COMPULSORY ANNEXES
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
ANNEX A
INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS................................................... 101
ANNEX B
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS............................................... 112
ANNEX C
RESPONSE TO REVIEWS................................................................ 126
A.
STAP REVIEW AND RESPONSE ................................................................... 126
B1.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE GEF SECRETARIAT ........................ 135
B2.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM WORLD BANK ...................................... 136
ANNEX D
ENDORSEMENTS FROM GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINTS AND
OTHER CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................... 138
ANNEX E
SUMMARY OF THE TERMINAL EVALUATION REPORT OF THE OFM
COMPONENT OF THE IW SAP PROJECT......................................... 158
100
ANNEX A
INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS
Broad Development Goal
This project aims to address the concerns and issues related to the extensive oceanic transboundary fisheries for
pelagic species associated with the Pacific Islands region in relation to the economic importance of this fishery at
the global level, the open access to this fishery by distant water fishing nations in the high seas, the potential for
over-fishing and mismanagement, and the concomitant threats and impacts to the biodiversity and general
welfare of the associated large marine ecosystem (the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool). Most of the marine
area concerned falls within national jurisdiction of 15 Pacific SIDS.
Pacific SIDS suffer from specific weaknesses that influence their quality of life, level of development, and
potential for sustainable economic growth and resource management. These weaknesses, which are common to
many islands, include political and economic instability, weaknesses in governance and low levels of private
sector development, slow progress in economic reforms, inadequate technology and economic infrastructure, and
increasing levels of unemployment, socio-economic hardships and vulnerability to poverty. The small size,
scattered nature, remoteness from major centres of production and consumption, and ecological and economic
vulnerability are constant cause for concern to their leaders and senior policy makers.
It is noteworthy that the small land areas of many of the Pacific Islands are contrasted by their extremely large
sea areas. For example, Kiribati has a sea area which is over 5,000 times its land area. On average, the ratio of sea
area to land area of the Pacific SIDSs is 1:54. Within these vast sea areas the Islands have access to resources of
immense value. However, they seriously lack the capacity or skills to harvest these resources, and face many
challenges in ensuring that harvesting by others in their waters and in adjacent high seas is effectively monitored
and controlled.
The 15 island countries participating in this project have demonstrated a significant degree of cooperation and
mutual concern regarding issues such as trade, economy, development and environment. In 2001 the Pacific
Island Countries signed the Pacific Island Trade Agreement and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic
Relations. Furthermore, in various high-level regional policy meetings over the past few years, Ministers of the
Pacific Islands have identified the strong inter-relationship between global and regional economic trends and the
economic performance of Pacific Island countries; noted the need to strenuously address internal economic
weaknesses in Pacific Island countries so as to better place them to both withstand international economic
downturns and to take advantage of global growth; and now recognize the importance and need for support of the
broader economic reforms being pursued in the island countries of the Pacific region.
At the 35th Pacific Islands Forum meeting, Pacific Island leaders also noted the progress in implementing the
Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy, the development of the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Forum - Integrated
Strategic Action Framework, and the inclusion of the Policy and the Framework for consideration in the Pacific
Plan. Leaders also noted that the Policy and Framework will be submitted to the ten year review of the Barbados
Programme of Action for Small Island Developing States as a major regional initiative for funding and the
development of partnerships.
Most importantly, at the same policy level the Pacific Islands leaders are now accepting that sustainable
development requires integrated economic, environmental and social policies and practices. They have formally
noted that declining environmental conditions can adversely affect economic performance and living standards.
Furthermore, they have adopted the understanding that mainstreaming of environmental issues into physical and
economic planning and budgeting processes allows the economic impact of these concerns to be realised and
addressed (Text from the Forum Economic Action Plan as discussed and agreed at the Pacific Forum Economic
Minister's Meeting in Port Vila, Vanuatu, July, 2002).
The plans for sustainable development of the Pacific SIDS are heavily focused on gains from agriculture, tourism
and fisheries. Marine related recreational activities are an important component of planning for tourism growth.
Coastal fisheries have been important for food security and for income generation, but the commercialisation of
these resources has created pressure from systematic over-exploitation. Offshore commercial fisheries are also of
critical importance to these countries, both with regard to the overall quantity of fish harvested from the Pacific
SIDS national waters and adjacent high seas areas, and in respect of the potential income from the licensing and
control of these fisheries. Catches of transboundary oceanic fish in the waters of the Pacific SIDS are estimated
at around $840 million in ex-vessel prices, and much higher than this after processing. There is potential to
increase the benefits that Pacific SIDS receive from these resources through careful expansion of catches of some
species, through increased participation by Pacific Islanders in these fisheries, and through more complete
101
integration of oceanic fishing operations into the domestic economies of Pacific Island countries. But there are
also risks because as major fisheries elsewhere reach their limits, pressure will continue to increase to exploit the
oceanic fish stocks of the Pacific Islands region at unsustainable levels and in unsustainable ways, including ways
that threaten to damage other elements of regional marine ecosystems.
As a recent ADB report noted:1
"...it is inevitable that the presently under-exploited tuna resources of the region will assume an
importance much greater than at present. Quite simply, in most countries, there are few, if any,
alternatives to tuna.
Population pressure and the fully exploited nature of inshore/coastal fisheries indicate that the food
security of the region will depend heavily on its tuna resources.
The poorest Pacific island countries have considerable tuna resources which could be developed using
technology available today. This "capital for development" will undoubtedly become more important in
the future. Considering the fully-exploited nature of most of the world's fishery resources, this "tuna
capital" will become increasingly more valuable in the future, highlighting the need for effective
conservation and management of the region's tuna."
In this situation, the economic importance of the oceanic fisheries of the region has been an important factor in
the attachment of a high priority by Pacific Island Countries to the protection of International Waters, because as
the SAP put it:
"The success of national development planning for our SIDS is wholly dependent on the
continued health of our International Waters."
Therefore, the broad development goal of the project is:
to assist the Pacific Island States to improve the contribution to their sustainable development from
improved management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources, and from the conservation of
oceanic marine biodiversity generally.
Global Environmental Goals
Concerns related to the International Waters of the Pacific Islands region are not only transboundary in
the sense that they are shared by, and common to Pacific Island Countries, but they are also, because of
the scale and importance of the waters, global concerns. The Pacific Islands region, and the WTP LME
which is its defining feature, are vast - covering around 40 million sq. km. These waters support the
most important oceanic fisheries in the world for tuna and related species, but this vast and complex marine
system also contains an enormous array of diversity. This rich biodiversity includes the most extensive and
biologically diverse reefs in the world, the deepest ocean trenches, deep-sea minerals, the world's largest tuna
fishery, as well as an array of globally threatened species such as sea turtles and dugongs. The many thousands of
islands are, with the exception of some larger Melanesian Islands, entirely coastal in nature, often with limited
freshwater resources, and surrounded by a rich variety of ecosystems including mangroves, sea grass beds,
estuarine lagoons and coral reefs.
As Pacific Island Countries expressed it in the SAP:
"We see ourselves as the custodians of one-sixth of the earth's surface, of which less than 2% is land,
and which harbors unique, diverse and fragile forms of life on that land and in its waters. The Pacific
Island region covered by this SAP is arguably the largest regional water system on earth. This system is
internationally shared not only by us, the participants in this SAP, but also by fourteen other states and
territories in the Pacific region. This water system is also vital to the continued health of the planet as a
whole. It is likely to be at risk from our priority concerns; viewed in terms of their effect on International
Waters as a system, these concerns are interdependent and mutually exacerbating nationally, regionally,
and so, inexorably, globally".
On this basis, Pacific SIDS have made substantial commitments over a ten year period, working with
the GEF, to prepare an IW SAP, design and implement the IW SAP Project and now prepare the Pacific
OFM Project in a way described in the opening section of the SAP as an effort to::
1 Tuna Importance in the Pacific Islands, ADB, October 2000
102
"integrate our national and regional sustainable development priorities with shared global
environmental concerns for protecting International Waters."
The analysis of the SAP identified the ultimate root cause of the threats to International Waters in the Pacific
Islands region as deficiencies in management. The deficiencies were seen as fitting into two groups: - a lack of
understanding and weaknesses in governance. These deficiencies fit the situation with respect to oceanic
fisheries and the regional oceanic marine ecosystems in exactly the same way as they apply to management of
activities in coastal and nearshore areas.
Further analysis of the concerns, threats and root causes related to oceanic fisheries and the WTP LME
undertaken for the design of the Pacific OFM Project identified the following areas relating to transboundary
oceanic fisheries as national, regional and global concerns as described in the section of the Project Document on
Global Significance:
· Impacts on Target Transboundary Oceanic Fish Stocks
· Impacts on Non-Target Fish Stocks
· Impacts on Other Species of Interest (especially turtles, seabirds, marine mammals and sharks)
· Impacts of Fishing around Seamounts
· Impacts on Food-webs
· Impacts on Biodiversity
The same analysis characterised the two groups of deficiencies in management identified by the SAP as they
relate to oceanic fisheries as follows:
a) Lack of understanding can be traced to weaknesses in the quality and range of information available on
oceanic fish stocks and fishing and on the WTP LME; and to a lack of awareness of the kinds of measures that
need to be adopted at national and regional levels to ensure sustainability. The pelagic fishery itself is a complex
area to understand, and linkages between predator-prey species, water quality, other oceanographic parameters,
cyclic physico-chemical fluctuations, climate change, etc. are critical but remain poorly understood.
b) Weaknesses in governance can be seen at both national and regional levels, but include in particular the lack
of legally binding regional institutional arrangements applying to all parties involved in fishing in the region,
especially in the high seas.
Taken together, these deficiencies mean that, despite the remarkable global biological significance of this region,
the effect that any deterioration in ecosystem function and water quality would have on this biodiversity and
human welfare, and the extent to which the present and future well-being and economic development of the
region is dependent on the welfare of this LME and its marine resources, its management and conservation have
been significantly inadequate.
The primary response by the 15 participating Pacific SIDS to the pattern of concerns, threats and
management deficiencies noted above has been their substantial commitment to participation in the
process of creating new global and regional arrangements for the conservation and management of fish
stocks which occur in the high seas and for the protection of the oceanic marine environment from large
scale fishing. At the global level, they played a full role in the negotiation of the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement, providing 7 of the 30 ratifications which brought the Agreement into force in 2001. Then
they led the development of the WCPF Convention which is the first major regional application of the
provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement in ways described more fully in the Project document, providing 11
of the 13 ratifications (with Australia and New Zealand) which brought the Convention into force on 19 June
2004.
The central element of the Convention is the establishment of the WCPF Commission, empowered to adopt
conservation and management measures that apply throughout the range of the oceanic fish stocks of the region,
andt are legally binding on Members of the Commission and any others involved in fishing. In this form, the
Convention and the Commission fill the gap in regional institutional arrangements that has long been identified as
the key weakness in arrangements for the management of regional fisheries and for controlling the impact of
oceanic fisheries on the marine environment and provide real hope for the long-term management and
sustainability of this important fishery area and its associated marine ecosystems.
GEF has already been actively engaged in assisting the Pacific SIDS to participate in the development process for
this important Convention through its International Waters project entitled `Implementation of the Strategic
103
Action Programme of the Pacific Islands'. The current project has derived directly from this process and the
identified need to implement the requirements of the Convention and support and assist the Pacific SIDS in
meeting these requirements, and in taking an active and effective role in the implementation of the Convention
and the establishment and early stages of operation of its Commission.
Pacific Island leaders have warmly welcomed the coming into force of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention (statement from the 35th Pacific Islands Forum meeting) and the first seating of the WCPF
Commission in December 2004 in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.
These developments at regional level are fully consistent with the relevant aspects of global initiatives
related to sustainable development, and especially to elements related to SIDS. The recommendations
coming out of WSSD made several references to the status and special needs of SIDS. In particular, the
Summit adopted the following resolutions, which are directly pertinent to the GEF assistance and
support to this current project:
· Implement further sustainable fisheries management and improve financial returns from fisheries by
supporting and strengthening relevant regional fisheries management organizations, as appropriate, such as
the recently established Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism and such agreements as the Convention
on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean;
· Assist small island developing States, including through the elaboration of specific initiatives, in delimiting
and managing in a sustainable manner their coastal areas and exclusive economic zones and the continental
shelf, including, where appropriate, the continental shelf areas beyond 200 miles from coastal baselines, as
well as relevant regional management initiatives within the context of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea and the regional seas programmes of the United Nations Environment Programme.
The latest GEF Business Plan (2003) recognises the concerns and requirements highlighted during WSSD. GEF
notes that the International Waters focal area will place greater emphasis on implementation while expanding
coverage of GEF assistance to other transboundary water bodies. In particular certain strategic priorities represent
an evolution of the international waters programme. These include (a) Catalyze Financial Resource Mobilization
- to implement stress reduction measures and policy/legal/institutional reforms agreed through TDA-SAP or
equivalent processes; (b) Expand Global Coverage to Other Transboundary Waterbodies - to undertake
crosscutting and foundational capacity building needed to facilitate initial multicountry collaboration and
complement this with targeted learning; (c) Undertake Innovative Demonstrations to reduce contaminants and
address water scarcity issues. These GEF policies are very relevant in the development of the current project
objectives and outputs.
The present Project will address all of the above strategic priorities through:
· Assisting the countries to develop and recommend stress reduction measures in relation to regional
pelagic fisheries and the LME
· Mobilising resources to undertake policy, legal and institutional reforms
· Undertaking capacity building within national foundation agencies responsible for fisheries and
ecosystems (in an integrated and cross-cutting manner)
· Facilitating multinational collaboration within the context of fisheries and the LME
· Developing targeted learning, capture of best practices and transfer of lessons
· The overall project itself will provide an innovative demonstration of GEF IW assistance and support to
sustainable global fisheries management
Therefore the global environmental goal of the Project is
to achieve global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of
transboundary oceanic fishery resources in the Pacific Islands region and the protection of the
biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem.
