---

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.

---

tionPacific islands oceanic
fisheries managemenT ProjecT
mid term
evaluation
uniTed naTions develoPmenT Programme
Pacific islands forum fisheries agency
Governments of:
Cook islands , Federated Sates of Micronesia, Fiji, KiribatI, Marshall
Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon
Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
e
v
aluaTo achieve global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation
and management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery resources in
the Pacific islands region and the protection of the biodiversity of the
Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool LME.

---

Preface
This Mid Term Evaluation report sets out findings, lessons learnt and recommendations for the UNDP/
GEF Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project). The report is developed in
compliance with the terms of reference for the assignment. The conclusions and recommendations
set out in the following pages are solely those of the evaluators and are not binding on the project
management and sponsors.
The authors would like to thank all who assisted in the Mid Term Evaluation, particularly Alvin Chandra
(UNDP), Barbara Hanchard (FFA OFM Coordinator) and Les Clark (Ray Research), and the country
representatives who consented to be interviewed.
4
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Glossary
List of acronyms and abbreviations
APR
Annual Project Review
CROP
Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific
DEVFISH
Development Of Tuna Fisheries In Pacific ACP Countries (EU Project)
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
ENGO
Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation
EU
European Union
FAO
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation
FFA
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
FSPI
Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific, International
GEF
Global Environment Facility
ICWM
Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
IW
International Waters (focal area of the GEF)
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
MDGs
Millenium Development Goals
NCC
National Consultative Committee
NFP
National Focal Point
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
OF
Oceanic fisheries
OFM
Oceanic Fisheries Management
OFP
Oceanic Fisheries Programme (of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community)
Pacific SIDS Pacific Small Island Developing States
PCU
Project Coordinating Unit
PITA
Pacific Islands Tuna Association
Prodoc
OFM Project Document
RSC
Regional Steering Committee
SAP
Strategic Action Programme
SIDS
Small Island Developing States
SOPAC
South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
SPC
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP
Pacific Regional Environment Programme
UN
United Nations
UNCED
United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
UNCLOS
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
US
United States
USP
University of the South Pacific
WCPF
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
WCPF
Convention
WCPF
Commisssion
WTP
Western Tropical Pacific
WTP
WP LME Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem
WWF
World Wildlife Fund for Nature
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
5

---

Table of Contents
ExEcutivE Summary
8
1.
Introduction
10
1.1. Background and context
10
1.2. Objective and Purpose of the Mid Term Evaluation
11

2.
Project and development context
12
2.1. Logic and objectives
12
2.2. Components, outputs and activities
13
3.
Approach and methodology of Mid Term Evaluation
16
3.1. Approach
16
3.2. Methodology
16
3.2.1. Desk study, literature review
16
3.2.2. Site visits
16
3.2.3. Consultation and questionnaires
17
3.3. Evaluation Team
17
4.
Results
18
4.1 Project Impact
18
4.1.1. General achievements
18
4.1.2. Sustainable oceanic fisheries management
18
4.1.3. Capacities of Pacific SIDS
19
4.1.4. Governance
19
4.1.5. Intended beneficiaries
21
4.1.6. Lessons learnt and sustainability of results
22
4.1.7. Recommendations from results
22
4.2 Project Design
22
4.2.1. Relevance of overall design
22
4.2.2. Relevance to capacity development and sustainability
23
4.2.3. Impacts on root causes
24
4.2.4. Effectiveness
24
4.2.5. Potential for replication
24
4.3. Project Management and Administration
25
4.3.1. Implementing agency UNDP
25
4.3.2. Executing agency FFA
26
4.3.3. SPC
27
4.3.4. IUCN
28
6
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Table of Contents
4.4. Project Implementation
28
4.4.1. Efficiency and cost effectiveness
28
4.4.2. Applicability of logical framework tool
29
4.4.3. Project reporting
29
4.4.4. Information dissemination
30
4.4.5. Risk management
31
4.4.6. Adaptive management processes
31
4.4.7. Partnership arrangements
31
4.4.8. Cross-cutting issues
32
4.4.9. Coordinating mechanisms
32
4.5. Project Finances
33
4.5.1. Budget procedures
33
4.5.2. Disbursements and spending
34
4.5.3. Actual spending and budget expectations
35
4.5.4. Co-financing and leverage
35
4.5.5. Effectiveness
35
4.6. Lessons learned
36
4.6.1. Country ownership/driveness
36
4.6.2. Regional cooperation and inter-governmental cooperation
36
4.6.3. Stakeholder participation
36
4.6.4. Adaptive management processes
36
4.6.5. Efforts to secure sustainability
36
4.6.6. Role of M&E in project implementation
37
4.7. Summary and explanation of findings and interpretations
37
5.
Recommendations
40
5.1. Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of the project
40
5.2. Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
42
5.3. Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
42
Annexes
1. TOR
44
2. Itinerary
52
3. List of persons interviewed
53
4. Summary of country visits
55
5. List of documents reviewed
58
6. Questionnaire used and summary of results
61
7. OFM Project Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
68
8. OFM Project FFA Annual workplan and activities
71
9. OFM Project Logical framework
82
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
7

---

Executive Summary
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) has been developed to assist
Pacific SIDs sustainably manage their oceanic oceanic resources, which include the world's largest
stocks of highly migratory tunas, and conserve ocean biodiversity. The Project is large in scope and
complex in design. It spans a vast area, around 40 million sq km of the Central Western Pacific, and
the jurisdictions of 15 Pacific Island nations and territories. It is a multi-governmental, five year project
(2005-2010), funded by US$ 11,644,285 from Global Environment Facility (GEF) and US$ 79,091,993 of
co-financing from participating countries, regional organisations and other sources. At the mid-term of
the OFM, the GEF Implementing Agency, UNDP, has commissioned this MTE to assess progress, provide
feedback on lessons learnt and future directions.
The MTE found that the Project was well designed and implemented, and has already had a significant
impact on the immediate regional objectives (i.e. improved OFM in Pacific SIDS, and sustainable
development of resources), and contributed to its wider global objectives (i.e. management of oceanic
fishery and oceanic biodiversity). The capacities of most Pacific SIDS to meet their obligations under
the WCTF Convention have been substantially enhanced, and the performance and outcomes of the
Project were highly rated by the WCPF Commission. However, it is evident that smaller, less developed
Pacific SIDs require greater levels of support. This is occurring in some countries through bilateral
funding. As capacity-building in the Project has largely focused on immediate objectives (needs under
the WCPF Convention), long-term, more strategic capacity-building will be required in the future. The
commencement of one component, the IUCN Seamounts study, as been delayed for matters beyond
the organisation's control but has now been redesigned and will commence in the near future.
Project management and administration is rated as very efficient and effective. UNDP, the GEF
Implementing Agency has been efficient and responsive. Its bureaucratic procedures were initially
considered onerous by the Executing Agency (FFA) resulting in some delays in disbursements, but
these issues since have been resolved. FFA, a regional body with 30 years experience in OFM, has
been very effective in its key role. Project management and coordination, undertaken by the Project
Coordination Unit (PCU) within FFA has been effective. However, the PCU is under-resourced for such
a large project, and does not have resources for regular country visits and information dissemination.
SPC, the main scientific organisation, has also been effective in increasing knowledge of the status of
oceanic fisheries. However, a number of countries indicated their desire for greater capacity in this area.
Financial management by FFA was ranked highly and financial procedures, disbursements and
spending have been effective. However, the decline in the US$ has created significant problems,
requiring some reallocations of budgets in the second term. The weakening in the US$ will contribute
to the loss in the value of the Project budget and staff costs, particularly in SPC's scientific assessment
and monitoring component. The loss in the value of the budget has been effectively managed by
increasing co-financing. While it is not possible to comment on the co-financing and contributions in
kind of the regional partners, the high level of the commitment does indicate their overall effectiveness.
Leverage funding to date has been substantial and further external funds are foreshadowed. This will
greatly assist in sustainability of the Project. The overall cost/effectiveness, risk assessment and adaptive
management were rated highly, but quantitative indicators should be developed for monitoring and
assessment of progress. Cross-cutting issues of institutional strengthening, national development and
innovation (cornerstones of the Project) have been very well addressed, but gender, equity and human
rights were not explicitly addressed in the Project design.
8
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

The positive negative lessons learnt from the Project include: its strong emphasis on planning and
design and engagement of stakeholders; reducing risks in implementation through the utilisation of
existing resources, organizations and arrangements; and maximising stakeholder participation and
collaboration through partnership arrangements. The OFM Project is an appropriate model for other
regional, multi-stakeholder and inter-governmental projects. However, long-term sustainability of the
Project objectives will require longer-term, strategic approaches to capacity-building.
Recommendations relating to the second term of the OFM Project include: the need for greater
coordinated and integrated approaches in the seamount research component; greater involvement
of interested Pacific SIDS in oceanic fisheries science; identification of appropriate indicators for
monitoring progress and final evaluation of the Project; a focused information dissemination and media
programme; need for greater collaboration with other CROP agencies (e.g. USP, SPREP); need for closer
linkages with the Pacific Plan and Pacific Forum Secretariat; and need for additional support to the
FFA PCU to enable greater focus on information dissemination, monitoring and reporting, and future
project development.
New initiatives recommended are that planning is commenced as soon as possible on a new project
to focus on longer-term capacity building in OFM, especially on the smaller and less developed Pacific
SIDS. As the small populations and technical capacities of the smallest Pacific SIDS are insufficient for a
comprehensive technical OFM capacity, new approaches are also recommended to assist them in OFM
(e.g. collaborative, sub-regional approaches; staff attachments for national OFM officers at FFA; specialist
staff or consultants at FFA to look after their interests).

Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
9

---

Introduction
1
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Project is a globally important project
spanning around 40 million sq km of the Central Western Pacific region (over 10% of the entire world's
surface), and the jurisdictions of 15 Pacific Island nations and territories. The region is encompassed
by the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool (WTPWP) Large Marine Ecosystem, a oceanographically
complex and variable, and scientifically poorly known, waterbody of great global biodiversity and
fisheries value. This supports the world's largest stocks of oceanic fisheries, including about one third
of the world's tuna landings. These are migratory species which cross vast distances of ocean and many
national jurisdictions, necessitating large scale, international, collaborative approaches to management.
1.1. Background and Context
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have special conditions and needs that were identified for
international attention in the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of
SIDS, and in the World Summit for Sustainable Development's Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
which specifically calls for support for the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (the
WCPF Convention). The third phase of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF-3) identified sustainable
management of regional fish stocks as one of the major environmental issues SIDS have in common,
and as a target for activities under the SIDS component of OP 9, the Integrated Land and Water Multiple
Focal Area Operational Programme. The GEF-3 also promoted the adoption of an ecosystem-based
approach to addressing environmental problems under the Large Marine Ecosystem Component of
OP 8, the Waterbody-Based Operational Program. In the current fourth phase of the GEF (GEF-4), the
priorities from GEF-3 has been further sharpened and articulated into strategic programmes (SPs). The
OFM project is consistent with SP1 on `Restoring and Sustaining Coastal and Marine Fish Stocks and
Associated Biological Diversity'.
The OFM Project is the second phase of GEF/IW support for Pacific SIDs to enhance management
of fishery resources and to protect ocean biodiversity. The initial, pilot phase, the GEF International
Waters (IW) South Pacific Strategic Action Programme (SAP), provided support for OFM, assisted in
the conclusion of the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (WCPF Convention) and in the
developed the present Project. The OFM Project now provides support for Pacific SIDS efforts as
they commence participation in the establishment and initial period of operation of the new WCPF
Commission. This necessitates they reform, realign, restructure and strengthen their national fisheries
laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities which the WCPF
Convention creates, and to discharge the new responsibilities which the Convention requires.
The OFM Project is a multi-governmental, five year project (2005-2010), with a total cost of US$
90,736,217, comprising US$ 11,644,285 from Global Environment Facility (GEF) and US$ 79,091,993 of
co-financing from participating governments, regional organisations, industry, fishing nations and other
sources. The OFM Project is implemented by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and
executed by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA).
The major objectives of the OFM Project address: (a) the threats to the sustainability of the use of the
region's oceanic fish resources identified in the SAP (ie the lack of understanding and the weaknesses
in governance relating to oceanic fisheries in the International Waters in the region); and (b) the need
for improved understanding of transboundary oceanic fisheries resources and create new regional
institutional arrangements as well as realigning, reforming and strengthening national arrangements
for the conservation and management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources. The OFM Project
Document (PRODOC) and its Annexes describe full details of the project.
10
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

1.2. Mid Term Evaluation (MTE)
In accord with the accountability and adaptive management policies of GEF and UNDP, MTEs are
undertaken to identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of
objectives, identify and document lessons learned and repeatability, and to make recommendations
regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project. They identify strengths and
weaknesses, and provide an evaluation of the implementation and management of the project
by identifying factors that have facilitated or impeded the achievements of the project objectives
and outputs. MTEs also provide recommendations and lessons learned to assist on defining
future directions for the project. The key beneficiaries for the MTE include the GEF (and the global
community), UNDP, Pacific SIDS, Pacific regional organizations, relevant donor organizations and
industry and environment non-government organizations.
The objectives of this MTE are to examine initial results for possible amendments and improvements;
promote financial accountability; and provide early feedback on progress, and lessons learned. (The
background and TOR for the MTE are contained in Annex 1).
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
11

---

The OFM Project and its development context
2
The background and context of the OFM Project are described in detail in the PRODOC, and
summarised above (1.1). The following examines the logic of the Project, and its major components,
outcomes and activities.
2.1. Logic and objectives
The logic of the OFMP flows from the structure of the IW Pacific Islands SAP. It has two main goals,
targeting: (a) global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of trans-
boundary 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 (b) enhanced contributions to
Pacific SIDS sustainable development from improved management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery
resources and from the conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity generally.
The OFM Project 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. These are the: (a) Information and Knowledge objectives
(to improve understanding of the trans-boundary oceanic fish resources and related features of the
Western and Central Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem); and (b) Governance objectives
(to create new regional institutional arrangements and reform, realign and strengthen national
arrangements for conservation and management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery resources.
The Project has two major technical components associated with the above objectives, and a support
component: (a) Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement Component to provide improved
scientific information and knowledge on the oceanic trans-boundary fish stocks and related ecosystem
aspects of the WTP LME and to strengthen the national capacities of Pacific SIDS in these areas. (b)
Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening Component to support Pacific
SIDS as they participate in the earliest stages of the work of the new WCPF Commission, and at the
same time to reform, realign and strengthen their national laws, policies, institutions and programmes
relating to management of trans-boundary oceanic fisheries and protection of marine biodiversity. (c)
Coordination, Participation and Information Services Component for effective project management,
complemented by mechanisms to increase participation and raise awareness of the conservation and
management of oceanic resources and the oceanic environment.
2.2. Stakeholders and targeted beneficiaries
The stakeholders and targeted beneficiaries of the OFM Project include: the Global Community; Pacific
Islanders dependent on oceanic fish resources; Pacific Island communities; other users of the oceanic
fish resources of the region; government sectors; technical and policy personnel in government
agencies; the private sector; national, regional and global NGOs concerned with conservation of
oceanic fish resources and protection of the marine environment, including the WCPF Commission;
other island communities and other SIDS geographical groups, regional organizations participating in
the Project and those whom they serve.

12
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

2.3. Project components and outcomes
The Project comprises three main Components, 11 Subcomponents, 36 Outputs and 109 specific
Activities. Details are provided in the PRODOC, and the modified FFA OFM Project Annual Work Plan
(Annex 8). The following summarises the components and their expected outcomes.
OFM Project Components and Outcomes

cOmPONENt 1: SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING ENHANCEMENT
Sub-Component 1.1. Fishery Monitoring, Coordination and Enhancement
Outcome: Integrated and economically sustainable national monitoring programmes in place including
catch and effort, observer, port sampling and landing data; Pacific SIDS providing data to the Commission
in the form required; national capacities to process and analyse data for national monitoring needs
enhanced; improved information on fishing in national waters and by national fleets being used for
national policy making and to inform national positions at the Commission. Enhanced quality and
accessibility of fisheries information and data leading to more effective development and improvement of
the Commission's policy and decision-making process

Sub-Component 1.2. Stock Assessment
Outcomes: Detailed information available on the status of national tuna fisheries, including the
implications of regional stock assessments and the impacts of local fisheries and oceanographic variability
on local stocks and fishing performance; strengthened national capacities to use and interpret regional
stock assessments, fisheries data and oceanographic information at the national level, to participate in
Commission scientific work, and to understand the implications of Commission stock assessments.

Sub-Component 1.3. Ecosystem Analysis
Outcomes: Enhanced understanding of the dynamics of the WTP warm pool pelagic ecosystem, with
particular focus on trophic relationships; enhanced understanding of the ecology of seamounts, in
particular their impacts on aggregation and movement of pelagic species and the fisheries impacts
thereon; provision of ecosystem-based scientific advice to the Commission and to Pacific SIDS; enhanced
information on the magnitude of by-catch in WCPO oceanic fisheries.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
13

---

cOmPONENt 2:
LAW, POLICY & INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT & STRENGTHENING
SUB-COMPONENT 2.1. LEGAL REFORM
Outcomes: Major Commission legal arrangements and mechanisms in place, including provisions
relating to non-Parties and sanctions for non-compliance; national laws, regulations, license
conditions reformed to implement the WCPF Convention and other relevant international legal
instruments; enhanced national legal capacity to apply the Convention and national management
regimes, including domestic legal processes for dealing with infringements.

SUB-COMPONENT 2.2. POLICY REFORM
Outcomes: Commission Secretariat and technical programmes established and conservation and
management measures beginning to be adopted; national oceanic fisheries management plans,
policies and strategies prepared, implemented and reviewed; adoption of a more integrated and
cross-sectoral approach and, improved coordination between government departments (Fisheries,
Environment, Development, Economy, etc); enhanced understanding by policy makers and
enhanced national capacities in regional and national policy analysis for sustainable and responsible
fisheries; enhanced stakeholder understanding of Commission and national policy issues, especially
the private sector.

Sub-Component 2.3. Institutional Reform
Outcomes: Public sector fisheries administrations reformed, realigned and strengthened; capacities
of national non-governmental organisations to participate in oceanic fisheries management
enhanced; consultative processes enhanced to promote a more integrated approach to fisheries
management and administration that encourages coordination and participation between diverse
government and non-government stakeholders.
Sub-Component 2.4 Compliance Strengthening
Outcomes: Realigned and strengthened national compliance programs; improved regional MCS
coordination; strategies for Commission compliance programs; enhanced national compliance
capacities (inspection, observation, patrol, VMS, investigation).
14
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

cOmPONENt 3: COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES
Outcomes: Effective project management at the national and regional level; major governmental
and non-governmental stakeholders participating in Project activities and consultative mechanisms
at national and regional levels; information on the Project and the WCPF process contributing
to increased awareness of oceanic fishery resource reflecting successful and sustainable project
objectives

Sub-Component 3.1. Information Strategy
Outcomes: Enhancement of awareness about the Project and understanding of its objectives and
progress; establishment of a Clearing House for lessons and best practices within the Pacific SIDS, as
well as through linkages to other global fisheries and their issues; capture of up-to-date information
and advice on related ecosystem management and innovative fisheries management approaches;
transfer of lessons and replication of best practices through an active mechanism linked to the
Commission; active participation with IW:LEARN

Sub-Component 3.2. Monitoring and Evaluation
Outcomes: Effective monitoring and evaluation of progress and performance, including monitoring
of process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators; monitoring and evaluation outputs
used in project management and in assessing the effectiveness of Commission measures.

Sub-Component 3.3. Stakeholder Participation and Awareness Raising
Outcomes: Non-governmental stakeholder participation in national and regional oceanic fisheries
management processes, including the Commission, enhanced; awareness of oceanic fisheries
management issues and the WCPF Convention improved. Specific forums developed for NGO
participation and discussion process; promotion of awareness of national and regional development
and economic priorities and how these relate to sustainable fisheries management.

Sub-Component 3.4. Project Management and Coordination.
Outcomes: Project effectively managed and coordinated between implementing and executing
agencies and other participants in the Project; effective participation in Project management and
coordination by stakeholders; reports on Project progress and performance flowing between Project
participants and being used to manage the Project.





Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
15

---

Approach and methodology of
Mid Term Evaluation
3
3.1. Approach
The MTE assesses and reviews: the extent to which the overall project design remains valid; the
project's concept, strategy and approach within the context of effective capacity development and
sustainability; the approach used in design and whether the selected intervention strategy addresses
the root causes and principal threats in the project area; the effectiveness and the methodology of
the overall project structure, how effectively the project addresses responsibilities especially towards
capacity building and challenges; and plans and potential for replication.
The MTE also assess the extent to which project management has been effective, efficient and
responsive; and the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various institutional arrangements
for project implementation, and the level of coordination between relevant players (including the
oversight role by UNDP as GEF Implementing Agency, project execution role of FFA agency, the PCU
and the project focal points, project implementing role of FFA, SPC and IUCN, multipartite review
processes via the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) and the national consultative committees.
3.2. Methodologies
The MTE was undertaken through a combination desk research of project and related documents;
selected site visits; and questionnaires and interviews. A total of 71 person days, comprising in-country
travel, meeting participation, desk research, write-up and presentation), was undertaken by the
consultants.
3.2.1. Desk study, literature review
OFM Project and related documentation (e.g. PRODOC, Quarterly and Annual Project Implementation
Reports, background UNDP documents, FFA Project management documentation, reports from Project
activities) and a range of background technical and scientific reports (e.g. on tuna fisheries, biology,
oceanography, seamounts) were examined. Most material required was readily accessible from UNDP
and FFA, in digital form. The OFM Project website located within FFA's website was particularly effective
in providing detailed project management and financial information. The SPC website was an excellent
source of technical and scientific material, demonstrating the potential of the Internet in information
dissemination and coordination in the OFM Project. (Information sources are cited in Annex 5, Literature
review).
3.2.2. Site visits
The TOR stipulated visits to six selected countries (Fiji, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Federated
States of Micronesia, Nauru and Kiribati) in May 2008. However, as most OFM stakeholders were
attending the 67th Forum Fisheries Committee and Related Meetings in Palau in May, the Consultants,
with UNDP and FFC approval, visited Palau to consult with stakeholders from the above and other
countries, in the margins of the meetings. The following summarises countries visited, and stakeholders
consulted. (Details are given in Annex 2: Itinerary; Annex 3: Persons Consulted).
16
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Fiji islands (Apr 27-May 2, 2008)
Briefing on PIOFM and MTE were held with UNDP Suva Office and the Regional Technical Advisor
from UNDP's Regional Centre in Bangkok. Interviews were also conducted with stakeholders from
WWF South Pacific Programme, Fiji Fisheries Department and University of the South Pacific Marine
Programme (USP).
Palau (May 3-18, 2008)
In Palau, consultations were undertaken with stakeholders from the stipulated countries of Fiji, Solomon
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Kiribati, as well as additional countries of Papua
New Guinea, Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu, and Marshall Islands. Representatives from a range of
international and regional organisations and NGOs were also consulted (FAO, UNEP, Greenpeace, FFA,
SPC, WCP Commission, AusAID). Industry representatives from PNG and the Solomon Islands, and other
consultants were also interviewed.
Solomon islands (May 19-30)
Detailed discussions were held at FFA with the OFM PCU on the financial management of the Project,
and progress of activities. A teleconference was also undertaken with an IUCN representative on the re-
design of the seamounts sub-component.
3.2.3. Consultation and questionnaires
Formal and informal consultation was undertaken with the stakeholders. This generally comprised
of initial, informal discussions on the OFM Project and MTE objectives, general progress and issues,
followed by a formal questionnaire where appropriate. Topics and levels of detail covered varied
according to the informants' roles in the Project. For example, heads of national fisheries departments
were interviewed more on the general level of support from the executing agencies and general
outcomes within their departments, status of national tuna industries, and wider governance issues.
Those in OFM sections were questioned more on technical details, training needs and effectiveness of
Project activities (Questionnaires and summarises of results are given in Annex 6). The opinions of the
private sector (tuna fishing companies, and professional bodies) on industry needs, Project objectives
and outcomes were particularly sought. Social and other consequences of the tuna industry such
as gender issues, equity and occupational health and safety, were discussed with industry, regional
organizations, heads of national fisheries departments and ENGOs.
Detailed discussions were held with the main executing agencies (FFA, SPC) regarding Project
details, deliverables, management, administration, communications and coordination, and financial
effectiveness and accountability. A questionnaire to assess performance of a range of mainly GEF-
funded activities was provided to OFM Coordinator in a `bottom-up' evaluation. Informants from
organisations responsible for specific components (WWF, IUCN, USP Marine Studies) were interviewed
on progress and outcomes, and issues in their areas of responsibility. Biodiversity conservation issues
were specifically discussed with ENGOs (Greenpeace, WWF).
3.3. Evaluation Team
The team comprised of a Team Leader (Leon Zann BSc Hons PhD: Fisheries and Marine Environmental
Consultant, and former Professor of Marine Studies at the University of the South Pacific, Fiji, with
expertise in fisheries and marine environmental management in the Pacific region); and a Regional
Resource Specialist (Veikila Vuki BSc MSc PhD: SPC Women-in-Fisheries Bulletin Editor, Adjunct Research
Associate University of Guam, and former Fisheries Officer in Fiji Fisheries Dept, former Senior Lecturer
at the University of the South Pacific, NOAA/University of Guam Marine Protected Areas Coordinator,
with expertise in PIC marine resources, fisheries management, and gender issues).
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
17

---

Results
4
The following summarises the major findings of the MTE. It assesses the relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness and sustainability of operational activities and results achieved by the project to-date by
examining how the components, processes and outcomes contribute to the achievement of project
goals and objectives.
4.1. Project impact
Overall progress in the OFM Project in the first term is rated as good to very good, and there have
been significant achievements in several key areas. It is evident that the Project is well managed and
executed, and most component activities are on time and effective. There are already significant
impacts, particularly in areas of Scientific Assessment and Monitoring, and in aspects of Law, Policy and
Institutional Reform. Capacities have been increased in most Pacific SIDS's in OFM, and in meeting their
obligations under the WCPF Convention and attending the WCPF Commission meetings. However, it
is evident that needs of the Pacific SIDS vary greatly, with the small countries, and those which have
experienced breakdowns in national governance, requiring greater levels of support.
4.1.1. Regional and global objectives
Progress towards the regional objective (Pacific SIDS sustainable development from improved OFM
and conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity) has been significant. The OFM Project has assisted
the Pacific SIDS in OFM and in meeting their responsibilities under the WCPF Convention to varying
degrees, and there has been a marked increase in OFM capacities in several countries. However, as
noted, some require special assistance.
Achievements gained in the regional objective have contributed to meeting the global objective
(enhanced conservation and management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery resources and protection
of the biodiversity of the WTM LME). The design of the OFM Project largely focused on trans-boundary
oceanic fisheries, necessitating a greater focus on the biodiversity conservation goals in future
initiatives.
4.1.2. Sustainable oceanic fisheries management
Sustainable oceanic fisheries require appropriate, knowledge-based, and precautionary decision-
making approaches to fisheries management at regional and country levels. The first term of the OFM
Project has made significant contributions to the knowledge-base of the fisheries, and strengthened
the capacities of national governments and regional fisheries management organisations in OFM.
The initial phase, the GEF IW SAP, assisted in the conclusion of the WCP Fisheries Convention, and
establishment of the Commission. The Director of the WCP Fisheries Commission rated the OFM Project
very highly in effectiveness in supporting Pacific Island's activities in the Commission, scoring it an
arbitrary 80%.
18
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Scientific knowledge on the WCP LME still remains rudimentary as it is vast in scale, variable in time
and space (annually and inter-annually) and remote from major centres of marine research. As applied
scientific research and biodiversity conservation were not prioritised in the OFM Project because of GEF
funding requirements, these will require greater focus in collaborative future initiatives. It must also be
recognised that ecosystem-based management of fisheries is a relatively recent initiative and not yet
well underpinned by scientific knowledge and management practice. The implementation of large-
scale, long-term and integrated approaches to fisheries/environment/biodiversity conservation are
clearly beyond the scope and duration of this PIOFM Project.
4.1.3. Capacities of Pacific SIDS
The Project has generally had a significant effect on increasing the capacities of most Pacific SIDS
in OFM and the regional decision-making processes. Most of the heads of fisheries and related
departments, and other country representatives interviewed by the consultants reported significant
increases in OFM capacity because of this Project.
This has increased their effectiveness in the WCPF Commission. For example, representatives of all
seven countries examined by Clark (2007) felt their delegations to the WCP Commission meeting
(WCPFC4) in 2007 were much better prepared than for WCPFC2 in 2005. Four countries considered
their national OFM arrangements were better than in 2005, and two others were optimistic about
future improvements. Progress towards meeting WCPF Convention commitments was mixed; three felt
progress was satisfactory, and four others admitted partial success.
While they have been greatly assisted by the OFM Project, it is evident that some countries still have
limited capacity in OFM and are experiencing problems in meeting WCPF Convention Commitments.
These include the smallest countries (e.g. Niue, Tokelau, Nauru) and countries which have experienced
recent breakdowns in governance (e.g. Solomon Islands).
Although the OFM Project design attempted to balance support for regional assistance and specific
national needs, and an initial needs assessment during Project development provided each country
with the opportunity to prioritise their requirements in OFM, the Project design did not adequately
consider the varying needs of the Pacific SIDS, and the specific problems of the smallest countries. It
must be recognised that the Pacific SIDS vary greatly in sizes, development and governance, and in
capacities in OFM. Microstates such as Tokelau, Niue, Nauru and Tuvalu, and some of the States of the
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), have very small populations (under 15,000), small landmasses
(generally under 30 sq km), and limited terrestrial resources and economic development. Intermediate
countries such as Cook Islands, Kiribati, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu have larger land areas and
populations, and varying levels of economic development. Larger countries such as Solomon Islands,
Fiji and Papua New Guinea have fast-growing populations (hundreds of thousands to millions), a range
of terrestrial resources and, in some cases, greater economic development.
4.1.4. Governance
Effective governance in OFM is particularly important in smaller countries where oceanic fisheries are a
major economic resource, and where revenues from oceanic fisheries landings and licences are major
contributors to national incomes. A major focus (Component 2) of the Project is in strengthening
national and regional governance in OFM, including legal, policy and institutional reform.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
19

---

As noted above, the initial GEF IW SAP and this first term of the OFM Project has had some notable
successes in strengthening of capacities in national OFM and has assisted countries to meet their
obligations, to varying degrees. For example, in Fiji which has experienced inefficiency in OFM and
corruption in licensing procedures in the past decade, OFM has been greatly enhanced through the
restructure of the Fisheries Department by the interim Government, and the more recent assistance of
the OFM Project.
As noted above, the varying needs of the Pacific SIDS relating to governance of oceanic fisheries were
not well recognised in the original OFM Project design. Some countries are relatively well resourced,
with well managed and effective Fisheries Departments or Authorities (e.g. PNG). Others are much
less so, often because of their small sizes (e.g. Tokelau, Niue, Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati) or unstable
national governments ((e.g. Solomon Islands). While the PIOFM Project has focused more on regional
approaches, training and support, the situations and needs of particular countries will require a more
targeted approach in future OFM initiatives.
It must also be recognised that oceanic fisheries governance in Pacific SIDS is reliant on their overall
national governance. Several Pacific Island SIDS have experienced problems in national governance
since independence, due in part to their premature independence, lack of capacities (human and
financial), cultural diversities (especially in Melanesia), and geography (small sizes, isolation, lack
of terrestrial natural resources etc). Some of the larger and more diverse countries (e.g. Fiji Islands,
Solomon Islands) have suffered serious breakdowns in governance, and serious declines in the
effectiveness and accountabilities of their Public Services, including Fisheries Departments. Other
countries are so scattered, and communications so poor, that central governments are relatively
ineffectual, and some of their powers have been delegated to provincial or outer island local councils
and communities (e.g. Kiribati, Tuvalu).
Strengthening of Pacific SIDS governance is a broader, underlying issue, and a high priority in the Pacific
Plan and the recent Vavau Declaration (Pacific Forum Secretariat 2005, 2007). The latter's `Declaration
on Pacific Fisheries Resources' recommended (inter alia) a `greater effort to foster a long-term strategic
approach to ensuring these resources are effectively managed will provide enduring benefits for all
Forum Member countries'.
There are also advantages in more explicitly linking the OFM Project, with its strong emphasis on
governance, to the governance-focused Pacific Plan, and the wider UN Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs). This would provide a broader political and development context to the OFM Project,
provide greater opportunities for collaboration and continuing funding, and increase its long-term
sustainability.
It is therefore recommended that:
· theOFMProjectshouldbemoreexplicitlylinkedtothePacificPlanandanewprojectbe
developedtoimplementthelong-termstrategicapproachtocapacity-buildinginOFM
recommended under the Vavau Declaration. Discussions should be held between FFA and the
Pacific Forum Secretariat in developing this project.
20
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4.1.5. Intended beneficiaries
The following briefly evaluates the extent to which OFM Project impacts have reached the intended
beneficiaries identified in the PRODOC. The diversity of beneficiaries targeted necessitates a summary
approach.
BENEFICIARY
NATURE OF BENEFITS
PROGRESS AT MID-TERM
Global community
Enhanced stewardship of the oceanic
Long-term benefits, marked progress with WCPF
fisheries resources and ecosystems
Convention. An increased in OFM capacities in Pac SIDS.
GEF
Limited progress in understanding LME and biodiversity
conservation.
Pacific Islanders
Sustained abundance of resources
WCPF Commission now operating. Progress in OFM
dependent on
through food security and health,
assisted to varying extents in Pacific SIDS. (Some Island
oceanic fish resources
direct employment in industry
countries advanced, others require support.)
(fishing, processing, tourism etc)
Pacific Island
Broader economic gains, improved
Oceanic fisheries already a major revenue earner for
communities
food security, employment in service
many countries. Domestic fisheries development
& other industries through economic
supported through collaborative development projects
multipliers, redirection of aid etc
(e.g. DEVFISH).
Other users (foreign
Economic gain for foreign fishing
Access, economic sustainability enhanced through
fishing nations)
nations, increased national and global
WCPF Commission.
food security
Government sectors
Enhanced capacity and improved
Increase in OFM capability in most Pacific SIDS already
coordination in OFM
enhanced by OFM Project. Significant improvements in
coordination, through WCPF Commission.
Technical and policy
Increased capacity in technical areas,
National staff trained in OFM. Significant improvements
personnel
better national and regional outcomes
in most countries. Smaller countries require specific
support.
Private sector (fishers,
Economic development, sustainable
Longer-term economic benefits not yet assessable.
support industries)
resources, participation in resources
Opportunities in participatory management have been
management
enhanced.
National, regional and Improved OFM, conservation of ocean Longer-term economic benefits not yet assessable.
global conservation
fish stocks and ocean biodiversity,
Opportunities in participatory management significantly
NGOs
ecosystem-based management
enhanced.
Other SIDS,
Benefit from lessons learnt, and
OFM Project successfully developed and demonstrated
geographic groups
transferable best practices
as an appropriate model for regional collaboration in
resources management.
Regional
Enhanced capacities in core areas
SPC scientific and monitoring programme and FFA
organisations
governance and training activities well supported. IUCN
participating in
activities not yet commenced. (Greater participation/
project
collaboration by SPREP, USP etc. required.)
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
21

---

4.1.6. Lessons learnt and sustainability of results
Although it is too early to assess the results of most activities of the OFM Project, there are important
lessons to be learnt from the first term:
· The success of the OFM Project to date results from good project planning; a strong regional
approach (through FFA, SPC); a high degree of participation/ownership of Pacific SIDS through
consultation and co-funding contributions; and a focus on specific outcomes (support for
Pacific SIDS for WCPF Convention and Commission obligations).
· The lack of success in the one area, IUCN Seamounts study, results from reliance on outside
resources beyond direct control and an organisation, which had not been established in the
region.
· Because Pacific SIDS greatly vary in sizes, natural resources, development and effectiveness of
governance, they require more country-specific approaches in capacity-building. Smaller Island
countries require a greater level of support.
· Despite specific support in the OFM Project, smaller island countries may never have full
capacity in OFM, necessitating other approaches (e.g. sub-regional groupings, country-specific
support from FFA).
· Long-term capacity-building is required for the sustainability of OFM.
4.1.7. Recommendations from results
It is recommended that:
· the second term of the OFM Project, and any future developments of the Project, specifically
addresses the needs of smaller Pacific SIDS;
· alternative strategies should also be considered to support smaller Pacific SIDS in OFM (e.g.
Sub-regional groupings, country-specific support from FFA);
· long-term, strategic approaches should be developed to build capacity in OFM and ensure
sustainability, and should be the focus of a future OFM Project. (These recommendations are
elaborated upon in 5.2 and 5.3)
4.2 Project Design
The Prodoc design rates very highly. Both FFA and SPC regarded the Prodoc as `very good'. The Project
Coordinator rated it very highly (`9/10'), and reported following it `religiously'.
4.2.1. Relevance of overall design
The Prodoc design is highly relevant to the needs of the Pacific SIDS in OFM as it explicitly focuses
on providing the broad range of capacities for Pacific SIDS required to fulfil their obligations under
the WCPF Convention. The design and objectives flowed from the previous GEF IW SAP and wide
consultation of the Pacific SIDS and regional organisations.
The Prodoc is multidisciplinary in approach and well integrates scientific knowledge and governance
objectives required for sustainable fisheries. It is long (109 pp, with several hundred extra pages of
supporting Annexes) and detailed, and describes in detail some 109 different activities and outputs. It
is unusually prescriptive and takes a `construction plan' approach, ensuring delivery of a broad range of
products in sequential and timely manner. According to one of the Prodoc's main designers, this was
one of the lessons learnt from the GEF IW SAP, which was deficient in detail itself.
22
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

A major strength of the Project design was that it builds on the existing capacities of SPC and FFA,
reducing the need for new personnel and inevitable delays in recruitment and familiarisation, and
reducing risks in Project delivery. Notably, the seamounts sub-component 1.3 which involved an
organisation not then established in the region (IUCN), and reliant on outside resources (a research
vessel and submarines) has not been successful, and had to be re-designed.
While the Prodoc is rated highly, the consultants consider that the Prodoc is deficient in two areas: (a)
long-term capacity building in Pacific SIDS, especially in smaller countries; and (b) understanding and
conservation of oceanic biodiversity insufficient. These could have been addressed by including in the
OFM Project the two CROP agencies responsible for these areas, USP and SPREP (below).
The Project Coordinator, who was involved in the initial development of the Prodoc, noted in her
comments on a draft of the MTE Report that the above had been initially considered in project
development, but GEF would not consider institutional development with education/training service
providers, and wanted a focus on capacity-building in the immediate Project objectives. However,
involvement of other appropriate donors might have resolved this problem.
4.2.2. Relevance to capacity development and sustainability
As noted above, the OFM Project focused on shorter-term capacity building required to meet
immediate responsibilities of Pacific SIDS under WCPF Convention. Longer-term capacity development
in OFM was not adequately addressed, affecting the long-term sustainability of the Project objectives.
Capacity-building in Fisheries governance and institutions in Pacific SIDS is a widely recognised
issue, and countries vary greatly in capacity needs (e.g. AusAID 2007; Hanich et al. 2008). Despite the
importance of inshore and oceanic resources in the region, and the need for specialised staff in OFM,
regional fisheries departments are often small in size and inadequately resourced. In some cases public
service procedures have declined, resulting in inefficiencies and poor work practices, and cases of
corruption (e.g. in selling foreign fishing licences). Turn-over of senior and more capable staff is often
high (e.g. a quarter of the island fisheries departments had a change in senior leadership in the previous
two years). Fisheries departments have traditionally had a fisheries development focus, and capability
in sustainable fisheries and ecosystem-based approaches are generally limited. This is exacerbated
by generally poor relationships between national fisheries and environment departments, limiting
opportunities for collaboration in ecosystem-based management.
At the regional level, there has been limited collaboration, and often duplication of effort and
competition, amongst the CROP agencies. The close collaboration between FFA and SPC in the OFM
Project is a notable exception. However, the lack of involvement of USP and SPEC in this Project has
been noted.
There have been some notable successes in restructuring fisheries institutions in the region (e.g. PNG
has restructured its fisheries department, reduced staffing levels and increased efficiencies, and created
an entrepreneurial national fisheries authority which integrates the public and private sectors).
International assistance has been given to some smaller Pacific SIDS for restructure of Fisheries
institutions through bilateral aid and the OFM Project has assisted in training in aspects of OFM. For
example, AusAID is currently assisting Nauru in its fisheries department restructure, and plans to
similarly provide assistance to Kiribati and Tuvalu in the near future.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
23

---

It is therefore recommended that:
· theaboveproposedlong-termcapacitybuildingprojectinOFMbebasedonsystematic
assessmentsoftrainingneedsinOFMineachcountry,andappropriatefisheriesinstitutional
models and arrangements. (See 5.3 for details)
4.2.3. Impacts on root causes
The root causes of threats to sustainability of regional fisheries resources, a lack of understanding and
weaknesses in governance, are the focus of the OFM and have been generally well addressed in the first
half of the Project.
Lack of understanding: Component 1 `Scientific assessment and monitoring enhancement' addresses
this, and focuses on the status of oceanic trans-boundary fish stocks, especially of the four main tuna
species. Progress in the first term has been very good, largely because it has built on existing tuna stock
assessment programmes in SPC and on monitoring programmes on catch and effort, observer, port
sampling programmes supported by SPC and FFA, and by Pacific Island SIDS in varying degrees. The
quality and timely delivery of information reaching fisheries managers (national, regional and WCPF
Commission) on the main stocks (by species, area and time) is very good.
Progress on increasing understanding on the WTP LME and seamounts is limited. While the capacity of
SPC in this area has been enhanced, and existing information is being analysed, there was no progress
in the IUCN seamount study, although this is considered a minor part of the OFM Project (discussed
above).
Weaknesses in governance: the initial SAP Project GEF input was effective in assisting Pacific SIDS in
negations in the WCPF Convention, and the establishment of the WCPF Commission. A major focus
of the current OFM Project is now the reform, restructure and strengthening of national fisheries laws,
policies, institutions and programmes. All countries report progress in these areas, and there is already
a marked improvement in OFM governance within some Pacific Islands (e.g. Fiji, Nauru). However, as
noted in 4.2.2.certain countries require specific support.
4.2.4. Overall effectiveness
The OFM Project is rated as generally very effective in its design, methodologies, activities and
outcomes. As it has focused primarily on capacity-building to meet immediate obligations under
WCP Fisheries Convention/Commission, it has been less effective in long-term capacity-building and
sustainability.
4.2.5. Potential for replication
The OFM Project is an excellent model for replication for similar multi-national and trans-boundary
resource management initiatives. Its particular strengths are:
· use of a preliminary project (GEF IW SAP) to identify needs and issues, develop objectives,
required outcomes and appropriate activities to achieve these;
· adoption of `lessons learnt' from that project (e.g. need for high level of detail in Prodoc);
· a generally tight focus and prescriptive approach (to build capacity in specific areas required
under WCPF Convention within a specified time-frame);
· interdisciplinary nature (integrating science and governance);
· regional, trans-boundary approach and multi-government involvement (involving all Pacific
Island countries in this region);
24
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

