PLANNING MEETING FOR THE DESIGN OF THE SECOND PHASE OF THE PACIFIC
ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
SUMMARY RECORD OF DISCUSSION
Honiara, Solomon Islands
17-18 March 2010
Opening
1.
The planning meeting for the design of the second phase of the Pacific Islands Oceanic
Fisheries Management Project (OFMP II) was opened by the meeting facilitator, Ms Barbara
Hanchard, Project Coordinator of the Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFMP) based at the
Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). The meeting Facilitator welcomed participants and stressed the need
for a full and frank discussion of all aspects of the implementation of OFMP II. It was noted that due
caused by
to the disruption of flights
cyclones Tomas and Ului, representatives from United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), New York and Fiji and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Pacific
Programme were unable to be in Honiara for the meeting. A list of participants is appended as
Attachment A.
Introduction
2.
The meeting Facilitator introduced the purpose of the meeting and outlined the proposed work
schedule. The meeting agreed to the draft work schedule appended as Attachment B.
Introduction to GEF (Global Environment Facility)
3. Mr Joe Stanley, GEF Support Adviser, provided an overview of GEF, outlining th
y aspects of
e ke
funding and the process by which GEF projects are approved. GEF funding cy
s are r
cle
eplenished
every four years, with the current GEF4 scheduled to end in June 2010. GEF5 is likely to be funded
under one of three scenarios, at USD4.5 billion, 5.50 billion or 6.5 billion with USD450 million
allocated to the International Waters focal area. The GEF Council will approve the replenishment for
GEF5 in June and the commencement of the work programme. The GEF Support Adviser pointed out
that with GEF, everything is negotiable and countries can identify key priorities for GEF support.
4. UNDP is one of the three original GEF project implementing agencies and was chosen for the first
phase of the OFMP because of its existing and established links in the Pacific Region. Currently there
are 10 GEF implementing agencies competing for project implementation in the region, particularly
the World Bank, which encourages co-financing, a major requirement for GEF-funded projects.
5. GEF recognises national political and operational focal points in each country and expects that they
are engaged and familiar with GEF activities, even those executed through regional organisations
rationalising that countries are members of those organisation and must have ownership of the project,
making the roles of the focal points more critical. Project design is important and there are
opportunities following periodic reviews, to redesign the project including with respect to the roll-over
of funding.

1



GEF Co-Financing
6. The GEF Support Adviser further advised that GEF projects must contribute to global
environmental benefits and support of this function, GEF financing is intended to build from a
baseline, defined as a "business as usual" scenario, i.e. what the region would be doing
anyway, without GEF financing. It is not intended that projects form or support the
establishment of a baseline. GEF's funding mechanism, therefore, is set up as a co-financer
with its main objective being to provide seed money for projects that would then encourage
co-financing from other sources. Incremental costs are those contributions made by the
project beneficiaries to leverage co-financing. On average, the global ratio of GEF financing
to co-financing is 1:4. In the Pacific it is about 1:1. In the Project Identification Form (PIF)
for phase II, the co-financing ratio is currently at 1:6.
GEF5 International Waters Strategy
7. The Lead Expert, Mr Les Clark, presented an overview of the GEF5 International Waters
Strategy. The focal area is the promotion of collective management for trans-boundary water
systems and subsequent implementation of the full range of policy, legal and institutional
reforms and investments that contribute to sustainable use and maintenance of ecosystem
services. The work of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and
consequent obligations on its member countries falls into the category of a trans-boundary
water system. Two key objectives under the International Waters Strategy that elate to the
r

OFMP are to:
· Catalytize multi-state cooperation to rebuild marine fisheries
rge
and la
marine
ecosystems (LMEs) and their coasts while ta
ccount of
king a
climatic variability and
change;
· Promote effective management of marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ)
directed at preventing depl
r
etion of fishe ies and biodiversity.
Project support under OFMP II, for the second objective will depend on the level of GEF5
replenishment and may be included should GEF5
on.
global funding levels reach USD5.5 billi

UNDP as a GEF Implementing Agency
8. The meeting Facilitator made a presentation on the comparative advantages of UNDP as an
Implementing Agency. These included:
· Strong presence in the region with focal points in all Pacific countries;
·
tifies UNDP a
GEF iden
s the best vehicle for design and delivery of GEF capacity
and technical as
building
sistance projects;
· Good fit between UNDP, FFA and SPC;
· Good record of effective delivery ­ the Mid-Term Review (MTR) noted a high
degree of personal interest and commitment by UNDP to OFMP.
Update on WCPFC
9. The Lead Expert provided an update of the successful implementation of the Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) including that it has a membership of 25
coastal and distant water fishing States, an approved 2010 budget of US$3.4m and a
functioning structure (Scientific Committee, Technical and Compliance Committee,
Commission Sessions and Working Groups). The Commission currently has a large number
of relatively comprehensive CMMs in place. Challenges include high seas rights,
SIDS/DWFN conflicts, revenue needs, budget limits and control, and species conservation
trade-offs. Many initiatives are groundbreaking in global fisheries management, including
with respect to the high seas boarding and inspection regime, the regional observer 2
programme and the vessel monitoring system.



