outcome levels;
and
b) the fact that the Project activities are subject to additional review when the work programmes of
FFA and SPC/OFP are presented to the governing councils of those agencies.
The Terminal Evaluation of the phase I OFM Component was very influential in shaping the OFMP
and in securing GEF and UNDP support for it. Timing points to the Mid Term Review being the most
important external review of the OFMP, and preparation for it is, and should continue to be, a high
priority.
Overall, within the limits noted above, the monitoring and evaluation process seems to be working
effectively, and there are no clear alternatives for enhancing it at this point.
One element that is missing however is a Baseline Study. In the pilot phase I, a Baseline Study and
a Progress Report were prepared. The Terminal Evaluation Report described the Baseline study as
excellent, and the two reports as "of great help to the Evaluation Team." It is not clear that these reports
which involved a substantial effort were used in any other way, but they provide a valuable basis for
carrying monitoring forward. A Baseline Study now needs to be undertaken for the OFMP, documenting
the status of ocean fisheries management in 2005 or 2006, and using the GEF IW Indicator structure.
3.2.6 Delivery Issues to be Addressed

The key delivery issue is the need for FFA to strengthen, improve and speed up implementation of the
in-country activities under the law/policy/institutional reform/compliance component. This work should
be targeted at Pacific SIDS that are struggling to participate effectively in the WCPFC and to meet their
WCPFC obligations, especially the reporting obligations, and might involve support to establish national
consultative processes for OFMP activities and oceanic fisheries management where this is appropriate.
Other delivery issues identified in the review include:
· the need to ensure that alternative IUCN-implemented activities are appropriate, high quality, and
can be effectively implemented within the remaining Project life;
· the opportunity provided by the quality of the Knowledge Management Strategy Consultancy Report
to seriously consider the role and shape of information/ understanding/awareness/communication
in oceanic fisheries management generally, as well as within the OFMP specifically;
· planning to reduce the impact of the regional meetings schedule; and
· preparation of a Baseline Study
Final Report Annual Review 2007
22
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

3.3 FINANCES

3.3.1 The Budget
A budget summary is given in the table below. 47 percent of the budget is committed to the science
& monitoring component; 35 percent to the law/policy/institutional/compliance component, and the
balance to coordination, participation & information services.
1. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING COMPONENT
(US$)
1.1 Fishery Monitoring
1,260,000
1.2 Stock assessment
880,000
1.3 Ecosystem Analysis
2,551,000
Data processing/management
150,000
SPC Project Support
306,250

5,147,250
2 LAW, POLICY AND COMPLIANCE COMPONENT
2.1 Legal Reform
679,000
2.2 Policy Reform
1,849,000
2.3 Institutional Reform
392,000
2.4 Compliance Strengthening
729,000
FFA Project Support
234,850

3,883,850
3. COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES COMPONENT
3.1 Information Strategy
35,000
3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
222,000
3.3 Stakeholder Participation & Awareness Raising
400,000
3.4 Project Management & Coordination
1,159,000
FFA Project Support
99,120

1,915,120
TOTAL
10,946,220
The budget is well understood by the implementing agencies who use a more disaggregated working
budget that was developed during the project design. The main issue with the budget has been the
loss in the value of the Project budget from the related factors of the weakening of the US dollar, and
increasing staff costs in a budget which did not build in any cost increases. Staff costs are currently
running at 30-40 percent above the budgeted values. This particularly affects the science & monitoring
component. The loss in the value of the budget has largely been managed by sourcing increased co-
financing, especially for consultancies. The situation appears to have been transparently dealt with at
Regional Steering Committee meetings with budget revisions, and does not generally seem likely to put
at risk Project outcomes.
As noted above, one of the issues with the budget is that the aggregated budget at the level of reporting
to UNDP and Pacific SIDS does not separately identify budgets for regional and national in-country
activities, especially in the law/policy/institutional/ compliance component. More detail at this level is
available in the working budgets used by FFA and SPC/OFP. One concern should be to ensure that the
budget adjustments to maintain the salary components do not result in any reduction of in-country
activities, by replacing national in-country consultancy and other budgets with budgets for consultancies
for regional activities.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
23
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Disbursements
The table below outlines the patterns of disbursements and expenditures by comparison with the initial
Project budget. By December 31 2007, 45 percent of the way through the life of the Project, UNDP
had disbursed 48 percent of the Project budget, and 46 percent of the Project budget had been spent.
This is below the delivery rate provided for in the initial approved budget which provided for 56 percent
of the budget to be spent by December 2007, but of the shortfall of around $900,000, $610,000 is
due to the failure of the planned IUCN activities which are now being reprogrammed, and the balance
seems largely attributable to the slow start-up of some of the law/policy/institutional/component. On
balance, the rate of delivery is consistent with full implementation of the Project within its planned five
year life, provided the IUCN activities can be speedily programmed and implemented. If they cannot,
these resources should be diverted to other areas of the Project.
Initial Approved Received from
Cumulative %
Cumulative % Cumulative %
Spent (US$)
Budget (US$)
UNDP (US$)
of Total Budget
of Total Budget
of Project Life
2005
668,675
628,676
5.7%
208,139
1.9%
5.0%
2006
2,751,365
1,834,068
22.5%
2,092,871
19.1%
25.0%
2007
2,737,105
2,775,661
47.9%
2,745,510
46.1%
45.0%
2008
2,058,330
2009
1,622,445
2010
1,108,300
10,946,220
From discussion with the PCU and SPC/OFP, the process of disbursement seems to have gone generally
smoothly, after some initial concerns from UNDP about the size of the advances, and some resulting
difficulties with cash flow for the implementing agencies.
3.3.3 Financial Management

This Review has not included any detailed analysis of the Project's financial management. The
Auditor's Reports are satisfactory; reporting between FFA, SPC/OFP, UNDP and RSC members seems
comprehensive, if a little cumbersome; and the Project Finance & Administration Officer is widely
regarded as highly competent and diligent. At this level, the financial management of the Project seems
exemplary.
It should be noted that all disbursements for national activities are being made by the implementing
agencies, even for local purchases. The Project Document is silent on how disbursements for national
activities should be made, and there is a case to be made for encouraging national disbursement as
a way of securing greater participation and buy-in to national activities. However, national fisheries
administrations generally prefer to have disbursements made through FFA or SPC even for local
consultancies or equipment purchases rather than having the payments made to their national treasuries.
This, taken with the very strong financial management capabilities of FFA and SPC, and the potential
difficulties with managing disbursements through such a large number of small administrations, supports
the present approach.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
24
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

3.3.4 Co-Financing
The large volume and complex pattern of co-financing is an important feature of the OFMP. There is
no specific arrangement within the UNDP/GEF processes for accounting of co-financing, which seems
a weakness for programmes where co-financing is a relatively important element of the Project design
and approval process. There is therefore no systematic documentation of the volume and pattern of co-
financing for Project activities. However, the obvious strength of support from other donors and Pacific
SIFDS for Project-related activities suggests that the level of co-financing meets the commitments and
projections in the Project document and may well exceed them substantially.
This area might be covered by the Mid-Term Review (MTR), but in practice, given the range of other
elements of the Project that the MTR is required to address, it is difficult for the Review team to be able
to assess co-financing from scratch. In this situation, there would be value in the Project preparing a
simple assessment of estimated co-financing that could be made available for the MTR.