· high degree of collaboration and ownership (involving stakeholders in funding, Project
ownership and execution);
· co-funding model (core GEF component for key new initiatives, with stakeholder co-funding in
kind and cash ensuring support and collaboration);
· use of existing organisations and structures (FFA, SPC, regional fisheries arrangements, bodies)
in key tasks to minimise risk;
· high degree of ownership amongst stakeholders (through extensive collaboration and co-
ownership);
· effective coordination (through OFM Project Management Unit in FFA, Regional Steering
Committee, national focal points and consultative committees);
· effective administration (through UNDP, and FFA and SPC administrations); and a
· performance monitoring (Project quarterly reports, annual reports and annual reviews); and
· adaptive management approaches (through monitoring and MTE) to assess progress, identify
issues and develop appropriate responses).
4.3. Project Management and Administration
A large and complex endeavour such as the OFM Project requires effective project management and
administration. Overall, project management and administration has been very effective, efficient and
responsive. The implementing agency (UNDP) and executing agency (FFA) have delivered very high
quality of support, both at the institutional and personal levels. The roles and responsibilities of all the
organisations involved, and the institutional arrangements have been well defined.
4.3.1. Implementing agency UNDP
UNDP has been effective as the GEF Implementing Agency. Its long international, regional and national
experience and administrative procedures ensured delivery and accountability. The OFM Project is
administered by the UNDP Fiji Office, which has a regional focus and capability. The Project managers
are nationals with professional experience in the region, and displayed a high degree of personal
interest and commitment to the Project.
Feedback from the Executing Agency rated UNDP's administration generally favourably (`7/10').
However, there were some criticisms about UNDP bureaucracy and the complexity of administrative
procedures, which caused some initial delays in appropriations. The Project Coordinator considered:
`lack of capacity, project knowledge and design in the UNDP Country office contributed significantly to
the long period for the coordination aspects of the project to `settle down'. The inexperience of dealing
with a project of this size and nature contributed to the inability of the Project Coordination Unit (PCU)
to obtain adequate guidance on UNDP procedures and requirements during project establishment.
This situation has abated over time and for the large part UNDP requirements are at present routine.'
UNDP Fiji attributed the above problems to the transfer of Project management from the Samoa Office,
and problems in the Suva Office at that time because of a new project management and financial
system. Technical problems have been rectified, and relationships are now good.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
25

---

4.3.2. Executing agency FFA
FFA has also been very effective in the execution of the OFM Project. FFA's mandate and 30 years of
experience in OFM, and its involvement in the development of the project development has ensured
an effective delivery. FFA established an OFM Project Coordination Unit (comprising a Coordinator and
Administration Officer) to coordinate and manage the Project.
Personal visits were made by the Coordinator to most countries (2-3 remain to be undertaken) to
confer with country fisheries departments, focal points and other stakeholders. An OFM website was
established early in the Project in the FFA site, and is an important mechanism for coordination and
information dissemination.
The countries and organisations involved in the OFM were generally highly satisfied with the level
of support by FFA and coordination by the PCU. However, because of a high turn-over of fisheries
department personnel, several of the heads of fisheries interviewed were not well informed on the
OFM Project. Others considered that coordination could be improved through more regular country
visits by the Coordinator.
The Consultants consider that the OFM PCU is insufficiently resourced to undertake additional tasks such as
regular country visits, and appropriate media and education outreach activities. The extent of the terminal
reporting in the next term of the project, and additional tasks recommended in the MTE (e.g. development
of a new Project on capacity-building, below) wil greatly increase the pressure on the Coordinator.
As noted in the OFM Annual Review (2007), the PCU is very small, given the complexity of the OFM
Project, and the Coordinator's effectiveness is limited by available resources. The Consultants consider
that the Prodoc was deficient in its Project coordination/management arrangements and budget.
Two positions (one professional, one junior, comprising around 6-8% of project funds) are clearly
inadequate in such a project. (Normally, 15-20% of budgets in projects of this complexity are allocated
for administration support.)
The low administration allocation in the Prodoc is attributed by UNDP to GEF's cap of 7% on project
management but it must be recognised that there was no contribution in cash from the other partners
towards FFA's project management, greatly increasing pressure on the Coordinator (and reducing
the total allocated to project management to around 1% of the total cash and kind contributions).
Because of a lack of resources for technical assistance in areas such as information dissemination, the
Coordinator also has had to devote much of her time (as much as 50%) to technical matters such as
web design and maintenance.
It is therefore recommended that:
· TheOFMPCUisbettersupportedinthesecondtermoftheProject. Urgent discussions should
be held between the Project Coordinator and UNDP on Project management needs in the
second term, and ways ahead. For example, an additional professional staff member should be
recruited as soon as possible to assist in coordination, reporting and in the development of the
recommended new Project. One or two additional technical assistants might be established
where funds could be reallocated from other technical activities. The additional staff might
be seconded from regional fisheries departments to aid in coordination and national capacity
building.
· GreaterfocusisgivenbythePCUtoinformationdisseminationontheOFMProjectamongst
stakeholders, and wider community in the Pacific SIDS. (See 4.4.4. for details).
· GEFshouldbeinformedontheneedforgreaterflexibilityinallocationsforProjectmanagement.
Success of any project depends on the quality of Project management.
26
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4.3.3. SPC
Management by SPC of the scientific components has also been efficient and their outputs of high
quality. SPC has the mandate in oceanic fisheries research and stock assessment in the region, and
a proven capacity and performance in this area. Information users (FFA, WCPF Commission, and
Pacific SIDS) reported favourably on SPC's performance, and usefulness of the information supplied.
Coordination and collaboration between FFA and SPC was excellent, despite past problems in
overlapping mandates and duplication of effort, and the uncertainties of a review in 2007 on possible
amalgamation of these organisations.
Information dissemination by SPC though regular presentations at regional and country meetings was
rated highly by most countries. The SPC Oceanic Fisheries website is user-friendly and visually attractive,
and background scientific reports and all internal reports and technical publications required for the
MTE were readily accessible on line.
A significant number of interviewees thought that their countries fisheries institutions should be given
some technical capacity in oceanic fisheries science and modelling. Several commented that the SPC
scientific program was `dominated by Western scientists, and Pacific Islanders should be engaged in the
programme as they are in other aspects of OFM.'
While it is evident that stocks of highly migratory species such as tunas must be studied and managed
holistically, and that oceanic fisheries modelling require specialised skills and is best undertaken by a
central agency such as SPC, it is suggested here that capacity in oceanic fisheries science is increased
within the Pacific SIDS. All national fisheries institutions require at least a basic competency in fisheries
science in order to understand the information and advice given by SPC, the uses (and limitations) of
predictive models, and need for country-based fisheries monitoring and reporting. Smaller SIDS may
require only limited in-country expertise, but larger countries with major oceanic fisheries may require
higher levels of capacity.
It is therefore recommended that:
· Wherepossible,SPCshouldassistinthedevelopmentofoceanicfisheriessciencewithinPacific
SIDS in this term of the Project (e.g. by encouraging regional researchers and postgraduate
students in oceanic fisheries science, providing short-term attachments for relevant regional
Fisheries staff at SPC, and developing formal linkages with a current USP/UNU/FAO fisheries
science and modelling training programme).
· DevelopmentinoceanicfisheriessciencewithinPacificSIDSisapriorityintheproposednew
capacity-building Project.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
27

---

4.3.4. IUCN
IUCN, a global NGO with long experience in global biodiversity conservation, was responsible
for seamount surveys. This sub-component was originally added to the core OFM Project to take
advantage of a no-cost voyage by a private research vessel and submarines through the region.
Unfortunately, the vessel was damaged in Hurricane Kathrina in 2005, and is no longer available
within the timeframe of this Project. This indicates the risks when relying on outside, non-funded
contributions.
The seamounts programme had to be substantially redesigned in 2007/8. Some funds were diverted
to SPC's seamount research group to recruit a spatial analyst/physical oceanographer to identify and
classify seamounts and analyse historical catch and effort data. After consultations with UNDP, FFA
and SPC it was agreed in February 2008 that: IUCN/Hawaii will undertake a survey of purse seine and
longline fishers and hold a technical workshop to document status of knowledge in the subject; and
the new IUCN Oceania office in Fiji will recruit a scientist to work with stakeholders in the Pacific SIDS
on sustainable seamount fisheries. This post has been advertised and will be filled by July 2008. While
progress in the seamount research has been delayed by 2.5 years, the redesigned programme will
provide at least preliminary information on the subject. The consultants were satisfied with the re-
design, but were concerned about IUCN's lack of knowledge of the general OFM Project, and current
limited coordination both within IUCN and with other OFM Project partners.
It is recommended that:
· theSeamountsprogramiscoordinatedbythenewscientistattheIUCNOceaniaOfficeto
ensurecollaborationwithintheSPC/IUCNSeamountsprogramme,withotherOFMProject
activities, and with other agencies involved in seamount research in the region (e.g. France's
research vessel Alis which is based in New Caledonia, and Japan Fisheries University's Koyo
Maru which undertakes research with USP in Fiji).
4.4. Project Implementation
Overall management and implementation of the OFM Project has been effective and efficient.
4.4.1. Efficiency and cost effectiveness
A high level of efficiency and cost effectiveness in most areas has been achieved through use of
existing structures, arrangements and organisations. No new infrastructure was required, and apart
from the PCU, administrative support has been undertaken as an additional task by the collaborating
organisations. As capacity in most technical areas already existed within FFA and SPC, Project funding
has been used most effectively to develop existing activities. Where new staff was required, these
were often recruited internally from the organisations and island countries, saving greatly on staff
recruitment and orientation.
The IUCN seamounts study which required new structures and staff, and outside technical support has
therefore been less effective.
It is not possible to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the contributions in kind by the 15 Pacific SIDS
and other organisations, but the marked successes in the OFM project to date, increases in capacities
of many Pacific SIDS, and the high level of commitment to the WCPF Convention and Commission all
indicate increased effectiveness in their support for OFM.
28
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4.4.2. Applicability of logical framework tool
Logical framework was used as a management tool during OFM Project development and
implementation (Annex 9) but its effectiveness has been limited due to a lack of quantitative
indicators and timelines. There is some uncertainty on the reasons for this. The US representative in
the GEF Council's review of the OFM Project in Feb 2005 noted that it has few quantitative indicators
or milestones by which to judge progress, and gave instructions for the development of indicators
relating to the environmental status of international waters by the first year of the Project. However,
the OFM Project developers argued that their log frame emphasised `process' indicators (building new
institutions (WCPF Commission) and reforming and realigning existing institutions etc), and that the
monitoring plan did identify a range of environmental status indicators. This justification appeared
to have been accepted by the GEF Council and the Log frame lacks the quantifiable indicators
which would have aided this MTE, and we have evaluated progress in a more qualitative manner. An
evaluation of progress is shown in the logical framework in the 2007 Annual Report (Clark, 2007) and in
Annex 9.
It is therefore recommended that:
· AsuiteofappropriateindicatorsshouldbedevelopedwithintheLogicalFrameworktobetter
monitorprogressinProjectOutputsandActivities.The Project Coordinator should develop
these in consultation with UNDP and GEF. (Some possible indicators are suggested in 5.1)
4.4.3. Project reporting
Project reporting has been regular, of a high quality and detail, and provides an effective project
monitoring and evaluation framework. Reporting comprises: quarterly narrative and financial reports;
annual reports; annual Regional Steering Committee meetings; annual GEF Performance Results
framework; annual reviews; mid term evaluation (this report); terminal report; terminal evaluation; and
post project evaluation. Over 140 technical reports have also produced on specific activities to date.
The 2007 Annual Review (Clark, 2007), written by one developers of the OFM Prodoc, was particularly
useful to the MTE. It was very comprehensive, assessed progress in the various components, identified
achievements and issues, and made appropriate recommendations. The author was interviewed in the
MTE to elaborate on background and progress of the OFM Project. While guided by the 2007 Annual
Review's findings and recommendations, this MTE also takes a wider perspective, as dictated in the TOR.
The above reporting framework is very comprehensive, but takes a major effort from the PCU. The
Coordinator noted that reporting took a very large amount of her effort, and resulted in little feedback
(very few comments have ever been received). The reporting schedule does appear to be overly
detailed and onerous.
It is therefore recommended that:
· TheOFMProjectCoordinatorandUNDPProjectManagementshouldundertakeaninformal
review of the reporting processes and their effectiveness with the view of reducing the number
and/or detail, while maintaining their effectiveness.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
29

---

4.4.4. Information dissemination
Effective communications and information dissemination is essential in such a large and complex
Project to keep the key stakeholders informed and committed, and to inform other interest groups and
the wider community. Information on the progress and findings of the Project has been disseminated
amongst stakeholders mainly through the above, comprehensive reporting framework. A brochure
outlining the objectives and outputs of the Project has also been produced, and an OFM Project
website is maintained within FFA's site. The website was an excellent source of information (Project
documents, internal reports, minutes and proceedings of meetings etc) in the MTE. It is user-friendly,
although is not visually `interesting', and does not contain a `popular' description of the OFM for non-
technical browsers.
Despite the ready availability of information on the OFM Project, many stakeholders interviewed did not
know much about the Project's progress and achievements outside their own area of interest. Most of
those not personally engaged in the Project knew little or nothing of it. Few interviewees had seen the
brochure, or visited the OFM website. This may reflect the high turnover in regional fisheries senior staff,
but does indicate the need for a more active communications effort. Surprisingly, some informants said
they did not frequently use the Internet for their information requirements (sometimes because of poor
connections), indicating a wider need to promote its use.
WWF-Pacific and PITA have been engaged in the OFM Project to promote industry awareness of of
OFM and the WCPF Commission. FFA indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the performance of
WWF-Pacific in the OFM Project but it was not possible to evaluate the performance of PITA, or of the
success of these initiatives. Interviews with fishing industry representatives from PNG and the Solomon
Islands at the Palau FFC meetings did show a high degree of knowledge of OFM and the Commission's
activities, but not of the OFM Project. Note also that this was a biased sample as they were attending
the meetings because of their special interests in OFM.
The lack of an active media program is a serious deficiency in the OFM Project. The OFM Project is a
regionally (and globally) important one, and should be widely reported and promoted, particularly
given its notable achievements in its first term. While a comprehensive media strategy was developed
by outside consultants in 2006, no position or specific funding was identified in the Prodoc to
implement this. As FFA's media position has been unfilled for two years, the Coordinator has had to
undertake this task in addition to her other duties.
The situation is however, being improved. FFA has recently recruited a media expert who will assist in
information dissemination in the OFM and other FFA activities. A newsletter on OFM Project is currently
being prepared.
It is recommended that:
· theOFMmediastrategyshouldbeimplementedandthereshouldbeagreaterfocuson
disseminationofinformationfromtheOFMProjectbythePCU.This should include: wider
distribution of the OFM brochure; special briefings for newly appointed heads of fisheries
and other key stakeholders; formal briefings at relevant regional meetings; promotion of OFM
Project and wider FFA and SPC websites amongst stakeholders; popular descriptions on the
Project website for educators and the wider community; regular newsletters (email, Web
and hard copy); and radio and press news releases distributed amongst regional media; and
presentations on the OFM Project at international fisheries and ocean conservation meetings to
promote the Project and approaches, and aid in continuing funding.
· thecapacityoftheOFM/PCUshouldbeincreasedtoundertaketheseadditionalfunctions.The
previously recommended additional staff member may be charged with these responsibilities.
30
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4.4.5. Risk management
The level of risk is potentially great in the OFM Project because of the inherent nature and complexity
of the subject, its huge geographic scale and the large number of national, regional and international
stakeholders. The general success of the OFM Project to date is attributable to the effective use of risk
assessment in its Project design and implementation. As noted above, these were reduced by using
established organisations and institutional arrangements, wide consultation and ownership amongst
stakeholders.
4.4.6. Adaptive management processes
Adaptive management processes are established through monitoring of activities, annual reviews
and this MTE. The 2007 Annual Review and this MTE evaluated progress identified issues and make
recommendations for the remainder of the OFM Project, and possible future initiatives. It remains to
be seen how these are implemented by the Implementing and Executing agencies. While the MTE is
undertaken at mid-point of the Project, the time for review and final endorsement (October 2008) and
responses (earliest at end of 2008) are further limits to its effectiveness.
4.4.7. Partnership arrangements
The OFM Project is based on partnerships (GEF, UNDP, FFA, SPC, WWF-Pacific, the 15 Pacific SIDS
governments and industry). Arrangements amongst the participating national and regional
organisations have been very effective. Co-funding arrangements with the Pacific SIDS has ensured
their engagement in the Project. The working relationships between FFA, WWF-Pacific and SPC are
effective. The effectiveness of partnerships with industry were more difficult to assess. Partnerships with
international assistance agencies and donors (e.g. Japan, Australia) are being developed.
As discussed in 4.1.4. Governance, there should be close collaboration between FF/OFM and the
Pacific Forum Secretariat to develop closer linkages with the Pacific Plan, wide capacity-building in
governance, and collaboration in development of a new, strategic, long-term capacity-building project
in OFM.
As also noted earlier, a serious omission in the OFM Project design was the lack of partnership
agreements with relevant CROP agencies including: USP which is responsible for tertiary capacity
building in the region; SPREP which executed the first GEF IW Watersheds Project, and is responsible
for biodiversity conservation in the region; and SOPAC, which has a developing interest in the physical
ocean environment and is about to start implementing the component of the Pacific SAP on Integrated
Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM). FSPI, the region's leading community NGO was also not
involved in the Project, despite a capacity in social aspects of OFM.
It is therefore recommended that:
· theproposedfutureProjectincapacity-buildinginOFMinvolvespartnershipswith
appropriateCROPagencies(includingPacificForumSecretariat,USPandSPREP),regional
NGOs,andinternationalassistanceagencies.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
31

---

4.4.8. Cross-cutting issues: Institutional strengthening, innovation, national development,
gender, human rights, and equity
Although the above cross-cutting issues were not explicitly addressed in the Prodoc, the Project
explicitly focuses on national (and regional) sustainable development through institutional
strengthening. These are rated very highly in the first term as global institutions (GEF, UNDP) and
regional institutions (FFA, SPC, WCPF Commission) and Pacific SIDS fisheries institutions have
significantly benefited. Institution strengthening in the first term has assisted most of the Pacific SIDS in
OFM, and in meeting their obligations under the WCPF Convention. Institutional strengthening in some
countries (e.g. Fiji, Nauru) has been particularly effective.
The Project also rates very highly in innovation because of its effective integration of science and
management (OFM governance) at an ocean scale, its multi-governmental approach to management
of a trans-boundary fisheries resource, and in its focus on collaboration, partnerships and co-funding
arrangements to ensure ownership and sustainability.
Social issues rate relatively poorly, and may have been more explicitly addressed in the Project design
though linkages with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). While gender issues are considered
in a study of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) around fishing ports, the OFM Project does not
address wider gender equity issues such as promotion of equal employment opportunities for women
in OFM at all levels. It is noted that the lack of capacity and efficiency in regional fisheries departments
(traditionally male domains) could be greatly assisted by equal employment policies.
Human rights issues are also not well addressed. Fishing is one of the most hazardous occupations
on earth. Crew on OF vessels are low-paid, sometimes indentured for long periods, have poor living
conditions, and have poor medical support
It is therefore recommended that:
· gender,humanrightsandequityissuesshouldbebetterpromotedinthesecondtermofthe
OFMProject,andbeafocusintheproposedfuturecapacity-buildingproject.
4.4.9. Coordinating mechanisms
Coordination mechanisms in the Prodoc design are comprehensive and comprise: the Project
Coordination Unit (PCU) with the Project Coordinator to manage the operations; a Project Steering
Committee to oversee this; a National Consultative Committee (NCCs) in each country to secure
broader stakeholder participation in the Project's activities; and a National Focal Point in each country
as a point of contact.
The Project's 109 Activities and outputs have been effectively coordinated by the PCU, although
as noted above, the PCU is not adequately resourced to manage a complex project of this scale.
Coordination between the implementing agency UNDP and executing agency FFA has been also
effective, although there were initial procedural problems. The working relationships between FFA and
SPC, and FFA and WWF-Pacific have been very close.
Coordination between the PCU and IUCN has been less effective, possibly because the latter agency
was not directly involved n the Prodoc development, was not represented in the region and did not
have technical expertise in for the seamount sub-component. Presumably this will improve when the
IUCN Oceania Office's Project marine programme staff is recruited. Recommendations are made above
(4.3.4.) on mechanisms for coordination of the Seamounts activities.
32
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

The performances of the NCCs have been variable, and some NCCs have not even been successfully
established. The 2007 Annual Review (Clark, 2007) flagged this as a problem, and attributed this in
part to the different capabilities of the Pacific SIDS. For example, national coordination is less of a
problem in PNG which has a National Fisheries Authority governed by a Board representing the range
of stakeholders. Smaller undeveloped countries with limited Public Service capabilities and many
overseas assistance programs to administer have difficulties in arranging meetings in which all relevant
representatives can attend.
Clark (2007) questioned the need for NCCs (a requirement in GEF Projects to ensure national
commitment and collaboration). He noted that most OFM Project activities and training programmes
are regionally (not nationally) executed; that coordination of external assistance by donors is less
a problem now than in the past; that donor coordination arrangements imposed by donors are a
`fatiguing burden' for smaller countries; and that the heavy schedule of national and regional meetings
in fisheries and related areas imposes an impossible load on senior government personnel in the Pacific
SIDS. The last issue is a particularly serious in the Pacific SIDS as the extended absences of heads of
fisheries in meetings adversely affects their performance in their core task of running their national
fisheries institutions.
As a detailed evaluation of the performances of each NCC was not possible within the MTE, it is
therefore
recommended that:
· theperformanceofeachNCCshouldbeevaluatedbythePCUandbereportedtotheProject
Steering Committee, and assistance in kind be given where appropriate to assist in their
operations. Where this is not possible, alternative strategies should be considered for national
coordination (e.g. national circulation of newsletters, email news).
4.5. Project Finances
4.5.1. Budget procedures
Budget procedures and financial accountability have been of a high standard. Monthly, quarterly
and annual financial reports are undertaken. An annual Audit is undertaken for FFA by certified
external auditors based in Honiara, Solomon Islands. There have been subsequent adjustments to
accommodate audit recommendations and changes have also been made to fund allocations as a
result of budget revisions because of the weak US dollar. These have been approved by the Regional
Steering Committee.
There has been a significant impact of the weak US$ on the budget, especially on the scientific
assessment and monitoring component. As contingency funds were not permitted by the donors, the
rise in staff costs in SPC and FFA are considerable. As noted by Clarke 2007, staff costs have been at
30-40% over the original budgeted values. The consequent budget revisions have been approved by
the Regional Steering Committee to compensate for this, and to prevent any future risk to the project
outcomes.
The project implementing agencies have been using disaggregated working budget, while for
reporting purposes to UNDP and Pacific SIDs aggregated budget have been utilised as required by
UNDP.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
33