OFMP II ­ Mid-Term Review/ Regional Steering Committee (RSC) Outcome
10. The meeting Facilitator provided background information on the establishment of OFMP
and the outcome of the MTR. The MTR concluded that the project was well designed and
managed with significant achievements in scientific monitoring and assessme as w
nt
ell as
enabling many countries to meet their WCPFC obligations. Although increased capacity of
Pacific SIDS to meet their WCPFC obligations was noted as a significant achievement, there
was also a weakness identified in a lack of focus on the smaller island countries who are still
struggling to meet their WCPFC obligations and specific national needs. The MTR and RSC
recommendations included the need for strengthening of long term capacity building
activities, as well as a greater focus on building the scientific capabilities of Pacific SIDS.
Project Identification Form Status
12. The Meeting Facilitator outlined the status of the PIF, which was developed on the basis
of the recommendations of the MTR and member country requirements. The focus of the PIF
is on national im
C con
plementation of WCPF
servation and management measures (CMMs),
the Knowledge Management Strategy and geared to the requirements of smaller island
countries. The key elements are:
· Strengthening legal and policy frameworks and performance;
· Near real time info for fisheries ecosystem management;
· Improving understanding of LME;
· Protecting biodiversity;
· Deterring IUU fishing;
· Knowledge management and civil society partnerships; and
· Project management.
13. It is expected that PIF submissions could potentially be submitted to UNDP/GEF by
June/July this year for GEF CEO approval to forward to the November GEF Council meeting
for inclusion into the work programme.
14. Details of OFMP II and the outline of the PIF are as follows:
PIF Title: Implementation of the Regional & Global Oceanic Fisheries Conventions in the
Pacific Islands (OFMP II)
Pacific SIDS (including Tokelau)
· 5 years
· USD13.7m
· Implementing Agency: UNDP
· Executing Agencies: FFA, SPC (WWF, IUCN etc)
Major Objectives:
· Achieve global environmental benefits and strengthen contribution of oceanic
fisheries to sustainable development of Pacific SIDS, through enhanced collective
conservation and management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery resources;
· Implement global and regional fishery conservation and management instruments,
particularly the implementation of practical stress reduction (reduced fishing
mortality) measures adopted by the WCPFC
Components of the PIF:
3



· Component 1 - Governance: Strengthening of legal and policy frameworks and
performance, including deterring IUU fishing;
· Component 2 - Science: Improve collection and processing of scientific data,
including incorporation of the Ecosystem Approach to
e
Fisheries Managem nt, toward
more effective monitoring of compliance with conservation and a
m nagement
measures; improve understanding of climate change and its impact on oceanic
fisheries;
· Component 3 - Knowledge Management: Increase understanding and awareness
across broad sectors of society through greater stake
ncluding in
holder participation, i
WCPFC;
· Component 4 - Project management: Monitoring and evaluation.
15. The methodology for co-financing estimates for each component covering WCPFC, FFA,
SPC, NGOs and Pacific SIDS contributions was discussed and the estimate of 1:6 was
calculated. The method for OFMP II will be to identify three or four key areas of co-financing
for the smaller member countries. This will allow a streamlined approach to the reporting
process.
Legal and Policy Issues & Deterring IUU fishing (Component 1)
16. Mr Maruia Kamatie of the FFA gave a presentation on elements of Component 1. Mr.
Kamatie pointed out that the WCPF Commission is fully functional and the recently-adopted
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) relating to demersal
species, will soon be operational. The main focus for FFA is now on implementation and
coordination of WCPFC CMMs and national requirements with particular focus on the
requirements of smaller island nations.
17. Legal aspects were covered by Dr. Manu Tupou-Roosen, FFA Legal Counsel. Dr. Tupou-
Roosen noted an increased focus on national level work and especially
s of s
the need
maller
island members including with respect to issues relating to WCPFC, building capacity and
assisting with strengthening legal frameworks.
18. Mr Andrea Volentras, FFA Director of Operations, gave background inform
e
ation on th
es in the area of Monitoring,
proposed activiti
Control and Surveillance (MCS). Work will
focus on in-zone ma
ith the
tters in line w
Regional MCS Strategy including continued
observer training and the development of observer training capacity
, high seas
in-country