3.3.5 Finance Issues to be Addressed

This Review has not identified any financial issues that need to be addressed beyond the current
approaches.
Managing the impact of exchange rate movements and associated cost movements will be important to
maintain the planned level of commitment to in-country activities within the budget revisions necessary
to respond to cost increases.
There would be value in having a simple analysis of co-financing prepared to assist the Mid-Term Review
team.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
25
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

3.4 Results
3.4.1 Outcomes
After only two years, it is early to make firm assessments of output gains from the capacity building
and institutional development that are the core of the Project. The following table summarises the
responses from the interviews related to some of the key outcomes targeted by the Project.
Is your delegation better
All answered yes, some emphatically, and identified OFMP
prepared for WCPFC4 than
contributions to these gains from both components - two with
WCPFC2 (2005) or not?
reservations related to national positions not yet being fully
developed and lack of continuity in delegates.
Are your national oceanic
Four answered yes, two others said not yet but expected gains
fisheries management
from OFMP inputs, one wasn't sure - all identified OFMP inputs
arrangements better than in
from both components that had contributed to these gains or
2005 or not?
potential gains.
Three felt that progress was satisfactory and the meeting of
What progress has your
commitments was fairly complete, and the other four reported
country made in meeting its
only partially meeting commitments for reporting and application
WCPFC commitments?
of measures. All reported OFMP contributions to this progress,
especially from the monitoring and science component, with
several indicating the need for additional legal support.
Is the Commission being
All considered the Commission was being effectively established,
effectively established
with two noting problems with staffing and the HQ office. All
(in terms of staffing,
considered OFMP inputs had contributed substantially, noting the
headquarters, budget,
dependence on the Commission's data and science programmes
research etc?
on SPC input, and the importance of FFA standards and CROP
administrative structures.
Opinions varied, six responded three were positive; three were
Is the Commission functioning negative. All noted substantial OFMP inputs to the effectiveness
effectively?
of the Commission, and the Commission's heavy dependence on
inputs from FFA Members and SPC/OFP.
Are FFA Pacific Island
All considered that FFA Pacific Island countries are participating
countries participating
effectively, some noting more could be done and capacity
effectively in the work of the
limits. All noted important OFMP contributions, especially from
Commission?
the Briefs, preparatory meetings and Stock Assessment and
Management Options Workshops.
In summary:
· all felt their delegations were better prepared for the Commission meeting in 2007 than two years
earlier, and that Pacific SIDS are participating effectively in the Commission;
· most reported improvement in their oceanic fisheries management arrangements and others were
optimistic about future improvement;
· progress on meeting WCPFC commitments was mixed; and
· the Commission is regarded as being generally effectively established in terms of staffing budget etc
but opinions vary about whether it is functioning effectively.
OFMP inputs are reported as important to the overall pattern of progress being made.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
26
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

This measure of perceived achievements of outcomes is satisfactory at this stage. Two particular
uncertainties about achievement of outcomes arising from the above analysis are worth noting:
a) the first is the uncertainty attached to the effectiveness of the functioning of the Commission. This
depends substantial y on cooperation from other Commission members, especial y fishing states; and
b) the second is the apparent unevenness in SIDS progress in meeting their WCPFC commitments. This
supports the proposal discussed above that increased OFMP effort should be directed at supporting
Pacific SIDS in meeting their WCPFC commitments. This initiative would be helped by having a
clearer picture than is currently available of the pattern of achievements and shortfal s with respect
to SIDS WCPFC commitments. The information is included in the Annual Part II Reports. Preparing
a simple summary of this information would assist the directing of Project resources in this work.
The other reported limits and uncertainties should be noted in Project planning.
3.4.2 Sustainability and Follow-Up
Project Activities: an immediate issue relating to sustainability is that of the sustainability of project
activities specifically, will the kinds of programmes being carried out by FFA and SPC/OFP and national
activities that are being supported be able to continue, where necessary, when GEF support stops,
and in particular, are there actions that could or should be taken within the Project now to ensure that
necessary programmes do continue?
With respect to the regional activities, there is a difference between the activities under the two technical
components of the Project. The budget of the Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and
Strengthening Component is largely committed to consultancies, workshops and attachments directed
towards specific capacity building activities with relatively little at stake in terms of sustainability. The
budget of the Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement Component on the other hand is
largely committed to funding four posts at SPC/OFP, about which there must be more concern in
terms of sustainability. A major achievement of Pacific SIDS and SPC/OFP has been to have funding of
the stock assessment posts that were GEF-funded in the first pilot phase taken up within the WCPFC
budget, ensuring the sustainability of this core scientific function. The four posts funded now are
for coordination of monitoring, national scientific support and two scientists working on ecosystem
analysis. Within these efforts, the area that will likely draw attention as the Project progresses is the
ongoing training of observers and port samplers. Taking these training activities along with the training
of inspectors under the Compliance sub-component, there is likely to be a need to shift the focus of
this training from the regional organisations to training service providers with sustainable cost recovery-
based funding. This issue was noted by the SPC/OFP Programme Manager at RSC3, and some strategic
thinking on this issue should be promoted by the Project.
The pattern at country level is more mixed. There are indications that in many Pacific SIDS there
are growing benefits from oceanic fisheries, there is enhanced awareness of the need for improved
oceanic fisheries management, and increased resources are being made available to support national
oceanic fisheries programmes, especially in areas such as monitoring, compliance, policy analysis and
participation in regional fisheries affairs. That isn't surprising. It is just as true for example in Australia
and New Zealand, where increased concerns about the quality of marine resource conservation,
management and protection have seen increased resources made available for fisheries management
generally, reflecting global trends. However, in Pacific SIDS where the role of the fisheries sector is
relatively small, it has been harder for fisheries administrators to make the same case for increasing
resources available for programmes such as port sampling, observers, MCS, and meeting participation,
and there will be particular challenges in sustaining national programmes. In large part, the outcome
will depend on the perceived economic value of the increased oceanic fisheries management efforts
that Pacific SIDS are now making and the effectiveness of awareness raising related to oceanic fisheries
management.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
27
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The two major issues related to sustainability of Commission-related activities are:
· Funding of the Commission itself, largely from member contributions, but in future perhaps from
cost recovery charges should not be a major issue because of the relatively small budget in relation
to the value of the fisheries funding issues are more likely to be political efforts to obstruct
Commission activities by tightening budgets rather than a failure to meet financial commitments;
and
· Pacific SIDS participation: seems likely to be much less of a problem than it could be because of
the unique provision in the WCPFC financial regulations providing funding for a participant from
each Pacific SIDS member to all WCPFC meetings, including meetings of working groups and other
subsidiary bodies.
Follow Up
While it is relatively early in the OFMP execution period, it is important that planning for any further
GEF involvement should begin early enough for a further phase to be taken into account in planning at
the GEF, and within the work programmes of FFA, SPC and other organisations involved in executing
project activities. Any follow up should also follow logically from what has been a decade long stream
of work both on the WCPFC Convention beginning in earnest with the Majuro meeting of 1997 and the
preparation of the Pacific Islands IW SAP which was also initiated in 1997.
A perspective that might be useful in developing ideas for any follow-up project is this:
· The first pilot phase of GEF assistance focused on the preparation of an international legal instrument,
supporting Pacific SIDS' efforts to "concludeandbringintoforcetheWCPFConvention";