---

OFm Project Working Budget
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
SuBtOtaL
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
SuBtOtaL
3,883,850
3. COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION & 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
SuBtOtaL
1,915,120
tOtaL
10,946,220
4.5.2. Disbursements and spending
The disbursement process has run smoothly despite the slow start-up of the project. There was some
concern by UNDP regarding the large amount of advances (a quarterly advance of approx $0.8 million
in an annual budget of over $2 million) which caused some problems in cash flow for SPC and FFA, the
two main implementing agencies. But these initial difficulties were resolved. By the MTE, May 30 2008,
57% of the project budget had been disbursed by UNDP and the project budget spent was 52%.
Disbursements in OFm Project to mtE (may 2008)
initial approved
received from
cumulative % of
Spent
cumulative % of
cumulative %
Budget (us$)
uNDP (us$)
total Budget
(us$)
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
996,216
57
632,011
51.9
65.0
2009
1,622,445
2010
1,108,300
10,946,220
34
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4.5.3. Actual spending and budget expectations
A detailed assessment of the actual spending versus budget expectations was undertaken by
the evaluators at FFA and was considered satisfactory. A comparative analysis of the patterns of
disbursements and expenditures with the initial project budget is presented in the table above. As
stated by Clarke 2007, the project was below delivery rate because 56% of the budget was to be spent
by December, 2007. By the MTE only 52% had been spent with the majority of the shortfall due to
the lack of progress by IUCN in implementing its portion of the project. The IUCN activities have now
been redesigned and an assurance has been given by IUCN that the re-designed programme will be
implemented and completed within 2.5 years, the project life.
4.5.4. Co-financing and leverage
The co-financing of the project is outlined in Annex 7. It is not possible to assess the in-kind
contribution of Pacific SIDS and the complex aspect of co-financing in this project at this stage because
there are no specific requirements from UNDP/GEF for accounting of contributions from co-financing
at this stage. However, it the PCU may need to establish a system for keeping track of co-financing, as
actual co-financing received needs to be reported to the GEF at project closure.
The level of support by donors to fund OFM project related in-country and regional activities have been
very strong. The co-financing aspect of the project has exceeded the level of financing required to
meet the commitments of the co-financing requirements in the Project document.
4.5.5 Effectiveness
The financial effectiveness of the PCU as a regional approach in support of the Project's financial
management is rated highly. The PCU has shown leadership and a high level of competency in its
approach in supporting the in-country conservation and sustainable oceanic fisheries management
initiatives in the Pacific. The strong and sound financial management capabilities of FFA and SPC have
prevented any difficulties in this area.
The Auditor's Reports are adequate for financial accountability for the project. The procedures and
accountability for financial reporting between FFA, SPC/OFM, UNDP and the Regional Steering
Committee members are of high quality. The Project Finance and Administration Officer has good
rapport with the Coordinator and is highly competent. The strong financial capabilities of FFA and
SPC institutions have supported the OFM Project. The overall financial management of the Project is
considered to be very impressive.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
35

---

4.6. Lessons learned
The following highlights lessons learned, and best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to
relevance, performance and success of the OFM Project. Some lesson learned are applicable only to
this Project, while others are of value more broadly, to similar projects in the UNDP/GEF pipeline and
portfolio, and elsewhere.
4.6.1. Country ownership/driveness
Best practice: A high degree of ownership, and consequently `driveness' was achieved through
involvement of the Island countries in all phases of the Project, in the preliminary IW SAP and in the
development and execution of the OFM Project. Real `ownership' has been achieved through co-
funding arrangements and contributions in cash and kind from all the Pacific SIDS involved.
Poor practice: The varying need of the Pacific SIDS, and special needs of the smaller countries were not
adequately considered in the project design. The continuing need to maintain `ownership' has not been
adequate. A focus is therefore required in the second term of the Project on implementation of the
media strategy and information dissemination.
4.6.2. Regional cooperation and inter-governmental cooperation
Best practice: There is a high degree of regional and intergovernmental cooperation through the
execution by the established regional organisations, FFA and SPC. The establishment of the PCU within
FFA has facilitated coordination in the execution of the Project.
Poor practice: The PCU was not sufficiently resourced in the Prodoc budget to manage such a large
and complex project. Because of the high degree of success in regional cooperation, some countries
feel that their own national interests are inadequately considered.
4.6.3. Stakeholder participation
Best practice: The development of strong degree of ownership established by making the Pacific SIDS
partners in the Project (above) has maximised participation of stakeholders.
Poor practice: Some key stakeholders were not engaged as partners in the Project (e.g. USP in
capacity-building and SPREP in biodiversity conservation). The NCCs have had limited success for
various reasons. Wider public information and media programmes have not been undertaken to inform
and engage other stakeholders such as other government departments, industry, community NGOs,
schools and interested members of the public.
4.6.4. Adaptive management processes
Best practice: Regular reports, annual reviews, and the MTE assess progress, identify weaknesses and
recommend remedial measures.
Poor practice: There is a significant time lag between the performance of the MTE and its acceptance,
and (hopefully) remedial actions. Remedial actions may not be possible because of funding constraints.
There may not be budget savings to implement recommended activities.
4.6.5. Efforts to secure sustainability
Best practice: The emphasis on regional and national engagement and multiple partnership
arrangements enhance ownership and sustainability. The focus on providing capacity for Pacific SIDS
to meet their longer-term obligations aids the sustainability of the WCPF Convention and Commission,
and hence sustainability of fisheries stocks.
36
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Poor practice: The longer-term financial support to the Commission is not certain, affecting its future
sustainability. The OFM Project generally does not take a long-term, strategic approach to increasing
capacity in OFM in the Pacific SIDS, particularly smaller countries.
4.6.6. Role of monitoring and evaluation in project implementation
Best practice: Regular reporting, reviews and the MTE monitor progress and evaluate implementation.
Poor practice: The Project logical framework lacks quantitative indicators and timeframes, hindering
evaluation of progress.
4.7. Summary and explanation of findings and interpretations
The OFM Project is unusually large and ambitious in its objectives and geographic scale, and complex
in its design and implementation. Despite these challenges, the MTE concludes that OFM Project
has been very effectively implemented in its first term. There has been a significant impact on the
immediate regional objectives (improved OFM in Pacific SIDS, and sustainable development of
resources), contributing to wider global objectives (management of oceanic fishery and oceanic
biodiversity). There has also been significant progress on addressing the root cause problems (lack of
understanding, and weaknesses in governance), though these will require continued effort.
The most notable achievement has been to provide capacities to the Pacific SIDS in a coordinated
manner for them to meet their obligations under the WCPF Convention. The WCPF Commission rated
the OFM Project very highly in performance and outcomes in this regard. However, it is evident that
smal er and less developed islands are struggling, and wil require continued and focused support. While
capacity-building has commenced in some of these countries (e.g. Nauru) and wil be undertaken in
others (e.g. Tuvalu, Kiribati) Kiribati) through leverage funding, it is the smal er countries, and those which
have suffered problems in national governance, which wil require continuing support.
OFM Project management and administration is rated very highly in effectiveness. The GEF
Implementing Agency, UNDP is efficient and responsive, though its procedures were considered rather
onerous by the Executing Agency (FFA). FFA, a well-established regional institution with 30 years of
experience in OFM, has been very effective in this key role. Project coordination (through the PCU)
has been good, though the PCU is severely under-resourced for a project of this scale and complexity.
The major scientific organisation, SPC, has also been effective in increasing knowledge of the status
of oceanic fisheries. However, some of the larger Pacific SIDS consider that they have not been
significantly involved in oceanic fisheries science and would like closer involvement.
One sub-component, the IUCN Seamounts study, did not begin in the first term for matters beyond
that organisation's control. This sub-component, developed to take advantage of a no-cost deep
sea expedition, was not considered a core part of the programme and has not hindered the primary
objectives of the Project. This study has now been redesigned and will commence in the near future.
IUCN has assured that the study will be completed within the life of the OFM Project. However, it is
evident that the IUCN activities will have to be better related to the other Project activities, and closely
coordinated in future.
The overall cost/effectiveness of the Project is rated very highly. Risk assessment and management
(in a complex Project with high inherent risk) has been well employed in the Project design. However,
monitoring and assessment of progress has been limited by a lack of quantifiable indicators in the
Project's logical framework. Adaptive management processes within the Project are good in theory,
but time lags may reduce their effectiveness. A lack of funds would also prevent any new initiatives
stemming from recommendations of this MTE.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
37

---

Partnership agreements, the bases for the Project, and other internal arrangements have been very
effective. A major strength in the Prodoc is its inclusion of all Pacific SIDS and a number of international
and regional institutions as partners. However, regional organisations with mandates in capacity-
building and oceanic biodiversity conservation were not included, to the detriment of the long-term
sustainability of the Project objectives. The cross cutting issues of institutional strengthening, national
development and innovation are cornerstones of the Project and are well addressed. However, social
issues of gender, equity and human rights were not addressed in the Project design. The latter should
be explicitly addressed in any future capacity-building projects in OFM.
Project coordination has been effective, but requires a continuing effort because of high staff turnover
in the region. However, the effectiveness of the National Coordination Committees has been variable
and some have not yet met. This reflects the range in capabilities within the Pacific SIDS. Smaller
countries with limited Public Services are especially hard pressed to provide a full range of national
services as well meeting the often demanding obligations of external donors.
This has not affected delivery of training and other Project activities which are undertaken on a more
regional basis. The issue of national coordination requires further evaluation, and alternative initiatives
(e.g. smaller committees, wider circulation of newsletters, Web material).
The procedures and accountability for financial reporting within and between FFA, SPC/OFM, UNDP
and the Regional Steering Committee members are of high quality. Monthly, quarterly and annual
financial reports are undertaken, and there is an external annual audit. The decline in the US dollar
has had a serious impact on the Project budget and staff costs have risen 30-40% over the original
budgeted values. This has particularly affected SPC which has several Project funded positions.
Reallocations of funds have been made to support staffing and have been approved by the Regional
Steering Committee. A major weakness in budget procedures is the use of an aggregated budget,
which does not specifically identify budgets for regional and national activities. The details are, however,
provided by the disaggregated working budgets used by FFA and SPC. By the MTE, May 30 2008, 57%
of the project budget had been disbursed by UNDP and the project budget spent was 52%. The levels
of co-financing and leverage by donors to fund OFM project related in-country and regional activities
have been very strong. The co-financing aspect of the project has exceeded the level of financing
required to meet the commitments of the co-financing requirements in the Prodoc.
The lessons learnt (positive and negative) from the first term are important. Positive lessons learnt
include: importance of large-scale, coordinated and integrated approaches in ocean-scale conservation
and sustainable resources management; importance of engagement of stakeholders in all stages of
Project planning and implementation; importance of a detailed design to ensure product delivery;
reduction of risks in implementation through the utilisation of existing resources, organizations and
arrangements; and maximisation of stakeholder participation, collaboration and sustainability through
formal co-financing and partnership arrangements. The OFM Project is considered a good model for
other large-area, multi-stakeholder or inter-governmental projects.
Negative lessons learnt include: need to include all relevant stakeholders (in this case, the regional
tertiary training and biodiversity conservation institutions); need for long-term capacity-building
approaches to ensure long-term sustainability; a false assumption that all Pacific SIDS have similar
needs; insufficient consideration of the special needs of small, isolated countries; need for more flexible
budgeting in longer-term projects to allow for new initiatives and unexpected actors such as varying
exchange rates; need for continuing coordination and for a focused media programme; and the need
for donors to minimise and streamline bureaucratic procedures because of the excessive burden they
place on executing institutions and governments of small Pacific SIDS.
38
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

In conclusion, it should be recognised that while there has been significant progress on the root cause
problems (lack of understanding, and weaknesses in governance) the scale of these necessitates long-
term efforts, beyond the duration of this Project. A potentially serious problem lies in longer-term
sustainability of the Project objectives. While capacity-building in the OFM Project has largely focused
on meeting the more immediate needs (obligations under the WCPF Convention), more strategic,
longer-term capacity-building in OFM will be required in the future, particularly to assist small, isolated
Pacific SIDS.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
39

---

Recommendations
5
Recommendations are made throughout Part 4, above. The following places these into
recommendations for corrective actions in the design, implementation, management and evaluation
of the OFM Project; actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project; and proposals for
future directions underlining main objectives. Those relating to the OFM Project are designed, where
possible, to be financial resource-neutral to minimise impacts on ongoing activities.
5.1. Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and


evaluation of the project
5.1.1. Design
· The revised design for the IUCN Seamount sub-component Output 1.3.2. should be closely
coordinated, integrated with the wider OFM Project objectivities, and be collaborative
with other regional research. The various IUCN seamount activities should be coordinated
by the Principal Investigator who is to be recruited by IUCN Oceania Office in Fiji. The activities
and outputs of the IUCN Seamount research should be related to other aspects of the OFM
Project such as management options, law reform, compliance, information strategy etc. Where
possible, there should be collaboration with other seamount research and management
initiatives in the region (e.g. by French research vessel Alise; Japan Fisheries University /USP
seamounts research on Koyo Maru).
5.1.2. Implementation
· TheOFMPCUshouldbebettersupportedinthesecondtermoftheProject. Urgent discussions
should be held between the Project Coordinator and UNDP on Project management needs in
the second term, and ways ahead. For example, an additional professional staff member might
be recruited to assist in coordination, reporting and in the development of the recommended
new Project. One or two additional Technical assistants might be established where funds
could be reallocated from other technical activities. The additional staff might be seconded
from regional fisheries departments to aid in coordination and national capacity building.
· GEFshouldbeinformedontheneedforgreaterflexibilityinallocationsforProject
management. Success of any Project depends on the quality of Project management.
· Pacific SIDS should be assisted where possible in developing their capacities in oceanic fisheries
science. (e.g. through work attachments for fisheries institution research staff at SPC; linkages
between SPC with USP's School of Marine Studies; encouragement for students from Pacific
SIDS to undertake postgraduate research in oceanic fisheries). More strategic, long-term
assistance in building national capacities in ocean science should be included in the proposed
capacity-building project (below).
40
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

5.1.3. Partnership agreements
· theOFMProjectshouldbemoreexplicitlylinkedtothePacificPlanandanewprojectbe
developedtoimplementthelong-termstrategicapproachtocapacity-buildinginOFM,as
recommended under the Vavau Declaration. Discussions should held between FFA and the
Pacific Forum Secretariat in developing this project.
· DiscussionsshouldbeheldwithUSPandSPREPtomoreactivelyinvolvethemincapacity-
building and oceanic biodiversity and conservation. As funding is fully committed for the
second term of the OFM, they may be able to contribute in kind and through leverage funding
arrangements.
· Special efforts should be made to more closely engage with the private sector, tuna industry and
relatedbusinesscommunitiesinthepromotionoftheOFMProjectobjectives.
5.1.4. Monitoring and reporting
· A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed within the Logical Framework to better
monitorprogressinProjectOutputsandActivities. The Project Coordinator should develop
these in consultation with UNDP and GEF. Quantitative indicators should be aggregated
from (a) a `bottom-up' approach (e.g. performance of each activity (e.g. planned versus actual
performance with respect to timeliness, budget, outcomes, technical reports, numbers of
meetings); and (b) `top down' indicators reflecting the broad objectives of the OFM Project (e.g.
numbers of Pacific SIDS with appropriate legislation; observer programmes; participation in
CPWCPF Commission meetings).
· AbaselinestudyofOFMinPacificSIDS,includingasummaryoftheachievementsandshortfalls
of WCPF Convention commitments, should be prepared. This was recommended in the 2007
Annual Review of the OFM Project. It will be useful background for future initiatives (see 5.3).
· Themonitoringandreportingrequirementsofthemajordonor,GEF,andimplementingagency
UNDP,shouldbeassessedtoreduceunnecessarybureaucraticprocedures.The PCU Coordinator
should enter a dialogue with UNDP Project Management staff to streamline processes in the
second term.
5.1.5. Coordination
Increased support for the PCU to undertake additional tasks is recommended above. It is also
recommended that:
· A review of the functions and effectiveness of the Regional Coordination Committees should
beundertakenbythePCUandalternativestrategiesforin-countrycoordinationisdeveloped
where necessary. Strategies may include smaller committees, less frequent meetings, delegated
responsibilities to existing national coordination committees and/or wider use of newsletters,
Internet and media releases to keep stakeholders informed.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
41

---

5.1.6. Information dissemination
· theOFMKnowledgeManagementStrategyshouldbefullyimplementedandthereshouldbe
agreaterfocusondisseminationofinformationfromtheOFMProjectbythePCU. Information
dissemination should include: wider distribution of the OFM brochure; special briefings
for newly appointed heads of fisheries and other key stakeholders; formal briefings and
presentations at relevant regional fisheries meetings; promotion of OFM Project and wider
FFA and SPC websites amongst stakeholders; popular descriptions on the Project website for
educators and the wider community; regular newsletters (email, Web and hard copy); and radio
and press news releases for distribution to regional media.
5.2. Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
· The specific needs of small Pacific SIDS should be identified, and a strategic plan developed
to provide appropriate support. This may include an assessment of needs and assistance in
negotiations with bilateral donors for specific in-country support in OFM.
· The Knowledge Management/Media programme should highlight significant achievements
in the first term. This will assist in the development of leverage funding and funding for the
proposed future project in long-term capacity-development (see 5.3).
· Discussions should be held as soon as possible with potential donors for a future project (see
5.3). Continued GEF funding is uncertain. GEF may not commit to a fourth regional project,
but may commit to specific country support through bilateral funding arrangements. The
EU, Japan and Australia have shown a strong commitment to supporting sustainable oceanic
fisheries and biodiversity conservation.
5.3. Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
5.3.1. New initiatives
· Anewprojectshouldbedevelopedforstrategic,long-termcapacity-buildinginOFMinPacific
SIDS, and to specifically assist smaller Pacific SIDS and those with governance problems. The
need for continuation and long-term sustainability of the OFM initiatives, and need for more
focused assistance to small Pacific SIDS has been raised throughout the MTE. The 2007 Pacific
Forum Leaders' Vavau Declaration calls for long-term, strategic capacity-building in OFM in the
Pacific SIDS.
Planning should commence as soon as possible on a new project. Although the details of this
are outside the scope of this MTE, some general suggestions on process are given here.
The TOR of the new Project might be scoped by consultants reporting to the OFM Steering
Committee. Details might be developed by consultants in a workshop of stakeholders,
including OFM experts, Pacific SIDS, regional organisations (e.g. FFA, SPC, Pacific Forum
Secretariat, USP, SPREP), potential donors (e.g. GEF, EU, Japan, AusAID) and NGOs (e.g. WWF,
Greenpeace).
42
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

The long-term capacity-building Project should be strategic and inclusive in approach. It
should consider the specific needs of each country in OFM (mid- to long-term); capacity
and training requirements; appropriate training programmes (e.g. at USP, other regional and
International institutions); and funding opportunities (multilateral and bilateral aid). It will
require commitment from the targeted Pacific SIDS through partnership arrangements, and
contributions in kind (e.g. commitment to additional staff in OFM in fisheries departments).
The new project should also focus on closer engagement of the private fisheries sector in OFM,
and build on the OFM Project's partnership arrangements.
The project (or some related, coordinated project) should also focus on better understanding of
the ecology of the WTP Large Marine Ecosystem, and the status and conservation of its marine
biodiversity. This component might be implemented in collaboration with SPREP and SOPAC.
· SpecialarrangementsshouldbeconsideredforOFMinsmall,isolatedSIDS.Giventhelackof
progress in capacity-building in the smallest Pacific SIDS in the past 30 years, and the reality
that those with very small populations (e.g. under 25,000) will probably always lack the human
capacity for specialised OFM, alternative approaches should be considered to better assist
them. These might be scoped in an open forum or workshop involving country representatives;
experts in OFM and international assistance; donor organisations and `problem solvers'.
Preliminary suggestions by the Consultants include:
Sub-regional groupings to provide better support for smallest countries:
Because individual small countries are unable to have the full range of expertise in OFM,
they might collaborate to share OFM expertise sub-regionally. Groupings might be
based on current FFA sub-groupings of countries with similar challenges and
experiences, with shared EEZ borders and shared tuna stocks. The FFA groupings are:
(a) East Sub-Regional Group: Cook Islands, Tokelau, Niue, Tonga, Samoa and New
Zealand (shared Polynesian culture, political affiliations with New Zealand etc.)
(b) West Sub-Regional Group: Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu (and
Australia)
(c) North Sub-Regional Group: FSM (Ponape, Yap, Chuuk), Palau and Marshall Islands
(Micronesian, small countries, former US affiliations), and Nauru, Kiribati and Tuvalu
(Micronesian/Polynesian, atoll countries, former British affiliations).
Subgroups (a) and (c) largely comprise small, isolated island countries. There may be
benefits in separating the two groups within (c) on geographic and cultural grounds.
Country attachments or representatives within FFA
As the smallest Pacific SIDS are unable to fully support OFM, mechanisms to assist them
might include: a national fisheries staff member situated at FFA to look after their
country's interests; a dedicated FFA staff member or consultant to undertake this task;
and/or a pool of technical experts within FFA to look after the specific interests of the
small countries.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
43

---

Annex 1. Terms of Reference
a1
Mid Term Evaluation of UNDP-GEF's
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project ­ PIMS 2992
1. Background and Context
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) is a multi-governmental
five year initiative by 14 independent islands nations and one territory1 to address the sustainable
management of regional fish stocks in the Pacific region. The project is implemented by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) through its Fiji country office and executed by the Pacific
Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). The project document was signed by UNDP on 30 September
2005 and by the FFA on 13 July 2005. The execution start date was not until November of the last
quarter of 2005 which resulted in the first Regional Steering Committee agreeing to adjust the 5 year
period of project implementation across 2005 to completion in 2010 and a post evaluation phase in
2012. A Project Coordination Unit (PCU) based at the FFA administers the project.
The OFM Project fits within the overarching Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the International
Waters of the Pacific Island Developing States (RAS/98/G32) which contained at the time, two
complementary linked consultative sub programmes: Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management
(SPREP Funded IWP Programme) and Oceanic Fisheries Management. The delivery of actions of the full
OFM Project is now undertaken directly by the FFA. The mid-term evaluation (MTE) is confined to the
OFM Project executed by the FFA.

The OFM Project has two objectives that address (a) the threats to the sustainability of the use of the
region's oceanic fish resources identified in the SAP, principally the lack of understanding and the
weaknesses in governance relating to oceanic fisheries in the International Waters in the region, and
(b) the need for improved the understanding of transboundary oceanic fisheries resources and create
new regional institutional arrangements as well as realigning, reforming and strengthening national
arrangements for the conservation and management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources.
The origins of the project, its preparation, its objectives and structure address the concerns that Pacific
Islands small developing States (Pacific SIDS) have for the unsustainable use of transboundary oceanic
fish stocks of the Pacific region and unsustainable levels and patterns of exploitation in the fisheries that
target those stocks.

At the centre of these concerns is the transboundary nature of the stocks. The stocks are dominantly
highly migratory, with their range extending through waters under the jurisdiction of around 20
countries and into large areas of high seas. Each of the countries within whose waters the stocks occur
has responsibilities under international law to adopt measures for the conservation and management
of these stocks. But without a coherent and legally binding framework to establish and apply measures
throughout the range of the stocks, including the high seas, the efforts made by individual countries in
their own waters can be undermined by unregulated fishing on the high seas and by inconsistencies in
measures in different national zones.
1
The 14 Pacific Island States and territory that qualify for GEF support under the OFM Project are: Cook Islands, Federated
States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga,
Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
44
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

These are global concerns. They were important issues in the preparation of the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) during the 1970s, particularly in the provisions relating to management of
fishing on the high seas and management of fishing for highly migratory species. In 1992 they found
expression in the call from the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
(UNCED) within Agenda 21 for a UN intergovernmental conference on high seas fishing and they are
also the key concerns addressed in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.
The PIOFM project implementation has progressed satisfactorily. A significant activity that has not
been implemented in accordance with the approved work plan is the work under sub-component of
Ecosystem Analysis. This sub-component is to be undertaken by IUCN and issues beyond their control
have hampered implementation. Discussions continue on the approach to sea mount analysis, and will
be subject to review under the MTE.
2. Objective and Purpose of the Mid-term Evaluation
The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy at the project level in UNDP/GEF has four objectives: i)
to monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making on necessary
amendments and improvements; iii) to promote accountability for resource use; and iii) to document,
provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned. A mix of tools is used to ensure effective project
M&E. These might be applied continuously throughout the lifetime of the project ­ e.g. periodic
monitoring of indicators -, or as specific time-bound exercises such as mid-term reviews, audit reports
and independent evaluations.
In accordance with UNDP/GEF M&E policies and procedures, all projects with long implementation
periods (e.g. over 5 or 6 years) are strongly encouraged to conduct mid-term evaluations. In addition
to providing an independent in-depth review of implementation progress, this type of evaluation
is responsive to GEF Council decisions on transparency and better access of information during
implementation.

Mid-term evaluations are intended to identify potential project design problems, assess progress
towards the achievement of objectives, identify and document lessons learned (including lessons
that might improve design and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects), and to make
recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project. It is expected
to serve as a means of validating or filling the gaps in the initial assessment of relevance, effectiveness
and efficiency obtained from monitoring. The mid-term evaluation provides the opportunity to assess
early signs of project success or failure and prompt necessary adjustments2.
The objective of the PIOFM MTE is to provide an assessment of the progress made towards the OFM
project's objectives and outputs. It should also identity strengths and weaknesses and provide an
evaluation of the implementation and management of the project by identifying factors that have
facilitated or impeded the achievements of the project objectives and outputs. In addition, the MTE
should also provide recommendations and lessons learned to assist on defining future directions for
the project.
2
"UNDP Guidance on Terms of References for Mid-Term Evaluation Missions" Annex 1 ­ Standard Introduction for Mid-Term
Evaluations.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
45

---

3. Targeted beneficiaries
The key beneficiaries for the MTE include the Global Environment Facility (and the global community),
UNDP, Pacific SIDS, Pacific regional organizations, relevant donor organizations and industry and
environment non-government organizations. The Report of the MTE will be a stand-alone document
that substantiates its recommendations and conclusions and will be targeted at meeting the evaluation
needs of all key stakeholders.
4. Scope of the Evaluation
This section should be read in conjunction with the objectives of the MTE. The scope of the MTE will
critically assess issues pertaining to the relevance, performance (based on indicators identified in
the logframe matrix) and success of the project including the sustainability of results. The evaluation
will also result in the formulation of recommendations and identification of lessons learned to assist
determining future directions of the project.
4.1 Project Impact (Results)
The Evaluation will examine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of operational
activities and results achieved by the project to-date, by showing how the component(s) processes and
outcomes have contributed (or have the potential to contribute) to the achievement of project goals
and objectives. Specifically the MTE will:
assess, quantitatively and qualitatively, the achievements and impact in terms of outputs and
their contribution to outcomes as defined in the project document;
Assess progress towards attaining the Programme's regional and global environmental
objectives as described in GEF operational focal areas 9;
assess to what extent the project has or will contribute to the establishment of regional
arrangements for sustainable oceanic fisheries management;
assess to what extent the project has made impacts on the promotion of Pacific SIDS
participation in decision-making and realignment and strength of local governance;
how the project contributed to improved governance at national levels, and examine how
governance issues have impacted on the achievement of project goals and outputs;
Review and evaluate the extent to which OFM Project impacts have reached the intended
beneficiaries, both within and outside project sites;
determine lessons learned and assess the sustainability of project results;
provide recommendations for how the project implementation can be strengthened and
can most effectively support regional and national priorities, management of transboundary
oceanic fishery resources and strengthen and achieve project objectives.
4.2 Project Design
The MTE will assess:
the extent to which the overall project design remains valid;
review the project's concept, strategy and approach within the context of effective capacity
development and sustainability;
assess the approach used in design and whether the selected intervention strategy addresses
the root causes and principal threats in the project area;
the effectiveness and the methodology of the overall project structure, how effectively the
project addresses responsibilities especially towards capacity building and challenges; and
assess plans and potential for replication.
46
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4.3 Project Management and Administration
The MTE will assess the extent to which project management has been effective, efficient and
responsive. This includes the oversight role by UNDP as GEF Implementing Agency, project
execution role of FFA agency, the PCU and the project focal points, project implementing role of
SPC and IUCN, multipartite review processes via the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) and the
national consultative committees.
This will also review the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various institutional arrangements
for project implementation and the level of coordination between relevant players;
4.4. Project Implementation
The Evaluation will assess the extent to which project management and implementation has been
effective, efficient and responsive, and in particular will review the following:
the OFM Project management structure and implementation arrangements at all levels, in
order to provide an opinion on its efficiency and cost effectiveness;
assess the use of logical framework as a management tool during implementation;
assess the quality and relevance of project reporting;
the mechanisms for information dissemination of project implementation;
risk management by identifying any problems or constraints which may impact, or are
impacting on the successful delivery of the OFM Project, whether they have been, or are being
appropriately dealt with and if they are likely to be repeated in future phases;
Describe the project's adaptive management processes ­ how have project activities changed
in response to new conditions, and have the changes been appropriate;
Review any partnership arrangements with other donors and comment on their strengths and
weaknesses, as well as collaboration between governments, intergovernmental and NGOs,
national level involvement and perceptions and the involvement of other stakeholders;
assess the extent to which programme design, implementation and monitoring have taken
the following cross cutting issues into consideration: Gender, Human rights, Equity, Institutional
strengthening and Innovation or added value to national development; and
the effectiveness of coordinating mechanisms by evaluating the appropriateness and efficiency
of coordinating mechanisms between UNDP, the FFA (including internal coordination), with
SPC & IUCN and GEF
4.5. Project Finances
The evaluation will critically analyze the project finance elements including:
budget procedures including the review of audits; and the subsequent adjustments to
accommodate audit recommendations; and any changes to fund allocations as a result of
budget revisions providing an opinion on the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions;
the appropriateness of and efficiency of disbursements and actual spending;
by providing an overview of actual spending versus budget expectations;
assessing how the project has materialized/leveraged co-financing for various components;
and
assessing the financial effectiveness of the PCU as a regional approach in support of in-country
conservation and sustainable oceanic fisheries resource management initiatives in the Pacific,
and if so how can this approach be improved;
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
47

---

4.6. Lessons learned
The Evaluation will also highlight lessons learned and best and worst practices in addressing issues
relating to relevance, performance and success. In describing all lessons learned, an explicit distinction
needs to be made between those lessons applicable only to this project, and lessons that may be of
value more broadly, including to other, similar projects in the UNDP/GEF pipeline and portfolio.
This section will also describe the main lessons that have emerged in terms of:
country ownership/driveness;
regional cooperation and inter-governmental cooperation;
stakeholder participation;
adaptive management processes;
efforts to secure sustainability; and
the role of M&E in project implementation.

5. Expected Outputs
The main product of the MTE will be a Mid-term Evaluation Report based on an agreed format (Annex
A) and will include
- Findings and conclusions in relation to issues to be addressed under sections B and C of these

TORs; and
- Assessments of gaps and/or additional measures needed to justify future GEF investment in

the Pacific Islands region in relation to International Waters issues and sustainable oceanic

fisheries resource management.
The draft and final Mid-Term Evaluation Report will be:
· written in the format outlined in Annex A and be no more than 40 A4 pages (excluding an
Executive Summary and annexes):
· (draft report) submitted to UNDP by 16 June 2008 and will be circulated to stakeholders
for comment. The draft report will be further reviewed by the evaluators taking into account
comments from the stakeholders3. The evaluators shall annex to the final report a record of all
comments made on the draft report, responses to these comments and detail how they were
dealt with in the report.
· A final mid-term evaluation report will be submitted to UNDP for circulation to stakeholders
allowing for a period of review before the Regional Steering Committee/Multipartite Review
meeting scheduled for early October 2008 in Honiara, Solomon Islands. Submission of final
report is due 16 July 2008.
6. Evaluation Approach
The MTE will be undertaken through a combination of processes including desk research, selected site
visits, questionnaires and interviews - involving all stakeholders, including, but not restricted to: UNDP
(Suva, Bangkok, New York), GEF, FFA, SPC, IUCN, SPREP, participating Governments, regional ENGOs and
industry, communities, resource users and local governments.
3
The evaluators shall accept changes related to factual errors, but should retain the independence to draw their own conclu-
sions from the findings.
48
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

The methodology for the study is envisaged to cover the following areas:
Desk study review of all relevant OFM Project documentation, including but not confined to
those listed at Annex B;
Fiji-based consultations with UNDP, SPC, IUCN, WWF South Pacific Programme, University of
the South Pacific Marine Programme (USP), Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA,
including Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation (PIPSO) based at the Forum Secretariat and
PITIA Fiji based officials) national project related stakeholders, other Fiji-based agencies;
Solomon Islands-based consultations with UNDP, FFA, national project-related stakeholders,
other Fiji-based agencies;
Selected visits to Fiji, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Cook Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Nauru and Samoa;
Participation in the Regional Steering Committee/Multipartite Review Meeting scheduled for
early October 2008 at Honiara, Solomon Islands.
A total of approximately 45 days (including in-country travel, meeting participation, research, write-up
and presentation) has been budgeted to support the Evaluation. The number of days for consultancy
will vary and dependent on (i.) engagement of team leader in the Regional Steering Committee
meeting for MTE presentation (ii.) flight schedules in and out of countries.
7. Evaluation Team
The evaluation team will comprise two consultants with the appropriate expertise, a Team Leader and a
Regional Resource Specialist. The team leader will be responsible for the overall evaluation exercise and
take lead in preparation of the expected outputs. The Regional resource specialist will assist the Team
leader in the above, with specific focus on country consultations, facilitation of stakeholder meetings
and creation of required documents.
The consultants will conduct a participatory evaluation for improved understanding of the results of
the PIOFM and provide recommendations for future project focus. On completion of the evaluation,
the team leader will circulate draft outputs to key stakeholders for comments before completing a final
evaluation report. Principles of gender equity will and selection will be subject to the UNDP Ethical
Code of Conduct appended at Annex C. The following attributes are requirements for the selection of
the review team:
7.1 Team Leader
Academic and/or professional background in the institutional aspects of resource management
with a minimum of 15 years experience;
In depth knowledge of the international sustainable development agenda, particularly with
emphasis on the regional priorities of Pacific region and SIDS, regional groupings, structures
and operations;
Experience in the evaluation of technical assistance projects, preferably with UNDP or other
United Nations development agencies and major donors;
Experience in the evaluation of GEF funded projects, preferably those under the International
Waters portfolio;
Proven capacity in working across the levels of institutions from policy, to legislation and
organisations;
Excellent leading multi-disciplinary teams to deliver quality products in high stress or short
deadline situations;
An ability to assess institutional capacity and incentives;
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
49

---

Excellent written and English communication skills with a demonstrated ability to assess
complex situations in order to succinctly and clearly distil critical issues and draw forward looking
conclusions; and
Professional skill, information analysis and communication, science communication (oral,
written, multimedia)
Excellent facilitation skills.
7.2 Regional Resource Specialist
Academic / professional background in oceanic fisheries management/fisheries science with
extensive experience in sustainable development and conservation ­ preferably in Pacific
Islands environments with a minimum of 15 years of working experience;
An understanding of GEF principles and the expected impacts in terms of global benefits;
Experience in implementation or evaluation of technical assistance projects;
An understanding of UNDP, the FFA, SPREP and IUCN activities and extensive knowledge of
operational programmes in the Pacific region;
Skills and experience in oceanic fisheries management regimes, preferably the development
and establishment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention;
Excellent written and English communication skills; and
Excellent facilitation skills.
8. Application requirements
Expressions of interest should include:
A short (maximum three page) covering letter addressing the evaluation criteria;
Curriculum vitae, including references;
Cost estimates for services rendered including:
a)
daily consultancy fees, travel costs, communication costs, publishing and
stationary costs and other logistical costs as relevant; and
b)
airfares, anticipated accommodation and living costs are to be included in
overall fee charged
Applications for team leader and Regional resource specialist can be applied separately or as a team.
To ensure adequate representation of women in OFM project and fisheries issues, applications from
women are highly encouraged for the consultancy. All costs, including international and domestic
airfares and expected accommodation and living costs incurred at the duty stations will need to be
included in the overall fee charged by the consultants or consultancy firm. Assistance can be provided
by the UNDP-Fiji for the purposes of calculating the subscribers travel costs on the basis of the
authorized itinerary and the routing and travel time.
50
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

9. Implementation Arrangements
The overall supervision of the MTR will rest with the UNDP-Fiji Deputy Resident Representative and
UNDP Regional Technical Adviser (IWP) in the Regional Bureau for Asia and Pacific (RBAP).
A contract will be signed by the evaluators upon commencement of the evaluation which will detail
aspects on inputs and deliverables. The consultants will be bound by the terms and conditions of UNDP
Procurement rules and guidelines.
10. Timeline
An indicative schedule for the completion of the MTE is as follows:
DatES
ScHEDuLE
February 10
Call for expressions of Interests
March 10
Application submission deadline
March 7 ­ April 17
Selection process, contract
April 28
Evaluators commence evaluation
April 28 - 30
Evaluators assemble in Suva, Fiji for briefing by UNDP and undertake Fiji based consultations
May 1 - 7
Evaluators assemble in Honiara, Solomon Islands for consultations
May 12 ­ June 6
Travel to New Caledonia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Kiribati
16 June*
Draft Report completed
16 July*
Final report completed
October (early)
Report presentation at RSC4, Solomon Islands by Evaluation Team Leader
*Between 16 June and 16 July, 2008, the evaluators will be engaged for a period of 5 working days for revision of the evaluation
report. As such this activity, will not anticipate any travel to duty station.
11. Applications
Expressions of interest should be addressed to:
the resident representative
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Private Mail Bag
Suva
FIJI
re: Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
Email: registry.fj@undp.org
Applications submission deadline: 10 march 2008
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
51

---

Annex 2. Itinerary of OFM Project Consultants
a2
Date /Activity4
26th April 2008
VV travel to Fiji
28th April
- Briefing Meeting with Alvin Chandra at UNDP - Teleconferencing with Alvin
Chandra, Leon Zann and Veikila Vuki
29th April
- Teleconferencing meeting with Alvin Chandra, Anna Ternberg, Leon Zann,
Veikila Vuki and Barbara Hanchard -Consultations with Fiji Stakeholders
30th April
- Consultations with the University of the South Pacific staff and WWF Staff; Fiji
Fisheries Department
1st May-3rd May
Travel to Palau
4th May
Consultants meeting - sessions on 67th Forum Fisheries Committee and Related
Meetings
5th May
Preliminary consultations, Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands etc reps
6th May
Country Consultations with Cook Islands and Marshall Islands
7th May
Country Consultations with Solomon Islands and Solomon Islands Industry
8th May
Country Consultations with Tuvalu and PNG Industry
9th May
Country Consultations with PNG and SPC
10th May
Country Consultations with Palau and Kiribati
11th May
Country Consultations with Niue
12th May
Country Consultations with Samoa
13th May
Country Consultations with Nauru
14th May
Country Consultations with Tokelau and Tonga
15th May
Country Consultations with Federated States of Micronesia and Consultations
with WCPFC
16th -20th May
Travel to FFA, Solomon Islands
21st May
FFA Consultations with PCU coordinator Barbara Hanchard - IUCN Teleconference
22nd May
FFA Consultations with PCU coordinator Barbara Hanchard, Darren Cameron
23rd May
Consultants Discussions on Draft Report ­ LZ Travel to Australia- Malaysia
24th May-30th May
VV consultations with PCU and FFA on finances, budget
30th May-3rd June
VV travel to Fiji
12th June
VV briefing Meeting at UNDP in Fiji
4
VV: Dr Veikila Vuki; LZ: Dr Leon Zann
52
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Annex 3. List of Persons Interviewed or
Consulted by Organizations
a3
Organizations
UNDP
Louise Heaps
Alvin Chandra
Conservation Director (East)
Asenaca Ravuvu
WWF South Pacific Programme
4 Ma'afu Street
UNEP GEF
Private Mail Bag
Suva
Dr Keneti Faulalo
Fiji Islands
T 679 331 5533
FAO
F 679 331 5410
Dr David J. Doulman
E lheaps@wwfpacific.org.fj
Senior Fisheries Liaison Officer
W www.wwfpacific.org.fj
International Institutions and Liaison Service

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
National Fisheries Development Ltd.,
Food and Agriculture Organization
Solomon Islands.


of the United Nations
Rome
Albert Wata
Fisheries Affairs Manager,
IUCN
PO Box 717, Honiara,
Solomon Islands.
Dr. Eric Gilman
T Noro 677 61131
Hawaii
T Honiara 677 30991
F 677 61109
WCPF Commission
E awata@trimarinegroup.com
Mr Andrew Wright
Executive Director
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
George Beck
Kolonia
Senior Technical Adviser (EC)
Pohnpei
Private Mail Bag, Suva, Fiji Islands
T 679 331 2600 / 322 0323
WWF South Pacific
F 679 331 2696
Seremaia Tuqiri
E georgeb@forumsec.org.fj
Fisheries Policy Officer
W www.forumsec.org
WWF South Pacific Programme
4 Ma'afu Street
Fairwell Fishery (PNG) Ltd.
Private Mail Bag
Francis Houji
Suva
PO Box 262
Fiji Islands
Gordons-NCD 0135
T 679 331 5533
PNG
F 679 331 5410
T 675 3200685/ 3200655
E stuqiri@wwfpacific.org.fj
F 675 3212631
W www.wwfpacific.org.fj
E hope@daltron.com.pg
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
53

---

SPC
Jonathan Manieva
Fisheries Development Officer (DEVFISH)
Coastal Fisheries Program
SPC, B.P. D5-98848 Noumea Cedex
New Caledonia
T 687 262000
F 687 26 38 18
E janathanm@spc.int
W www.spc.int/coastfish
John Hampton
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)
Su'a N. F. Tanielu
Director- General
Honiara
Solomon Islands
dan.sua@ffa.int

Transform Aqorau
Deputy Director-General
Transform.aqorau@ffa.int
Moses Amos
Director Fisheries Management
Moses.amos@ffa.int
Manu Tupou-Roosen
Legal Counsel
Manu.tupou-roosen@ffa.int
Kaburoro.Ruaia
Manager Treaties Administration
Kaburoro.ruaia@ffa.int

Les Clark
les@rayfishresearch.com
Greenpeace
Duncan Currie
Greenpeace International Legal Adviser

Joshua Turaganivalu
Greenpeace Australia Pacific Oceans Campaigner,
E-mail: josua.turaganivalu@fj.greenpeace.org
Seini Nabou
Greenpeace Australia Pacific Oceans Campaigner
54
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Annex 4. List of Persons Interviewed or
Consulted by Countries
a4
Countries
Fiji
Cook Islands
Jone Amoe
Mr Ian Bertram
Tuna Project Officer
Director
Department of Fisheries
Ministry of Marine Resources
Suva, Fiji
PO Box 85
E fishfinderfj@gmail.com
Rarotonga
T 679 3301611
Cook slands
T 682 28721
Sanaila Naqali
F 682 29721
Director of Fisheries
E i.bertram@mmr.gov.ck
Department of Fisheries
Marshall Islands
Suva, Fiji
Samuel K. Lanwi, Jr
E snaqali@mff.net.fj
Deputy Director
T 679 3301611
MIMRA
PO Box 860, Majuro, MH 96960
Anare Raiwalui
T 692 6258262/ 5632
Tuna Fisheries Licensing
F 692 625 5447
Department of Fisheries
E skljr@mimra.com or blanwi@gmail.com
Suva, Fiji
E anare_raiwalui@yahoo.com
Glen Joseph
T 679 3301611
Director
MIMRA
Murray Isimeli
PO Box 860, Majuro, MH 96960
Acting Director Political & Treaties (Foreign Affairs)
T 692 6258262/ 5632
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
F 692 625 5447
International Cooperation and Civil Aviation
E gjoseph@mimra.com or mimra@ntamar.net
Suva, Fiji
E misimeli@govnet.gov.fj
Samoa
Ajendra Pratap
Savale Time
Solicitor General's Office
Fisheries Department
Suva, Fiji
PO Box 1874
Apia, Samoa
Pio Manoa
T 685 20369
University of the South Pacific
F 685 24292
Suva, Fiji
E sgtime@lesamoa.net
E manoa_p@usp.ac.fj
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
55