boarding and inspection training, strengthening national capacity to deal with high seas IUU
fishing activity, and attachments to FFA.
19. The Lead Expert advised that proposed activities for inclus
II such
ion in OFMP
as
workshops, attachments and training, need to be formulated into
dget ove
an aggregated bu
r
the next few weeks.
Provision of Information (Component 2)
20. Mr Don Bromhead, SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme, presented a summary of proposed
P
SPC activities under OFM II relating to scientific information provided by Pacific SIDS that
contribute to the development of WCPFC CMMs. Key focus areas will be: capacity
development in fishery and ecosystem monito
g at the
rin
national level, improved data
management systems, and improved quality and credibility of scientific advice for
management.
21. Regarding proposed SPC activities related to improving understanding of impacts from
climate change on ocean fisheries in the warm pool large marine ecosystems, the Lead Expert
suggested that in order to streamline the project, the climate change element should be
incorporated into Component 2.
4




Knowledge Management & Civil Society (Component 3)
22. The meeting Facilitator introduced Component 3, Knowledge Management & Civil
Society. OFMP II's objective under this component is to increase understanding and
awareness and participation in the project itself, in addition to raising awareness about
WCPFC activities. OFMP's current activities include information dissemination through
websites, publications, promotional material, IWLEARN networks, and other fora. Current
stakeholder awareness activities involve coordination with ENGOs and INGOs, and this has
proved relatively successful. Under OFMP II, there will be greater emphasis

on knowledge
management.
Project Management and Monitoring & Evaluation (Component 4)
23. In response to the MTR for OFMP I which concluded that the Project Management
Component was under-resourced, it is proposed that this component under OFMP II will be
strengthened to include an additional finance and administration post at FFA as well as co-
funding of the information officer at FFA. In addition the SPC component will be boosted
with the addition of an administration officer. These enhancements will allow for improved
Knowledge Management, more streamlined reporting and release the Coordinator to focus
more fully overall proje
on
ct coordination.
Project Design Issues
24. The Lead Expert lead the discussion on design issues associated with developing the PIF.
These included:
· Co-financing: determines the balance between high and low incremental costs. Co-
financing of 3:1 is already covered through regional fisheries bodies (Commission,
FFA, SPC. At a minimum, regional experts will need to collect information from
countries on what is already committed (eg. participation at meetings). The regional
experts will take template endorsement letters for explanation to country GEF focal
points. A background note on GEF and OFMP II, along with a project timeline will
be sent in advance of the country missions and discussed with fisheries officials and
focal points in country.
· National Coordination: NCC failure: Inter-ministerial, cross-sectoral coordination,
including stakeholder involvement on international fisheries management. Is import
to GEF. Mechinism options include tapping into ex
s
isting consultative mechanism
such as boards of authorities or consultative committees (eg Tuna CC). National
request need to be referred to a group of stakeholders by the national coordinator
where consultative mechanisms do not exist. The country mission exercise should
identify the appropriate mechanism in each member country. In-country GEF funded
activities need to be identified by the PCU so that countries are aware and can inform
and involve stakeholders as appropriate.
· Scientific Training: MTR identified a weakness in the regional scientific and
environmental capacity and indicated the need for long term tertiary training. There is
currently $100,000 included in the project to develop a strategy to set up an
appropriate tertiary program.
· PCU Strengthening: additional support staff to enhance the effectiveness of the PCU
is included in the project in line as per the recommendation by the MTR to strengthen
the PCU.
· Knowledge Management: enhanced capacity included through addition of a part-
funded communications specialist. Public domain documentation/technical reports
should be made available through a PCU database in coordination with agencies such
as FFA and SPC.
5