· The second phase of GEF assistance is being used to support Pacific SIDS efforts in institutional
development and strengthening, as they "participate in the setting up and initial period of operation
of the new Commission that is at the centre of the WCPF Convention, and as they reform, realign,
restructureandstrengthentheirnationalfisherieslaws,policies,institutionsandprogrammestotakeup
thenewopportunitieswhichtheWCPFConventioncreatesanddischargethenewresponsibilitieswhich
theConventionrequires"; and
· Within this second phase, significant progress is likely to be made in adopting conservation and
measures and closing the black hole of unregulated high seas fishing, but the conservation and
measures are very much stopgap, aimed at holding the line and capping fishing effort at recent
levels, rather than representing a long-term strategic approach towards optimal utilisation of
the resources and protection of the WTP LME. For that, there will need to be a more strategic
approach, reshaping the way resources are harvested and cutting back on some forms of use.
Against this background a further phase of GEF assistance might move on from institution building to
focus on the implementation of measures, including streams of work on:
· Strategies and measures for the sustainable use of target stocks;
· Strategies and measures for the protection of non-target species affected by fishing, and for
protection of the marine environment;
· Ecosystem analysis and protection, including work on climate change; and
· Compliance with measures, possibly based on implementation of the FFA Regional MCS Strategy by
Pacific SIDS.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
28
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The key recommendation of this Review is that the FFA Secretariat should implement a programme
of targeted support to some, generally smaller FFA members, using both the resources of the OFMP
and other FFA staff resources to strengthen, improve and speed up implementation of the in-country
activities under the law/policy/institutional reform/compliance component. This work should be targeted
at Pacific SIDS that are struggling to participate in the WCPFC and to meet their WCPFC obligations,
especially the reporting obligations, and might involve support to establish or strengthen national
consultative processes for OFMP activities and oceanic fisheries management where this is appropriate.
It should draw on a broad range of FFA resources including the availability of FFA technical staff in-
country, attachments and FFA workshops, especially those associated with MCS and the WCPFC TCC.
The other recommendations are as follows:
· the IUCN contribution to the OFMP should be speedily re-designed and committed, to include
activities are appropriate, high quality, and can be effectively implemented within the remaining
Project life;
· the OFMP should seek to create opportunities for improved linkages with Indonesia and the
Philippines;
· there should be more engagement with SPREP and GEF focal points;
· the opportunity provided by the quality of the Knowledge Management Strategy Consultancy
Report should be taken to seriously consider the role and shape of information/ understanding/
awareness/communication in oceanic fisheries management generally, as well as within the OFMP
specifically;
· OFMP-supported meetings should be planned to reduce the impact/burden of the regional meetings
schedule;
· a Baseline Study should be prepared;
· revisions to OFMP budgets needed to manage the impact of exchange rate movements and
associated cost movements should ensure that the planned level of commitment to in-country
activities is maintained;
· consideration should be given to the preparation of a simple analysis of co-financing to assist the
Mid-Term Review team; and
· the Project should support the preparation of a simple summary of the achievements and shortfalls
of WCPFC commitments by SIDS, based on the information in the Annual Part II Reports.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
29
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENTS
A) IW SAP
B) SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS
C) PARTICIPATION ANALYSIS
D) RISK ANALYSIS
E) PROJECT BUDGET
F) TERMS OF REFERENCE
Final Report Annual Review 2007
30
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF THE OCEANIC FISHERIES RELATED ELEMENTS OF THE
STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME FOR INTERNATIONAL WATERS
OF PACIFIC ISLANDS
GOAL
Integrated sustainable development and management of
International Waters Priority
CONCERNS
Unsustainable use of resources
IMMINENT THREATS
Unsustainable exploitation of resources
ULTIMATE ROOT CAUSES Management deficiencies

a) governance

b) understanding
SOLUTIONS
Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
OFM ACTIVITY AREAS
- sustainable ocean fisheries

- improved national and regional management capability

- stock and by-catch monitoring and research

- enhanced national and regional management links
Final Report Annual Review 2007
31
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Y 4
, new
CHMENT B
A
COUNTR
TT
A
Y
es
SA workshops outstanding
Huge - briefs, SR MOWs, draft
measures
Y
es, more industry
engagement, greater openness
Nat. coordinator
appointment, data now flowing
Legal, VMS following PC visit
Data very good, applying all
the measures, (authorisation,
marking etc) reporting on time
Large SPC input
Legal support, but no national
training
Y 3
COUNTR
, but the EAFM & ISP work are
Y
es, better understanding, but national
positions not fully developed yet
F
rom the SA workshops
F
rom the MO workshops, options
analyses & briefings
Not really
expected to improve it
The NTFSR & EAFM inputs will
contribute
The ISP contribution is potentially
huge, EAFM work is important, & VMS
is working following the visit of the
Coordinator
OK data is OK, Pt I reporting OK, not
Pt II
SPC on Pt I
Need help on Pt II, and legal analysis is
lacking, expected from ISP
Y 2
COUNTR
AD mgmt plan
, in-country training
Y
es
High quality scientific inputs,
involvement in EAFM, NTFSR
MCS proposals, MOWs, briefing
papers, F
Y
es
Same no. of staff but improved
capacity
Same, port state workshop
Highly effective, data, reporting
& CMM implementation
Moderately effective
Data requirements
Legislation
Y 1
, legal gaps analysis
COUNTR
-IUU, seabirds, high seas mgmt
A
Y
es, better understanding, knowing the
issues, more continuity
Better informed, analysis,
understanding, national reporting
Sub-regional MOWs outstanding, the
regional MOW
Y
es, plans in place, database developed,
more personnel
SA workshop, NTFSR
Legal advice, WCPO awareness
workshop, dockside inspection training,
NPO
Y
es
Basis of all reporting
F
raming of measures not to be
burdensome, advice on reporting,
nature of commitments, legal advice

roject contribution? - from
roject contribution to this
roject contribution to this
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
YSIS OF INTERVIEWS
ANAL

Is your delegation better prepared for
WCPFC4 than WCPFC2 (2005) or not?
What is the P
a) the science/monitoring component
b) the law
Are your national oceanic fisheries
management arrangements better than in
2005 or not?
What is the P
position? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
b) the law
What progress has your country made
in meeting its WCPFC commitments?
What is the P
position? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
b) the law
Final Report Annual Review 2007
32
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

CHMENT B
A
Y 4
TT
't think so
A
COUNTR
Y
es, but some minor problems
in the HQ
A lot
R
egional standards
Don
Helpful
V
ery helpful
Not as much as would like,
capacity limits, limits on
caucusing
SPC presentations in
internal meetings increases
understanding
V
ery helpful, esp. preparatory
meeting briefs
OK
OK
OK
OK

Y 3
COUNTR
Y
es, average
Dependent on SPC structures
Admin structures use CROP
standards
Not really
V
ery large contribution to data and
science functions
Major contributions to MCS,
(ROP & VMS esp) measures
Y
es
SA workshops, scientific analyses of
options
Huge contribution briefs,
workshops
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es
V
ery much so
Y 2
A ideas, policies and
, especially the science
A Members have made major
COUNTR
Y
es, but it needs more staff
Quality of data and scientific inputs
FF
contributions to getting the
Commission started,
Y
es
SPC inputs underpin WCPFC
scientific work
Commission outcomes largely
driven by FF
proposals for measures
Becoming more effective over time
See above
See above
Happy
Happy
High quality
High quality
Y 1
-driven
, relatively miles ahead
COUNTR
OK
Significant
Largely FFC
On its way
Major inputs
Major inputs
Y
es, but they can do more, they still
lack experience, and it is a new cultural
setting
T
raining, knowledge
MOWs extremely effective
R
eally good, there when needed
Same
No shortfall
No shortfall
roject met
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
roject contribution to this
roject contribution? - from
roject contribution to this
acific Island Countries
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
INPUTS
A P
science/monitoring component;
the law
science/monitoring component;
the law

at national level, from
i)

ii)
at regional level
i)

ii)