---

Federated States of Micronesia
Papua New Guinea
Bernard Thoulag
Kumoru Ludwig
Executive Director
Manager
National Oceanic Resource Management
Tuna Fishery National Fisheries Authority
Authority(NORMA)
Investment Haus
P O Box PS122 PALIKIR
P O Box 2016 PORT MORESBY, NCD
POHNPEI
Papua New Guinea
Federated States of Micronesia 96941
T (675) 309 0442
T (691) 320 2700/5181
F (675) 3202061
F (691) 320 2383
E lkumoru@fisheries.gov.pg
E norma@mail.fm
Solomon Islands
Kiribati
Sylvester Diake
Awira Ribaantake
Under-Secretary of Fisheries,
Fisheries Department,
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources,
P O Box 276 BIKENIBEU
P O Box G13
TARAWA
HONIARA
Republic of Kiribati
Solomon Islands
T (686) 21296 / 21099
T (677) 28604/39143
F (686) 22289 / 21120
F (677) 38774 /38730
Nauru
Tokelau
Terry Amram
Mose Pelasio
Oceanic Fisheries Manager
Director
Oceanic Department
Department of Economic Development,
Nauru Fisheries & Marine Resources Authority
Natural Resources & Environment;
Aiwo District Republic of Nauru
Tauata o Faleagafulu Building Fakaofo
T (674) 444 3739/ 3733
TOKELAU
F (674) 444 3812
T (690) 3127 or 3134
E tamramnr@yahoo.com
F (690) 3108 or 3133
E Mose.pelasio@clear.net.nz
Palau
Nanette, MALSOL
Niue
Fisheries Law Compliance Officer
James Tafatu
Ministry of Resources and Development
Principal Fisheries Officer
P O Box 117 KOROR Republic of Palau 96940
Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries
T (680) 488 3125
P.O. Box 74, ALOFI Niue.
F (680) 488 3555
T (683) 4032
E dillymalsol@yahoo.com or tunapal@palaunet.
F (683) 4079 / 4010
com
E fisheries@mail.gov.nu
Theo Isamu
Tonga
Director
Penisimani Vea
Bureau of Marine Resources
Director Agriculture Forest and Fisheries
Ministry of Resources and Development
Department of Fisheries
P O Box 117 KOROR Republic of Palau 96940
P. O. Box 871, NUKU'ALOFA
T (680) 488 3125
Kingdom of Tonga
F (680) 488 3555
T (676) 21399, 27799
E tekoilchei@palaunet.com
F (676) 23891

56
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Tuvalu
Samasoni Finikaso
Director of Fisheries
Tuvalu Fisheries
Department Ministry of Natural Resources and
Lands
VAIAKU, FUNAFUTI Tuvalu
T (688) 20836 ext 2206
F (688) 20151
C (688) 90720
E safin70@yahoo.com
Australia
Gordon Anderson
AUSAID
E Gordon.Anderson@ausaid.gov.au
Dr Quentin Hanich
Australian National Centre for Ocean Capacity
and Security
University of Wollongong
Australia
E-mail (capacity needs etc)
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
57

---

Annex 5. List of Documents Reviewed
a5
(a) Project and Related Documents
United Nations Development Programme, Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (2005) Pacific Islands
Oceanic Fisheries Management Project. PIMS. UNDP Project Document.
Annexes: A. Incremental Cost Analysis. B. Logical Framework Analysis. C. Response To Reviews. D.
Endorsements from GRF Operational Focal Points and other contributors. E. Summary of the Terminal
Evaluation Report of the OFM Component of the IW SAP Project.
Optional Annexes: F. Implementation Arrangements and Project Management. G. Stakeholder and
Public Participation Plan. H. Maps of the Project Area. I. Summary of the Strategic Action Programme
for International Waters of the Pacific Islands. J. WCPF Convention. K. National Reports: Cook Islands;
Federated States Of Micronesia; Fiji; Kiribati; Republic Of The Marshall Islands; Nauru; Niue; Palau;
Papua New Guinea; Samoa; Solomon Islands; Tokelau; Tonga; Vanuatu. L. GEF Indicators. M. Reference
Documentation.
UNDP MTE Procedures (nd). Ethical Code of Conduct for UNDP Evaluations. Purpose/Description of the
Evaluation Report. Part II. How to conduct Monitoring and Evaluation. Commissioning an evaluation
UNDP GEF Annual Project Report (2006). Project Implementation Report Apr -Nov 2006.
Williams-Lahari, L. (2007) Knowledge Management Strategy. Prepared for the Forum Fisheries Agency.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) project
Pacific Media Consultant.
(b) Background Documents
AusAID (2007) Valuing Pacific Fish. A Framewotk for Fisheries-Related Development Assistance in the
Pacific. CoA.
Bowden, D (2006). IUCN Contributions to the Ecosystem Analysis Component of the Pacific Islands
Oceanic Fisheries Management Project. Report to: Andrew Hurd, IUCN Global Marine Programme,
Gland, Switzerland
Cartright, I. (2007) NGO and Civil Society Workshop on Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and
central pacific Fisheries Convention Area. Tanoa Plaza, Suva, Fiji. 24-25 April 2007. Summary Record and
Outcomes.
Clark, L. (2007) Final report. Annual review Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project. Report
prepared for FFA. Ray Research.
FFA (Oct 2005- Mar 2008). Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project . Consolidated
Quarterly Narratives. Reports to UNDP.
58
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

FFA (2005) Overview of the Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries
Management Project (PIMS 2992). RSC1/WP.1
FFA (2008). Meetings of OFM Project Regional Steering Committee. 2005-2007. FFA/ PIOFM. Steering
Committee. FFA Website.
Fletcher, W.J. (2007). A Guide to Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management
(EAFM) within the Western and Central Pacific Region. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon
Islands.
Fox, A and Ong Jin-Eong (2007). Mid Term Evaluation UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem.
Report to UNDP. YSLME MTE. (recommended model report)
GEF International Waters (2006) Annual Project Performance Results. Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries
Management Project. Att. OFM Risk and Issues Matrix.
GEF International Waters (2007) Annual Project Performance Results. Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries
Management Project.
GEF Evaluation Office (2006). The GEF Monitoring and evaluation Policy. Evaluation Document No 1.

Hanich, Q., Teo, E. and Tsamenyi, M. (2008) Closing the Gaps: Building Capacity in Pacific Fisheries
Governance and Institutions. Report to AusAID. Australian National centre for Ocean Resources and
security, University of Wollongong, Australia.
Lam, M (2006). Strategy to Promote and Strengthen Environmental NGOs Stakeholder Participation and
Public Awareness of Pacific Oceanic Fisheries Management Issues.
Sauni, S. and Amos, M. (2007) Application of the Ecosystem-Based Approach to Fisheries Management
in Tuna Fisheries at the Western-Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Abstract 21st Pacific Science Congress.
SPC (2008). Oceanic Fisheries Programme. Selected Website and Technical Reports:
· The UNDP/GEF project: Food web study of the western and central Pacific Ocean tuna
ecosystem.
· Annual Report 2007 and Work Plan 2008
· Food Web Study Of The Western And Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Ecosystem.
· Conventional Tuna Tagging Experiments
· Stock Assessment and Modelling
· Regional stock assessment (South Pacific albacore tuna, Bigeye tuna, Skipjack tuna, Yellowfin
tuna)
· Climate and tuna fisheries: Spatial variability. Vertical distribution. Recruitment and population
abundance. Long-term climate change.
· EPoDyM a Spatial Environmental POpulation DYnamic Mode
· Modelling the Nutrient ­ Phytoplankton ­ Zooplankton Food Web
· Food Web Study Of The Western And Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Ecosystem
· Physical ocean model
· Preliminary estimates of annual catches for billfish species taken in commercial and recreational
fisheries of the western and central Pacific Ocean. (Williaqms, P. and Whitelow, A.) 2000. BBRG-3
· An update of by-catch issues in the western and central Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries (P. Williams
1996)
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
59

---

· Shark and related species catch in tuna fisheries of the tropical Western and Central Pacific
Ocean (P. Williams 1998)
· Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the south Pacific Ocean. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna
in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and
central Pacific. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean (J.
Hampton, 2002)
· The Western and Central Pacific tuna fishery: 2006 overview and status of stocks (Langley, A.,
Williams, P. and Hampton, J. 2006)
60
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

Annex 6. Interview Questionnaire and
Summary of responses
a6
OFM Interview Questionnaire
Introductionary Questions
Personal introductions; reasons for meeting; brief background/description of PIOFM; brief description of
review process etc.
QUESTIONS
1. Informant's name/affiliations:

2. How are you involved in PIOFM project?

a. Directly

b. Indirectly
3. Rate your knowledge of PIOFM project:

a. Extensive

b. Some

c. Little

d. None
4. How important do you rate this project (and why):

a. Very (eg essential to country, region, sector)

b. Moderately

c. Less important
5. Were you consulted/involved in project development? (How?)

a. Extensively

b. Somewhat

c. Not involved (Do you think you should have been?)
6. Have you been adequately involved/advised on progress of project?

a. Yes

b. No
7. In your area, how do you rate progress of project to date?

a. Excellent

b. Good

c. Poor

d. Do not know
8. Do you think there are any gaps in the project design?

How might these be improved/filled in future? Elaborate.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
61

---

9. Which agency have you been working for/dealing with, in this project?

a. UNDP

b. FFA

c. SPC

d. Other (name)
10. How do you rate that agency's:

Project management, communications, efficiency & general administration:

(rate: Excellent. Adequate. Poor)
11. Please list 1-2 major strengths of project:
12. Please list 1-2 major weaknesses:
13. What are the `lessons learnt' to date?
14. What message would you like conveyed within the mid-term review?
62
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

ANALYSES OF COUNTRY REPRESENATIVES' RESPONSES
FiJi
cOOK iSLaNDS
KiriBati
2. Project Involvement
Directly - Data
Directly- oversee project
-Indirectly Involved being
Analyses and Scientific
and management
newly appointed
Interpretation
3. Knowledge of Project
Extensive
Extensive
- New and little knowledge
4. Rate Importance of Project
Very Important
Very Important
- Very important because
of new conservation
measures
5. Project Development
Somewhat Consulted
Somewhat Consulted
- Consulted
Consultation
because of huge project
documentation
6. Progress of project Reporting
Inadequate Project
Adequate Project
- Not adequately involved
Reporting
Reporting
7. Rate of Project Progress
Good Rate of Progress
Good Progress
Good progress
8. Gaps in Project Design
Lack of Knowledge
Long term Capacity
-Not sure
Building
9. Agencies dealing with
FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
SPC & FFA
10. Agency rating in management, Very helpful and
Excellent project
Good
communication, efficiency and Efficient.
management and very
administration
efficient for both agencies
11. Major strengths of Project
- Streamlining & efficient
- Good scientific
- Institutional reform very
operations
component
useful
- Improvement of
- Improved legislation
- Scoping study successful
monitoring
- Institutional reform from
- Monitoring and
- Reformed Tuna
leverage funds
surveillance improved
Industry
12. Major Weaknesses of Project
- Lack of human
- Lack of Fisheries
- Long term capacity
resources
Intelligence & Surveillance
building in conservation
- Implementation of legal
and management
and policy
13. Lessons' Learnt
- New Tuna Commission
- Capacity Building
- Need to strengthen and
roles
- Lack of ownership
put in place conservation
- Well coordinated
and management of tuna
and regional arrangements
14. Message Conveyed - MTR
- Need to develop
- In country attachment
- Need for capacity
domestic industry
of legal and science
building in scientific
experts
assessments and
monitoring
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
63

---

marSHaLL iSLaNDS
SOLOmON iSLaNDS
PNG
2. Project Involvement
Directly - Data Analyses and - Directly - oversee project
Directly
Scientific Interpretation
and management
- National Focal Point
- National Focal Point
3. Knowledge of Project
Extensive
Extensive
Extensive
4. Rate Importance of Project
Very Important
Very Important to countries Very Important to countries
and region
and region
5. Project Development
Somewhat Consulted
Somewhat Consulted
Extensively Consulted
Consultation
6. Progress of project
Inadequate Project
Adequate Project
Excellent project Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting through Steering through steering
committee and reports
committee
7. Rate of Project Progress
Good Rate of Progress
Good Progress
Good progress
8. Gaps in Project Design
Lack of Knowledge
Long term Capacity
- Lack of country visits
Building
- More support for sub-
regional approach
9. Agencies dealing with
FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
10. Agency rating in
Very helpful and Efficient.
Good project
Good but sometimes no
management,
management and very
tangible feedback in
communication, efficiency
efficient for both agencies
co-financing
and administration
11. Major strengths of Project
- Streamlining & efficient
- Better information &
- Strong scientific
operations
understanding of status of
component
- Improvement of
stocks because of scientific
- Strong law and policy
monitoring
component
component
- Reformed Tuna Industry
- Legal & Policy
strengthened
12. Major Weaknesses of
-Lack of capacity building
More support needed for
- Lack of capacity building
Project
the coordinator
in the sciences
- Lack of capacity building
in fisheries economics
13. Lessons' Learnt
- New Tuna Commission
- More knowledge on
- Countries are culturally
roles
status of stocks and
diverse and complex
- Well coordinated
management
- Establishment of Tuna
Commission and legal
obligation to the tuna
convention
14. Message Conveyed - MTR
- Need to develop
- Excellent work and need
- Set up scholarships to
domestic industry
more capacity building
train Pacific islanders in
economics and in the
sciences
64
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

FSm
PaLau
Nauru
2. Project Involvement
Directly Involved and GEF
Directly - National Focal
Directly - National Focal
focal point
Point
Point
3. Knowledge of Project
Extensive
Extensive
Somewhat
4. Rate Importance of
Very Important to countries Very Important in funding
Very Important as the
Project
and to the region
country delegations to
project help members to
various workshops
meet obligations
5. Project Development
Moderately Involved
Consulted and Involved
Consulted but not involved
Consultation
6. Progress of project
Good progress in reporting
Good reporting via
Good reporting because
Reporting
through annual reports and Steering Committee and
of steering committee
country reports
quarterly reports
membership
- Co-financing not clear
7. Rate of Project Progress
Good Rate of Progress
Good Progress
Good Progress
8. Gaps in Project Design
- Fulfilling objectives
- Lack of country visits
- Satisfied
of projects in countries
because of different needs
- Implementation of
projects at national level
only & not at state level
9. Agencies dealing with
FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
10. Agency rating in
Good management and
Good project management - Need improvement in
management,
communication.
and need for country visits
country consultations
communication, efficiency
- FFA needs to follow up
and administration
- SPC scientific sub-regional
useful
11. Major strengths of Project
- Good capacity building
- Good scientific
- Good capacity building
in preparations and
component & better
in understanding scientific
negotiations
understanding &
component
- Active participation
knowledge
- Good support for National
through financial support
Consultative Committee
to attend regional
workshops
- Good partnerships and
the establishment of the
Tuna Commission
12. Major Weaknesses of
- Lack of clarity of activities
- Need to improve
- Communication
Project
funded by the project
legislations and policies
and Dissemination of
information
13. Lessons' Learnt
- Regional Partnerships in
- Additional task of work
- Rapid turn over in staff
management
and need to bring them up
- Strengthen countries
to speed with project
capacity to participate in
- Regional Steering
meetings
Committee is useful
14. Message Conveyed - MTE
- Project has made a big
- Lack of support in the
- Give high profile
difference in countries and
legal process and capacity
- Focus and strengthen
region
building
project
- Capacity building
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
65

---

SamOa
tuvaLu
tOKELau
NiuE
2. Project
Indirectly
Directly - National Focal
Directly - oversee work
Directly ­ Data
Involvement
Point
program
Analyses etc.
3. Knowledge of
Somewhat
Moderate
Extensive knowledge
Extensive
Project
4. Rate Importance
Very Important
Very Important
Very Important to
Very important
of Project
countries and region
in countries and
region
5. Project
Consulted and
Somewhat Consulted
Extensive Consultation
Somewhat
Development
Involved
consulted
Consultation
6. Progress
Good Project
Adequate Project
Good progress reporting
Good reporting
of project
Reporting
Reporting through
through the GEF
Reporting
steering committee
Focal Point
7. Rate of Project
Good Rate of
Good Progress but
Good Progress but need
Good Progress
Progress
Progress
activities not properly
to capture the needs of
addressed
smaller countries with
smaller capacity
8. Gaps in Project
Lack of
- More country
- Smaller country needs
- Lack of Law and
Design
Knowledge
consultations & smaller
to be met and projects
Policy review
country needs to be
need to be designed to
because of limited
considered
strengthen manpower
resources
needs. Eg. Tokelau has
- Slow adoption of
only 3 Fisheries staff and
Tuna Commission
there is no legal person
managements
measures
9. Agencies dealing FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
FFA & SPC
with
10. Agency rating in
Helpful
Excellent project
- Good project
Efficient
management,
management and
management by staff of
communication,
efficient for both
SPC and FFA
efficiency and
agencies
- Several attempts have
administration
been made for country
visits but without success
because of isolation and
unreliable boat services
11. Major strengths
- Improvement in
- Good scientific
- Scientific component &
- Good Scientific
of Project
monitoring
component & awareness
capacity building is good
Component
- Good scientific
- Law & policy
- Law and Policy
- More knowledge
component
strengthened with
component is also good
in interpreting data
-reformed tuna
regard to Tuna
with capacity building
& understanding
industry
Commission
reports & policies
12. Major
- Lack of human
- Institutional
- Lack of country visit
Lack of capacity
Weaknesses of
resources
strengthening weak with to help people to have
building in smaller
Project
current structure
ownership of the project
countries
66
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

SamOa
tuvaLu
tOKELau
NiuE
13. Lessons' Learnt
- Regional
- Restructure to have
- Need to review
- Regional approach
approach to tuna
legal, scientific &
legislation & conservation to management
management
information services
measures
- Lack of manpower
- Restructure of
- Need to improve on
- Need for government
in smaller countries
domestic tuna
information delivery
to prioritize fisheries in
to fulfill obligations
industry and
some countries
helping the
domestic industry
14. Message
- Need to further
Smaller countries
Very little capacity for
Smaller countries
Conveyed - MTE
develop and
need assistance and
smaller countries to meet
need assistance
invest in the
manpower to fulfill
regional obligations and
domestic tuna
obligations
should try & partner at
industry
sub-regional level to
build capacity
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
67

---

Annex 7. OFM Project Co-Financing Activities5
a7
yEar & SOurcE
activity DEScriPtiON
amOuNt
2005
nil
nil
2006
WCPFC
Japan Trust Fund now administered by the WCPFC Secretariat (over 5 yrs)
USD$2 million
November - WWF Oceania
Co-financing Agreement (over 5 years)
USD$94,750
USD$521,500
2007
August 2007
PITIA Co-financing Agreement
USD$521,500
October - NZAID
Funding support for Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme
NZD$5 million
October ­ Taiwan/ROC
Participation in International Fisheries Agency
USD$30,000
October - AusAID
Regional MCS Strategy
AUD$50,000
2008 (to May)
US Government
Assessment of the Hawaiian Longline Fishery (IUCN)
Unknown
(POST Q4 2005)
5

68
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

2006 APR - SECTION IV FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Name of Partner or
Nature of
amount used
amount
additional
Estimated total Expected total
contributor
contributor
in Project
committed
amounts
Disbursement Disbursement
(Including the Private
Preparation
in Project
committed
to 30 June
by end of
Sector)
(PDF a, B)
Document
after Project
2006
Project
Document
finalization
GEF CONTRIBUTION
GEF
$0.6m
$10.9m
Nil
$1.6
CASH COFINANCING
- UNDP MANAGED
UNDP (TRAC)
UN Agency
CASH CO-FINANCING - PARTNER MANAGED
Project only: excludes PDF co-financing
NZAID
$0.4m
$0.4m
$0.8m
PNG NFA
$0.1m
$0.1m
Fr Pacific Fund
$.06m
$0.06m
ACIAR
$0.3m
$0.3m
Uni of Hawaii
$0.1m
$0.1m
UNDER CONSIDERATION
EC
$1.9m
$1.91m
US Dept of State (OESI)
$0.2m
$0.2m
IN-KIND CO-FINANCING
Participating Govts (in cash and kind):
$17.28m
$17.28m
Reg Org (in cash and kind):
$14.45m
$14.45m
NGOs (in cash and kind):
$0.6m
$.6m
NGOs (in cash and kind):
$0.4m
$.4m
Other WCPFC Members (Commission
$6.48m
$6.48m
contributions):
OtHEr EStimatED cO-FiNaNciNG
Fishing States (in kind regulation
$32.25m
$32.25m
costs):
Surveillance Partners (in kind):
$7.20m
$7.20m
tOtaL cO-FiNaNciNG
$79.09m
$3.07m
tOtaL FOr PrOJEct
$0.6m
$90.03m
$3.07m
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
69