· Pacific Plan Links/Forum Secretariat: greater links to Pacific Plan is required and
broader requirement for integration with other CROP agency activities. For OFMP II
the Project Coordinator should provide a report to the Marine Sector Working Group
to ensure greater awareness among and coordination with related activities of other
CROP agencies with regional marine responsibilities. Regional experts will need to
find out who the Forum Smaller Islands States national focal point is and the PCU
should make contact with the Forum Secretariat SIS Adviser.
· Gender/human rights: UNDP advises that gender and human rights concerns are
represented through all UNDP policies and projects. The project needs to have a clear
policy/strategy on equality between male and female eg. Human resources
development. Each activity notice should require gender equity and reports of
workshops etc should include gender disaggregation. There should in included a
statement in ProDoc in line with GEF, UNDP, FFA and SPC gender policies and
gender issues should be dealt with in the baseline for the ProDoc.
eeds to be a
There n

study to inform the project on the matter. Human rights: communal values versus
individual rights an issue in the Pacific. Community participation in policy making
can be characterized as "human rights" in the ProDoc.
· Industry Participation: MTR questioned why there wasn't more industry participation
in the project. Industry participation at Commission meetings can be counted as co-
financing and this would make them a stakeholder in the project and their
contribution would be accounted for. GEF's philosophy is to incorporate industry to
contribute to co-financing.
· Stakeholder Analysis: Stakeholders were identified and classified during OFMP I
country missions and reports were produced on stakeholders. Are stakeholder
analyses required in the ProDoc? ­ Need to seek clarification from UNDP/GEF on
whether a stakeholder report is required.
· Cash Cow:. At the donor level, there is an increasing feeling that the types of
activities undertaken in OFMP should not be funded on a long term basis and should
be funded by those who benefit directly from the activities, e.g. fishing industry.
Building capacity is OK, but cost recovery is an issue. The view is that funding for
these activities should be built into countries' core budgets. OFMP II focus is on
smaller island countries that don't get the same benefits from oceanic fisheries as
larger island countries, therefore warranting a need for continued support.
· IUCN: Involvement is not budgeted for in OFMP II presently. IUCN has expressed
interest in SPRFMO and Marine Ocean Policy, with a special interest in Marine
Protected Areas and seamounts and any initiative they intend to pursue should add
value (something useful that FFA and SPC can't do).
· Climate Change: There are some key policy and legal aspects that need to be
addressed, e.g. what happens to EEZs when islands simply cease to exist or become
uninhabitable due to sea level rise? The PIF will include information on scientific and
legal aspects of climate change in the context of fisheries, although it is noted that
some of this is only abstract at the moment.
· Ecosystem Services: GEF introduced a change in wording in their strategic objective
from "maintaining biodiversity" to "maintenance of ecosystem services". This
changes the approach from one of conservation for science's sake to one of
conservation for people's sake. It is still unclear as to what ecosystem services means
and the definition of this needs to be clarified with the GEF Secretariat.
· Smaller Island States Needs: OFMP II will fund one FMA/ Smaller Island States
position to be based at FFA. Legal element will be emphasising assistance to Smaller
6
Island States in order to meet their obligations under the WCPFC. From a GEF



e, funds for Inte
perspectiv
rnational Waters projects come out of a regional allocation
and in theory, all members should get an equal share. However, the WCPF
Convention makes explicit mention of the special needs of smaller island States and
the Forum Secretariat has a dedicated Smaller Island States Unit, justifyi
MP II
ng OF
focus on SIS.
· Coordination with other GEF funded projects: A number of other regional projects
e, WCPFC
can add benefit to OFMP II, such as PIPA, Coral Triangle Initiativ
Indonesia-Philippines Data Collection Pr
the
oject, Micronesia Challenge and
Phoenix
Islands MPA.
National Missions
25. The Lead Expert outlined the aims of the country missions and the information collection
requirements. These include the need to assess implications of WCPFC to oceanic fisheries
management in Pacific SIDS, an analysis of incremental actions being undertaken to meet
WCPFC obligations, and preparing a summary of the extent of Pacific SIDS implementation
of WCPFC conservation and management measures and decisions.
Approach and Timing
26. The meeting Facilitator outlined the current timeline for development
e PIF and
of th
Project Document and advised that this timeline would need to be confirmed wi UNDP and
th
GEF. An essential requirement for the completion of the PIF are endorsement letters from
FFA member countries and the template for the letter needs to be obtained.
Country Missions will take place from March to May 2010. This will be followed by a 1 day
Design Workshop directly before the May 10-14 FFC in Honiara. The PIF will then be
formally presented to FFA member countries for their endorsement at the annual FFC
meeting. The PIF together with member country letters of endorsement should be submitted
to UNDP for technical review in July 2010 or as soon as possible, with the view of
submission to the GEF Secretariat September 2010 for Council review in November 2010.
The timing of the STAP review of the project on a full project document is unclear. When
completed, the Project Document can be submitted to the GEF CEO for final
e
endorsem nt
and posting on th web for any final comments from Council members. The issue of whether
or not there needs to be endorsement by member countries of the Project Document also
requires clarification. Ideally, the OFMP II should come on line before the March 2001
conclusion of OFMP I. The projected timeline is appended as Attachment C.
Close of the Meeting
27.
The meeting Facilitator thanked all participants for their contribution to a successful
meeting.
7