Is the Commission being effectively
established (in terms of staffing,
headquarters, budget, research etc?
What is the P
position? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
b) the law
Is the Commission functioning effectively?
What is the P
a) the science/monitoring component
b) the law
Are FF
participating effectively in the work of the
Commission?
What is the P
position? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
b) the law
B.
Have the technical inputs from the P
your expectations/needs:
a)
a)
Final Report Annual Review 2007
33
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

,
CHMENT B
Y 4
A
TT
A
COUNTR
National awareness and
priorities
Same
OK
OK
Need to have one, GEF focal
point under another agency
not much contact
Doing good job, contact, been
visited
OK
Good at MIMRA
No real impact
V
ery high
V
ery positive
, its easier when they
Y 3
-back
COUNTR
No, its OK
No, its working
No, OK
No, very good
NCC just set up after Coordinator
visit
Good
OK
Low
Nothing major
are back-to
OK through the Board and at higher
level
V
ery helpful
, more public
Y 2
COUNTR
No
Maybe
Its good
Its good
Not very effective, using the Board,
state-based government processes
Needs more staff
awareness, but small overhead,
high delivery
OK
It's a problem
Its a burden, but the meetings are
important
Not good
V
ery happy
olice (Maritime Affairs),
Y 1
roject
't decide
eak, GEF awareness issues handled by
COUNTR
No
No
No
No
No NCC, but there is an active national
focal point.
National coordination is limited because
it is not worth it, and the Env Service
can
No problem, regular contact, updates
Needs 2 days
W
another P
R
educes time for the RSC, too many
meetings, better scheduling is needed
Excellent with P
Foreign Affairs, as required with others
R
unning well

VERALL
GEMENT &
TION
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
egional Steering Committee?
the science/monitoring component;
the law
the science/monitoring component;
the law
roject Coordinating Unit?

roject that need to be addressed.
at national level, from
i)

ii)
at regional level
i)

ii)
COORDINA
the P
The R
IMPRESSIONS
What is the level of awareness of the
P
roject among stakeholders;
What is the impact of the schedule of
regional fisheries meetings on national
benefits from the project?
What is the level of communication across
line ministries on matters relating to the
Commission and country obligations?
Other issues/Impressions

Are there any shortfalls in technical inputs from
the P
a)
b)
C. PROJECT MANA
How effective has national project
management & coordination been
(is there an NCC)? Why?
How effective has regional project
management been in terms of:
a)
b)
D. OTHER ISSUES/O
1.
2.
3.
4.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
34
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

, whole-
A
CHMENT B
A
A staff
TT
A
Y 7
COUNTR
Y
es, know the issues and national positions
NTFSR
P
olicy advice, workshops
Not yet, restructuring work with ISP
of-govt problems
Improving
Legal gaps analysis, constrained by availability
of senior personnel & FF
Constraints in the legal framework, being
done by the ISP
Data commitments met with support to the
statistics person, project funded recruit
Y
es, see above
Y
es
Not known
R
egional standards being applied in admin &
MCS, briefings
Y
es
Almost totally dependent on SPC, including
GEF components
Heavily dependent on inputs from FF
Members
,
, staff limitations, resources are
Y 6
A Member proposals from briefs
COUNTR
Obviously yes more vocal, awareness of
issues, where we should have been 2 years ago
Capacity building, new staff
V
ery effective brief & workshops
Difficult to say
stretched
Improved data collection, little bit of data
analysis
Identifying legal gaps & amendments needed,
raised stakeholder awareness
Not all CMMs are implemented
Data obligations met, SPC help with Pt I
Not great, need legislative project
Y
es
SPC support
Y
es, FF
No, not in terms of access to info
P
rovisions of advice
P
ositive contribution
, revised data collection
Y 5
WCPFC FFCs, MCS WG
, pre-
COUNTR
Y
es, but ..., internal constraints, problem
with continuity
SA workshops
MOW
Y
es, more staff
protocols
NTFSR in the pipeline, observer
strengthening, SA workshop
None, because of constraints in capacity to
formulate requests
Scraping through
Strong on data, setting up systems, analysing
& compiling data
R
eporting backup, awareness, legal gaps
analysis
Not completed
Not completed
roject contribution? - from
roject contribution to this position? - from
roject contribution to this position? - from
roject contribution to this position? - from
roject contribution? - from
Y
:
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
the science/monitoring component
the law
the science/monitoring component
the law
the science/monitoring component
the law
the science/monitoring component
the law
the science/monitoring component
the law

COUNTR
Is your delegation better prepared for WCPFC4
than WCPFC2 (2005) or not?
What is the P
a)
b)
Are your national oceanic fisheries management
arrangements better than in 2005 or not?
What is the P
a)
b)
What progress has your country made in meeting
its WCPFC commitments?
What is the P
a)
b)
Is the Commission being effectively established (in
terms of staffing, headquarters, budget, research
etc?
What is the P
a)
b)
Is the Commission functioning effectively?
What is the P
a)
b)
Final Report Annual Review 2007
35
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

CHMENT B
A
TT
A
Y 7
WCPFC session collective work
COUNTR
Y
es
Info, assessment work
Y
es, pre-
otherwise we would be lost
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es
Definitely yes
Definitely yes
No, substantial support is available from an
ISP
Same as above
No, the support is good as it is
No, same as above, but the papers could be
made available earlier
Y 6
COUNTR
Y
es
Minor not yet, but SA workshops contribute
A lot, from the briefs & workshops
Y
es
A little bit
OK
V
ery good
No
Y
es, could do more
No
No
Y 5
COUNTR
Y
es
No, because of internal constraints in
formulating requests
See above
See above
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es
Need NTFSR
Complete the management plan,
infrastructural, association support
No
No
roject met
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
, policy/institutional component
roject contribution to this position? from
Y
:
acific Island Countries participating
, policy/institutional component
INPUTS
A P
the science/monitoring component;
the law
the science/monitoring component;
the law
the science/monitoring component;
the law
the science/monitoring component;
the law
xpectations/needs:

the science/monitoring component
the law
at national level, from
i)

ii)
at regional level
i)

ii)
roject that need to be addressed.
at national level, from
i)

ii)
at regional level
i)

ii)

COUNTR
Are FF
effectively in the work of the Commission?
What is the P
a)
b)
B.
Have the technical inputs from the P
your e
a)
b)
Are there any shortfalls in technical inputs from
the P
a)
b)
Final Report Annual Review 2007
36
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

, but
CHMENT B
A
TT
roject
A
Y 7
, also internally within the Ministry
COUNTR
Not established
The information is getting out effectively
Y
es, pleased with it
Little
Could not schedule a national WCPO legal
consultation
P
oor
quite close at higher levels
Appreciate the P
Y 6
COUNTR
NCC & tuna management body
Little
Y
es, effective
Low
High
Good
Generally very good
-in
Y 5
, nationally weak, regionally
COUNTR
No, no NCC, little coordination, largely
because of internal circumstances, change in
focal point, less buy
Hard to say
strong
?
Low
T
o some degree
Not much
R
egionally strong, Niue could make better
use of opportunities at national level
roject
VERALL IMPRESSIONS
GEMENT &
TION
Y
:
COORDINA
What is the level of awareness of the P
among stakeholders;
What is the impact of the schedule of regional
fisheries meetings on national benefits from the
project?
What is the level of communication across line
ministries on matters relating to the Commission
and country obligations?
Other issues/Impressions