---

2007 APR - SECTION IV FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Name of Partner or
Nature of
amount used
amount
additional
Estimated
Expected
contributor
contributor
in Project
committed
amounts
total
total
(Including The Private
Preparation
in Project
committed Disbursement Disbursement
Sector)
(PDF a, B)
Document after Project
to 30 June
by end of
Document
2006
Project
finalization
GEF CONTRIBUTION
GEF
$0.69 m
$10.94 m
$Nil
$4.00 m
CASH CO-FINANCING ­
UNDP MANAGED
UNDP (TRAC)
UN Agency
CASH CO-FINANCING - PARTNER MANAGED
NZAID
$0.40 m
$0.40 m
PNG PFA
$0.10 m
Fr Pacific Fund
$0.06 m
ACIAR
$0.30 m
Uni of Hawaii
$0.10 m
WWF Pacific
$0.10 m
UNDER CONSIDERATION
EC
$1.90 m
US dept of State (OESI)
$0.20 m
Japan (JFT)
$2.00 m
PITIA
$0.55 m
IN-KIND CO-FINANCING
Participating Governments (In cash and
$17.28 m
kind):
Regional Organisation (In cash and
$14.46 m
Kind):
NGOs (In cash and Kind):
$0.61 m
NGOs (In cash and Kind):
$0.40 m
Othere WCPFC members (Commission
$6.49 m
Contributions):
OTHER ESTIMATES CO-FINANCING
Fishing States (In King
$32.25 m
regulation costs):
Survellance Partners (In
$7.20 m
Kind):
tOtaL cO-FiNaNciNG
$79.09
tOtaL FOr PrOJEct
$0.69
$90.03
$5.71
70
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4
3
X
X
X
X
2010
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
ing
4
X
or
X
X
X
3
o
vision of national data
X
X
X
X
X
X
2009
2
y monit
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
mation on fisher
or
X
X
X
2008
2
X
X
X
X
X
1
or inf
tion and management and pr
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
ing house f
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2007
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
o meet national needs
o
vide a clear
k
plan and timetable
4
o pr
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
or
omised t
2006
2
t sampling and landing data collec
X
X
X
X
X
mats and t
X
X
t samplers
X
X
1
, por
X
X
X
X
X
or
X
X
X
X
e w
v
er
ing and cust
4
X
X
or
X
X
X
X
v
ers and por
X
X
3
2005
2
ed monit
ds such as data f
, obser
1
rat
ors
eg
ndicativ
dinat
or int
ional standar
T I
e f
t
eg
y
mation
ing coor
A
Y 2008)
rams
or
or
ing
rammes including logsheet, obser
emplat
og
or
v
elop r
og
ional t
o de
mats
ms of inf
ly monit
t sampling courses
OJEC
ing pr
or
y monit
ing pr
eg
or
y
, t
or
or
e
ticular
o SPC/OFP
ing Enhancement
t
war
, par
v
er and por
ed fisher
or
dination and Enhancement
ional and national fisher
rat
M PR A PCU M
ed monit
ommission data
onit
oor
ed sof
eg
rat
eg
or C
rams
ing staff
y obser
eg
dination capacit
og
or
ing C
ems based on the r
ebpage and other f
ing personnel t
or
, w
countr
or

OF (FF
v
er pr
vailable common data f
tivities
ing coor
kshops on r
ers
onit
ing syst
dination of national monit
or
e a
or
or

y M
ting module f
W
or national int
e
wslett
ssessment and M
e f
epor
ional
isher
ommission
t establishment and enhancement of national por
t the coor
ing
e ne
F
t establishment and enhancement of nationaldatabases
t
war
ional monit
eg
or
ibut

emplat
ional training courses in int
e
v
elop database and associat
e
v
elop r
eg
e
v
elop and mak
change
ganise and hold in-
ttach national monit
TIVITIES
t 1.1.
A t
t
o the C
D
D
National monit
Suppor
and sof
Suppor
sampling and obser
Suppor
A r
D
Hold R
monit
Distr
ex
T
raining of national monit
Or
and other training ac
R
eg
A
C
cientific A
S











ANNEX 8.
t 1. onen




S & A
ly
t
er
-
c
omp
y 1.1.1.1.
y 1.1.1.2.
y 1.1.2.1.
y 1.1.2.2.
y 1.1.2.3.
y 1.1.3.1.
y 1.1.3.2
y 1.1.3.3.
y 1.1.4.1.
y 1.1.4.2.
y 1.1.4.3.

uar
OUTPUT
Q
C
omponen Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 1.1.1.
A
A
Output 1.1.2.
A
A
A
Output 1.1.3.
A
A
A
Output 1.1.4.
A
A
A
8
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
71
a

---

4
3
X
X
X
X
X
2010
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2009
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
raphic data
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
o use oceanog
X
2008
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
esults and t
4
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
2007
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
et and apply the r
pr
er
4
X
X
X
, int
3
X
X
X
X
X
2006
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
3
2005
2
ock assessment methods
1
ional st
o
or
eg
ely with national scientific staff
ommission
k
ing
or
W
eparation
k of the C
acific SIDS f
ts annually
y of National
or meetings of
er
or
o understand r
k and pr
ed collaborativ
cience
or
epor
epar
ies
or deliv
ee and S
ts pr
acific SIDS f
y
or P
y meetings of P
epor
ies Status R
or
kshops f
ts on fisher
or
ommitt
ock assessment methods and
o SPC/OFP and other institutions t
countr
isher
W
eparat
ock assessment w
ts in-
ies status r
o pr
cientific C
ts
par
ceanic F
eholder
s t
echnical and scientific staff t
ief
er
kshops on st
raphic impac
epor
or
echnical staff t
ssessment
y Stak
W
ommission st
ts
ts on scientific issues f
acific SIDS on scientific issues in the w
e in C
ock A
countr
epor
o P
epor
ional
St
e 6 National O
n-
ommission, the S
ommission
eg
ticipat
dvice t
oups
ttach national t
TIVITIES
t 1.2.
National oceanic fisher
P
r
epar
Hold I
Status R
A
P
r
o
vide r
the C
Gr
P
r
esent scientific br
the C
T
raining of national t
Hold R
analysis of oceanog
A
par
of national status r
T
rain scientific count
C










S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 1.2.1.1.
y 1.2.1.2.
y 1.2.2.1.
y 1.2.2.2.
y 1.2.3.1.
y 1.2.3.2.
y 1.2.3.3.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 1.2.1.
A
A
Output 1.2.2.
A
A
Output 1.2.3.
A
A
A
72
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4
3
X
2010
2
X
1
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
2009
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
2008
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
TP LME
W
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
2007
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
ic species in the
4
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
2006
2
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
elationships of pelag
4
X
X
X
3
ophic r
2005
2
mine tr
1
er
o det
y
TP LME
y
W
ound
,
ches t
ersit
ns ar
ing
y cat
er
omach
kshops
or
o existing
em-based
W
cial fisher
w
, including tagg
e
vie
ical fishing patt
or
mation int
or
em-based management options
o assess ecosyst
mation on seamounts in the
or
,
ticipation in a benthic biodiv
lanning and R
t
ed seamounts
efinement of those models as necessar
y P
em data and inf
c
tivit
-based sampling data, especially st
em Analysis
v
er
e ecosyst
cosyst
t national scientist par
em models and r
E
v
er sampling and analysis of commer
t obser
tion and analysis of inf
eamount A
t data at sea at selec
ents and tissue samples
ibe seamounts and analyse hist
porat
-based analysis of samples
v
e
y
escr
ophic sampling and analysis
odel-based analysis of ecosyst
TIVITIES
t 1.3.
Obser
C
ollec
cont
Lab
C
ollec
Hold S
D
seamounts
C
ollec
tr
Suppor
sur
M
I
ncor
ecosyst
Use enhanced models and data t
management options
C











S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 1.3.1.1.
y 1.3.1.2.
y 1.3.2.1.
y 1.3.2.2.
y 1.3.2.3.
y 1.3.2.4.
y 1.3.3.1.
y 1.3.3.2.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 1.3.1.
A
A
Output 1.3.2.
A
A
A
A
Output 1.3.3.
A
A
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
73

---

4
3
X
X
X
X
2010
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
cientific
X
'
s S
4
X
3
X
X
X
X
ommission
2009
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
y the C
X
4
X
or use b
3
X
X
X
2008
2
X
oach f
X
X
1
X
4
em-based appr
3
X
X
X
2007
2
X
X
X
1
X
4
3
X
X
X
2006
2
X
X
X
1
X
4
X
3
ing and operationalisation of the ecosyst
or
acific SIDS
2005
2
y P
1
em monit
o
oup and b
ough
m ecosyst
ies
v
elopment
er
k
ing Gr
or
W
ical de
ch
or long-t
ommission thr
y
cat
ional implications of
o the C
oup
eg
CPO oceanic fisher
oposals f
o assess management options
W
ems and B
k
ing Gr
acific SIDS
or
o P
o SPC/OFP and other institutions t
ch in
cosyst
W
cat
em analysis t
ch
y-
v
er data and methodolog
ch
cat
y
cat
em analysis
y-
em analysis and pr
em analysis t
echnical staff t
v
els of b
ical obser
or
mation on national and r
v
els of b
, especially its E
em and B
or
e in ecosyst
es of le
ee
esults of ecosyst
ed specifically at seamounts
e le
w hist
cosyst
get
ticipat
ttach national t
TIVITIES
Use enhanced models and data t
tar
Estimat
R
e
vie
Estimat
R
esults of ecosyst
C
ommitt
P
r
esent r
the E
P
r
esent inf
r
esults of ecosyst
A
par
C








S & A
ly
t
er
y 1.3.3.3.
y 1.3.4.1.
y 1.3.4.2.
y 1.3.5.1.
y 1.3.5.2.
y 1.3.5.3.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
A
Output 1.3.4.
A
A
Output 1.3.5.
A
A
A
74
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4
3
X
X
2010
2
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
2009
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
2008
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
acific SIDS
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
2007
2
ed with P
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
4
ed and shar
X
X
X
3
epar
X
X
X
X
2006
2
X
X
X
X
v
ention
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
on
X
X
X
X
X
v
ention pr
4
on
X
X
X
3
CPF C
W
2005
2
o implement the C
1
y
engthening
egal
ies management legal issues
v
ention
e in legal
on
rangements t
ticipat
, National L
k
or legal ar
v
ention issues
o par
nment and Str
or
on
ional and national legal issues
ealig
eg
w members
egal Issues
o implement the C
ommission and subsidiar
acific SIDS f
m, R
or legal w
or C
or
ws of legal issues and national
ef
tivities on r
om P
e
vie
egy f
r
eements and license conditions in line with
ties and ne
o
visions t
ws
, license conditions and access
ommission and C
ar
or ac
, ag
t strat
e
vie
onsultation on L
kshops
kshops
ting P
acific SIDS f
onsultations
ers and legal personnel in oceanic fisher
or
or
A and other institutions t
echnical r
r
ojec
or P
W
W
m
k
plan f
egulations
ommission fr
s f
o FF
nstitutional R
egal C
or
or
egulations
es of legal pr
, r
acific SIDS
ief
egal C
y mak
egal
egal
ef
, r
C
ontrac
es
o P
ional L
ws
t Bills
or the C
y and I
tur
t la
emplat
e national legal r
e legal studies on C
ional L
ional L
egal R
eg
es and the P
eg
eg
olic
L
egy and w
tur
e t
tak
tak
e legal br
, P
r
y out legal and t
w draf
r
eements t
ttach legal staff t
TIVITIES
w
t 2.1.
A strat
C
ar
legal struc
Hold a R
Struc
Ne
P
r
epar
Under
P
r
o
vide draf
ag
P
r
oposals f
Under
including non-
P
r
epar
body meetings
Hold R
T
raining of polic
Hold R
Hold National L
A
analyses
C
La
t 2.















S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 2.1.1.1.
y 2.1.1.2.
y 2.1.2.1.
y 2.1.2.2.
y 2.1.2.3.
y 2.1.3.1.
y 2.1.3.2.
y 2.1.3.3.
y 2.1.4.1.
y 2.1.4.2.
y 2.1.4.3.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
C
omponen
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 2.1.1.
A
A
Output 2.1.2.
A
A
A
Output 2.1.3.
A
A
A
Output 2.1.4.
A
A
A
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
75

---

4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2010
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
vation and
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2009
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
ommission conser
X
X
X
X
X
3
or C
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2008
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
ies
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rammes and f
4
X
X
X
og
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
esponsible fisher
X
X
X
X
2007
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
echnical pr
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
iat and t
X
X
X
X
3
etar
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ecr
2006
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
3
ease understanding of sustainable and r
2005
2
1
ommission, including its S
o incr
ies
eg
, including compliance options
ies
eholders t
ies
vation
oposals
kshops
eg
or
ies
W
range study
v
elopment of the C
ommissions
or seamounts
vation and
, policies and strat
A and ar
ies C
v
ention conser
lans
ws
v
erall de
on
kshops and
eminars and
o FF
or
kshops
isher
, policies and strat
or
e
vie
W
ed conser
ional oceanic fisher
y bodies
ed management options
lans
or the o
elat
egy r
eg
elat
-r
ourse
o other F
egy documents
-r
echnical personnel and other stak
anagement S
oposals f
ts on r
acific SIDS, including analysis of pr
anagement
, t
ial meetings
ies management P
ommission and C
ies M
er
y and strat
es
epor
o P
ers
onsultations /W
T
raining C
ies M
es
y
m
y and strat
y C
isher
anagement personnel t
inist
or
olic
y mak
olic
ef
isher
, polic
esent r
ies M
y R
lan, polic
echnical studies on management of oceanic fisher
vant M
lans
e P
e studies on C
ional F
e t
kshops on seamount
oposals on seamount
ional P
acific SIDS personnel t
ele
olic
t the implementation of P
ies and specific pr
ommission and its subsidiar
or
T
SC/USP P
isher
t r
P
e P
tak
tak
e and pr
eg
tak
e pr
eg
or P
eg
W
ound seamounts
ff
er a
ttach F
TIVITIES
t 2.2.
National oceanic fisher
P
r
epar
Suppor
Under
Strat
management measur
Under
and management issues
P
r
epar
management issues t
f
or the C
Hold R
C
onsultations
Identification of possible management options f
Under
ar
Hold
P
r
epar
management measur
T
raining of polic
Hold R
O
P
r
esent National F
A
t
ours f
Suppor
C


















S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 2.2.1.1.
y 2.2.1.2.
y 2.2.1.3.
y 2.2.2.1.
y 2.2.2.2.
y 2.2.2.3.
y 2.2.3.1.
y 2.2.3.2.
y 2.2.3.3.
y 2.2.4.1.
y 2.2.4.2.
y 2.2.4.3
y 2.2.4.4.
y 2.2.4.5.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 2.2.1.
A
A
A
Output 2.2.2.
A
A
A
Output 2.2.3.
A
A
A
Output 2.2.4.
A
A
A
A
A
76
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2010
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2009
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2008
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2007
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
ies management administrations
4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2006
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
3
2005
2
ies management
1
engthening of national oceanic fisher
er
o
w
o empo
eholders t
nment and str
eholders in oceanic fisher
e stak
ealig
ws of national
ocesses
tices in institutional
eholders
m, r
e
vie
e pr
or
kshops
ef
or
een stak
e stak
w
W
or non-stat
ies management
m
or the r
or
ours f
ef
e
or non-stat
m
ience and best prac
wher
or
oposals f
ef
t implementation of r
t national consultativ
kshops f
or
nstitutional R
e in oceanic fisher
ience else
w of exper
ies management institutions
ticipat
, plans and pr
e
vie
or national consultation bet
engthening of national ENGOs and INGOs t
e and suppor
ies
t str
t national w
om exper
I
nstitutional R
e a r
tak
o par
eg
m
or
n fr
dvise on and suppor
range attachments and study t
TIVITIES
t 2.3.
Strat
P
r
epar
r
ef
Under
oceanic fisher
P
r
esent National I
P
r
ocesses f
A
Suppor
them t
Suppor
Ar
lear
C









S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 2.3.1.1.
y 2.3.1.2.
y 2.3.1.3.
y 2.3.2.1.
y 2.3.2.2.
y 2.3.2.3.
y 2.3.2.4.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 2.3.1.
A
A
A
Output 2.3.2.
A
A
A
A
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
77

---

4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2010
2
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2009
2
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2008
2
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2007
2
X
1
X
X
rams
X
X
X
og
4
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2006
2
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
ies compliance pr
4
tivities
3
2005
2
1
v
eillance ac
rams
og
VMS
o
ol and sur
o
es and pr
tion and
, contr
engthening national oceanic fisher
ing
ommission and
acific SIDS
ws of needs t
rammes
or
acific SIDS and
or national
og
e
vie
or the C
een P
ning and str
dination of air and sea
w
acific SIDS on MCS issues
ee
VMS and other national
A and other P
ealig
ional compliance issues t
oposals f
, especially in inspec
tion,
o FF
or r
r
eements
dination of monit
ional compliance measur
eg
oup of P
ommitt
dination bet
y ag
eg
nspec
or r
ts on r
engthening
oposals f
v
ention implications f
t implementation of r
k
ing Gr
ies
on
n national compliance pr
ional coor
or
epor
eg
ed
y subsidiar
W
ompliance C
rams
ealig
oposals f
w of C
or r
v
olv
esent r
og
ional consultations on coor
T
r
eat
echnical studies on compliance issues under the
, plans and pr
e
vie
e and suppor
eg
es in
iue
e t
ompliance Str
ies
t r
ies and pr
o oceanic fisher
C
e a r
tak
e N
tak
e and pr
eg
ols
eg
v
ention
ed t
engthen and r
rangements f
T
echnical and C
ttach national compliance staff t
TIVITIES
t 2.4.
Strat
P
r
epar
compliance
Under
str
Ar
Suppor
patr
P
r
o
vide advice on MCS coor
other stat
P
r
epar
Strat
Under
C
on
Hold meetings of a
r
elat
P
r
epar
P
acific SIDS, including analysis of pr
its
T
raining of national compliance staff
P
r
esent courses on National I
MCS training pr
A
C














S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 2.4.1.1.
y 2.4.1.2.
y 2.4.2.1.
y 2.4.2.2.
y 2.4.2.3.
y 2.4.3.1.
y 2.4.3.2.
y 2.4.3.3.
y 2.4.4.1.
y 2.4.4.2.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 2.4.1.
A
A
Output 2.4.2.
A
A
A
Output 2.4.3.
A
A
A
Output 2.4.4.
A
A
78
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4
X
3
X
X
X
X
2010
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
2009
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
ts
4
oduc
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
t
2008
2
X
X
X
X
X
1
mation pr
r
ojec
or
X
X
X
egy
o the P
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
vant t
X
t
o
vision of inf
ele
2007
2
X
X
X
r
ojec
X
1
X
X
t and r
X
tices and pr
ers Operational Strat
r
ojec
at
4
X
X
X
X
X
W
X
3
X
X
X
X
2006
2
X
X
X
national
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
er
nt
4
X
X
3
t data, lessons and best prac
eplicable ideas within the P
2005
2
ojec
1
y
, including independent valuations of the P
ors as per the GEF I
tice and r
er
,
,
e
, best prac
ebpage
W
vices
ebpage and
, videos
vativ
or
mance and deliv
er
t
W
f
or
ors
onmental status indicat
r
ojec
, papers
vir
ts
orage and dissemination of pr
, P
eleases
t per
mation S
epor
e
, st
egy
ojec
or
ess r
omponents f
em
e IW indicat
nf
, pr
r
ess r
ws
tion and en
og
t identifiers
v
erall pr
or captur
, including CDs
vie
ocess identifying inno
er
ts
educ
o measur
egy
ials
em f
r
ojec
er
valuation
es in pr
, int
anagement C
anagement Strat
epor
ts on, o
ess-r
ataloguing Syst
ers
, str
ticipation and I
r
ess r
epor
Y
ear 8)
ar
wslett
wledge M
og
ing and E
or measur
ws
ocess
mation Strat
mation Syst
mation mat
wledge M
or
, and r
or
, ne
no
, pr
valuation
valuation
or
or
nf
ocument C
no
e K
ers
onit
es of
m e
e
vie
I
nf
t I
n logos and other P
t D
t inf
e K
M
er
valuation (
dination, P
wledge management pr
r
y out baseline studies t
esig
ebpage Operations
enerat
wslett
easur
id-t
minal e
TIVITIES
oor
t 3.1.
P
r
ojec
D
P
r
ojec
W
P
r
ojec
pamphlets
K
no
P
r
epar
G
ne
t 3.2.
M
M
T
er
P
ost e
Annual r
Annual audit
Analysis of pr
C
ar
I
nclude indicat
C
C
t 3.
