Attachment A
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Mr Les Clark
Lead Expert

Ms Barbara Hanchard
Project Coordinator

Mr Joe Stanley
GEF Support Advisor
Pacific Regional Environment Program

Ms Lynelle Popot
United Nations Development Programme
Solomon Islands Regional Sub-Office

Mr Don Bromhead
Oceanic Fisheries Programme
Secretariat of the Pacific Community

Dr Manu Tupou-Roosen
Legal Counsel
Forum Fisheries Agency

Mr Andrea Volentras
Director of Fisheries Operations
Forum Fisheries Agency

a
Mr Maruia Kam tie
Fisheries Managem nt Off
e
icer
Forum Fisheries Agency

de
Ms Anouk Ri
Information Officer
Forum Fisheries Agency

Mr Colin Brown
Regional Expert

Ms Rhea Moss
Regional Expert


2




Attachment B


Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project II - Global Environment
Facility (GEF)/United Nation
nt Programme (UNDP)
s Developme
Project Design Planning Meeting

DA
AGEN

17 ­ 18 March
FFA HQ Honiara, Solomon Islands

Purpose

1. To develop a shared vision among the key participants of the process for
designing the OFMP II project.
2. To agree a detailed work plan for design activities with identifi

cation of
responsibilities.
3. To prepare in particular a template for the reports of the national missions

Wednesday 17 March
Opening/ Introductions/Purpose



0900
FFA


Introduction to the GEF/International Waters (global
GEF Pacific
0915
environmental benefits/incremental costs/co-financing IW
Advisor
Strategies etc) and update on GEF5

1000
Morning Tea Break

1015
UNDP as a GEF Implementing Agency


UNDP
OFMP II - Mid Term Review/Regional Steering Committee
1030
PCU
Outcome
1000
WCPFC Update





Clark
1130
Project Identification Form (PIF) Status


PCU
1215
Lunch (to be provided)

OFMP
II
Outline
1315
Clark


SAP II Project Document Outline



1400
Clark


1430
Project Components


.Provision of Info & Climate Change



SPC
1500
Afternoon Tea Break

1530
·Law and Policy, & Deterring IUU Fishing


FFA/PCU
3
1600
·Knowledge Management, & Civil Society


FFA/WWF



1630
·PCU, including monitoring and evaluation


PCU
Thursday 18 March
0830
Project
Design
Issues

Clark

·Co-financing


·National coordination ­ NCC failure


·Indicators


·Scientific training/MTE proposal


·PCU strengthening


·Knowledge management


·Pacific Plan links/Forum Secretariat


·Gender/human rights


·Industry participation


·Stakeholder analysis


·The cash cow


·IUCN


·Climate change - policy a
aspects
nd legal


·Ecosystem services


·"Smaller" island states needs

1000
Morning Tea Break

National
Missions

1030
Clark



Report Template


Approach & Timing

1130
Design Work Plan Review

1230
Lunch (to be provided)

Round-Up & Report: Review of Meeting Progress & Issues
1330

Arising




4

Attachment C

Timeline for submission of PIF / ProDoc & Projected OFMP Phase II



Event
Indicative dates 2010 ­ 2011/timing
Country Missions
March ­ May 2010
Design Workshop (national reports)
7 May 2010 (Honiara)
FFC Endorsement
10 ­ 14 May 2010 (Honiara)
GEF5 commencement
July 2010
GEF OFP endorsements of PIF
Before July 2010
GEF OFP endorsement of co-financing
?
PIF (with country endorsements)
July (UNDP sighted versions of the PIF
submission to UNDP (who submit to GEF without endorsements)
Sec on monthly basis)
PIF submission to GEF Sec
Advice from UNDP NY that PIF will not
be submittable until the end of summer
(September 2010) for the November
2010 GEF Council meeting
GEF CEO clears PIF to go to Council
Allow for 4 weeks before GEF Council
work programme
meeting for review by all GEF Agencies,
STAP review (PIF & STAP review
comments posted in the web
GEF Council Meeting (PIF for inclusion November 2010
in the GEF work program)
Submit full Project Document
Submission date ?
(GEF Sec review with 10 working days of
receiving draft ProDoc, the circulate to
GEF Council who have 4 weeks to
comment)


GEF CEO endorsement
?


First GEF5 work program
Early 2011


Phase I conclusion ( no-cost extension)
End March 2011


Phase II commencement
April 2011 (potentially)






5








6

Document Outline