COUNTR
C. PROJECT MANA
How effective has national project management &
coordination been (is there an NCC)? Why?
How effective has regional project management
been in terms of:
a) the PCU?
b) the RSC?
D. OTHER ISSUES/O
1.
2.
3.
4.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
37
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

eport
ü
ü
X
X
ü
ü
X
ü
ü
ü
ü
X
ü
ü
ü
11
OFMP R
CHMENT C
A
TT
X
X
X
A
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
12
RSC3
OFMP Activities 2007
eport
ü
ü
ü
X
ü
X
ü
ü
X
X
X
ü
ü
X
ü
9
Pt II R
eporting 2007
eport
ü
ü
ü
X
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
X
ü
X
X
ü
11
Pt I R
WCPFC R
AL
14
26
16
8
36
14
9
17
77
25
17
5
10
11
20
305
114
40
18
9
12
79
TOT
3
9
6
1
17
3
2
9
14
3
4
1
1
3
6
82
36
12
6
WCPFC4
YS, WITH
A
CC3
0
7
2
2
5
1
1
2
6
2
4
1
2
1
1
37
16
13
6
T
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
6
SC3
16
37
14
15
orkshop
AL 2007 MEETING D
VEL
TOT
TRA
4
6
(no. of delegates)
4
4
1
1
4
5
3
3
20
14
5
1
1
3
4
73
21
TION
A
WCPFC3
Mgmt Options W
ARTICIP
CC2
3
2
2
2
4
3
1
1
13
2
3
1
3
2
5
47
16
T
5
6
EETING P
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
8
1
1
0
2
1
3
egional Mgmt Options
SC2
29
11
WCPFC M
Sub-R
A
FF
AL
AL
Cook Islands
FSM
Fiji
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Niue
P
alau
P
apua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Is
T
okelau
T
onga
T
uvalu
V
anuatu
TOT
Japan
Time (meeting days)
T
ravel (days)
Other
Time
T
ravel
TOT
Final Report Annual Review 2007
38
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
ANALYSIS OF RISKS IN THE PROJECT LOGFRAME
OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
WCPF Commission has adopted
Commission Members make
Too early to judge effectiveness of
measures to regulate fishing in the high
good faith efforts to implement
overall implementation.
seas, and has formulated and assessed
the WCPF Convention and other
proposals for the conservation and
relevant MEAs. PacSIDS have the
management of fishing for globally
capacity to effectively participate
PacSIDS participation is variable but
important transboundary oceanic stocks
in the Commission, and to support
generally effective, but some countries
throughout their range. These proposals the development and operation of
are having trouble participating
include measures to address the impacts
the Commission in a way that fulfils
effectively
on other species in the globally important the WCPF Convention. PacSIDS
WTP LME. PacSIDS have undertaken
governments and civil societies
reforms to implement the WCPF
have the necessary awareness
Too early to be definitive, but most
Convention and related multilateral
and commitment to take the hard
PacSIDS are moving to implement
environmental agreements (MEAs) and
decisions involved in limiting fishing in limits to fishing in their waters
have strengthened the management of
their waters.
fishing for transboundary oceanic fish in
their waters.
Improved information on the biology and Commission Members can establish,
No obvious problems with
ecology of target fish stocks, including
resource and manage effective data
resourcing of data and research
their exploitation characteristics and
and research programmes. Project
programmes, except for Indonesia &
fishery impacts, the fishery impacts on
mechanisms contribute effectively
Philippines
non-target, dependent and associated
to raising awareness and improving
species and on the pelagic ecosystem
understanding within PacSIDS about
Too early to assess effectiveness of
as a whole. Substantially improved
oceanic fisheries management.
raising of awareness and improving
understanding of Seamount ecosystems,
understanding, but remains a risk
especially their relation to migratory
pelagic fisheries.
The WCPF Commission established
The WCPF Convention is ratified
No risk, Ratification comprehensive
and functioning. PacSIDS amend
by sufficient states to make the
(excl. Indonesia)
their domestic laws and policies and
Commission effective. PacSIDS
strengthen their national fisheries
are able to secure financing and
Slight risk, most PacSIDS seem to
institutions and programmes, especially
sufficient political commitment to
be securing necessary financing and
in the areas of monitoring and
make necessary legal, institutional
commitment, but a few are not
compliance, to implement the WCPF
and policy changes.
Convention and apply the principles
of responsible and sustainable fisheries
management more generally.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
39
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
COMPONENT ONE:
SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT & MONITORING ENHANCEMENT
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
Substantial, relevant and reliable
Commission membership prepared to
Too early to assess.
information collected and shared
accept scientific findings and statistical
between stakeholders with respect to
evidence in formulating what may be
transboundary oceanic fish stocks and
difficult policy decisions on management
related ecosystem aspects, (particularly
of the fisheries, and difficult management
for seamounts). The Commission
proposals for the ecosystems. Sufficient
using this information as the basis for
sustainability available or identified
it discussions and policy decisions on
through project to support national
WCPF management. National technical
capacity improvements in technical and
capacity and knowledge greatly
scientific functions as well as to support
improved
continued regional data coordination and
analyses.
Database and associated software