S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 3.1.1.1.
y 3.1.1.2.
y 3.1.1.3.
y 3.1.2.1.
y 3.1.2.2.
-
C
omponen
y 3.2.1.1.
y 3.2.1.2.
y 3.2.1.3.
y 3.2.1.4.
y 3.2.1.5.
y 3.2.2.1.
y 3.2.2.2.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
C
omponen Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 3.1.1.
A
A
A
Output 3.1.2.
A
A
Sub
Output 3.2.1.
A
A
A
A
A
Output 3.2.2.
A
A
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
79

---

4
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2010
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2009
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2008
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2007
2
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2006
2
X
1
4
3
ocesses
2005
2
ed pr
1
elat
ocesses
ed pr
ies
v
ention-r
elat
ies
on
aising
v
ention-r
eness on oceanic
on
v
ention and oceanic
ticipation
v
ention and oceanic
eness R
war
acific ENGO
ommission
on
y par
acific INGO
on
ommission
war
or ENGOs
eness raising in C
war
v
ention and oceanic fisher
on
v
ention and oceanic fisher
kshops f
o raise pubic a
ora on the C
eness raising in C
on
or
or civil societ
war
W
ials t
rangement with P
ticipation in the C
er
rangement with P
ticipation in the C
ticipation and A
acific ENGOs
acific INGOs and businesses
w on the C
ar
o P
ional
ticipation and a
o P
eg
y par
-financing ar
mation on the C
mation mat
ional and national f
-financing ar
mation flo
eholder P
ticipation and a
acific ENGO par
or
or
eg
acific INGO par
or
acific INGO consultations on the C
t P
t industr
t P
t P
Stak
ies management issues
ies management issues f
ies management issues
ganise r
TIVITIES
t 3.3.
ENGO par
C
onclude co
Suppor
P
r
o
vide inf
management issues t
Hold national and r
P
r
oduce inf
fisher
Or
fisher
Suppor
C
onclude co
Suppor
P
r
o
vide inf
management issues t
Suppor
fisher
C












S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 3.3.1.1.
y 3.3.1.2.
y 3.3.1.3.
y 3.3.1.4.
y 3.3.1.5.
y 3.3.1.6.
y 3.3.2.1.
y 3.3.2.2.
y 3.3.2.3.
y 3.3.2.4.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 3.3.1.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Output 3.3.2.
A
A
A
A
80
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

4
3
X
X
2010
2
X
X
1
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
2009
2
X
X
X
1
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
2008
2
X
X
X
1
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
2007
2
X
X
X
1
X
4
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
2006
2
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
3
2005
2
gencies
1
ecuting A
ts
ts
epor
o establish the PCU
epor
ts
mplementing and Ex
dination
ee meetings
k
plan and finances
epor
or
oor
s
e r
ements t
een I
eetings
w
onsultations
A
O
eetings and R
ee M
ommitt
rativ
or
equir
ee meetings and r
e C
ee M
ts
dinat
A/IUCN L
ommitt
ommitt
oint nominations
epor
oor
dination bet
A/SPC/IUCN C
e C
t r
t C
ommitt
kshop
ing C
onsultativ
k
plans
t implementation, w
anagement and C
or
ocal P
or
ojec
or coor
eer
ing C
W
t M
dination Unit staffing and office
r
ojec
A/SPC and FF
onsultations
r
ojec
eer
onsultativ
iodic financial and nar
oor
y UNDP/FF
A C
ional St
r
ojec
t National C
P
t C
e equipment and other r
nception
eg
ts on P
e per
e annual w
e annual pr
ional St
e National F
rangements f
TIVITIES
t 3.4.
P
r
ojec
Appoint the P
Appoint other PCU staff
P
r
ocur
Ar
P
r
eliminar
C
onclude FF
UNDP/FF
R
eg
Hold I
Hold R
National C
S
ecur
Suppor
R
epor
P
r
epar
P
r
epar
P
r
epar
C


















S & A
ly
t
er
-
C
omponen
y 3.4.1.1.
y 3.4.1.2.
y 3.4.1.3.
y 3.4.2.1.
y 3.4.2.2.
y 3.4.2.3.
y 3.4.3.1.
y 3.4.3.2.
y 3.4.4.1.
y 3.4.4.2.
y 3.4.5.1.
y 3.4.5.2.
y 3.4.5.3.
uar
OUTPUT
Q
Sub
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
c
tivit
Output 3.4.1.
A
A
A
Output 3.4.2.
A
A
A
Output 3.4.3.
A
A
Output 3.4.4.
A
A
Output 3.4.5.
A
A
A
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
81

---

Annex 9. Logical Framework6
a9
Analysis of Risks in the Project Logframe
OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS
Assessment by Annual Assessment by MTE
AND RISKS
Review December
consultants
2007
WCPF Commission has adopted
Commission Members make
Too early to judge
Agreed. Steady progess
measures to regulate fishing in the high
good faith efforts to implement effectiveness of overall
evident
seas, and has formulated and assessed
the WCPF Convention and
implementation.
proposals for the conservation and
other relevant MEAs. PacSIDS
management of fishing for global y
have the capacity to effectively PacSIDS participation is
Agreed. Small Pacific
important transboundary oceanic
participate in the Commission,
variable but generally
SIDS having particular
stocks throughout their range. These
and to support the
effective, but some
problems because
proposals include measures to address
development and operation of countries are having
of small staffs, lack of
the impacts on other species in the
the Commission in a way that
trouble participating
specialized capacities
global y important WTP LME. PacSIDS have fulfils the WCPF Convention.
effectively
undertaken reforms to implement the
PacSIDS governments and civil
WCPF Convention and related multilateral societies have the necessary
Too early to be definitive, Agreed. Significant
environmental agreements (MEAs) and
awareness and commitment
but most PacSIDS are
achievements in
have strengthened the management of
to take the hard decisions
moving to implement
many countries. Major
fishing for transboundary oceanic fish in
involved in limiting fishing in
limits to fishing in their
problems in some
their waters.
their waters.
waters
countries.
Improved information on the biology and Commission Members can
No obvious problems
Significant progess
ecology of target fish stocks, including
establish, resource and
with resourcing of
in undestanding of
their exploitation characteristics and
manage effective data and
data and research
target stocks. Impacts
fishery impacts, the fishery impacts on
research programmes. Project
programmes, except for
on non-target stocks,
non-target, dependent and associated
mechanisms contribute
Indonesia & Philippines
other biodiversity
species and on the pelagic ecosystem
effectively to raising awareness
and general pelagic
as a whole. Substantially improved
and improving understanding
Too early to assess
ecosystems no
understanding of Seamount ecosystems,
within PacSIDS about oceanic
effectiveness of of
adequately addressed.
especially their relation to migratory
fisheries management.
raising of awareness
Will requires future
pelagic fisheries.
and improving
focus.
understanding, but
remains a risk
Limited knowledge of
seamount ecosystems
because of late start of
IUCN studies.
The WCPF Commission established
The WCPF Convention is
No risk, Ratification
Agreed. Important
and functioning. PacSIDS amend
ratified by sufficient states
comprehensive (excl.
milestone in OFM and
their domestic laws and policies and
to make the Commission
Indonesia)
WCPF Commission
strengthen their national fisheries
effective. PacSIDS are able to
achieved.
institutions and programmes, especially
secure financing and sufficient
in the areas of monitoring and
political commitment to make
Slight risk, most PacSIDS
Agreed. Leverage
compliance, to implement the WCPF
necessary legal, institutional
seem to be securing
funding moderately
Convention and apply the principles of
and policy changes.
necessary financing and
successful in first
responsible and sustainable fisheries
commitment, but a few
term. Opportunities
management more generally.
are not
for future funding
promising.
6
Note MTE consultants' concerns about lack of quantifiable indicators in OFM Project's logframe which has hindered
performance of MTE.
82
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

COMPONENT ONE
SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT & MONITORING ENHANCEMENT
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Assessment by MTE
INDICATORS
RISKS
(2007 Annual Review)
Substantial, relevant and reliable Commission membership
Too early to assess.
Significant progress in
information collected and
prepared to accept scientific
information on fisheries
shared between stakeholders
findings and statistical evidence
stocks. Low risks.
with respect to transboundary
in formulating what may be
oceanic fish stocks and related
difficult policy decisions on
Limited progess on
ecosystem aspects, (particularly
management of the fisheries,
ecosystem aspects. Future
for seamounts). The Commission and difficult management
risks.
using this information as the
proposals for the ecosystems.
basis for it discussions and policy Sufficient sustainability available
Some progess in
decisions on WCPF management. or identified through project
Commission use of fisheries
National technical capacity and
to support national capacity
socks in decision-making.
knowledge greatly improved
improvements in technical and
scientific functions as well as to
Limited national capacities
support continued regional data
in scientific functions. High
coordination and analyses.
risks.
Database and associated software
In place, no risk
Agreed. Important
developed. Reporting modules
milestone reached. No risks.
available for Commission data.
National monitoring systems,
National commitment sufficiently Good performance
Agreed. Some smaller
including port sampling and
strong to ensure allocation of staff overall, one or two
countries require greater
observer programmes in place.
countries struggling to support. Some risks.
All PacSIDS reporting regularly to
make appointments,
Commission.
no significant risk
Common data formats made
All countries can agree on data
No significant risk,
Agreed. Important
available to PacSIDS, and adopted reporting formats (some may
generally good
milestone reached.
by each country to provide
have to change existing formats). progress on data
comparable data. Information on Staff available to maintain
formats and reporting
fishery monitoring including best website. Countries willing to
practice examples, being shared network with Commission on a
between stakeholders through
regular basis, and each country
newsletters, website and regional agrees on a focal point for this
workshops.
networking.
In-country Courses and training
Countries can afford to release
Some PacSIDS
Agreed. High risk for small
activities conducted. Two regional staff for training and attachments. finding it difficult to
countries. Greater support
workshops undertaken. National
send appropriate
and/or new strategies
monitoring personnel attached
participants to
to assist small countries
to SPC/OFP
workshops
required.
Collaborative work undertaken
Countries have scientific and
SPC presentations effective.
on National Tuna Fishery Status
technical staff available and
Limited progress in
in 6 countries annually, including willing to undertake national
development of national
presentations at in-country
fishery status reports and
capabilities.
national workshops.
workshops (with GEF funding
assistance)
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
83

---

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Assessment by MTE
INDICATORS
RISKS
(2007 Annual Review)
Advice on scientific issues
PacSIDS able to find the financial Assisted by WCPFC
Agreed. Limited human
provided in briefing papers to
human resources to participate
financial rules requiring resources available,
PacSIDS before each meeting of
effectively in the scientific
funding for PacSIDS
especially in small Pacific
the Scientific Committee and the processes of the Commission
participation, PacSIDS
SIDS.
Commission, and presented to
are participating
PacSIDS preparatory meetings.
effectively overall, but
some are struggling
and the PacSIDS effort
is dependent on a few
experienced individuals
Regional Workshops carried out.
PacSIDS can afford to release
-
High risk. Limited national
National technical and scientific
staff for training and attachments
staff capability.
staff trained through attachments (national human resource
and in-country counterpart
limitations)
training.
Technical and scientific
counterparts producing
independent technical and
scientific analyses by the end of
the Project.
Observer-based data collections National and regional observer
-
Progress in observer
and lab analyses undertaken
programmes, including a
programmmes. Numbers of
in accordance with a workplan
Commission programme, are
observers problem in some
for the ecosystem analysis
running and providing data for
countries.
component established in year 1. ecosystem analysis. Sufficient
Ecosystem analysis
observers available.
component of uncertain
status (probably limited)
Seamount planning and
Sufficient sea-time available to
Seamount-related work Limted progess. High risk.
review workshops carried
be able to undertake surveys
at risk due to lack of
Workshops not carried out.
out. Seamounts described,
and complete reports effectively progress by IUCN
Progress in SPC seamounts
historical fishing patterns around and on-time. National scientists
remote sensing activities.
seamounts analysed, and
available to take part (human
No cruises undertaken.
seamounts selected as sites for
resource limitation issues)
No studies of benthos will
field work. Field data collected
be undertaken because
at selected seamounts, including
research vessel no longer
tagging, trophic sampling and
available.
analysis - 2 cruises per year in
years 2, 3, plus 1 cruise to research
IUCN Seamounts sub-
benthic biodiversity. Participation
component has been
by national scientists in field work
redesigned. Preliminary
supported (2 participants per
information should be
cruise). Reports on seamount-
available by end of project.
associated field data prepared.
Data incorporated into ecosystem Agreement can be reached on
Too early to assess the Some progress evident.
models. Models enhanced and
realistic options for management risk
Longer-term objective.
used to assess management
to be assessed. Effective models
options, including options related available and sufficient data
to fishing around seamounts.
collected to drive models and
reach a scientifically justifiable
conclusion
84
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

COMPONENT TWO:
LAW, POLICY & INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT & STRENGTHENING
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT ANNUAL Assessment by MTE
INDICATORS
RISKS
REVIEW 2007
WCPF Commission operating
Commission remains effective
Too early to assess the
Agreed.
with a formally adopted
throughout project lifetime and
risk. Early indications
Important progress in
framework of rules and
beyond. Countries continue to
are mixed. Commission
establishment of WCP
regulations. Commission
meet financial commitments
is regarded as being
Commission but some
Secretariat has been established
to Commission to ensure
effectively established,
risks in operation evident.
and the core science and
its sustainability. Enormous
but there are doubts
Effectiveness of onitoring
compliance programmes
Convention area and project
about its likely
and compliance
and Committee structures
system boundary can be
effectiveness
uncertain.
are operational. PacSIDS are
effectively monitored to ensure
Smaller countries
participating effectively in
compliance. Programmes of
struggling to effectively
provision of information and
information collection and
participate.
in decision-making and policy
data analyses can be sustained
adoption process for WCPF
throughout and beyond
fisheries management. National project lifetime. PacSIDS able to
institutions and supportive laws
participate in the Commission
and policies have been reformed effectively.
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
Appropriate legal consultants
No risk, high quality legal Agreed. Low risk.
(regional and national)
available within timescale.
consultants are available Important achievements
undertaken and results available
and being used
in most countries.
to regional Legal Consultation.
Consultation carried out.
Templates for legal provisions
Country commitment to legal
No significant risk, strong Agreed. Low risk.
necessary to implement
reviews (consultants cannot
national interest and
Convention provided to PacSIDS. be effective without national
support for legal reviews
Legal reviews undertaken in
support and transparency)
PacSIDS which have not already
updated their legislation.
Legal reviews and studies on
Countries willing to share national No significant risk,
Agreed. Low risks.
Commission and Convention
legal position and information
good flow of info the
issues undertaken and legal briefs with Commission. PacSIDS
Commission on legal
for discussion in Commission
prepared to make submissions
issues. PacSIDS active in
and related bodies prepared
to Commission on legal policy
making submissions on
and lodged with countries.
issues following this consultative legal issues
Briefs discussed in PacSIDS
process
consultations (see 2.1.1)
National and Regional legal
Countries willing to host and
No significant risk,
Agreed. Low risks.
training workshops carried out
participate in workshops.
and assessed. Legal staff attached Appropriate national personnel
to relevant institutions and
permitted to attend. National
participating in analyses.
specialists available to take part
(human resource limitation
issues)
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
85

---

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT ANNUAL Assessment by MTE
INDICATORS
RISKS
REVIEW 2007
Plan/policy/strategy documents
Fisheries Management Adviser
No risk, appointment
Agreed. Important
prepared, implemented and
appointed to oversee the
made
progress. Low risks.
reviewed based on feedback and Policy Reform sub-Component.
lessons
National policy-makers accept
and adopt strategies and
prepared to make necessary
reforms to implement.
Briefing papers provided to
Appropriate national personnel
No significant risk overall, Agreed. Smaller countries
PacSIDS on establishment of the permitted to attend. National
but some PacSIDS are
require special support.
commission and on regional
specialists available to take part
having difficulty
conservation and management
(human resource limitation
measures. Regional consultations issues)
and workshops on Fisheries
Management undertaken
annually.
Technical studies on
Technical capacity available
Seamount-related work
Agreed. Lack of
management of oceanic fisheries to undertake studies within
at risk due to lack of
progress in Seamounts
related to seamounts undertaken timeframe. Commission
progress by IUCN
knowledge/issues at mid-
completed and circulated
continues to operate effectively.
term.
to stakeholders. Workshops
Pac SIDS Stakeholders can agree
Commencement of
undertaken for stakeholders on
on management measures in
implemenat in new
seamount management issues.
order to make proposals.
design anticipated
Proposals based on outcomes
in early second term.
of seamount policy and
Moderate risk.
technical analyses considered by
PacSIDS, and if appropriate, the
Commission.
Regional Policy Consultation
Countries willing to host and
No significant risk overall. Agreed.
workshops carried out. TSC/
participate in workshops.
PacSIDS express strong
Smaller countries require
USP training course developed
Appropriate national personnel
support and appreciation specific support.
and on offer. National Fisheries
permitted to attend. National
for regional workshops.
Management Seminars available specialists available to take part
A few PacSIDS having
and workshops carried out.
(human resource limitation
difficulty with appropriate
Fisheries Management personnel issues)
levels of participation
on attachment to FFA. Study
in workshops, courses &
tours arranged to other Fisheries
Ministerial meetings
Commissions. Support given to
relevant Ministerial meetings.
Review the lessons and best
Conditions in PacSIDS are
No significant risk,
Disagree with concept
practices in institutional reform
sufficiently common for national strong interest and
of generalized national
carried out. Reviews of national
best practices to be replicable.
support for Institutional
approaches. Country-
fisheries management institutions
strengthening
specific approaches
carried out. National institutional
programmes (ISPs)
necessary in ISPs.
reform workshops prepared and
undertaken.
86
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT ANNUAL Assessment by MTE
INDICATORS
RISKS
REVIEW 2007
National consultative process
PacSIDS govts prepared
Too early to assess risk
Variable progress evident
carried out between stakeholders. to continue to improve
in establishment/support
National ENGOs and INGOs
transparency. National ENGOs &
of national E/INGOs.
given support to empower their
INGOs exist & have the capacity
Single model for all Pacific
participation in oceanic fisheries to participate. Consultation
IDS not appropriate.
management
fatigue does not unduly constrain
Evidence of `consultation
their participation
fatigue.'
Review the national compliance
PacSIDS willing to provide
No significant risk,
Agreed.
implications inherent in the
transparent information on
growing willingness to
Convention, and identify
compliance procedures and data. share info on compliance
strengthening requirements for
procedures and
national compliance to meet
compliance data
these implications
Regional consultations to
Sufficient regional capacity
Good progress in
Ageed.
coordinate patrols (air and
and willingness to undertake
enhancing surveillance
sea). Advice given on MCS
an effective level of air and sea
capacity, esp with
coordination between
patrols
Australian, also support
PacSIDS and other stakeholder
and coordination with
countries. Niue Treaty subsidiary
US, France, NZ - but long
arrangements prepared
term effectiveness of
surveillance remains a risk
Technical studies undertaken on Commission Members can
Extent of risk not clear.
Agreed.
compliance issues relevant to
find basis for agreement on
Some good early progress
Convention. Meetings of PacSIDS compliance measures to regulate on agreement on high
MCS Working Group held.
fishing in the high seas
seas B&I, observers, VMS
Reports on regional compliance
despite obstruction from
issues prepared and presented
fishing states.
to PacSIDS. PacSIDS follow up
those reports with proposals in
the Commission & its Technical &
Compliance Committee.
National courses and training
Appropriate national personnel
No significant risk,
Agreed.
on inspection, VMS and other
available for attachments and
strong support for, and
MCS issues undertaken. National permitted to attend. National
participation in, MCS
compliance staff attached to FFA specialists available to take part
training activities
and/or other established PacSIDS (human resource limitation
compliance and monitoring
issues)
agencies.
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
87

---

COMPONENT THREE:
COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION & INFORMATION SERVICES
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND Assessment Annual
MTE assessment
INDICATORS
RISKS
Review 2007
Project achieving its objectives.
National commitment needs
Too early to assess
Agreed. Significant
Project implementation and
to be high to ensure fully
progress towards Project
management is fully participatory participatory involvement in
objectives.
with appropriate involvement
project over lifetime. Stakeholder
Relevant information is
of stakeholders at all levels.
commitment also needs to
available.
Information access is transparent be high to ensure continued
Public awareness remains
and simple. Information available contributions, sometimes at own
limited.
is relevant and significant. Public cost. Policy-makers are receptive
National commitments
awareness raising at national and to awareness-raising information
generally high.
regional policy level is effective.
and presentations.

High project evaluation ratings.
Project branding, webpage and
Staff available to operate and
Website poor, needs
Partially disagree. Existing
document catalogue system
update website, Sufficient
attention, some
Website provides
developed. Webpage operational interest among stakeholders to
associated risk to Project adequate technical
and updated. Project information make website effective means of outcomes
information but not very
materials available.
communication and information
`user friendly' and not
dissemination
sufficiently promoted and
used by stakeholders.
Wide dissemination
of project information
media campaign is
required.
Knowledge management
Sufficient information and
Strategy prepared, and
Strategy requires
strategy prepared and adopted.
examples of best practices to
some elements may be
implementation.
drive a knowledge management adopted. Some risk to
Insufficient resources
strategy, or resources available to Project outcomes
available.
develop them.
Regular assessment and
PCU adheres to reporting
No apparent risk, PCU
Agreed. But reporting
evaluations of performance and
and evaluation requirements
reporting & evaluation
obligations onerous, may
delivery as per UNDP and GEF
(responsibility of IA)
performance seems
be excessive.
requirements
good.
Process, Stress Reduction and
IW indicators developed
Indicators identified, but Agreed.
Environmental Status indicators
for project are effective and
not closely integrated
adopted. National review and
comprehensive. Sufficient
into the Project. No
assessment mechanisms in place national and regional capacity to apparent risk
by end of year 1.
collect information on status of
IW indicators. Effective support
from project.
Co-financing agreements in place Commission members agree
Risk & assumption
Agreed.
with Pacific ENGO. An ENGO
to ENGO participation. ENGO
statement not well
participating in Commission.
identified that is appropriate
framed. No significant
Information packages circulated
willing to participate. Civil society risk. WWF co-financing
to ENGOs (including access to
has sufficient interest in oceanic
agreement concluded. 5
website). National and regional
fisheries to participate.
ENGOs attended WCPFC4.
ENGO workshops carried out.
Public Awareness materials
developed and distributed.
National fora for civil society
participation organised.
88
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND Assessment Annual
MTE assessment
INDICATORS
RISKS
Review 2007
Co-financing agreements in
Commission members agree
Risk & assumption
Agreed.
place with Pacific Industry
to INGO participation. INGO
statement not well
NGO. An INGO participating
identified that is appropriate
framed. No significant
in Commission. Information
willing to participate.
risk. PITIA participating
packages circulated to INGOs
in the project and as
(including access to website)
observer to the WCPFC
and national/regional INGO
workshops carried out as
appropriate.
Project Coordinator and other
Effective and acceptable Project
No risk, PCU operational
PCU staff appointed. Necessary
Coordinator identified within
and effective, good IA &
PCU support equipment
timeframe Project staff hired at
EA performance
procured.
appropriate time to 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 Appropriate EAs and IAs in
No risk, EAs & IAs are
out. Necessary LoA finalised
project. Clear understanding
appropriate
between EAs and IA. On-going
of importance of on-going
consultations between EAs and IA consultative process
throughout project lifetime
Inception workshop carried out
All attendees committed to
No risk, 14 of 15 PICs
to begin project. Regular Steering attending Inception Workshop.
attended RSC1,
Committees thereafter
Appropriate presentations to
ensure good understanding or
project process.
National Focal Points nominated Appropriate NFPs adopted by
Significant risk, lack of
and approved. National
countries. Country commitment commitment to NCCs
Consultative Committees active
to NCCs. Appropriate level of
membership on NCCs.
Regular reporting as required by PCU fully aware of reporting
No risk, reporting
GEF, IAs and Steering Committee requirements (assisted and
requirements appear well
advised effectively by IA)
understood by PCU
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation
89

---

90
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Mid Term Evaluation

---

---

The Resident Representative
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Private Bag
Suva
FIJI
Email: registry.fj@undp.org
UNDP Project code PIMS 2992
Date June 15 2008

---