104
Baseline
The baseline scenario can be summarised as follows. Without the WCPF Convention and Commission and
associated GEF support, Pacific SIDS seek to manage the oceanic fish stocks of the region and to protect the
biodiversity of the WTP LME from impacts from fishing essentially independently through improving national
management regimes. The national efforts are supplemented by informal cooperative arrangements among
Pacific SIDS, and with less well developed arrangements with other states involved on the region's oceanic
fisheries. However, the success of these efforts is limited by constraints in human and institutional capacities that
characterise small island states; by a lack of funding; by a lack of political and public will to take hard decisions
on limiting fishing; by inconsistencies between national management frameworks; and most centrally by a lack of
formal institutional arrangements which leaves fishing in the high seas essentially unregulated in a way that
allows IUU fishing to continue and undermines national efforts to manage and conserve. The management
frameworks and efforts are inadequate to cope with the increasing pressure from markets to expand catches of
transboundary oceanic species and key stocks become depleted. Controls on the use of destructive fishing
methods and practises are weak, and there are increasing and serious impacts from fishing on other species,
including turtles, seabirds, marine mammals and sharks. These outcomes significantly reduce the prospects for
sustainable development in most Pacific SIDS and contribute to increased vulnerability to poverty.
In the baseline situation, Pacific SIDS rely heavily on established regional cooperative arrangements, centred on
the Pacific Islands Forum with its Secretariat in Fiji, and its Forum Fisheries Agency based in the Solomon
Islands; the Secretariat of the Pacific Community based in New Caledonia, with its Oceanic Fisheries
Programme; and the Pacific Regional Environment Programme based in Samoa. The marine activities of these
and other relevant regional organisations are coordinated through the Marine Sector Working Group of the
Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific. The existence of these collaborative arrangements in fisheries
and marine environmental management is a response by Pacific SIDS to the relatively huge size of their marine
jurisdiction coupled with the importance and value of the associated marine resources and the broader marine
environment. They are part of a broader pattern of multisectoral cooperation which the Pacific SIDS have
developed as part of an instinctive strategy for economic survival in the face of their common and shared
problems, constraints and opportunities. The roles of the organisations noted above that are relevant to the
Pacific OFM Project include the following.
The Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) is an intergovernmental agency with membership from the 15 Pacific SIDS
along with Australia and New Zealand. The mandate for this agency has evolved from originally assisting in the
control of foreign vessels in the region, then to placing a greater emphasis on assisting member countries to
develop fishing industries, and now to a more current emphasis on conservation and management of fish stocks.
Financing for FFA's programmes come from donor funding, fees from foreign vessels, and membership charges
as well as contributions from member countries. Its principal programmes are currently addressing fisheries
management (preparation of plans and advice on regional issues); monitoring, control and surveillance (vessel
registry, monitoring and compliance); and assistance in negotiation of foreign access agreements, marketing and
industrial development; and legal services.
At the scientific and technical level, the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community (SPC/OFP) provides technical advice, training and research aimed at the sustainable management
of fisheries, particularly those that exploit tuna, bill-fish and related species. SPC's ocean fisheries programmes
currently address studies of the biology and behaviour of commercial pelagic fish species within the context of
their ecosystem; monitoring of species catch and fishing effort along with collection and analyses of associated
statistics; and stock assessment linked to modeling, especially population dynamics models. This work is largely
funded by a range of donors, with some funding from the SPC core budget financed by contributions of
Members.
The Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) aims to promote cooperation and provide assistance
in order to protect and improve the regional environment and to ensure sustainable development for present and
future generations in the Pacific Islands region. Its major technical programmes are in areas of terrestrial and
coastal and marine ecosystems: species of special interest; monitoring and reporting; climate change and
atmosphere; waste management and pollution control; and environmental planning. The SPREP Convention, and
the Action Plan that it provides for, has effectively been adopted as the programme of work for activities under
the Regional Seas Programme among Pacific SIDS. It is the GEF's key partner in the region, and is the
executing agency for the South Pacific SAP Project.
105
In the baseline scenario, legal, compliance and economic cooperation between Pacific SIDS is coordinated
through FFA, with the FFA MCS Working Group also serving to coordinate air and sea patrol activities with
cooperating partners including Australia, France, New Zealand and the United States. Fishery monitoring and
scientific analysis are undertaken by SPC/OFP. Broader issues related to the marine environment are coordinated
through SPREP. Pacific SIDS maintain capable national licensing authorities and continue to strengthen
their compliance functions through stronger sea and air patrols and the use of VMS, but national
oceanic fisheries management functions continue to remain relatively poorly resourced. There is little
analysis of scientific information nationally.
In terms of economic performance, this pattern of cooperation provides benefits to Pacific SIDS as long as
fishing pressure is not been excessive. Pacific SIDS continue to build their own harvesting capacity as their
private sectors strengthen, particularly in the accumulation of capital, skills and technology. They also continue
to earn moderate increases in the value of fees from licensing foreign vessels, as the value of catches increases
with shortening global supplies of fish from the oceans, albeit within the limits that vessels can fish for free and
without regulation in the high seas and that the capacity to enforce national laws over large maritime zones is
limited. But this baseline scenario is critically flawed by the lack of a mechanism for ensuring the conservation
of regional fish stocks throughout their entire range, in national waters and in high seas, and for protecting the
health of the ecosystem from the impacts of fishing.
In this scenario, Pacific SIDS can exercise some fisheries management functions independently within this
framework of cooperation as outlined above, but there is an absence of cooperation with other states in the
region, and with the distant water fishing nations. The effectiveness of any controls over fishing for conservation
purposes by the Pacific SIDS is restricted and curtailed by the absence of a coherent regional framework, and a
lack of control over vessels operating outside of national jurisdiction on the high seas. Some Pacific SIDS begin
to apply limits to fishing within their waters but the effectiveness of these efforts is undermined by the lack of
any coherent regional framework for those limits, and by the knowledge that vessels limited from fishing in
national waters can operate freely in the high seas without limits or other controls. There is a mixed response
regarding cooperation with fisheries management measures on the part of the large fishing states and distant
water fleet nations (including reluctance or refusal to accept voluntary measures such as data provision on high
seas fishing). Consequently, high seas fishing remains unregulated and substantially unreported. Funding for
regional science and monitoring programmes related to fisheries and ecosystem management relies on donor
programmes, which could be used to support efforts to promote sustainable development in Pacific SIDS in other
sectors, instead of this burden being transferred to those who benefit from the exploitation of the fish stocks. A
lack of reliable data on fisheries generally within the region continues to frustrate the development of effective
and justifiable management policy. There is no systematic progress in introducing ecosystem considerations into
the management of oceanic fisheries in the region. The basic processes of the WTP LME remain poorly
understood. There are no reliable estimates of the levels of mortality caused by fishing on non-target species,
including turtles, seabirds, marine mammals and sharks, as well as marlins and other large billfish and several
species of fish bycatch that are important for local food security. Without basic data on the impacts of fishing on
these species, and appropriate regional institutional arrangements, the lack of control on impacts to species and
ecosystem support functions within the LME threatens the long-term well-being of an area of globally significant
biodiversity.
In the end, in this scenario, despite a number of positive efforts and initiatives, the Pacific SIDS are not able to
meet the commitments and requirements necessary to achieve effective fisheries and marine environmental
management within their jurisdiction, and the existing pattern of cooperative arrangements among Pacific SIDS
and with others involved does not provide an adequate basis for controlling fishing in the high seas. Fishing
pressure increases to a point where key stocks are depleted, and the impacts of fishing on other elements of the
ecosystem are dangerous. Available scientific information indicates that fishing pressure is approaching this
level.
Without the proposed intervention which is detailed within this project, the baseline will continue to fail to meet
the requirements necessary to sustainably manage the fishery and to protect biodiversity in a globally important
LME.
To measure the costs of supporting the baseline, the Project Development phase undertook a detailed analysis of
the national and regional baseline figures for the project activities through a substantial consultative and national
reporting process. The baseline figure for the entire project amounts to US$73.4 million. Table A.1 provides a
breakdown of the baseline by component relative to the various countries, agencies and regional bodies. The
106
major contributions to the baseline costs are the ongoing costs of national science, monitoring, fisheries
management and compliance programmes of Pacific SIDS and their regional organisations. These are
underpinned by a valuable contribution from several partner countries in the provision and support of air and sea
surveillance services the countries involved include Australia, France, New Zealand and the United States.
TABLE A.1. ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL BASELINE COSTS BY COMPONENT
FOR THE 5 YEARS OF THE PROJECT (US$)
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
ALL
Scientific
Policy, Legislation
Information,
COMPONENTS
COUNTRIES
Assessment and
and Compliance
Coordination and
Monitoring
Participation
ORIGIN
BASELINE
BASELINE
BASELINE
BASELINE
Cook Islands
$225,498
$1,135,803
$96,000
$1,457,301
Fed. States of Micronesia
$550,000
$6,550,000
$96,000
$7,196,000
Fiji
$460,680
$2,544,629
$160,000
$3,165,309
Kiribati
$175,000
$2,135,000
$64,000
$2,374,000
Marshall Islands
$780,000
$3,135,000
$96,000
$4,011,000
Nauru
$158,153
$882,140
$64,000
$1,104,292
Niue
$10,988
$103,863
$64,000
$178,851
Palau
$75,000
$4,100,000
$64,000
$4,239,000
Papua New Guinea
$1,887,770
$4,701,698
$160,000
$6,749,468
Samoa
$880,307
$1,744,247
$160,000
$2,784,554
Solomon Islands
$335,544
$535,643
$160,000
$1,031,187
Tonga
$170,982
$2,600,838
$96,000
$2,867,820
Tokelau
$40,000
$145,000
$64,000
$249,000
Tuvalu
$69,206
$825,431
$64,000
$958,637
Vanuatu
$105,476
$1,010,816
$96,000
$1,212,292
FFA
$10,888,039
$1,921,419
$12,809,458
SPC
$3,052,780
$339,198
$3,391,978
Regional Stakeholders
$1,000,000
$200,000
$1,200,000
Fishing State Costs
$1,250,000
$1,250,000
Surveillance
$15,200,000
$15,200,000
TOTAL
$8,977,384
$60,488,145
$3,964,616
$73,430,146
GEF Project Activities The GEF Alternative
Pacific SIDS have long understood the impact of the weaknesses in their existing institutional arrangements that
characterise the baseline scenario. They set out the basis for an alternative scenario when they recognised in the
FFA Convention of 1978 that:
"...effective co-operation for the conservation and optimum utilisation of the highly migratory species of
the region will require the establishment of additional international machinery to provide for co-
operation between all coastal states in the region and all states involved in the harvesting of such
resources.
It has taken 25 years to conclude arrangements for the establishment of the additional international machinery.
The reasons for the delay included differences between Pacific SIDS and fishing states over the exercise of
national jurisdiction over highly migratory species, and weaknesses in the framework of international law
governing the management and conservation of high seas fish stocks. In addition, Pacific SIDS needed time as a
group including some of the smallest states in the world, to develop their own fisheries and marine environmental
capacities before they faced the world's largest economic powers in negotiations that would critically affect their
destiny. Now the international legal framework has been strengthened by the conclusion of the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement, Pacific SIDS have found the capacity and confidence to enter into the necessary negotiations, and the
107
Pacific SIDS and other states involved have successfully concluded the WCPF Convention establishing the
necessary "additional international machinery."
The alternative scenario is based on the effective implementation of the this Convention, including the successful
development of the WCPF Commission and improved national management and conservation programmes with
GEF support for participating Pacific SIDS. The initial 3 years will see the establishment of technical
programmes addressing science and compliance, with a view to adopting greater control over illegal and
unregulated fishing on the high seas, and developing a greater understanding of fish stocks. After the first 3 years
this should lead on to the identification of key management issues, and the options for addressing these issues.
This would include advancing knowledge on the WTP LME, and identifying methodologies for better ecosystem
monitoring. Effective support to the Commission will require active facilitation of the participation by Pacific
SIDS. Sustainability will need to be met through increased resource allocation from member governments of the
Commission, and by capturing some of the benefits accrued by the fishing nations from the exploitation of the
fisheries resource.
Under the incremental GEF alternative, policy, legislation and institutional capacity will be reviewed and
improved to strengthen both the national and regional capacity to manage fisheries in national waters and in the
high seas. Policy and decision-making related to management measures such as catch limits, licensing, etc. will
be supported through a programme of information gathering and data processing including stock assessments.
Information related to the LME per se will be gathered and analysed both as a means to better understand
fisheries management requirements within the LME, and to gain a better insight into the biological
interrelationships between species and habitats within the LME, for overall ecosystem management purposes.
This support will be targeted specifically at the national level where capacities needs are most critical, but using a
regional approach through the coordination of national activities and their relationship with the Commission and
the Convention.
To achieve the incremental GEF alternative support, the project has been designed with three Components. Each
Component further subdivides into more specific delivery of GEF objectives through a series of sub-components.
1. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING ENHANCEMENT
This Component will focus on fisheries monitoring, stock assessment and data monitoring/analysis. The
emphasis will be on building national capacities, as well as strengthening the quality, compatibility and
availability of data, to enable the Pacific Island States to respond to Convention requirements. The Convention
itself is scheduled, by 2005 to be funding the core stock assessment and data management/analysis functions for
the regional fisheries. One core activity will be the preparation of National Oceanic Fisheries Status reports for
the SIDS. Assistance will also be given to the SIDS to ensure a detailed understanding of the scientific issues as a
means to assisting them in the development of national policy positions within the Commission. The Component
will also aim to develop and promote implementation of the principles of an ecosystem-based approach to
management of resources within the LME, in line with GEF and WSSD policy. As part of this ecosystem-focused
effort, specific attention will be given to seamounts within the LME, which are expected to harbour high levels of
biodiversity, and may perform an important ecosystem function within the regional fishery. The overall objective
will be to provide reliable and credible data upon which to base the activities of component 2, which addresses
the legal and administrative measures necessary for effective management. This Component also meets the aims
of the GEF 2003 Business Plan to undertake the crosscutting and foundational capacity building needed to
facilitate multi-country collaboration, and to complement this with targeted learning.
2. LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT AND STRENGTHENING
GEF inputs under this component will concentrate on providing technical assistance and training to Pacific SIDS
to reform and amend the legal, policy and institutional base in terms of oceanic fisheries management at the
national level in response to regional and global commitments, and to establish the WCPF Commission and
support its early stages of identification, consideration and adoption of conservation and management measures.
Legal reforms will capture national commitments to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement as well as the WCPF
Convention and other fisheries and marine ecosystem related treaties and protocols. The Component will also
develop a mechanism for the provision of legal advice on the development of the Commissions' programmes and
on national legislative and policy development. Policy reform will be a key objective, and Component 2 will
provide analyses of policy implications arising from the stock assessments, data collection and ecosystem
analyses undertaken under Component 1. Furthermore, support will be provide to national governments for the
reform and realignment of their administrative procedures and institutions to create a more intersectoral and
108
participatory approach to fisheries and related ecosystem management. This component meets the 2003 GEF
Business Plan objectives to implement stress reduction measures and policy/legal/institutional reforms.
3. COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES
This Component focuses primarily on effective project management and delivery to meet the aims and time-
schedules of the GEF assistance initiative. A key emphasis will be on identifying and capturing global best
lessons and practices in fisheries management, and the transfer of lessons and practices at the regional level
between national entities. In this context, the Component will develop effective national and regional information
processing, handling and dissemination mechanisms. Monitoring will extend beyond just GEF project delivery
(procurement, expenditure, reporting, etc) to encompass development of long-term monitoring processes for the
actual Convention objectives (including stress reduction measures and environmental status indicators related to
the fisheries and the ecosystem). This component will also ensure that there is a greater degree of non-
government stakeholder involvement in the development and implementation of such management, so as to
evolve a more participatory approach in the interests of long-term support and sustainability among all
stakeholders.
The incremental sum from GEF that is required to support the aims, objectives and outcomes of these 3
components is US$10.946 million. The breakdown of this sum by Component is presented in Table A.2.
TABLE A.2:
GEF PROJECT FUNDING BY COMPONENT (US$)
COMPONENT TITLE
GEF
1. Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Component
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
Sub-total
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
Sub-total
3,883,850
3. Coordination, Participation and Information Services Component
3.1 Information Strategy
35,000
3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
280,000
3.3 Stakeholder Participation & Awareness Raising
400,000
3.4 Project Management & Coordination
1,101,000
FFA Project Support
99,120
Sub-total
1,915,120
GRAND TOTAL
10,946,220
In terms of co-funding, governments and other stakeholders are estimated to provide around US$79 million to
co-finance activities within the GEF project components, as well as other activities associated with support to the
new Convention, meeting the requirements of that Convention, the effective and sustainable evolution of the
Commission, and the development of management and conservation measures in the Western and Central Pacific
over the life of the Project.
Of this total, $39.6 million is to be confirmed by the participating governments, organisations involved in
execution of the Project and New Zealand Aid (see endorsements in Annex D). This amount includes:
· $31.7 million to be committed by Pacific SIDS and their regional organisations for the strengthening of their
national oceanic fisheries management institutions and programmes, their direct financial contributions to the
109
Commission, and their costs of participating in Commission activities. The national incremental co-funding
contributions were estimated by rigorous country-by-country assessments of national budgets and plans
during the national missions. The co-financing by the regional organisations represents levels of funding
committed by the participating countries through FFA and SPC for Convention-related activities financed by
contributions from member countries of the organisations and by donors;
· $610,000 for in-kind research cruise costs arranged by IUCN;
· $400,000 for a series of Convention-related workshops planned to be financed by New Zealand;
· $400,000 in conditional co-funding of activities with regional environmental and industry NGOs; and
· $6.5 million for the estimated cost of contributions to the Commission by Commission Members other than
the participating Pacific Island Countries confirmed on the basis of the scheme of financial contributions
adopted by the Commission at its first meeting and the budget for the early years of the Commission drawn
up by the WCPF Preparatory Conference
The balance of the $79 million of estimated co-funding includes:
· Contributions to the cost of implementation of the Convention by fishing states in the form of the costs of
improved science, monitoring and control programmes that they will be required to develop to meet their
obligations under the Convention. The estimated incremental costs to fishing states`related to activities for
the two main technical components of the Project are estimated as follows:
Component 1: Scientific Assessment & Monitoring
Costs for Additional National Research and Additional Regional Research
$8,500,000
Incremental Costs for Data Collection
$3,000,000
TOTAL COMPONENT 1: SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT & MONITORING $11,500,000
Component 2: Policy, Legislation & Compliance
Incremental Operating Costs for VMS, observers & vessel register
$18,250,000
Incremental costs of reporting to the Commission
$2,500,000
TOTAL COMPONENT 1: POLICY, LEGISLATION & COMPLIANCE $20,750,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COSTS FOR FISHING STATES
$32,250,000
These estimates are based on an earlier World Bank study2.
· Co-funding from those partner countries involved in supporting regional air and sea surveillance programmes
to extend the coverage of those programmes to monitor compliance with the new framework for regulation of
fishing in the high seas. The incremental costs are based on an estimated 300 additional hours of air patrol
annually using a mix of the P3 Orion, C-130 and Guardian aircraft used for cooperative maritime patrols with
Pacific SIDS by Australia, France, New Zealand and the United States.
It should be noted that these co-funding estimates do not include the incremental private costs that will be
incurred by boatowners in both the Pacific SIDS' and fishing states' fleets. These costs range from the costs of
the additional effort required to provide more data, secure and carry new forms of authorisation for high seas
fishing, and accept boarding and inspection on the high seas to the direct costs of installing new satellite-based
monitoring equipment and providing food and accommodation for onboard observers. These costs can not be
estimated with sufficient reliability to include them formally in the table below, but they are considerable.
Based on information from the participating states and associated regional stakeholder institutions and agencies,
and the World Bank report referred to above, estimates of co-funding by Component are presented in Table A.3
below:
2 'Working Apart or Together' The case for a Common Approach to Management of the Tuna Resources in
Exclusive Economic Zones of Pacific Island Countries: Gert van Santen & Philipp Muller, World Bank, March
2000
110
TABLE A.3: ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL INCREMENTAL COSTS BY
COMPONENT FOR THE 5 YEARS OF THE PROJECT (US$)
COMPONENT 1 COMPONENT 2 COMPONENT 3
TOTAL
COUNTRIES
Scientific
Policy,
Information,
ALL
Assessment and
Legislation and
Coordination
COMPONENTS
Monitoring
Compliance
and Participation
ORIGIN
CO-FUNDS
CO-FUNDS
CO-FUNDS
CO-FUNDS
A. Co-Funding Confirmed in Writing
Cook Islands
$343,025
$1,037,960
$48,000
$1,428,984
Fed. States of Micronesia
$300,000
$3,397,000
$48,000
$3,745,000
Fiji
$307,120
$845,976
$80,000
$1,233,096
Kiribati
$105,000
$402,500
$32,000
$539,500
Marshall Islands
$375,000
$765,000
$48,000
$1,188,000
Nauru
$70,290
$174,696
$32,000
$276,986
Niue
$85,358
$204,318
$32,000
$321,676
Palau
$150,000
$450,000
$32,000
$632,000
Papua New Guinea
$234,805
$2,147,455
$80,000
$2,462,260
Samoa
$421,560
$480,556
$80,000
$982,116
Solomon Islands
$175,956
$473,035
$80,000
$728,991
Tonga
$175,761
$282,492
$48,000
$506,253
Tokelau
$60,000
$390,000
$32,000
$482,000
Tuvalu
$320,801
$771,363
$32,000
$1,124,164
Vanuatu
$158,215
$905,339
$48,000
$1,111,554
Beneficiary In-kind
$251,000
$234,000
$39,000
$524,000
FFA
$6,401,755
$1,129,722
$7,531,477
SPC
$6,235,470
$692,830
$6,928,300
IUCN
$540,000
$35,000
$35,000
$610,000
NZAid
$400,000
$400,000
Other Com Contributions
$1,945,673
$3,242,788
$1,297,115
$6,485,576
Regional Stakeholders
$400,000
$400,000
Sub-Total
$12,255,033
$23,041,233
$4,345,667
$39,641,932
B. Other Estimated Co-Funding
Fishing State Costs
$11,500,000
$20,750,000
$32,250,000
Surveillance
$7,200,000
$7,200,000
Sub-Total
$11,500,000
$27,950,000
$0
$39,450,000
TOTAL
$23,755,033
$50,991,233
$4,345,667
$79,091,932
111
ANNEX B
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS
This Annex presents the Logical Framework Matrices for the overall project objectives and then for each Component. The outcome from the overall
objectives and then for each component heads each table. The LogFrame identifies the results which would verify the objectives of each outcome and
activity, how this will be realistically measured and ascertained as part of an effective monitoring process, and what assumptions this process makes
and the potential risks which might present barriers to the process. After each Component the assumptions and risks are reviewed and explanations
given as to how the project intends to resolve or bypass such assumptions or risks.
LOGFRAME MATRIX:
OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
AND RISKS
Global Environmental Goal
WCPF Commission has adopted
Legally binding Commission Commission Members make good
To achieve global environmental
measures to regulate fishing in the
resolutions establishing controls
faith efforts to implement the WCPF
benefits by enhanced conservation
high seas, and has formulated and
over fishing in the high seas
Convention and other relevant
and management of transboundary
assessed proposals for the including catch and effort reporting,
MEAs. PacSIDS have the capacity
oceanic fishery resources in the
conservation and management of
boarding and inspection, satellite-
to effectively participate in the
Pacific Islands region and the
fishing for globally important
based monitoring, and regulation of
Commission, and to support the
protection of the biodiversity of the
transboundary oceanic stocks transhipment adopted by the end of
development and operation of the
Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool
throughout their range. These
the Project. Commission reports
Commission in a way that fulfils the
Large Marine Ecosystem.
proposals include measures to
showing that the Commission has
WCPF Convention. PacSIDS
address the impacts on other species
by the end of year 4 i) identified the
governments and civil societies have
Broad Development Goal
in the globally important WTP
major concerns relating to the necessary awareness and
To assist the Pacific Island States to
LME. PacSIDS have undertaken
sustainability of transboundary commitment to take the hard
improve the contribution to their
reforms to implement the WCPF
oceanic fisheries; ii) considered
decisions involved in limiting
sustainable development from Convention and related multilateral
proposals for management measures
fishing in their waters.
improved management of environmental agreements (MEAs)
to address those concerns, and those
transboundary oceanic fishery and have strengthened the proposals address ecosystem-based
resources and from the conservation
management of fishing for aspects; iii) undertaken scientific
of oceanic marine biodiversity
transboundary oceanic fish in their
and technical analyses of the effects
generally
waters.
of the proposals; and iv) is
considering the adoption and
implementation of measures
throughout the range of the stocks.
Project documentation showing
systematic reform and strengthening
of oceanic fisheries management by
PacSIDS including improved
consultative processes with
stakeholders.
112
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
AND RISKS
Information and Knowledge
Improved information on the Reports from the scientific structure Commission Members can establish,
Objective
biology and ecology of target fish
of the Commission show improved
resource and manage effective data
To improve understanding of the
stocks, including their exploitation
information and assessment and research programmes. Project
transboundary oceanic fish resources
characteristics and fishery impacts,
methods are providing a credible
mechanisms contribute effectively
and related features of the Western
the fishery impacts on non-target,
basis for the formulation and
to raising awareness and improving
and Central Pacific Warm Pool
dependent and associated species
assessment of conservation and
understanding within PacSIDS
Large Marine Ecosystem.
and on the pelagic ecosystem as a
management measures, including
about oceanic fisheries
whole. Substantially improved
measures to address broader management.
understanding of Seamount ecosystem effects. Commission
ecosystems, especially their relation
reports and project documentation
to migratory pelagic fisheries.
show that the information is being
used in the Commission; is reaching
a broad range of stakeholders; and is
contributing to improved awareness
and understanding of issues
associated with transboundary
oceanic fisheries conservation and
management.
Governance Objective
The WCPF Commission established Commission reports document the The WCPF Convention is ratified
To create new regional institutional
and functioning. PacSIDS amend
development of the Commission, its
by sufficient states to make the
arrangements, and reform, realign
their domestic laws and policies and
Secretariat and its compliance and
Commission effective. PacSIDS are
and strengthen national arrangements
strengthen their national fisheries
science structures. Project able to secure financing and
for conservation and management of
institutions and programmes, documentation, including an sufficient political commitment to
transboundary oceanic fishery
especially in the areas of monitoring
independent review, shows make necessary legal, institutional
resources
and compliance, to implement the
measurable progress in PacSIDS
and policy changes.
WCPF Convention and apply the
national capacities in oceanic
principles of responsible and fisheries management.
sustainable fisheries management
more generally.