In place, no risk
developed. Reporting modules available
for Commission data.
National monitoring systems, including
National commitment sufficiently strong
Good performance overall,
port sampling and observer programmes to ensure allocation of staff
one or two countries struggling
in place. All PacSIDS reporting regularly
to make appointments, no
to Commission.
significant risk
Common data formats made available
All countries can agree on data reporting No significant risk, generally
to PacSIDS, and adopted by each
formats (some may have to change
good progress on data formats
country to provide comparable data.
existing formats). Staff available to
and reporting
Information on fishery monitoring
maintain website. Countries willing to
including best practice examples, being
network with Commission on a regular
shared between stakeholders through
basis, and each country agrees on a focal
newsletters, website and regional
point for this networking.
workshops.
In-country Courses and training activities Countries can afford to release staff for
Some PacSIDS finding it difficult
conducted. Two regional workshops
training and attachments.
to send appropriate participants
undertaken. National monitoring
to workshops
personnel attached to SPC/OFP
Collaborative work undertaken
Countries have scientific and technical
on National Tuna Fishery Status
staff available and willing to undertake
in 6 countries annually, including
national fishery status reports and
presentations at in-country national
workshops (with GEF funding assistance)
workshops.
Advice on scientific issues provided in
PacSIDS able to find the financial human
Assisted by WCPFC financial
briefing papers to PacSIDS before each
resources to participate effectively in the rules requiring funding for
meeting of the Scientific Committee
scientific processes of the Commission
PacSIDS participation, PacSIDS
and the Commission, and presented to
are participating effectively
PacSIDS preparatory meetings.
overall, but some are struggling
and the PacSIDS effort is
dependent on a few experienced
individuals
Final Report Annual Review 2007
40
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
Regional Workshops carried out.
PacSIDS can afford to release staff for
National technical and scientific staff
training and attachments (national human
trained through attachments and in-
resource limitations)
country counterpart training.
Technical and scientific counterparts
producing independent technical and
scientific analyses by the end of the
Project.
Observer-based data collections and lab
National and regional observer
analyses undertaken in accordance with
programmes, including a Commission
a workplan for the ecosystem analysis
programme, are running and providing
component established in year 1.
data for ecosystem analysis. Sufficient
observers available.
Seamount planning and review
Sufficient sea-time available to be able
Seamount-related work at risk
workshops carried out. Seamounts
to undertake surveys and complete
due to lack of progress by IUCN
described, historical fishing patterns
reports effectively and on-time. National
around seamounts analysed, and
scientists available to take part (human
seamounts selected as sites for field
resource limitation issues)
work. Field data collected at selected
seamounts, including tagging, trophic
sampling and analysis - 2 cruises per year
in years 2, 3, plus 1 cruise to research
benthic biodiversity. Participation
by national scientists in field work
supported (2 participants per cruise).
Reports on seamount-associated field
data prepared.
Data incorporated into ecosystem
Agreement can be reached on realistic
Too early to assess the risk
models. Models enhanced and used to
options for management to be assessed.
assess management options, including
Effective models available and sufficient
options related to fishing around
data collected to drive models and reach
seamounts.
a scientifically justifiable conclusion
Final Report Annual Review 2007
41
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
COMPONENT TWO:
LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT AND
STRENGTHENING
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
WCPF Commission operating with a
Commission remains effective
Too early to assess the risk.
formally adopted framework of rules
throughout project lifetime and beyond.
Early indications are mixed.
and regulations. Commission Secretariat Countries continue to meet financial
Commission is regarded as
has been established and the core
commitments to Commission to ensure
being effectively established, but
science and compliance programmes and its sustainability. Enormous Convention
there are doubts about its likely
Committee structures are operational.
area and project system boundary can
effectiveness
PacSIDS are participating effectively in
be effectively monitored to ensure
provision of information and in decision-
compliance. Programmes of information
making and policy adoption process for
collection and data analyses can be
WCPF fisheries management. National
sustained throughout and beyond project
institutions and supportive laws and
lifetime. PacSIDS able to participate in
policies have been reformed effectively
the Commission effectively.
to support national roles in Commission
and to meet national commitments both
to WCPF Convention, and to other
relevant MEAs, and global treaties and
conventions.
Legal and technical reviews (regional
Appropriate legal consultants available
and national) undertaken and results
within timescale.
No risk, high quality legal
available to regional Legal Consultation.
consultants are available and
Consultation carried out.
being used
Templates for legal provisions necessary
Country commitment to legal reviews
No significant risk, strong
to implement Convention provided to
(consultants cannot be effective without
national interest and support for
PacSIDS. Legal reviews undertaken in
national support and transparency)
legal reviews
PacSIDS which have not already updated
their legislation.
Legal reviews and studies on
Countries willing to share national
No significant risk, good flow
Commission and Convention issues
legal position and information with
of info the Commission on legal
undertaken and legal briefs for discussion Commission. PacSIDS prepared to make
issues. PacSIDS active in making
in Commission and related bodies
submissions to Commission on legal
submissions on legal issues
prepared and lodged with countries.
policy issues following this consultative
Briefs discussed in PacSIDS consultations
process
(see 2.1.1)
National and Regional legal training
Countries willing to host and participate
No significant risk,
workshops carried out and assessed.
in workshops. Appropriate national
Legal staff attached to relevant
personnel permitted to attend. National
institutions and participating in analyses.
specialists available to take part (human
resource limitation issues)
Plan/policy/strategy documents
Fisheries Management Adviser appointed No risk, appointment made
prepared, implemented and reviewed
to oversee the Policy Reform sub-
based on feedback and lessons
Component. National policy-makers
accept and adopt strategies and
prepared to make necessary reforms to
implement.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
42
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
Briefing papers provided to PacSIDS on
Appropriate national personnel
No significant risk overall,
establishment of the commission and on
permitted to attend. National specialists
but some PacSIDS are having
regional conservation and management
available to take part (human resource
difficulty
measures. Regional consultations and
limitation issues)
workshops on Fisheries Management
undertaken annually.
Technical studies on management of
Technical capacity available to undertake
Seamount-related work at risk
oceanic fisheries related to seamounts
studies within timeframe. Commission
due to lack of progress by IUCN
undertaken completed and circulated to
continues to operate effectively. Pac
stakeholders. Workshops undertaken for SIDS Stakeholders can agree on
stakeholders on seamount management
management measures in order to make
issues. Proposals based on outcomes
proposals.
of seamount policy and technical
analyses considered by PacSIDS, and if
appropriate, the Commission.
Regional Policy Consultation workshops
Countries willing to host and participate
No significant risk overall.
carried out. TSC/USP training course
in workshops. Appropriate national
PacSIDS express strong support
developed and on offer. National
personnel permitted to attend. National
and appreciation for regional
Fisheries Management Seminars available specialists available to take part (human
workshops. A few PacSIDS
and workshops carried out. Fisheries
resource limitation issues)
having difficulty with appropriate
Management personnel on attachment
levels of participation in
to FFA. Study tours arranged to other
workshops, courses &
Fisheries Commissions. Support given to
Ministerial meetings
relevant Ministerial meetings.
Review the lessons and best practices in
Conditions in PacSIDS are sufficiently
No significant risk, strong
institutional reform carried out. Reviews
common for national best practices to
interest and support for
of national fisheries management
be replicable.
Institutional strengthening
institutions carried out. National
programmes (ISPs)
institutional reform workshops prepared
and undertaken.
National consultative process carried out PacSIDS govts prepared to continue to
Too early to assess risk
between stakeholders. National ENGOs
improve transparency. National ENGOs
and INGOs given support to empower
& INGOs exist & have the capacity to
their participation in oceanic fisheries
participate. Consultation fatigue does
management
not unduly constrain their participation
Review the national compliance
PacSIDS willing to provide transparent
No significant risk, growing
implications inherent in the Convention,
information on compliance procedures
willingness to share info on
and identify strengthening requirements
and data.
compliance procedures and
for national compliance to meet these
compliance data
implications
Final Report Annual Review 2007
43
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
Regional consultations to coordinate
Sufficient regional capacity and
Good progress in enhancing
patrols (air and sea). Advice given on
willingness to undertake an effective
surveillance capacity, especially
MCS coordination between PacSIDS and
level of air and sea patrols
with Australia, also support and
other stakeholder countries. Niue Treaty
coordination with US, France,
subsidiary arrangements prepared
NZ but long term surveillance
remains a risk
Technical studies undertaken on
Commission Members can find basis for
Extent of risk not clear.
compliance issues relevant to
agreement on compliance measures to
Some good early progress
Convention. Meetings of PacSIDS
regulate fishing in the high seas
on agreement on high seas
MCS Working Group held. Reports on
B&I, observers, VMS despite
regional compliance issues prepared
obstruction from fishing states.
and presented to PacSIDS. PacSIDS
follow up those reports with proposals
in the Commission & its Technical &
Compliance Committee.
National courses and training on
Appropriate national personnel available
No significant risk, strong
inspection, VMS and other MCS issues
for attachments and permitted to attend. support for, and participation in,
undertaken. National compliance staff
National specialists available to take part
MCS training activities
attached to FFA and/or other established (human resource limitation issues)
PacSIDS compliance and monitoring
agencies.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
44
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
COMPONENT THREE:
COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
Project achieving its objectives. Project
National commitment needs to be high
Too early to assess
implementation and management is
to ensure fully participatory involvement
fully participatory with appropriate
in project over lifetime. Stakeholder
involvement of stakeholders at all levels.
commitment also needs to be high
Information access is transparent and
to ensure continued contributions,
simple. Information available is relevant
sometimes at own cost. Policy-makers
and significant. Public awareness raising
are receptive to awareness-raising
at national and regional policy level is
information and presentations.
effective. High project evaluation ratings.
Project branding, webpage and
Staff available to operate and update
Website poor, needs attention,
document catalogue system developed.
website, Sufficient interest among
some associated risk to Project
Webpage operational and updated.
stakeholders to make website
outcomes
Project information materials available.
effective means of communication and
information dissemination
Knowledge management strategy
Sufficient information and examples
Strategy prepared and some
prepared and adopted.
of best practices to drive a knowledge
elements may be adopted. Some
management strategy, or resources
risk to Project outcomes
available to develop them.
Regular assessment and evaluations of
PCU adheres to reporting and evaluation No apparent risk, PCU reporting
performance and delivery as per UNDP
requirements (responsibility of IA)
& evaluation performance seems
and GEF requirements
good.
Process, Stress Reduction and
IW indicators developed for project are
Indicators identified, but not
Environmental Status indicators adopted. effective and comprehensive. Sufficient
closely integrated into the
National review and assessment
national and regional capacity to collect
Project. No apparent risk
mechanisms in place by end of year 1.
information on status of IW indicators.
Effective support from project.
Co-financing agreements in place with
Commission members agree to ENGO
Risk & assumption statement not
Pacific ENGO. An ENGO participating
participation. ENGO identified that is
well framed. No significant risk.
in Commission. Information packages
appropriate willing to participate. Civil
WWF co-financing agreement
circulated to ENGOs (including access
society has sufficient interest in oceanic
concluded. 5 ENGOs attended
to website). National and regional
fisheries to participate.
WCPFC4.
ENGO workshops carried out. Public
Awareness materials developed and
distributed. National fora for civil society
participation organised.
Co-financing agreements in place
Commission members agree to INGO
Risk & assumption statement not
with Pacific Industry NGO. An INGO
participation. INGO identified that is
well framed. No significant risk.
participating in Commission. Information appropriate willing to participate.
PITIA participating in the project
packages circulated to INGOs (including
and as observer to the WCPFC
access to website) and national/regional
INGO workshops carried out as
appropriate.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
45
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT D
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
RISK ASSESSMENT AT
INDICATORS
RISKS
DECEMBER 2007
Project Coordinator and other PCU
Effective and acceptable Project
No risk, PCU operational
staff appointed. Necessary PCU support
Coordinator identified within timeframe
and effective, good IA & EA
equipment procured.
Project staff hired at appropriate time to
performance
suit workplan (and not too late to be of
use). Realistic equipment procurement
plan developed and adopted by PCU at
earliest opportunity. IA and EA efficient
in authorising expenditure of funds for
procurement.
Initial EA/IA consultations carried out.
Appropriate EAs and IAs in project.
No risk, EAs & IAs are
Necessary LoA finalised between EAs
Clear understanding of importance of
appropriate
and IA. On-going consultations between
on-going consultative process
EAs and IA throughout project lifetime
Inception workshop carried out to begin
All attendees committed to attending
No risk, 14 of 15 PICs attended
project. Regular Steering Committees
Inception Workshop. Appropriate
RSC1,
thereafter
presentations to ensure good
understanding or project process.
National Focal Points nominated
Appropriate NFPs adopted by
Significant risk, lack of
and approved. National Consultative
countries. Country commitment to
commitment to NCCs
Committees active
NCCs. Appropriate level of membership
on NCCs.
Regular reporting as required by GEF,
PCU fully aware of reporting
No risk, reporting requirements
IAs and Steering Committee
requirements (assisted and advised
appear well understood by PCU
effectively by IA)
Final Report Annual Review 2007
46
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

6,000
6,000
CHMENT E
AL
500,000
130,000
100,000
84,000
60,000
380,000
500,000
130,000
100,000
84,000
60,000
60,000
50,000
880,000
450,000
350,000
142,000
A
1,260,000
TOT
TT
A
Y YEAR)
YEAR 8
TED B
9,000
9,000
100,000
20,000
19,000
80,000
20,000
19,000
10,000
228,000
100,000
148,000
100,000
YEAR 5
OCA
3,000
3,000
100,000
30,000
21,000
42,000
12,000
80,000
30,000
21,000
42,000
12,000
50,000
33,000
15,000
288,000
100,000
208,000
100,000
YEAR 4
100,000
30,000
21,000
15,000
80,000
30,000
21,000
15,000
33,000
15,000
246,000
100,000
166,000
100,000
100,000
YEAR 3
100,000
30,000
21,000
42,000
15,000
80,000
30,000
21,000
42,000
15,000
33,000
15,000
288,000
100,000
208,000
100,000
100,000
YEAR 2
9,000
3,000
9,000
3,000
100,000
20,000
18,000
60,000
20,000
18,000
50,000
33,000
15,000
50,000
210,000
100,000
150,000
100,000
YEAR 1
orkshops
orkshops
YSIS
Y MONITORING
OFMP PROJECT WORKING BUDGET (IUCN BUDGET NOT ALL
Y MONITORING
AL FISHER
AL STOCK ASSESSMENT
-
TOT
-
TOT
COMPONENT 1
1.1 FISHER
Monitoring Specialist
Monitoring Consultants
T
ravel
R
egional Fishery Monitoring Consultations/W
Monitoring Attachments
National Coordinators
Computer equipment/support
SUB
1.2 STOCK ASSESSMENT
Stock Assessment Specialist
Stock Assessment Consultants
T
ravel
R
egional Stock Assessment W
Stock Assessment Attachments
Computer equipment/support
SUB
1.3 ECOSYSTEM ANAL
SPC
Ecosystem Analyst
Ecosystem Monitoring Specialist
T
ravel
Consultant services - tissue sample analysis
Consultant services - seamount mapping
Final Report Annual Review 2007
47
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

CHMENT E
AL
630,000
200,000
120,000
32,000
15,000
100,000
12,000
20,000
12,000
42,000
96,000
50,000
50,000
60,000
20,000
40,000
316,000
150,000
306,250
A
2,235,000
2,551,000
5,147,250
TOT
TT
A
YEAR 8
3,000
42,000
30,000
37,170
155,000
598,170
YEAR 5
25,000
3,000
30,000
50,540
226,000
802,540
YEAR 4
7,500
4,000
3,000
315,000
50,000
60,000
16,000
25,000
30,000
79,835
728,500
YEAR 3
1,250,335
7,500
3,000
315,000
50,000
60,000
16,000
25,000
30,000
85,435
724,500
YEAR 2
1,335,935
8,000
100,000
25,000
20,000
30,000
53,270
401,000
844,270
YEAR 1
YSIS
YSIS
AL
orkshop
AL SPC
AL IUCN
AL ECOSYSTEM ANAL
V
essel charter and associated costs
Equipment
Field assistance
T
ravel
National involvement in field operations
Observer sampling support
-
TOT
-
TOT
-
TOT
roject Support
COMPONENT 1
1.3 ECOSYSTEM ANAL
F
ield Operations
-

-

-

-

-

-

Computer equipment
Planning W
Attachments
R
eview workshop
SUB
IUCN
Short-term Consultants
Cruise participation costs
Equipment for cruises
Activity coordinator
Communications/awareness materials
Coordination/Quality Assurance
SUB
SUB
SPC Data processing/management
SPC P
COMPONENT TOT
Final Report Annual Review 2007
48
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

0
CHMENT E
AL
5,000
A
360,000
180,000
100,000
39,000
70,000
70,000
25,000
50,000
65,000
40,000
60,000
10,000
40,000
679,000
500,000
130,000
500,000
140,000
144,000
294,000
TOT
1,555,000
1,849,000
TT
A
YEAR 8
0
0
72,000
60,000
20,000
6,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
158,000
100,000
100,000
275,000
YEAR 5
0
0
72,000
20,000
9,000
30,000
30,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
101,000
100,000
100,000
300,000
YEAR 4
0
0
72,000
60,000
20,000
9,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
161,000
100,000
100,000
310,000
YEAR 3
0
72,000
20,000
9,000
30,000
70,000
30,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
101,000
100,000
100,000
370,000
YEAR 2
0
0
72,000
60,000
20,000
6,000
20,000
5,000
30,000
20,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
158,000
100,000
100,000
300,000
YEAR 1
orkshops
orkshops
orkshops
ours
orkshops
A
rosecution W
AL LEGAL REFORM
olicy Consultations/W
AL FF
AL IUCN
AL POLICY REFORM
raining Course
-
TOT
-
TOT
-
TOT
-
TOT
A
orkshops
COMPONENT 2
2.1 LEGAL REFORM
Legal Consultants
R
egional Legal W
National Law/P
Legal Attachments
SUB
2.2 POLICY REFORM
FF
Fisheries Management Adviser
T
ravel
Computer
Fisheries Management Consultants
R
egional P
P
olicy T
National Fisheries Management W
High Level Meetings
Equipment
Office Improvements
P
olicy Attachments/Study T
SUB
IUCN
Short-term Consultants
T
ravel
W
Communications
Coordination & Quality Assurance
SUB
SUB
Final Report Annual Review 2007
49
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