113
LOGFRAME MATRIX:
COMPONENT ONE - SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING ENHANCEMENT
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
COMPONENT OUTCOME:
Substantial, relevant and reliable
Commission Reports, especially
Commission membership prepared
Improved quality, compatibility and
information collected and shared
from the Scientific Committee show
to accept scientific findings and
availability of scientific information and
between stakeholders with respect to
that the Commission has access to,
statistical evidence in formulating
knowledge on the oceanic transboundary oceanic fish stocks
and is using, on-going reliable
what may be difficult policy
transboundary fish stocks and related
and related ecosystem aspects,
statistics and scientific
decisions on management of the
ecosystem aspects of the WTP warm
(particularly for seamounts). The
advice/evidence by end of project to
fisheries, and difficult management
pool LME, with a particular focus on
Commission using this information
formulate and amend policy on
proposals for the ecosystems.
the ecology of seamounts in relation to
as the basis for it discussions and
oceanic fisheries management within
Sufficient sustainability available or
pelagic fisheries, and the fishing
policy decisions on WCPF the WCPF system boundary. These
identified through project to support
impacts upon them. This information
management. National technical
reports show particular progress in
national capacity improvements in
being used by the Commission and
capacity and knowledge greatly
relevant ecosystem analysis, technical and scientific functions as
PacSIDS to assess measures for the
improved
including results of the seamount-
well as to support continued regional
conservation and management of
related work undertaken in the
data coordination and analyses.
transboundary oceanic fishery resources
Project. The reports also show that
and protection of the WTP LME.
the results of the ecosystem analysis
National capacities in oceanic fishery
are being used to begin to
monitoring and assessment
operationalise an ecosystem
strengthened, with PacSIDS meeting
approach to conservation and
their national and Commission-related
management. PacSIDS national
responsibilities in these areas.
scientific capacities improved to
level whereby each national lead
agency can supply relevant and
effective data to SPC and the
Commission, and can interpret and
apply nationally results of regional
data analyses and scientific
assessments.
1.1 Fishery Monitoring,
Coordination and Enhancement
A template for national integrated
Database and associated software
Project documentation shows
monitoring programmes and developed. Reporting modules software and training to implement
provision of data to the available for Commission data.
regional template made available to
Commission
all PacSIDS by end of 3rd year.
114
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
National monitoring systems National monitoring systems,
Commission compliance reports National commitment sufficiently
based on the regional template for
including port sampling and observer
show all PacSIDS meeting strong to ensure allocation of staff
integrated monitoring, customised
programmes in place. All PacSIDS
Commission standards for provision
to meet national needs
reporting regularly to Commission.
of monitoring data within 2 years of
the standards being adopted by the
Commission.
A regional monitoring Common data formats made Reports on data quality to Scientific
All countries can agree on data
coordination capacity, to develop
available to PacSIDS, and adopted
Committee Statistics WG, DCC and
reporting formats (some may have to
regional standards such as data
by each country to provide PCU show effective regional change existing formats). Staff
formats, and to provide a clearing
comparable data. Information on
coordination of monitoring, available to maintain website.
house for information on fishery
fishery monitoring including best
including provision and use of
Countries willing to network with
monitoring
practice examples, being shared
common data reporting formats by
Commission on a regular basis, and
between stakeholders through end of year 3;
each country agrees on a focal point
newsletters, website and regional
Newsletter distributed to all for this networking.
workshops.
stakeholders at least annually
Reports from Workshops (minimum
2) available by year 3.
Website running and accessed by
end of year 1. Newsletters,
workshop reports and website
provide evidence of networking
between stakeholders on fishery
monitoring
Training of national monitoring
In-country Courses and training
Reports of in-country observer and
Countries can afford to release staff
staff, particularly monitoring activities conducted. Two regional
port sampling training activities, and
for training and attachments.
coordinators, observers and port
workshops undertaken. National
attachments provided to PCU (2
samplers
monitoring personnel attached to
national courses and 2 national
SPC/OFP
monitoring personnel attached to
SPC/OFP per year)
1.2 Stock Assessment
National oceanic fisheries status
Collaborative work undertaken on
National Status Reports; staff Countries have scientific and
reports prepared collaboratively
National Tuna Fishery Status in 6
national mission reports and technical staff available and willing
with national scientific staff
countries annually, including Workshop reports filed with PCU
to undertake national fishery status
presentations at in-country national
show work completed in 6 countries
reports and workshops (with GEF
workshops.
per year.
funding assistance)
115
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
Advice to Pacific SIDS on Advice on scientific issues provided Reports of PacSIDS consultative PacSIDS able to find the financial
scientific issues in the work of the
in briefing papers to PacSIDS before
meetings record consideration of
human resources to participate
Commission
each meeting of the Scientific
scientific briefing papers. Reports of
effectively in the scientific processes
Committee and the Commission, and
the meetings of the Scientific
of the Commission
presented to PacSIDS preparatory
Committee and Commission record
meetings.
PacSIDS contributions reflecting the
scientific briefing papers.
Training of national technical and
Regional Workshops carried out.
Reports from Regional Workshops
PacSIDS can afford to release staff
scientific staff to understand
National technical and scientific staff
available the first one by end of
for training and attachments
regional stock assessment trained through attachments and in-
year 2. Reports of attachments of 3
(national human resource
methods, and interpret and apply
country counterpart training.
national technical staff each year.
limitations)
the results; and to use
oceanographic data
Technical and scientific counterparts
producing independent technical and
scientific analyses by the end of the
Project.
1.3 Ecosystem Analysis
Observer sampling and analysis
Observer-based data collections and
OFP technical reports, and reports to
National and regional observer
of commercial fishery catches to
lab analyses undertaken in the Ecosystem & Bycatch Working
programmes, including a
determine trophic relationships of
accordance with a workplan for the
Group of the Commission reflect the
Commission programme, are
pelagic species in the WTP LME
ecosystem analysis component contribution to ecosystem analysis
running and providing data for
established in year 1.
from data from observers and lab
ecosystem analysis. Sufficient
analyses
observers available.
116
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
Collection and analysis of Seamount planning and review Report from workshop on seamount Sufficient sea-time available to be
information on seamounts in the
workshops carried out. Seamounts
activity planning and review able to undertake surveys and
WTP warm pool
described, historical fishing patterns
available by end year 1. Descriptive
complete reports effectively and on-
around seamounts analysed, and
report on seamounts and historical
time. National scientists available to
seamounts selected as sites for field
fishing activities available by end of
take part (human resource limitation
work. Field data collected at
18 months. Cruise reports within 12
issues)
selected seamounts, including months of completion of cruises.
tagging, trophic sampling and
analysis - 2 cruises per year in years
2, 3, plus 1 cruise to research benthic
biodiversity. Participation by
national scientists in field work
supported (2 participants per cruise).
Reports on seamount-associated field
data prepared.
Model-based analysis of Data incorporated into ecosystem
Documentation for meetings of the
Agreement can be reached on
ecosystem-based management models. Models enhanced and used
Scientific Committee and its
realistic options for management to
options
to assess management options,
Ecosystem & Bycatch WG including
be assessed. Effective models
including options related to fishing
reports on ecosystem data and model
available and sufficient data
around seamounts.
refinement, and on ecosystem
collected to drive models and reach a
model-based assessment of specific
scientifically justifiable conclusion
management options.
117
LOGFRAME MATRIX:
COMPONENT TWO - LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT AND
STRENGTHENING
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
COMPONENT OUTCOME: The
WCPF Commission operating with a Reports of the Commission and its Commission remains effective
WCPF Commission established and
formally adopted framework of rules
Committees show that within 30
throughout project lifetime and
beginning to function effectively.
and regulations. Commission
months of the Project inception the
beyond. Countries continue to meet
Pacific Island nations playing a full role
Secretariat has been established and
Commission is functioning with a
financial commitments to
in the functioning and management of
the core science and compliance
full programme of work in Commission to ensure its
the Commission, and in the related
programmes and Committee compliance and science.
sustainability. Enormous Convention
management of the fisheries and the
structures are operational. PacSIDS
Commission reports show PacSIDS
area and project system boundary
globally-important LME. National laws,
are participating effectively in
are effectively participating in
can be effectively monitored to
policies, institutions and programmes
provision of information and in
Commission decision-making
ensure compliance. Programmes of
relating to management of
decision-making and policy adoption
processes. Independent assessments
information collection and data
transboundary oceanic fisheries
process for WCPF fisheries show that national capacities analyses can be sustained throughout
reformed, realigned and strengthened to
management. National institutions
significantly improved to meet
and beyond project lifetime.
implement the WCPF Convention and
and supportive laws and policies
commitments to Convention and to
PacSIDS able to participate in the
other applicable global and regional
have been reformed effectively to
undertake MCS responsibilities.
Commission effectively.
instruments. National capacities in
support national roles in
oceanic fisheries law, fisheries
Commission and to meet national
management and compliance
commitments both to WCPF
strengthened
Convention, and to other relevant
MEAs, and global treaties and
conventions.
2.1 Legal Reform
A strategy and workplan for
Legal and technical reviews Report of initial Legal Consultation
Appropriate legal consultants
activities on regional and national
(regional and national) undertaken
(including review of national and
available within timescale.
legal issues
and results available to regional
regional legal status and structures)
Legal Consultation. Consultation
distributed to participants by month
carried out.
20.
New draft laws, regulations,
Templates for legal provisions Reports of national legal reviews
Country commitment to legal
agreements & license conditions
necessary to implement Convention
show regional templates amended to
reviews (consultants cannot be
in line with WCPF Convention
provided to PacSIDS. Legal reviews
reflect different national situations
effective without national support
prepared and shared with
undertaken in PacSIDS which have
being applied for implementation of
and transparency)
PacSIDS
not already updated their legislation.
the WCPF Convention.
118
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
Proposals for the Commission
Legal reviews and studies on
Briefs on WCPF legal issues Countries willing to share national
from Pacific SIDS for legal
Commission and Convention issues
provided to PacSIDS by 30 months.
legal position and information with
arrangements to implement the
undertaken and legal briefs for
Reports from regional Legal Commission. PacSIDS prepared to
Convention
discussion in Commission and
Consultations available by month 20.
make submissions to Commission on
related bodies prepared and lodged
Records of PacSIDS consultations
legal policy issues following this
with countries. Briefs discussed in
document discussion of Briefs and
consultative process
PacSIDS consultations (see 2.1.1)
conclusions on PacSIDS policy for
discussion of legal issues in
Commission meetings.
Training of policy makers and
National and Regional legal training Reports of 2 regional legal workshop
Countries willing to host and
legal personnel in oceanic
workshops carried out and assessed.
reports. Reports of 3 National legal
participate in workshops.
fisheries management legal issues
Legal staff attached to relevant
training workshops carried out in
Appropriate national personnel
institutions and participating in
each year of project, and 2 national
permitted to attend. National
analyses.
legal staff attached to relevant
specialists available to take part
institution per year.
(human resource limitation issues)
2.2 Policy Reform
National oceanic fisheries
Plan/policy/strategy documents
Management plans and
Fisheries Management Adviser
management plans, policies and
prepared, implemented and reviewed
policy/strategy documents prepared
appointed to oversee the Policy
strategies
based on feedback and lessons
or revised in at least 6 PacSIDS by
Reform sub-Component. National
month 30. Project documentation
policy-makers accept and adopt
shows significant policy reforms in
strategies and prepared to make
at least 50% of PacSIDS by end of
necessary reforms to implement.
Project.
Strategies and specific proposals
Briefing papers provided to PacSIDS Reports of PacSIDS consultations
Appropriate national personnel
for the overall development of the
on establishment of the commission
show i) advice provided to PacSIDS
permitted to attend. National
Commission, including its
and on regional conservation and
on the development of Commission
specialists available to take part
Secretariat and technical
management measures. Regional
Secretariat and programmes annually
(human resource limitation issues)
programmes, and for Commission
consultations and workshops on
in the first 3 years, and ii) advice
conservation and management
Fisheries Management undertaken
provided annually to PacSIDS on
measures
annually.
regional conservation and
management measures. Reports of
Commission meetings document
PacSIDS playing a major role in
decisions relating to establishment of
Commission Secretariat and
programmes, and adoption of
regional conservation and
management measures.
119
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
Identification of possible
Technical studies on management of Reports of technical studies sent to Technical capacity available to
management options for
oceanic fisheries related to stakeholders by month 24. Reports
undertake studies within timeframe.
seamounts, including compliance
seamounts undertaken completed
of regional workshops document
Commission continues to operate
options
and circulated to stakeholders.
consideration of proposals for
effectively. Pac SIDS Stakeholders
Workshops undertaken for seamount-related management
can agree on management measures
stakeholders on seamount measures by end of year 4.
in order to make proposals.
management issues. Proposals based
on outcomes of seamount policy and
technical analyses considered by
PacSIDS, and if appropriate, the
Commission.
Training of policy makers,
Regional Policy Consultation
Regional workshops completed by
Countries willing to host and
technical personnel and other
workshops carried out. TSC/USP
end of year 2. At least 4 training
participate in workshops.
Pacific SIDS stakeholders to
training course developed and on
courses subscribed to by end of year
Appropriate national personnel
increase understanding of
offer. National Fisheries 3. 6 National workshops and/or
permitted to attend. National
sustainable and responsible
Management Seminars available and
seminars on fisheries management
specialists available to take part
fisheries
workshops carried out. Fisheries
completed by end of year 3. Project
(human resource limitation issues)
Management personnel on progress reports and technical
attachment to FFA. Study tours
reports lodged with PCU show 4
arranged to other Fisheries national fisheries management
Commissions. Support given to
personnel attachments undertaken
relevant Ministerial meetings.
with FFA by end of year 3; 6 study
tours completed to other fisheries
commissions by end of year 4; and 2
Ministerial meetings relevant to
Fisheries Management supported by
end of year 4.
2.3 Institutional Reform
Strategies, plans and proposals for
Review the lessons and best Report made available to PacSIDS
Conditions in PacSIDS are
the reform, realignment and
practices in institutional reform
and to PCU on lessons and best
sufficiently common for national
strengthening of national oceanic
carried out. Reviews of national
practices in institutional reforms
best practices to be replicable.
fisheries management
fisheries management institutions
along with reviews of national
administrations
carried out. National institutional
institutions by end of month 30.
reform workshops prepared and
Reports of 2 national reform
undertaken.
workshops completed per year.
120
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
Processes for national
National consultative process carried NCC reports show some form of PacSIDS govts prepared to continue
consultation between stakeholders
out between stakeholders. National
consultative process in place in all
to improve transparency. National
in oceanic fisheries management
ENGOs and INGOs given support to
PacSIDS by the end of the Project.
ENGOs & INGOs exist & have the
empower their participation in
Feedback from ENGOs and INGOs
capacity to participate. Consultation
oceanic fisheries management
confirm that their participation has
fatigue does not unduly constrain
been strengthened in 50% of
their participation
PacSIDS by end of year 3,
2.4 Compliance Strengthening
Strategies, plans and proposals for
Review the national compliance Report on national compliance
PacSIDS willing to provide
realigning and strengthening
implications inherent in the implications of the Convention
transparent information on
national oceanic fisheries
Convention, and identify circulated to PacSIDS and presented
compliance procedures and data.
compliance programmes
strengthening requirements for to MCS WG by month 18. National
national compliance to meet these
reports provided to MCS WG show
implications
strengthening of compliance
programmes in at least 50% of
PacSIDS by end of Project.
Arrangements for regional
Regional consultations to coordinate Reports available of annual MCS
Sufficient regional capacity and
coordination of monitoring,
patrols (air and sea). Advice given
WG meetings showing work on
willingness to undertake an effective
control and surveillance activities
on MCS coordination between
MCS coordination. Technical
level of air and sea patrols
PacSIDS and other stakeholder reports lodged with PCU document
countries. Niue Treaty subsidiary
proposals for application of the Niue
arrangements prepared
Treaty on MCS cooperation.
Strategies and proposals for
Technical studies undertaken on Technical reports on compliance
Commission Members can find basis
regional compliance measures and
compliance issues relevant to submitted annually to PacSIDS MCS
for agreement on compliance
programmes
Convention. Meetings of PacSIDS
WG. Reports of meetings of the
measures to regulate fishing in the
MCS Working Group held. Reports
PacSIDS MCS WG, the Technical
high seas
on regional compliance issues
and Compliance Committee and the
prepared and presented to PacSIDS.
Commission document PacSIDS
PacSIDS follow up those reports
participation in establishing
with proposals in the Commission &
Commission compliance
its Technical & Compliance arrangements.
Committee.
121
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
Training of national compliance
National courses and training on Reports provided to the PCU of 3 Appropriate national personnel
staff, especially in inspection and
inspection, VMS and other MCS
national courses provided each year
available for attachments and
VMS
issues undertaken. National on MCS issues, and 2 national staff
permitted to attend. National
compliance staff attached to FFA
attachments each year.
specialists available to take part
and/or other established PacSIDS
(human resource limitation issues)
compliance and monitoring agencies.
122
LOGFRAME MATRIX:
COMPONENT THREE - COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
COMPONENT OUTCOME:
Project achieving its objectives.
Project Implementation Reviews and
National commitment needs to be
Effective project management at the
Project implementation and Project Performance Evaluations
high to ensure fully participatory
national and regional level. Major
management is fully participatory
provide justification that project is
involvement in project over lifetime.
governmental and non-governmental
with appropriate involvement of
successfully achieving its objectives
Stakeholder commitment also needs
stakeholders participating in project
stakeholders at all levels. and deliverables. These are to be high to ensure continued
activities and consultative mechanisms
Information access is transparent and
supported by findings of the
contributions, sometimes at own
at national and regional levels.
simple. Information available is
Independent Evaluations (Mid and
cost. Policy-makers are receptive to
Information on the project and the
relevant and significant. Public
Terminal). Stakeholders confirm
awareness-raising information and
WCPF process contributing to increased
awareness raising at national and
transparent participation in the
presentations.
awareness of oceanic fishery resource
regional policy level is effective.
project, and improvements in
and ecosystem management. Project
High project evaluation ratings.
knowledge and awareness across all
evaluations reflecting successful and
levels and sectors.
sustainable project objectives.
3.1 Project information System
Project Information System for
Project branding, webpage and
Webpage operational by month 6.
Staff available to operate and update
capture, storage and dissemination
document catalogue system Document catalogue functional on
website, Sufficient interest among
of project data, lessons and best
developed. Webpage operational and
webpage by month 8. Webpage
stakeholders to make website
practices, and provision of
updated. Project information updated at least quarterly thereafter.
effective means of communication
information products
materials available.
Information downloadable from and information dissemination
webpage.
Knowledge management process
Knowledge management strategy
Steering Committee reports show
Sufficient information and examples
identifying innovative, best
prepared and adopted.
knowledge management strategy
of best practices to drive a
practice and replicable ideas
adopted by Steering Committee in
knowledge management strategy, or
within the Project and relevant to
year 2. Best practices etc, available
resources available to develop them.
the Project
on website by month 30.
3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
Measures of, and reports on,
Regular assessment and evaluations
Annual Review reports available.
PCU adheres to reporting and
overall project performance and
of performance and delivery as per
Independent evaluation in progress
evaluation requirements
delivery, including independent
UNDP and GEF requirements
by end of year 3.
(responsibility of IA)
evaluations of the Project
123
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
Analysis of process, stress-
Process, Stress Reduction and IW indicators assessed at national IW indicators developed for project
reduction, and environmental
Environmental Status indicators and regional level on annual basis.
are effective and comprehensive.
status indicators as per the GEF
adopted. National review and Information used in relevant reports
Sufficient national and regional
International Waters Operational
assessment mechanisms in place by
to Commission to assist in capacity to collect information on
Strategy
end of year 1.
assessment of national capacity
status of IW indicators. Effective
building and response to Convention
support from project.
needs.. IW Indicator assessment
reviewed by Independent Evaluators
by end of year 3.
3.3 Stakeholder Participation and
Awareness Raising
ENGO participation and
Co-financing agreements in place
LoAs agreed and signed with ENGO
Commission members agree to
awareness raising in Convention-
with Pacific ENGO. An ENGO
by end of first year. ENGO
ENGO participation. ENGO
related processes
participating in Commission. participating in Commission by end
identified that is appropriate willing
Information packages circulated to
of year 1. Distribution lists for
to participate. Civil society has
ENGOs (including access to project information include ENGOs,
sufficient interest in oceanic fisheries
website). National and regional
and ENGOs and given access to
to participate.
ENGO workshops carried out.
website. Reports available for 2
Public Awareness materials ENGO workshops completed in year
developed and distributed. National
2 and year 3. Public awareness
fora for civil society participation
material prepared by end of year 2 in
organised.
coordination with ENGOs (and with
their 'in-kind' input). 2 National
meetings per year (after year 1) to
involve civil society in oceanic
fisheries management
Support industry participation and
Co-financing agreements in place
LoAs agreed and signed with INGO
Commission members agree to
awareness raising in Convention-
with Pacific Industry NGO. An
by end of first year. Reports of
INGO participation. INGO identified
related processes
INGO participating in Commission.
Commission meetings show INGO
that is appropriate willing to
Information packages circulated to
participating in Commission by end
participate.
INGOs (including access to website)
of year 1. Distribution list for project
and national/regional INGO information includes INGO and
workshops carried out as INGO and given access to website.
appropriate.
Reports available for 2 INGO
workshops completed in year 2 and
year 3.
3.4 Project Management and
Coordination
124
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
SUMMARY
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
INDICATORS
RISKS
Project Coordination Unit staffing Project Coordinator and other PCU Project Progress reports show Effective and acceptable Project
and office
staff appointed. Necessary PCU
Project Coordinator hired by end of
Coordinator identified within
support equipment procured.
month 3 of project implementation;
timeframe Project staff hired at
all project staff on-board or hiring
appropriate time to suit workplan
plan-strategy agreed ready for
(and not too late to be of use).
appropriate time by end of month 6;
Realistic equipment procurement
and equipment procurements agreed
plan developed and adopted by PCU
and processed (as appropriate and in
at earliest opportunity. IA and EA
accordance with budget) by end of
efficient in authorising expenditure
month 6.
of funds for procurement.
Arrangements for coordination
Initial EA/IA consultations carried
LoAs signed by end of month 3.
Appropriate EAs and IAs in project.
between Implementing and
out. Necessary LoA finalised Records show regular
Clear understanding of importance
Executing Agencies
between EAs and IA. On-going
communication between EAs and
of on-going consultative process
consultations between EAs and IA
IAs as necessary on a day-to-day
throughout project lifetime
basis, including regular meetings of
EAs and IAs in association with
Steering Committee meetings
Regional Steering Committee
Inception workshop carried out to
Report of Inception workshop held
All attendees committed to attending
Meetings and Reports
begin project. Regular Steering
within 4 months of project signature.
Inception Workshop. Appropriate
Committees thereafter
Reports of annual Project Steering
presentations to ensure good
Committee meetings
understanding or project process.
National Consultative Committee
National Focal Points nominated and
PCU records confirm nomination of
Appropriate NFPs adopted by
Meetings and Reports
approved. National Consultative
NFPs and advice of membership of
countries. Country commitment to
Committees active
NCCs NCC records also show NCCs
NCCs. Appropriate level of
meeting annually or more as
membership on NCCs.
required by each country.
Reports on Project
Regular reporting as required by
UNDP and PCU records confirm
PCU fully aware of reporting
implementation, workplan and
GEF, IAs and Steering Committee
timely preparation of Project Reports
requirements (assisted and advised
finances
in accordance with project effectively by IA)
requirements
125
ANNEX C
RESPONSE TO REVIEWS
(with responses included in Italics)
A.
STAP REVIEW AND RESPONSE
Technical Review of GEF Project Proposal
Pacific Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
By Martin Esseen, 9th December 2004.
Introduction and general issues
On first reading, this project appears to be huge, complex and difficult fifteen separate countries are
involved across a vast area of ocean, along with the implicit involvement of many other countries and
organisations, as participants in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), as
partners or co-financers of the Project and as high-seas fishing countries. However, on subsequent
reading, it is obvious that it is only because of its size and boldness that it is a worthwhile and
achievable project, and one that addresses difficult and wide ranging issues that are far easier to ignore.
The project documents are comprehensive, clearly organised and elegantly written. Where there is
doubt about quality of information or certainty of outcome this is clearly addressed and project activities
are designed to remedy these situations. The project sensibly builds on existing co-operation and
understanding between the target countries and their heavy dependence on oceanic fisheries resources
as a major part of national income. It is a logical extension of existing projects, policies and activities in
the region, takes on board the relevant conventions that apply to fisheries, both regionally and
internationally and, if successful, would provide a model for the rationalisation of a number of wide-
ranging international fisheries issues, particularly those involving fishing in international waters and the
increasing problem of Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) Fishing.
This project is driven by the concern of Pacific SIDS about unsustainable use of the transboundary
oceanic fish stocks of the Pacific Islands region, and unsustainable levels and patterns of exploitation in
the fisheries that target those stocks. The origins of the Project, its preparation, its objectives and its
structure all address those concerns. These are transboundary concerns that apply especially to the
impacts of unregulated fishing in the areas of high seas in the region, but also apply more generally
across all waters of the region.
At the centre of these concerns is the transboundary nature of the stocks. The stocks are mostly 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.
The GEF South Pacific Strategic Action Plan (SAP) identified the ultimate root cause underlying the
concerns about, and threats to, International Waters in the region as deficiencies in management, and
identified two major areas of deficiency the governance of and the understanding of the fisheries
resources. These are the main issues which the project addresses.
126
Scope of the review
The review is structured (where appropriate) according to the STAP Terms of Reference for Technical
Review of GEF Project Proposals, and the Annotations to these ToR that are applicable to International
Waters Projects. The time allocated (2 days) for reviewing this large project is inadequate for a
comprehensive review; consequently some details of the text may have been overlooked, and if
unwarranted criticism is made of any aspects of the project proposal or if anything relevant has been
omitted then the reviewer's apologies are due.
The acronyms used in this review are expounded in the relevant annex of the main project document.
Key issues:
1. Scientific and technical soundness of the project
Scientific Basis and Proposed technologies
1.1
The scientific basis of the project is fundamentally sound, in that it aims to improve the quality,
compatibility and availability of scientific data necessary for transboundary stock assessment
and fisheries management from across the whole Western Central Pacific region and from
vessels of all states who fish in the region. The project aims to assist the management of fish
stocks according to established conventions (UNCLOS, UN Fish Stocks Agreement, World
Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation, and the WCPF Convention
among others). Current information and data will be assessed and built on by the WCPF
Commission which will be extensively assisted by the project, by means of assisting the Pacific
SIDS in enhancing national capacity for data collection and legal reform. Few details of the
actual data to be collected are given, but it is assumed that the competent authority (WCPF
Commission) will request the relevant data from the Pacific SIDS; the project will assist the
SIDS in providing this data. In addition the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)
capacity of the SIDS will be standardised and enhanced and legal provision will be made for
MCS interventions on the high seas.
1.2
The approach to data collection is comprehensive and will include port monitoring, observer
activity on fishing vessels, satellite Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), logbooks and other data
collection activities. Intensive training will be given at national level and national databases will
be established to a standard format.
1.3
The project is built around the two primary concerns identified by the original Strategic Action
Plan. The SAP identified the ultimate root cause underlying the concerns about, and threats to,
International Waters in the region as deficiencies in management, and grouped the deficiencies
into two linked subsets: A. Weaknesses in governance of oceanic fisheries management at both
the regional and national and national levels, B. Lack of understanding and knowledge in
relation to awareness (at many levels) and gaps in information. The main thrust of the project is
to resolve these issues through training, capacity building and sectoral reform.
1.4
The issue of inter-compatibility of data has been thoroughly addressed. A standard WCPF
Commission template for data collection will be developed and all Commission members will
deliver data to the Commission in the required format. Where necessary, training will be given
to Pacific SIDS to use and develop this standardised data collection system.
127
1.5
The interlinkages between water related environmental issues and root causes behind the
environmental problems are straightforward and essentially related to poorly controlled (and in
some cases excessive) fishing activities throughout much of the region.
1.6
The reviewer understands that the TDA and SAP process was undertaken at an earlier stage in
project development. The primary findings of the SAP have been incorporated directly into the
design and objectives of this Project.
1.7
A major component of the project is to ensure that ecological carrying capacity is not exceeded.
1.8
The scope of the project is vast and wide reaching and attempts to address some of the most
serious problems that affect International Waters globally.
1.9
Very little in the way of technology is proposed in the project, and that which is (VMS, stock
assessment modeling and database use) is adequate for the socio-economic profile of the region.
Where necessary training in the use of appropriate technology will be provided under the
project.
1.10 The proposed technologies pose virtually no environmental threats.
Institutional arrangements
1.11
There exists a high level of inter-country co-operation at all levels across the Pacific SIDS, primarily through
the auspices of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), with
the latter having a long term scientific presence in the region. The scientific capacities of national institutions
was thoroughly assessed during project preparations and extensive training is proposed in the project to
bring all relevant institutions in the recipient countries up to an equivalent standard necessary for the
collection of data required by the Commission. The sustainability of these institutions is enhanced by the
setting up of the Commission as this releases more funds for national capacity enhancement by the removal
of much the financial burden of management of national waters by the Pacific SIDS.
1.12 A large component of the project is to be achieved through assistance to the legal institutions of
the Pacific SIDS to update and standardise national law and policy to aid the effective working
of the WCPF Commission. Although the reviewer is not qualified to comment on arrangements
for this component, it would appear to be thoroughly covered in the project documentation, of
which the relevant sections were researched and written by a competent legal specialist.
2.
Identification of the global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks of the project
2.1
The global environmental goal of the Project is to achieve global environmental benefits by
enhanced conservation and management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources in the
Pacific Islands region and the protection of the biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific
Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem. This will include not only stocks of commercially
important fish (mostly tuna) but also by-catch and non-target species (including marine
mammals, birds and reptiles) and species associated with seamounts in the region.
2.2
No significant negative environmental effects are anticipated.
3.
How the project fits within the context of the goals of GEF, as well as its operational strategies, programme
priorities, GEF Council guidance and the provisions of the relevant conventions
The following extracts from the Project Brief would seem to answer the above question:
128
The proposed project fits exactly with the objectives, approach, scope and strategic thrust of the GEF in
the International Waters focal area. In addressing the conservation and management of shared oceanic
fishery resources in a SIDS region, the Project can contribute substantially to the objectives of the SIDS
component of GEF OP9, the Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area Operational Program,
also providing benefits under the Large Marine Ecosystem Component of OP 8, the Waterbody-Based
Operational Program.
The proposal is also consistent with the GEF Business Plan for FY 2004-2006, falling within all 3 IW
Strategic Priorities.
In terms of compliance with relevant conventions and agreements, the project aims to assist the Pacific
SIDS in:
· implementation of the oceanic fisheries management aspects of the SAP of the Pacific Islands
Region;
· implementation of the WCPF Convention, including the establishment of the WCPF Commission
which is the core element of the Convention;
· application in the Pacific Islands Region of the principles of the relevant provisions of the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WSSD fisheries
targets;
· acceleration of the implementation in Pacific SIDS of the actions to promote sustainable
development for SIDS set out in the Barbados Programme of Action and the WSSD Plan of
Implementation
· the achievement of legal, policy and institutional reforms in Pacific SIDS for the implementation
of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF Convention;
Further details of the degree and means of compliance with the various conventions is to be found in the
project document.
4
Regional context
It is difficult to envisage a project with a wider regional context than this one. Fifteen separate countries
across a huge area of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are the direct recipients of project activities
and funds. Through the auspices of the WCPF Commission, all countries with a stake in the region's
fisheries are involved directly in the in the co-financing and the successful outcome of the project. The
fishing industry and some environmental groups are involved in the work of the Commission and thus
will be indirectly influenced by project activities.
5.
Replicability of the project (added value for the global environment beyond the project itself)
If the project is successful in its proposed outcomes, many of the mechanisms developed though project
intervention and through the work of the WCPF Commission could be applied to International Waters
situations globally. The resolution of fisheries problems and conflicts (such as IUU fishing, high seas
fishing and fishing on seamounts) in International Waters is of global concern and this project aims to
tackle many of the associated problems. Project outcomes may be particularly replicable in other SIDS
(e.g. Indian Ocean, Caribbean).
The component relating to dissemination of information generated through the project (Component 3)
will assist in the replicability process.
6
Sustainability of the project
129
Due to the high value of the fish resources to each of the Pacific SIDS, it is in their long term interests
for these resources to be managed sustainably. Hence it is in their interest for project outcomes to be
continued long after project completion.
The project aims to assist in the sustainable management of the fish resources of the region through
assistance with data collection and legal reform. The critical points for sustainability are the
enhancement of national capacity and sustainable financing after project support has ceased.
The former is addressed through enhancement of national capacity across the Pacific SIDS and through
support to the WCPF Commission. The potential weakness of human resources in the Pacific SIDS is
recognised in the project documents some of these are very small countries and have few resources to
contribute towards project activities. The Project addresses this constraint, in that GEF funding will not
provide hardware, or fund capital items or recurrent budget items but will invest in knowledge, ideas,
training and institutional change and will assist in developing financing processes that will enable more
people to work on oceanic fisheries management issues.
The sustainable financing of the SIDS participation in the Commission has been addressed adequately
in the project design:
· The initial levels of annual contributions paid in aggregate by all the SIDS is estimated at
approximately $190,000; this is a very low and affordable level of contribution. It may rise over
time as the SIDS domestic fleets take a larger share of the catch, thereby attracting a higher
share of the Commission's costs, but any increase in catch proportion should be seen as a
positive benefit by the SIDS.
· Costs of participating in the work of the Commission have been kept deliberately low
(especially in comparison to the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Tuna Commissions). The WCPF
Commission has been designed to operate with 2 annual sessions, thereby cutting both time and
costs involved in the SIDS participation. Uniquely for such organisations, travel costs for
Pacific SIDS and other developing states will be met from the Commission's core budget.
· Experience with the other regional tropical oceanic fisheries commissions indicates that while
there are problems with non-payment of financial contributions by some Members, this has not
threatened the sustainability of the organisations the Eastern Pacific Commission has been
operating since 1946 and the Atlantic Commission since 1969.
· Given the scope for recovering much of the incremental costs from vessel owners, the level of
incremental costs seems reasonably sustainable, though there may be some countries for which
the sustainability of their funding for these activities is less certain. The Project will address this
issue by assisting Pacific SIDS to develop cost recovery programmes for fisheries management
programmes.
The level of private sector involvement in the project is small but significant, and although many of the
costs associated with project outcomes may inevitably fall on the private sector, the long-term
sustainability of the fisheries resources should be sufficient to encourage their continued participation.
A slight concern is that private sector entities from non-regional countries who have a significant
fishing presence in the region may not feel as involved in the issues, but their national government's
presence on the WCPF Commission should help to ensure compliance.
In general, the issues of sustainability are extensively and adequately addressed in the project
documents.
130
7 Secondary
issues
7.1
Linkages to other focal areas
This project is inevitably linked to Biodiversity.
7.2
Linkages to other programmes and action plans at regional or sub-regional levels
The project aims to assist the Pacific SIDS in
· implementation of the oceanic fisheries management aspects of the SAP of the Pacific Islands
Region;
· implementation of the WCPF Convention, including the establishment of the WCPF
Commission which is the core element of the Convention.
However, little detail was given in the documents available for review and the reviewer is not in a
position to adequately judge the full extent of linkages to other programmes and action plans. There
should be some discussion in the text on how this proposed project will coordinate between and
dialogue with other related initiatives in the area (both the thematic and geographic area) and indeed
with other fisheries initiatives throughout the world so as to share lessons and best practices as well as
to avoid overlap and duplication.
Response: A new section entitled "relationship to other programmes, projects & action
plans" has been included in section i within the main project document
7.3
Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects
Increased food security for Pacific SIDS may have the effect of reducing land degradation and
pressure on inshore marine resources (especially reef systems) in the region. No damaging
environmental effects are anticipated from this project, though if project outcomes were to
indirectly increase the level of tourism in the region then this would have its associated
problems.
7.4
Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project
In the region generally, public sector stakeholder participation in oceanic fisheries management
processes has been strong, but non-government stakeholder participation, up until now, has been
weak.
The issue of stakeholder participation is adequately addressed in the project design (Section G)
and it is anticipated that levels of participation by the fishing industry and NGOs will be
relatively high in the WCPF Commission.
The high level of co-funding that has been offered for the project also suggests a high commitment
from the stakeholder body.
The widespread dissemination of the project outcomes should encourage stakeholders in
continuing participation.
7.5
Capacity-building aspects
As a major part of the project is about capacity building, this is obviously addressed extensively
in the project document.
7.6
Innovativeness of the project.
While there is little about this project that is innovative in a scientific or technical sense, it is
highly innovative that the Pacific Island Countries have developed a formal agreement with the
Distant Water Fishing Nations and are taking control not only of their territorial waters and
131
EEZs vis-à-vis international fishing efforts, but are also taking fairly unprecedented steps in
protecting the high seas in between against over-exploitation. Additionally, the concern about
seamounts and how they relate to these migratory fisheries is an important and politically
sensitive issue. Nothing else has been done on this within the Pacific, and it is probably a wise
move that these oases of high diversity (particularly in relation to endemic species) are being
given some attention in relation to their role in high seas fisheries, as well as the potential need
to manage their exploitation more effectively.
Potential issues or problems
The following issues might constructively be addressed:
1.
Historical data for Stock assessment
Although the standardisation and improvement of fisheries data collection is a major thrust of the
project, the quality of existing fisheries data is unclear; if it is of dubious or variable quality, then this
will have an effect on preliminary stock assessment outputs. This issue should be addressed at an early
stage of the project.
Response: The project is fortunate to have available to it an extensive database, maintained by
SPC/OFP of historical fisheries statistics. As noted on p. 14 of the Project Brief, this database
"currently includes historical records of approximately 2.7 million fishing operations by more than
9,000 different fishing vessels, and covers most of the fishing conducted in the region over the past 25
years". In addition to these operational data, the OFP has compiled historical catch and effort data at
5 degree (longline) or 1 degree (purse seine and pole-and-line) square and month resolution for all
major fishing nations. These data cover both areas of high seas and areas under national jurisdiction.
Other data essential for stock assessment, such as size frequency and tagging data have also been
compiled by the OFP. A comprehensive catalogue of all historical data held by the OFP is available at:
http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/html/statistics/datacat/datacat.htm.
These data allow tuna stock assessments routinely conducted by the OFP to extend back to 1950, thus
covering the entire period of industrial-scale tuna fishing in the region.
2 Quality of data collection in non-recipient countries
The data collection systems of some of the poorer non-recipient countries should be assessed at an early
stage in the project to see if they have the capacity to collect data to the standard required by the
Commission. Any shortfall in overall data standards will have a negative effect on the use of the data
collected by the Pacific SIDS as an outcome of this project. However, it will be the responsibility of the
Commission and not the Project to address any shortcomings found.
Response: The major fishing countries that are not recipients of this project are Japan, Korea,
China, Taiwan, United States, Philippines and Indonesia. Detailed historical data for the fleets of
these countries fishing in the EEZs of pacific island countries and territories are currently held by
the OFP. These data have been collected by the coastal states under the conditions of access. As
noted in the previous section, complete data are also provided in summary form by most of these
fishing countries covering both EEZs and high seas. The OFP also receives data from the French
and us territories in respect of fishing in these waters. The main problem area concerns the domestic
fisheries in Philippines and Indonesia. The only data available from these countries are highly
aggregated estimates of total catch by species. Effort and size frequency data are not consistently
available. To remedy this, a commission-sponsored project (entitled "Philippines and Indonesia data
collection project") to review data collection methods and institute new sampling programs has
132
recently been initiated. This project will see the establishment of catch monitoring and sampling
programs in these countries that will provide data to the commission's standards.
3
Relations between fishing industry and ENGOs
While the bringing together of the fishing industry and the environmental groups is a necessary step,
historically the relationships between some sectors of the fishing industry and some environmental
groups have been very poor. Care should be taken by all parties to improve these relationships and
avoid polarisation, and a sound and professional project management team should be able to assist in
this process.
Response: The reviewer's point is well made and well taken. The thrust of the project in this area is not
so much to bring the fishing industry and ENGOs together as to support them to develop their
capacities to enhance the discourse about oceanic fisheries management at national and regional levels
within their own constituencies. This reflects broad experience that decisions taken by governments, in
this case on oceanic fisheries management, will be sounder and more effectively implemented when they
are informed by a rich dialogue involving key stakeholders, even when those stakeholders have
conflicting interests. Differences in point of view between industry and ENGOs are to be expected, but
in general, locally-based fishing businesses have a greater interest in maintaining resource abundance
than distant water fishers because they do not usually have the same ability to roam over large areas
seeking better fishing conditions as abundance declines.
4 Definitions
of
principles
Unless accepted definitions exist elsewhere that are applicable to this project, the project documentation
should include firm definitions of such concepts as the "Precautionary Approach" and the "Ecosystem
Approach", in order to avoid differing interpretations of these concepts by the various parties involved
in the project.
Response: References to relevant definitions of these principles have been included as footnotes to the
first use of these terms in Section A.
5 Scientific
names
The reviewer considers that the scientific names of fish and other marine species mentioned in the text
should be included along with their common names, either in the text body or as an annex. This will
eliminate any possible confusion over regional variations in the use of common names.
Response: A helpful suggestion. A list of scientific names of fish and other marine species
mentioned in the text has been attached to the document.
General conclusions
The Pacific Oceanic Fisheries Management Project is a bold and far reaching undertaking. Project
preparation has been extensive and effective and the resulting document is, although large, well
organised and well written. Although specific details of project activities are not always included, this is
inevitable at this stage of project planning, and the reviewer is confident that with a good project
management team and with the high level of co-operation and co-ordination expected between the
project and the WCPF Commission, the details will be adequately addressed.
As with any project there are risks to the success of the project and to its future sustainability; these
have been comprehensively addressed. The project builds on the current atmosphere of cooperation
133
among the Pacific SIDS, particularly pertaining to fisheries issues, and on the establishment of the
Commission, whose inaugural meeting is taking place as this review is being written. The project's
support for the activities of the Commission will be a great help in its initial years.
Although the reviewer has little experience in the legal system and cannot comment in depth on the
proposals for legal and policy changes it would seem, from reading the project documents that a lot of
thought and expertise has been put into developing this section of the proposal.
A high degree of co-financing has been promised, both in cash and kind, and this is a sign of the
widespread acceptance of the need for such a project. The public sector, private sector and NGOs all
have a role to play in the creation of a forward looking management system for one of the larger LMEs
on earth and one of the most productive in terms of the value of its fisheries.
The reviewer has no hesitation in recommending this project for funding.
134
B.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM SECRETARIAT AND OTHER AGENCIES
B1.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE GEF SECRETARIAT
The GEF Secretariat requested two improvements in the project submission:
1) To attach a summary of the evaluation of the completed oceanic fisheries component of the
initial IW SAP project; and
2) To provide more information on co-finance.
Terminal Evaluation of the OFM Component of the IW South Pacific SAP Project
The GEF Secretariat requested that: "A summary of the evaluation of the completed oceanic fisheries
component of the initial IW project should be utilized in preparation and should be appended to the
project brief per Council instructions."
Response: as set out on pages 38 & 39 of the Project Brief, the Terminal Evaluation report of the IW
SAP Project provided much of the basis for the design of the new Pacific Islands OFM Project. A
summary of the evaluation report has been appended to the project brief as Annex E in the Compulsory
Annex volume.
Co-Finance Information
The GEF Secretariat indicated that the provision of "more specificity in co finance would be useful at
project brief stage."
Specifically the GEF Secretariat requested Pacific SIDS:
1. To clarify the nature and allocation of the 39 million co-financing from fishing states and
surveillance partners.; and
2. In the executive summary's presentation of project component outcomes: add information about
GEF funding and co-funding for each component
1) Response On The $39 Million Co-Financing From Fishing States: the estimate of $39 million
includes $32,250,000 estimated costs of additional requirements to be met by fishing states arising from
the Commission and $7,200,000 additional costs for cooperative surveillance costs from countries
supporting Pacific SIDS through the provision of air patrols.
The incremental costs for fishing states have been estimated as follows using data from the World Bank
Report 'Working Apart Or Together' The Case For A Common Approach To Management Of The Tuna
Resources In Exclusive Economic Zones Of Pacific Island Countries: Gert Van Santen & Philipp
Muller, March 2000
Component 1: Scientific Assessment & Monitoring
Costs for additional national and regional research
$8,500,000
Incremental costs for data collection
$3,000,000
Total
Component
1:
$11,500,000
Component 2: policy, legislation & compliance
Operating costs for VMS, observers & vessel register
$18,250,000
Costs of reporting to the commission
$2,500,000
Total
component
2:
$20,750,000
135
Total estimated incremental costs for fishing states
$32,250,000
The total of $32,250,000 is an increase of $ 1 million over that in the draft submitted for review by
the GEF Secretariat. This revision has been made to align the estimates precisely with those in the
World Bank report. For the same reason the allocation of the total between the two project
components set out above is a revision of the data in the original submission.
The estimated co-funding from those partner countries involved in supporting regional air and sea
surveillance programmes to extend the coverage of those programmes to monitor compliance with
the new framework for regulation of fishing in the high seas was estimated based on an additional
300 hours of air patrol annually using a mix of the P3 Orion, C-130 and Guardian aircraft used for
cooperative maritime patrols with Pacific SIDS by Australia,France, New Zealand and the United
States.
This explanation has now been included in the incremental cost analysis attached to the Project Brief
and to the executive summary; a summary of this information has also been included in Section 3 of
the Executive Summary; additional information on the sources of co-funding has been included in
Section 2 (b) of the Executive Summary and Section E of the Project Brief and the estimated co-
funding has been revised throughout the documentation submitted
2) response on the presentation of information on GEF funding and co-financing for each project
component: A breakdown of the project funding for each component in terms of the GEF grant and
co-financing has been included in the discussion of each project component in the Executive
Summary, with information outlining the major elements financed by GEF and the major sources of
co-financing for each component
B2.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM WORLD BANK
The World Bank commented on several aspects of the Project submission, concluding that:
the Bank fully supports the project, although our impression is that while the project will supply
the basis for future detailed management recommendations, it may not pay sufficient attention to
how these recommendations may be implemented at the LME level. Our impression is also that
the necessary balance between the economic and the biological (people and fish) is skewed in
favour of the biological. It is possible that both of these concerns could be addressed during
implementation.
The 6 specific issues raised in the Bank comments have been addressed as follows:
1. the tracking of benefits accruing to both the SIDS and the distant water fleets.
Response: representatives of the Bank and FFA met in Sydney on 9 February 2005 and agreed to
give priority in cooperation between the Bank and FFA to support for the development of indicators
of economic performance in the Western and Central Pacific oceanic fisheries.
2. giving more attention to economic factors as the drivers of over-exploitation
Response: a reference to analysis of economic factors contributing to over-exploitation has been
included in the description of sub-component 2.2: policy reform in the Project Brief
3. the need to give attention to issues related to resource allocation
Response: a reference to the provision of advice on the principles of allocation of access to resources
has been included in the description of sub-component 2.2: policy reform in the Project Brief
136
4. the need to consider: (a) means of measuring and verifying purse seine vessel fishing capacity,
particularly with respect to the use of FADs; and (b) means of ensuring compliance with possible
WCPFC regulations regarding limits on the use of FADs in time, or area closures, both on the high seas
and in the EEZs.
Response: at its first meeting, the WCPF Commission called for its scientific committee to provide
advice on measures to mitigate the catch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin including controls on setting
on floating objects; and for its technical and compliance committee to provide advice on effective
implementation of possible conservation and management measures including time/area closures or
alternative measures to control sets on floating objects. In response the project will provide scientific
and technical advice to Pacific SIDS on FAD-related issues under sub-components 1.2; stock
assessment and 2.4: compliance strengthening
5. the importance of analysing MCS costs and possible new technologies for MCS
Response: a reference has been included in the description of sub-component 2.4 compliance
strengthening to work on MCS costs and new technologies for MCS.
6. strengthening of fisher associations, including bringing SIDS and distant water fishing associations
together
Response: the Project design attaches priority to strengthening participation by stakeholders,
including fishers in the implementation of the WCPF Convention and the project. As documented in
the project submission, fishers associations in Pacific SIDS are relatively weak and have had relatively
little participation in the process of preparation of the WCPF Convention. The project is designed to
support the establishment and strengthening of fishers' associations in Pacific SIDS and their
participation in regional fisheries affairs through sub-components 2.3: institutional reform and 3.3:
stakeholder participation and awareness raising. This work could include support for joint fora of
Pacific SIDS and distant water fishing associations if that is identified by Pacific SIDS fishers as a
priority. Consultations with Pacific SIDS fishers during the design phase of the project have already
stimulated the formation of a regional association of Pacific Islands fishing industry interests.
137
ANNEX D
ENDORSEMENTS FROM GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINTS AND OTHER
CONTRIBUTORS
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
ANNEX E SUMMARY OF THE TERMINAL EVALUATION REPORT OF THE OFM
COMPONENT OF THE IW SAP PROJECT
The Strategic Action Programme for International Waters
of the Pacific Small Island Developing States
with the assistance of GEF/UNDP
TERMINAL EVALUATION
OF THE
OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COMPONENT
(RAS/98/G32)
Philip Tortell and Sandra Tarte
March 2004
158
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Project
The UNDP/GEF-supported International Waters Project (IW-Project) for the Pacific Small Island
Developing States inception and development spanned a period of five years. This included the
preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and the formulation of a project document covering
the Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) and the Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management
(ICWM) components. This Terminal Evaluation is concerned only with the OFM Component/Project
which was executed by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Secretariat for the Pacific
Community (SPC) and which targeted the following outcomes : sustainable ocean fisheries; improved
national and regional management capability; stock and by-catch monitoring and research; and,
enhanced national and regional management links.
Project design and logic
The ProDoc was built on the SAP which had identified the problems of the region and their root causes.
However, the ProDoc fell short of expectations. It did not provide adequate guidance to those
implementing the OFM project; it did not build on past achievements and learn from past experiences;
project design did not seem to identify problem situations adequately and their root causes; it was weak
in terms of strategic planning, preparatory work and implementation strategies; having identified some
risks it provided no risk management strategies; it failed to unify the two components and no synergies
were planned.
The root causes identified in the SAP were not the same as those in either the text or the LogFrame
Matrix of the ProDoc. While the FFA attempted to cope with this confusion by reverting to the root
causes in the SAP for guidance, the Evaluation Team adopted the ProDoc, and particularly the
LogFrame Matrix, as the framework for the evaluation and the root causes were determined to be "Lack
of monitoring and enforcement of regulations" and "Lack of trained staff for surveillance."
The objectives, outputs and activities of the broader IW-Project (including the OFM Component) went
through a series of changes during the course of its implementation and the latest version which was
made available to the Evaluation Team in the form of a LogFrame Matrix, was dated as recently as
September 2003. It is usual and desirable to reflect changing circumstances, lessons learnt and
experience gained during the implementation of a project, by reviewing and revising the various outputs
and activities, usually by revising the LogFrame Matrix. However, in the case of the OFM Project, it
would seem that many of the changes were necessitated by the inconsistencies between the SAP, the
Project Concept and the ProDoc, and the low level of consultation with prospective stakeholders (FFA
and SPC) at the project formulation stages leading to weak project design. There is also a feeling that
some of the changes were a means of adapting the outputs and activities to fit what was taking place
anyway, rather than the other way round. When the work of the executing agencies did not reflect the
agreed Activities of the UNDP/GEF OFM Project, it was the Project Activities that were changed to fit.
The indicators adopted in the original LogFrame Matrix are a mixture of outputs, means of verification
and some true indicators. However, even the latter are difficult to verify objectively since they are not
adequately targeted. The revised LogFrame Matrix includes the original indicators which are not very
useful but on the whole it is more helpful and there are some indicators among them which could be
159
objectively verifiable, with minor refinements. However, the majority of adopted indicators in the list
are still impossible to verify, objectively or otherwise.
Consultation and participation
Among the changes that have taken place in the wording, etc, of the Objectives, Outputs and Activities
of the OFM Component, is the removal of all reference to public participation activities.
The consultation process surrounding the SAP and the extent of participation by stakeholders in its
adoption was very satisfactory even though the focus of these consultations was more on the issues
surrounding the coastal and inshore environments of the region than in the area of oceanic fisheries
resources. But the level of participation by stakeholders did not follow through into the formulation
phase of the Project and the development and adoption of the ProDoc. Neither has the implementation
phase of the OFM Project been strong on stakeholder involvement or any other participation at country
level.
The low level of stakeholder involvement and the almost total absence of participation by the public,
NGOs and the private sector have been acknowledged by both the FFA and the SPC, as executing
agencies and there is a commitment that the follow-up project will involve civil society in a manner
which reflects local mores, culture and sensitivities.
Implementation and monitoring arrangements
The pivotal role of SPREP in project implementation is spelled out clearly in the ProDoc without any
distinction between the two components. The Project Manager, located in the Project Coordination
Unit (PCU), has responsibility for day-to-day Project implementation. The PCU is established as a
`distinct unit' within SPREP, with the Project Manager reporting directly to the Director of SPREP and
to the UNDP Resident Representative. With respect to the OFM component, the ProDoc provides that
this will be implemented largely by FFA and SPC, according to a Memorandum of Understanding
signed with SPREP. This subsequently took the form of Letters of Agreement between SPREP and
FFA and between SPREP and SPC according to which FFA and SPC are the Executing Agencies for
the OFM component and all OFM staff are located at the two agencies. The extent and effectiveness of
collaboration and coordination between FFA and SPC are a subject of much pride for the two
organizations. They have a tradition of working together and of supplementing each other's efforts and
there is no doubt that this positive situation has served the OFM Project well.
Monitoring and evaluation for the OFM Component were undertaken mainly by FFA and SPC and `in-
house' even though independent audits were also initiated by the two organizations. There was no
formal response to audit reports from the implementing agencies and therefore there was no adaptive
management in project implementation, in response to monitoring. The Evaluation Team does not
believe that M&E has been used effectively as a management tool in directing the implementation of
the OFM Component and cannot recommend this approach for any future project support.
Financial aspects
The FFA share of the OFM component funded by GEF was $1.915 million. The largest proportion
(56.22%) of this amount was allocated to International Meetings to support Pacific Island countries'
participation in the MHLC (two meetings) and the PrepCon process (five meetings). This category also
covers participation at regional workshops and at meetings of other Regional Fisheries Management
160
Organizations. The second largest share (34.01%) was used to fund consultancies, namely the work of
the Fisheries Management Advisor. The other allocations were for Administration (1.53%), Equipment
(0.77%) and Training (7.46%). The Evaluation Team feels that the budget allocated to the FFA has
been spent appropriately and while only a small proportion was spent `in-country', it was almost totally
spent for the benefit of the countries. As noted by the PCU, while the benefits of this project have
arguably been most effectively delivered through the focus on support to FFA and SPC, national
engagement has still been significant although in-country expenditure has been relatively low.
The SPC budget allocation of US$1.526 million has been used to support three positions in the Oceanic
Fisheries Programme of SPC and the expenditure on these three positions amounted to 46% of the total
budget. When allocations for their travel and research support are added to the salaries amount, the
total spent on these three positions is equivalent to 74% of the total budget. The only other tangible
output, namely Enhanced National Capacity, has an allocation of 20%.
A feature of the SPC expenditure is the extremely low proportion of the total budget that has been, or
will be, spent `in-country' or directly for in-country beneficiaries. However, the Evaluation Team
believes that as long as the unspent funds earmarked for "Enhanced National Capacity" are indeed spent
for those activities, and as long as the overspent equipment budget is supplemented from within the
"Support to FFA/SPC" component, the funds allocated to SPC would have been spent appropriately.
By "investing" its resources in an organization like SPC whose OFP had on-going research activities
directly related to the aims and objectives of the OFM Project; and in the FFA whose fisheries
management activities mirrored and extended those proposed under the OFM Project, GEF has
benefited from a broader input of expertise and resources which would not have been available
otherwise. It has therefore obtained an incremental result, broader than it would have been able to
achieve on its own with its available resources, even though this result is somewhat more difficult to
extract and quantify on its own.
Results achieved, sustainability and replicability
Stakeholders and beneficiaries agree that this was a good project. It may not have been very visible,
and its results may not be very distinguishable, but it is recognized as having contributed a very
essential element to what the Pacific Island countries have managed to achieve in terms of a regional
management regime for a regional resource of global dimensions.
The Evaluation Team feels that the original OFM objective could not have been expected to be
achieved by this project since its dimensions went beyond the boundaries of the project. On the other
hand, the Evaluation Team believes that the new objective has been achieved, even though there is a
feeling that it might have been retrofitted to an existing and/or developing situation.
The results achieved have contributed to the GEF objective of achieving global environmental benefits
and a well designed project may have been able to achieve more with the same resources and effort.
Hopefully, this shortcoming can be remedied in the proposed follow-up project.
Capacity building has been the most significant benefit of the OFM Project. But in spite of the
impressive nature of the results, their sustainability is not assured since it may not be easy retaining the
trained, skilled personnel in government. Inadequate resources are being made available by
Governments to develop fisheries management and research capacity. Instead, there is a tendency to
rely extensively on regional assistance programmes, mainly from SPC and FFA who are themselves
constrained in their efforts to meet the numerous requests for assistance from member countries. This
reliance on external funding support is untenable in the long term since the fisheries sector is a major
161
revenue earner for the Governments and it makes sense to reinvest some of this revenue in the
administration and management of the sector to ensure its control and sustainability.
The Evaluation Team sees the OFM Project as a unique intervention in the Pacific region and there is
neither the potential nor the need to replicate it in the region. SPREP agrees that the extent of
replicability in the region is minimal. However, there are definite global replication possibilities in
other island regions supporting significant tuna fisheries. Where distant water fishing nations and
coastal states are expected to collaborate on tuna resources management, the processes and strategies
applied in the OFM Component set global precedents. In addition, the processes employed in the
oceanic fisheries sector do demonstrate best practice that could usefully be applied to coastal resources
management, and some aspects of the OFM Component (particularly the linkages between science and
management) have potential for replication in integrated coastal management processes.
UNDP believes that the process leading up to and the actual establishment of the Tuna Commission is
considered a best practice and can have replicability globally.
Conclusions and lessons learnt
·
On the GEF and global environmental objectives -
The OFM Component can be said to have contributed to the objective of GEF OP#8 but with the
divorce practised between the OFM and the ICWM components and the fact that the `ecosystem'
approach to the LME has yet to be applied, this contribution has been very limited. The Evaluation
Team sees the need for better understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures, etc, among
current and prospective stakeholders.
·
Root causes and imminent threats identified in the ProDoc -
The Root Causes were determined in the LogFrame Matrix to be "Lack of monitoring and enforcement
of regulations" and "Lack of trained staff for surveillance" and the OFM Project would have been
expected to focus on monitoring, enforcement of regulations and capacity building (mainly training) for
surveillance. There is no denying that the OFM Project did indeed address these aspects, however, they
were not its main focus and it centred predominantly on preparation for and participation in the MHLCs
and the PrepCons together with scientific research for management.
·
Project design -
Project design was weak, necessitating significant changes to the Objective, Outputs and Activities. It
is evident that this was an amalgam of two distinct initiatives brought together purely as a matter of
convenience. No synergies between the two components were planned and none were created during
implementation. There was no evident logical development of the OFM Component from the
identification of problems to the determination of their root causes, the setting of an objective, the
selection of outputs and the planning of activities which ultimately would have addressed the root
causes of the identified problems.
·
The Project Document -
The ProDoc fell short of expectations. It did not provide adequate guidance to those implementing the
OFM project; it did not build on past achievements and learn from past experiences; project design did
not seem to identify problem situations adequately and their root causes; it was weak in terms of
strategic planning, preparatory work and implementation strategies; having identified some risks it
provided no risk management strategies; it failed to unify the two components and no synergies were
planned.
·
The Logical Framework Matrix -
162
Both the original and the revised LogFrame Matrices, have created confusion with their loose use of
terminology and the lack of logical structure. The majority of the performance indicators adopted for
the OFM Component in both versions of the LogFrame Matrix were not verifiable objectively and they
were not much help either to those implementing the project or to this Evaluation Team.
·
Achievement of planned objectives and outputs -
The original objective for the OFM Component could not have been expected to be achieved by this
project since its dimensions went beyond the boundaries of the project. On the other hand, the new,
revised objective has been achieved, even though there is a feeling that it might have been retrofitted to
an existing and/or developing programme of work of the executing agencies. Outputs were not clearly
identified and were in fact referred to as Activities. However, both FFA and SPC believe that the
outputs/activities have been achieved and the Evaluation Team agrees that these outputs have indeed
been obtained.
·
Adaptive responses to changing circumstances
Many project Activities, as well as the Project Objective and Outputs for the OFM Project, changed
substantially during implementation. But this was not as much in response to changing circumstances,
as it was in response to faulty project design. It is also possible that the changes came about from a
desire by the executing agencies to support their on-going or planned activities. Audits, regular reports
and other results of monitoring by FFA and SPC did not elicit any formal reactions from either SPREP
or UNDP, therefore no adjustments were thought to be needed.
·
Financial resources -
Budgets allocated to the FFA and SPC have been spent appropriately as long as the SPC unspent funds
earmarked for "Enhanced National Capacity" are indeed spent for those activities, and as long as the
overspent equipment budget is supplemented from within the "Support to FFA/SPC" component. By
"investing" its resources in organizations such as SPC and FFA, GEF has benefited from a broader
input of expertise and resources which would not have been available otherwise. It has therefore
obtained an incremental result, broader than it would have been able to achieve on its own with its
available resources, even though this result is somewhat more difficult to extract and quantify on its
own.
·
Roles and responsibilities -
The OFM Project had a multiplicity of hierarchical layers and it was therefore essential that roles and
responsibilities were defined clearly, and this appears to have been the case. The pivotal role of SPREP
in project implementation is spelled out clearly in the ProDoc and the roles and relationship between
FFA and SPC themselves as executing agencies are also clearly delineated in a Memorandum of
Agreement between the two organizations. Benefits accrued from the good level of communication and
cooperation between the Executing Agencies, based on a strong record of working together and clear
delineation of mandates.
·
Partnerships with other donors -
The OFM Component did not involve partnerships with any third-party donors. Funds came from GEF,
FFA and SPC. However, there was a high degree of complementarity between the activities of the
OFM Component and other activities being undertaken by FFA and SPC but funded by other donors.
·
Public participation and stakeholder involvement -
Stakeholder involvement in the OFM Project has been fairly weak in most aspects of the Project and
both the FFA and the SPC acknowledge the low level of stakeholder involvement and the almost total
absence of participation by the public, NGOs and the private sector. There is a commitment that the
163
follow-up project will involve civil society in a manner which will reflect local mores, culture and
sensitivities.
·
Implementation and coordination by the implementing and executing agencies -
Implementation of the OFM Component was comparatively smooth and effective. The views of
stakeholders and beneficiaries on implementation arrangements have been positive in the main. But
while implementation appears to have been satisfactory, coordination has not been strong and apart
from the handling of financial reports and cash advances, neither SPREP nor the PCU made enough
effort to coordinate the two components of the IW-Project at the implementation level.
·
Beneficiaries -
The principal beneficiaries were expected to be government policymakers engaged in the management
of the oceanic fisheries resources (from Fisheries, Foreign Affairs and Legal Ministries and
Departments). The ProDoc identified "secondary target beneficiaries" which included
intergovernmental organisations (namely SPC, FFA and SPREP) and the private sector. However, FFA
and SPC have been very much primary target beneficiaries in view of the capacity building and funding
support they have received from the OFM Project.
·
Sustainability and replicability of project outcome -
In spite of the impressive nature of the capacity building results, their sustainability is not assured.
Some of the barriers to sustainability have been identified and those that are within the Project's
competence are proposed to be addressed during the follow-up project. While there is neither the
potential nor the need to replicate the OFM Project in the region, there are definite global replication
possibilities in other island regions supporting significant tuna fisheries.
·
Monitoring and evaluation -
Monitoring and evaluation have not been used effectively as a management tool to obtain accountability
or measure progress or to direct the implementation of the OFM Component. What monitoring and
evaluation were undertaken were left to FFA and SPC `in-house' efforts even though independent
audits (commissioned by the organizations) were also carried out and an excellent baseline study and
update were very useful exercises.
Recommendations
1
That UNDP/GEF accept that although the OFM Project may not have addressed the identified
root causes fully or exclusively, the benefits obtained through the activities undertaken justify this
departure and the Project has been very successful in strengthening the institutional framework, the
knowledge base and the stakeholders capacity for managing this unique tuna resource which is of global
significance.
2
That UNDP/GEF confirm their support for a follow-up project as the best way of ensuring the
sustainability of the benefits obtained from this Project.
3
That UNDP/GEF organize a GEF Workshop or series of workshops in the region, for GEF
National Focal Points and others, to raise awareness and improved understanding of GEF processes,
objectives, procedures and the GEF focus on global environmental benefits.
4
That those responsible for the formulation of the follow-up project place great emphasis on the
design of the project which should reflect the root causes of the problems and be structured according to
the logic of the setting of an objective, the selection of outputs and the planning of activities which
ultimately would have addressed the root causes of the identified problems, and for this logic to be
164
evident in a robust Logical Framework Matrix which includes objectively verifiable indicators that can
guide those implementing the project.
5
That in designing the project, the approach should be a participatory one involving as many as
possible of the prospective stakeholders and beneficiaries at regional, government, private sector and
community levels.
6
That the project design should include a strategy for monitoring and evaluation that depends on
a feedback loop between those implementing the project and a project steering committee made up of
knowledgeable individuals able to appreciate the issues being brought before them and provide the
feedback, advice and direction necessary for the effective implementation of the project.
7
That the prime benefit that should be targeted from the follow-up project is the framework,
capacity and functioning of the proposed Tuna Commission so that it can undertake its crucial role of
providing the management context for the tuna resource and its ecosystem in a manner which will
provide the greatest benefits to the Pacific Island countries and their citizens on a sustainable basis.
8
That an equally important target of the follow-up project is the further building of capacity and
capability of the Pacific Island region, at regional, government, private sector and community levels so
that each sector can participate meaningfully in the management of the tuna resource and its ecosystem.
9
That the follow-up project places emphasis on the realignment, restructuring and strengthening
of national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities that
the Convention has created and discharge the new responsibilities that it requires.
10
That fisheries management capacity at country level be enhanced for data collection and
analysis, stock assessment, MCS and enforcement and the development and application of
contemporary fisheries management tools, through a strategy that views capacity building and training
as a continuing activity rather than a one-off exercise to overcome the problem of capacity retention.
11
That Pacific Island countries that have adopted Tuna Management Plans and are having
difficulties with implementation, be assisted to identify and address the barriers that are hindering
implementation.
12
That the regionally based pool of expertise provided by the FFA and SPC will remain a cost-
effective means of underpinning the implementation of an effective fisheries management framework,
for the foreseeable future.
13
That USP be encouraged and supported to establish relevant programmes in fisheries science,
oceanography, ecosystem management, fisheries administration and law, etc, to provide an important
ingredient for the capacity building effort and that Pacific Island Governments as well as the private
sector be encouraged to support such studies through the awarding of scholarships to promising
nationals.
14
That national Colleges of Fisheries and similar institutions be assisted to start offering courses
for observers, monitors and similar technical positions leading to a recognized qualification.
165
Document Outline