AL
312,000
80,000
39,000
CHMENT E
392,000
260,000
300,000
130,000
729,000
234,850
TOT
3,883,850
A
TT
A
YEAR 8
48,000
10,000
6,000
58,000
40,000
60,000
20,000
43,190
126,000
660,190
YEAR 5
72,000
20,000
9,000
92,000
60,000
60,000
30,000
45,640
159,000
697,640
YEAR 4
72,000
20,000
9,000
92,000
60,000
60,000
30,000
50,540
159,000
772,540
YEAR 3
72,000
20,000
9,000
92,000
60,000
60,000
30,000
50,540
159,000
772,540
YEAR 2
48,000
10,000
6,000
58,000
40,000
60,000
20,000
44,940
126,000
686,940
YEAR 1
orkshops
THENING
orking Groups
orkshops
ours
eform W
AL
eform Consultants
AL INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
AL COMPLIANCE STRENGHTENING
-
TOT
-
TOT
roject Support
A P
COMPONENT 2
2.3 INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Institutional R
National Institutional R
SUB
2.4 COMPLIANCE STRENG
Compliance Consultants
R
egional MCS Consultations/ W
National MCS Courses/W
MCS Attachments/Study T
SUB
FF
COMPONENT TOT
Final Report Annual Review 2007
50
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

AL
15,000
20,000
35,000
60,000
15,000
150,000
40,000
15,000
CHMENT E
280,000
200,000
200,000
400,000
TOT
A
TT
A
50,000
50,000
YEAR 8
3,000
4,000
7,000
50,000
3,000
53,000
40,000
40,000
80,000
YEAR 5
0
3,000
4,000
7,000
10,000
3,000
13,000
40,000
40,000
80,000
YEAR 4
3,000
4,000
7,000
50,000
10,000
3,000
63,000
40,000
40,000
80,000
YEAR 3
0
3,000
4,000
7,000
10,000
3,000
13,000
40,000
40,000
80,000
YEAR 2
0
3,000
4,000
7,000
60,000
15,000
10,000
3,000
88,000
40,000
40,000
80,000
YEAR 1
ARENESS RAISING
aising
W
aising
wareness R
TION
TION & A
A
A
U
wareness R
TION SYSTEM
AL
ARTICIP
articipation & A
AL
articipation & A
roject Information System
orkshop
AL
AKEHOLDER P
AKEHOLDER TOT
COMPONENT 3
3.1 PROJECT INFORMA
Communications Consultants
P
rinting/Materials etc
Sub total P
3.2 MONITORING & EV
Inception W
Baseline Study
Evaluations
Annual reviews
Auditing
M&E TOT
3.3 ST
Environmental NGO P
P
rivate Sector P
ST
Final Report Annual Review 2007
51
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

AL
500,000
150,000
95,000
12,500
100,000
20,000
10,000
110,000
37,500
CHMENT E
134,500
TOT
1,035,000
1,879,500
A
10,946,220
TT
A
5,000
55,000
53,500
YEAR 8
0
0
2,500
7,500
100,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
200,000
25,900
364,900
YEAR 5
1,621,910
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
100,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
205,000
22,400
326,400
YEAR 4
1,836,980
2,500
5,000
2,500
7,500
100,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
50,000
237,500
30,650
417,150
YEAR 3
2,448,485
2,500
5,000
2,500
7,500
100,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
207,500
22,650
329,150
YEAR 2
2,448,485
0
5,000
2,500
5,000
7,500
100,000
30,000
15,000
20,000
185,000
27,900
386,900
YEAR 1
1,926,860
TION
GEMENT & COORDINA
AL
AL
VERHEAD (10%)
AL
A O
COMPONENT 3
3.4 PROJECT MANA
Coordinator
T
ravel
Accountant
T
raining
Consultancies
Sundries
Office Eqpt etc
R
eg. Steering Committee
National Consultative Committees
PCU TOT
FF
TOT
PROJECT TOT
Final Report Annual Review 2007
52
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

ATTACHMENT F
TERMS OF REFERENCE
ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
PROJECT (PIM 2992)
Background
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) commenced in late 2005 and
seeks to assist Pacific SIDS improve sustainable development through the conservation and management
of transboundary oceanic fisheries.
Project monitoring and evaluation requirements for the project include the need to conduct annual
evaluations in the second, third and four years of the project. The project has been operational for two
years. Further a mid-term evaluation is expected to be completed by late 2008 and it is anticipated that
the outcomes of the first of the three project annual reviews will contribute to the analysis performed
by the independent mid-term evaluation consultancy.
The annual review will take the opportunity to identify, comment and provide recommendations for
issues that have arisen over the course of project implementation to date. It will in the first instance
address the critical assumptions and risks identified during the design of the project to analyse those
events and their impacts on project implementation and outcomes.
Objective
The objectives of the annual evaluation are:
i) to identify specific issues, difficulties or problems in the implementation and performance
of the Project that involve risks to the achievement of Project objectives, particularly
any such aspects that might not have been identified in the Project reporting and review
processes to date; and
ii) to make recommendations for necessary amendments and improvements for the
implementation of the project associated with the risks identified.
Responsibilities (Scope)
The scope of the work to be undertaken will include; but not be limited to:
i) Assessing the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the project and the sustainability of
outcomes to date;
ii) review and highlight the issues, difficulties and problems faced, lessons learned and
successes achieved, paying particular attention to, among other things:
· The level of project awareness by stakeholders;
· Impacts of negative financial events (salary increases, exchange rate losses etc) on the

overall project budget;
· The value and delivery of the project and overall progress by countries in meeting

their Commission commitments;
· Identification of activities and outputs not on target and recommend ways in which to

address matters (briefly);
· Impact of schedule of regional fisheries meetings on benefits that Pacific SIDS should

incur from the project; and
· Level of communication across line ministries at national levels on matters relating to

the Commission and country obligations.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
53
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Review Requirements
Services rendered between the beginning of the review and the acceptance of the final report should
span no more than two calendar months from November 2007 to February 2008. The review should
commence late November 2007.
The review phases will include:
· Interviews with Pacific SIDS, SPC, WWF, Industry and other relevant stakeholders in the
margins of the Commission meetings to be held at Guam between 26 November 7
December 2007;
· Briefing meeting with the PCU at Honiara, Solomon Islands 17 - 21 December 2007;
· Draft review report and submission to PCU; and
· Submit final report.
Expected Outcomes
The outcomes of the review will include:
· The interviewing of relevant project stakeholders and records of the interviews;
· Advice to the PCU in a preliminary report identifying issues, difficulties or problems that
are impacting the project implementation and recommendations with which to address the
issues;
· A professional review report.
Final Report Annual Review 2007
54
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY
P.O Box 629
Honiara, Solomon Islands
Final Report Annual Review 2007
56
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT