Mid-Term Review of the UNEP/GEF project Reduction of
Environmental Impact from Tropical Shrimp Trawling through the
Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change of
Management
Project Number UNEP GF/2731-02-4469 & GF/4030-02-04
FAO EP/GLO/201/GEF
Lena Westlund
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
December 2006
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 4
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................... 7
GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................... 8
1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 9
THIS REPORT ............................................................................................................................... 9
THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................... 9
Project Background and Rationale......................................................................................... 9
Project Objectives, Expected Outcomes and Approach ....................................................... 10
Agency and Policy Programme Context ............................................................................... 10
Executing Arrangements....................................................................................................... 11
Budget and Project Duration................................................................................................ 11
Reporting, and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) ............................................................. 12
THIS MID-TERM REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 12
Terms of Reference of Mid-term Review............................................................................... 12
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 13
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 13
2
MAJOR FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 13
PROJECT DESIGN........................................................................................................................ 13
Project Document and Logical Framework ......................................................................... 13
Continued Relevance of the Expected Results, Outcomes and Objectives ........................... 14
PROJECT PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................ 15
Attainment of Objectives: Current Status and End-of-Project Prognosis ............................ 15
Main Achievements To-date.................................................................................................. 16
Likely End-of-project Achievements ..................................................................................... 19
PROJECT IMPACT........................................................................................................................ 20
SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY ........................................................................................ 21
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 23
Project Operations................................................................................................................ 23
Budget and Expenditures ...................................................................................................... 24
3
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT...................... 25
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS............................................................................................................. 25
Project Design ...................................................................................................................... 25
Project Performance and Impact.......................................................................................... 25
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................. 26
Suggestions for the Remaining Part of the Project............................................................... 26
A New Project? Yes! .......................................................................................................... 28
Lessons Learnt ...................................................................................................................... 29
FINAL REMARKS ........................................................................................................................ 30
2
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1: SEAFDEC and the REBYC-project.................................................................................. 18
Box 2: A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-Trawl Fisheries......................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Preliminary baseline assessment: pre-project BRD status by country ........................... 22
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW ................................... 31
ANNEX 2: TRIP TO THE PHILIPPINES, INCLUDING FIELD TRIP TO CALBAYOG CITY
(SAMAR PROVINCE)......................................................................................................... 38
ANNEX 3: FIELD TRIP TO MEXICO ....................................................................................... 38
ANNEX 4: FIELD TRIP TO NIGERIA....................................................................................... 38
ANNEX 5: PERSONS MET ........................................................................................................ 38
ANNEX 6: PROJECT PERFORMANCE RUBRIC .................................................................... 38
ANNEX 7: PROJECT PROMOTIONAL AND INFORMATION MATERIAL PRODUCED BY
SEAFDEC............................................................................................................................. 38
ANNEX 8: PROJECT CO-FINANCING AND LEVERAGED RESOURCES.......................... 38
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
i.
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the mid-term review carried out in
October-December 2006 of the global project Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical
Shrimp Trawling through the Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change of
Management (the REBYC-project). The project has a total budget of US$9 150 000 and a duration of
six years (June 2002-June 2008). It is implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), executed by Fisheries Department of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations (FAO) and co-funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), FAO and the twelve
participating countries.
ii.
The main objective of the project is to reduce discards in tropical shrimp trawl fisheries by
introducing appropriate fishing technologies. The project objectives also include the reduction of
overall by-catch by shrimp trawlers, in particular the capture of juveniles of commercially valuable
species, and a better understanding of the impact of shrimp trawling on marine habitats.
Overall findings
Project design
iii.
While the project document contains a considerable amount of information, it is not as clear and
concise as it could have been. This is particularly true for the logical framework (logframe), which
appears to lack some of the logic that generally governs this type of planning tool.
iv.
The overall project objective to reduce discards and by-catch is found to be of continued
relevance to participating countries. However, with regard to objective number three, `Increase
knowledge of the impact of shrimp-trawling on marine habitat' intending in particular the
investigation of damage on the bottom habitat by trawling it is felt that the inclusion of this
objective in the project may have been an overly ambitious undertaking considering the overall focus
of the project, its level of funding and time frame as well as the capacities of the participating
countries.
Major achievements and strengths
v.
Overall, the project has made important progress towards the objective of reducing discards and
by-catch although there are differences in progress among countries. In spite of a relatively slow start
due to administrative problems at project inception, substantial results have been produced with
regard to data collection, and testing and demonstration of BRD devices and improved gear. Although
only a few countries can show concrete results with regard to the wider implementation of the
defined/developed BRDs and gear or towards the formal legalisation their use, most are likely to have
made further progress at the end of the project. Outputs produced so far include:
· Tests on BRDs and decision on what devices should be promoted/recommended for regulations
completed for some fisheries (e.g. in Calbayog in the Philippines, Colombia, Pacific coast of
Mexico, etc) and trials well under way in most other countries. Probable by-catch reductions
estimated to be around 30-40 percent.
· Revised or new legislation adopted in Nigeria and Mexico, and work started on legal reviews in
others. Recertification of Nigeria for shrimp exports to the USA by reintroduction of TEDs (to be
confirmed officially).
4
· Recognition of the need for a wider fisheries management approach reinforced, including, for
example, effort controls through closed seasons/areas and limits on number of trawlers.
· Extensive technical regional (and global) collaboration established and cooperation initialised and
steps taken towards harmonisation of by-catch reduction at sub-regional level
(Nigeria/Cameroon/Gulf of Guinea countries, Mexico/Latin America and the Caribbean,
SEAFDEC/Southeast Asia).
· Knowledge of by-catches composition and quantities improved and further information
currently being collected on the socio-economic role of by-catches (Nigeria, and Trinidad and
Tobago).
· Cooperation between governments (officials and researchers) and the shrimp trawl industry /
private sector established, or strengthened in countries where it existed pre-project.
· Awareness of the importance and usefulness of BRDs and the knowledge of possible technical
solutions enhanced among relevant national institutions and administrations as well as within the
fishing industry.
· An FAO manual/guide on BRDs published (`A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-
Trawl Fisheries'), training materials on Juvenile and Trashfish Excluder Devices (JTEDs)
developed (by SEAFDEC) and set-up of a project website.
vi.
The strengths of the project include its close cooperation with the private sector and trawl
industry, and the regional and international cooperation. Moreover, the pragmatic and hands-on
technological approach of the project has served as an important entry point for wider management
discussions with the private industry and other stakeholders
Weaknesses
vii.
With regard to likely end-of-project achievements, there are important differences between the
countries where by-catch is utilised and carries a commercial value and those where by-catch is
generally not wanted and discarded. The project is likely to be more successful in the Latin American
(and Middle East) regions than in the countries in Southeast Asia and Africa. This argument is based
on the assumption that enforcement of regulations will be difficult and that the voluntary cooperation
of the industry is essential. Moreover, where by-catch is being used, it often plays an important role in
food security for poorer population groups and this situation needs to be better understood.
viii.
While industry cooperation is strong and a fundamental basis for a successful introduction of
BRDs, there is also a need to formalise their utilisation. The project addresses the need of legislative
revisions but the next step to enforce the revised or new regulations is relatively poorly addressed.
It would also be important that the application of BRDs is combined with other management tools
and that a holistic approach to safeguarding the sustainability of shrimp trawl fisheries is taken.
ix.
Changes take a long time and results can generally not be rushed. Applying a participatory and
partnership approach requires time and patience and this has to be accepted for good results to be
achieved. A project duration of five or six years may not be sufficient to optimise the impact of
project results and to ensure full sustainability.
x.
The project is based on the assumption that a reduction of by-catches has a positive impact on the
ecosystem. While the validity of this assumption is not questioned, there is a need to review and
document how the project results impact on ecosystem conditions. A process for documenting the
results of the technical trials carried out and lessons learnt appears to be lacking.
Main recommendations
xi.
For the remaining part of the current project, the following is suggested:
· The success indicators and end-of-project targets need to be revised to allow for monitoring of
results.
5
· Baseline data will be needed to demonstrate the project's role in achieving the targets and such
baseline information should be documented together with the revised indicators.
· Work plans for the remaining time of the project should be reviewed at both the national and the
global levels and updated with appropriate detail, including milestones for close monitoring of
progress.
· The overall project approach based on close cooperation with the industry should be continued
and further strengthened.
· During the remaining part of the project, results should be consolidated and efforts made in
particular to ensure that the necessary legislative enactment takes place.
· Additional visibility of FAO/UNEP in project countries could play an important role in soliciting
support from higher national political levels for new policies and regulations and should be
ensured.
· Efforts should be made to review and document the results achieved by the project and analyse
their importance in relation to the environment and ecosystems.
· While it would be possible to partially address project objective number 3, `Increase knowledge
of the impact of shrimp-trawling on marine habitat', by carrying out a (desk) study, the reviewer
is uncertain as to whether this would be a worthwhile effort.
· The project website requires some attention and updating. However, information from the project
may be more useful and accessible if included on a wider shrimp trawl or by-catch website that
could be set up by FAO.
· A number of high quality articles/reports should be published by the project in journals as well as
in the FAO Fisheries Technical Report series (or similar).
· The project could also consider organising an international end-of-project technical seminar or
conference in which results and achievements are presented.
· Exit strategies i.e. post-project follow-up activities to ensure sustainability of results at
national and global levels need to be developed with some urgency.
xii.
It is strongly recommended that a new project is formulated and implemented in order to benefit
from the momentum created by the achievements of the current project. This would allow to follow-
up on existing activities and also introduce a broader scope addressing other management issues and
approaches. Moreover, additional countries should be invited to participate in the project and further
regional cooperation and technological transfers between countries encouraged.
xiii.
Such a project needs to be formulated with some urgency to ensure continuation. The design
process should be participatory using the mechanisms for stakeholder consultations already
established in the countries participating in the current project and creating similar procedures in new
countries and allow for sub-regional and country specific activities under an overall umbrella of
improved management of tropical shrimp trawl fisheries.
6
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BRD
By-catch
Reduction
Device
CONAPESCA
Comision Nacional de Aquacultura y Pesca (Mexico)
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FDF
Department of Fisheries of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (Nigeria)
FIIT
Fishing Technology Service (FAO)
GAPCM Groupement des Aquaculteurs et Pêcheurs de Crevettes de Madagascar
GEF
Global
Environment
Facility
INP
National Institute of Fisheries (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca Mexico)
JTED
Juvenile
and
Trash fish Excluder Device
LME
Large
Marine
Ecosystems
LOA
Letter
of
Agreement
Logframe
Logical Framework (part of project document)
MCS
Monitoring,
Control
and
Surveillance
MPA
Marine
Protected
Area
MSC
Marine
Stewardship
Council
NC
(Project) National Coordinator
NIOMAR Nigerian
Institute
for
Oceanography and Marine Research
NITOA
Nigerian Trawler Owners' Association
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)
NPSC
National Project Steering Committee
OLDEPESCA
Organización Latinoamericana de Desarrollo Pesquero
REBYC-project Reduction
of
Environmental
Impact from Tropical Shrimp Trawling
through the Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change
of Management project
RFB
Regional
Fishery
Body
SEAFDEC
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
TED
Turtle
Excluder
Device
TTFD
Thai Turtle Free Device
UNEP
United National Environment Programme
US, USA
United States of America
VMS
Vessel
Monitoring
System
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
7
GLOSSARY
Artisanal fishery
Traditional fisheries involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using relatively
small amount of capital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels (if any), making short fishing trips,
close to shore, mainly for local consumption. In practice, definition varies between countries, e.g. from
gleaning or a one-man canoe in poor developing countries, to more than 20 metre trawlers, seiners, or
long-liners in developed ones. Artisanal fisheries can be subsistence or commercial fisheries, providing
for local consumption or export. Sometimes referred to as small-scale fisheries
By-catch
Part of the catch taken incidentally to the target species toward which fishing effort is directed. It includes
all non-target animals and non-living material, including those that escape from the fishing gear during
the fishing operation and are not landed on board.
By-catch reduction device (BRD)
Any modification to a trawl designed to reduce the capture of by-catch. Strictly speaking a TED is a type
of BRD that excludes turtles and other large animals from the trawl although the term BRD generally
refers to a device that is specifically designed to reduce the capture of fish by-catch and other small
animals and debris. Other modifications that may reduce by-catch include larger meshes in the main body
of the trawl, ground gear modifications or headline height adjustment.
Discards
The part of the catch released or returned to the sea, dead or alive, whether or not such fish are brought
fully on board a fishing vessel.
Fishing industry
Includes both recreational, subsistence and commercial fishing, and the harvesting, processing, and
marketing sectors. In this report, however, the term `industry' is generally used for the large-scale shrimp
trawl fleet (the `industrial' sub-sector as opposed to the artisanal fishery) which is the main target of
project activities.
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)
Activities undertaken by the fishery enforcement system to ensure compliance with fishery regulations.
Selectivity / selective fishing gear
Ability to target and capture fish by size and species during the fishing operation while allowing by-catch
to escape unharmed / a fishing gear allowing fishers to capture few if any species other than the target
species.
Target species
Those species that are primarily sought by fishers in a particular fishery, i.e. the subject of directed fishing
effort in a fishery.
TED
A term that initially meant turtle excluder device but now sometimes also refers to trawl efficiency
device, i.e. a grid or net panel preventing large animals from entering the codend. TEDs not only exclude
turtles but also sharks, stingrays, jellyfish, sponges and large fish.
Trawl
A cone or funnel-shaped net that is towed through the water by one or more vessels.
Sources: Eayrs, S. (2005). A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-Trawl Fisheries. FAO, Rome, Italy,
and FAO Fisheries Glossary at http://www.fao.org/fi/glossary.
8
1 INTRODUCTION
This Report
1. This report presents the findings and recommendations of the mid-term review carried out in
October-December 2006 of the global project Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical
Shrimp Trawling through the Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change of
Management (the REBYC-project). The project has a total budget of US$9 150 000 and a duration of
six years (June 2002-June 2008). It is implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), executed by the Fisheries Department of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations (FAO) and co-funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), FAO, the Southeast
Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) and the twelve participating countries.
The Project
Project Background and Rationale
2. Bycatches, i.e. catch taken in addition to the targeted fish, constitute an important part of the total
catch of the world's fisheries. Shrimp fishing, and in particular tropical shrimp trawling, produces
large amounts of by-catch. Some of the by-catch may be retained and landed. Another part is usually
discarded, i.e. returned to the sea. Discards usually constitute dead fish (or turtles, dolphins or other
unwanted catch).
3. By-catches impact on the ecosystem by increasing the mortality of the incidentally captured species.
By-catches are generally unregulated and may pose a threat to species diversity and to endangered
species, e.g. sea turtles, and to the balance and health of the ecosystem. By-catches, when consisting
of juveniles of commercially valuable species and food fish, also have an economic impact by sub-
optimal use of the fishery resources and hence constitute a threat to food security and sustainable
fisheries. Moreover, unwanted by-catches incur costs related to sorting and handling of catch.
4. In addition to producing large amounts of by-catch, shrimp trawling also affects the ecosystem by its
physical impact on seabeds and bottom habitats. The extent of this impact varies between fisheries and
fishing grounds. However, the knowledge of how towed fishing gear impacts different types of
habitats is still only rudimentary.
5. The reduction of by-catches and the impact of shrimp trawling on marine ecosystems and habitats has
become a policy of many countries, and regional and international organisations. Considerable efforts
have been made in recent years to modify fishing gear and practices in this respect and there is
growing pressure on the industry to change their practices accordingly.
6. Although the use of certain by-catch reduction devices (BRDs) are mandatory in some tropical shrimp
fisheries, i.e. the turtle excluder device (TED) required for shrimp exports to the United States, better
technologies and practices could be introduced and the level of compliance improved. This situation
was confirmed by the results of baseline studies carried out in thirteen countries as part of the
preparatory phase of the REBYC-project. These baseline studies also showed the complexity of the
by-catch problem and identified both important differences and similarities among countries and
fisheries in the four main tropical regions involved, i.e. Latin America and the Caribbean, West
Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The conclusions of the studies were discussed in national
and regional workshops.
7. Based on this preparatory work, the REBYC-project was formulated to address the issue of by-catch
and environmental impact by tropical shrimp fisheries in a selected number of countries according to
9
their priorities. The main mechanisms to be used were cooperation among participating national
institutions, utilisation of experiences from countries outside the tropical regions having developed
more advanced technical solutions and technical support from FAO.
Project Objectives, Expected Outcomes and Approach
8. The main objective of the REBYC-project is to reduce discards in tropical shrimp trawl fisheries by
introducing appropriate fishing technologies. The project objectives also include the reduction of
overall by-catch by shrimp trawlers, in particular the capture of juveniles of commercially valuable
species, and a better understanding of the impact of shrimp trawling on marine habitats.
9. The project logical framework (logframe) includes five outcomes and four results:
Outcomes: Results:
1. Minimizing the pantropical problem of
1. Adoption of by-catch reduction devices by national
unwanted by-catch from shrimp trawling
and regional shrimp-trawling fisheries
2. Introduction of appropriate fishing technology
2. Improved management of shrimp-trawling fishery
and practice
3. Increased co-operation among countries in research
on and management of the resources
3. Enactment of relevant legislation and
development of an improved management
4. Better understanding of the interactions between
framework
fishing gear and environment
4. Enhance awareness of the problem of shrimp
by-catch
5. Increase dialogue, interaction and joint
operations at the country and regional levels
10. The project approach is based on "the introduction of appropriate fishing technologies (by-catch
reduction devices BRDs) and practices, in combination, where necessary, with the introduction of
legislation and a management framework, including control and enforcement strategies. It will also
aim to avoid the capture of turtles (where such by-catch exists)" (Project Document, page 8).
11. The project is implemented at three levels: national, regional and global. The project document
foresees that activities will first start in a small group of technically `more advanced' countries and
that the results from this work will then be used in the other participating countries through regional
cooperation. At the global level, FAO facilitates the wider international cooperation and information
exchange.
Agency and Policy Programme Context
12. The REBYC-project falls under the GEF operational programme `Integrated Land and Water Multiple
Focal Area' (OP #9) which includes the expected outcome "reduction of stress to the international
waters environment". The programme aims at helping groups of countries to operationalise
sustainable development strategies for international waters environment by using technical, economic
financial, regulatory and institutional measures. The REBYC-project is also relevant to GEF's
operational programme No 2 (OP #2) `Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems'.
13. The project objectives and planned activities are consistent with the policies and legal instruments
defining the role of UNEP in conservation and maintenance of biodiversity. It is also relevant to the
UNEP Regional Seas Programme.
10
14. The project adheres to the principles of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and forms an
integral part of the work of the FAO Fisheries Department. The project is particularly relevant to the
programme entity 2KA09 `Impact of fishing on the environment' of the FAO Fishing Technology
Service (FIIT). This programme entity addresses the problem of by-catches and discards within the
context of the ecosystem approach to fisheries and includes activities, e.g. workshops and
publications, that are highly relevant and complementary to the REBYC-project.
Executing Arrangements
15. Eleven countries and one regional organisation participate fully in the project (Cameroon, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Trinidad and
Tobago, Venezuela and SEAFDEC and benefit from the GEF funding. In addition, Bahrain
participates using its own funds although recent reports seem to indicate that no further budget is
available.
16. UNEP is project implementer and responsible for overall project supervision and ensuring consistency
with GEF and UNEP policies. The organisation also has the responsibility for providing guidance
with regard to linkages with other related UNEP and GEF activities and to liaise with FAO on a
regular basis on substantive and administrative matters. UNEP should also provide advice and policy
guidance to FAO and participate in project meetings, as appropriate.
17. FAO executes the project and FIIT of its Fisheries Department is responsible for the international
coordination and administration of the project, including the contracting of national institutions to
undertake project activities, and the technical oversight and support. A Task Force consisting of FAO
experts representing the main disciplines relevant to the project advises the project, reviews work
plans and monitors progress. An overall Project Coordinator and technical advisor and a Project
Operations Coordinator are based in FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy.
18. The counterpart ministries in the participating countries have assigned project National Coordinators
(NC) as project focal points with overall responsibility for project execution at the national level.
Moreover, in each country, National Project Steering Committees (NPSC) have been established.
These consist of researchers, government officials (fisheries department) and representatives of the
shrimp trawl industry and other stakeholder groups.
19. An International Project Steering Committee comprising of the responsible ministry from one country
in each region1, UNEP and FAO meets on a regular basis. In addition, international meetings for NCs
and other project counterparts are held regularly (generally every year or 18 months).
Budget and Project Duration
20. The total project budget, as stipulated in the project document, amounts to USD 9 150 000 including:
· GEF funding: USD 4 780 000
· Co-financing by participating countries: USD 3 250 000
· In-kind contribution UNEP: USD 110 000
· In-kind contribution FAO: USD 1 010 000
21. The project duration was initially foreseen to be five years; starting in June 2002 and ending in May
2007. However, due to delays experienced at the inception of the project (see paragraph 72), a no-cost
1 Two countries, Mexico and Venezuela, represent Latin America considering the large number of countries
participating in the project from this region. Other members in addition to FAO and UNEP include Iran, Nigeria,
the Philippines and SEAFDEC.
11
extension until June 2008 has been agreed upon (to be formally approved by the International Project
Steering Committee at its meeting in January 2007).
Reporting, and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
22. Six-monthly progress reports are submitted by the participating countries to the FAO Project
Coordinator. FAO submits two operational reports per year to UNEP/GEF Coordination office.
Financial reports on project expenditures are submitted by FAO to UNEP every three months. A
terminal report, including a final financial statement, will be prepared by FAO within 60 days of
project completion.
23. At the national level, the NC has the responsibility to review progress and liaise with relevant national
ministries as well as the NPSC, as required. In FAO, the Task Force monitors progress and at the
global level, the International Project Steering Committee reviews project activities and results.
24. During the course of the project, an independent evaluation or review of the project can be organised
if deemed necessary by UNEP and FAO. The current mid-term review is carried out in accordance
with this provision. Upon completion of the project, a terminal desk evaluation of the project will take
place. Two years after project completion, a post-facto in-depth evaluation will be undertaken to
review the environmental and long-term impact of the project.
This Mid-term Review
Terms of Reference of Mid-term Review
25. The objective of the mid-term review is to assess operational aspects, such as project management and
implementation of activities and also the extent to which objectives are being fulfilled. The review
will assess project performance and the implementation of planned project activities and planned
outputs against actual results. It will focus on corrective actions needed for the project to achieve
maximum impact. More specifically, the review will assess:
· the continued relevance of the expected results, outcomes and objectives to the participating
countries;
· the quality of the outputs produced thus far, and their use by member countries;
· the likely sustainability of any results/outcome so far and impact of the project. A measure of
the project success would be an increased likelihood, since the project began, that desired
impacts will be achieved. This could be due to various manifestations of interest shown in the
project by countries, changes that have taken place in shrimp trawling regulation/practices,
etc.
· identify possible replication mechanisms, potentially involving more countries.
· strengths and weaknesses of; the project's management structure, operations, and the various
partnership arrangements of the project; (including the appropriateness of the execution
means vis-à-vis the project objectives);
· and consideration (and justification) for another similar project, with different or additional
countries, perhaps more ambitious in scope.
The Terms of Reference of the review are attached in ANNEX 1.
12
Methodology
26. The review was carried out during a total period of 30 days in October-December 2006. The main
methods used included:
· Desk study of relevant project documents and reports, and the project website.
· Brief review of other relevant literature regarding tropical shrimp fishing, by-catches and the
environment.
· Participation in the Global National Coordinators Review Meeting in the Philippines and
discussions with participants, including from UNEP and FAO. Interviews (semi-structured /
check-lists) with all NCs (except for Iran and Bahrain see paragraph 27 below).
· Discussions with Project Coordinators and other relevant officers in FAO (in person, and by
telephone and email).
· Consultations with stakeholder groups, especially private sector partners, during field visits to
project locations in the Philippines (Calbayog), Mexico (Mazatlan and Salina Cruz) and
Nigeria (Lagos). Summaries of the findings of these visits are attached in ANNEXES 2-4.
A list of persons met is included in ANNEX 5.
Limitations
27. The reviewer did not have the opportunity to meet with representatives for the project in Iran and
Bahrain since the NCs of the two countries did not participate in the Global National Coordinators
Review Meeting in the Philippines and no field trip was made to the Middle East region. While the
reviewer has corresponded with the National Coordinators in the two countries and seen the available
progress reports, it should be noted that it has not been possible to cover this region to the same extent
as Southeast Asia (Philippines), Latin America (Mexico) and Africa (Nigeria).
28. The three relatively short field trips to the Philippines, Mexico and Nigeria have provided substantial
inputs to the review. These field trips were organised and supported by the NC and other project
counterparts in the counties visited. While the reviewer has no reason to suspect any bias in the
information provided, it should be mentioned that the persons interviewed were largely selected by the
NCs.
2 MAJOR FINDINGS
Project Design
Project Document and Logical Framework
29. While the project document contains a considerable amount of information, it is not as clear and
concise as it could have been. This is particularly true for the logframe, which appears to lack some of
the logic that generally governs this type of planning tool.
30. The logframe contains three objectives, five outcomes, four results and eight clusters of activities (see
also paragraph 9 above). While these are all generally relevant with regard to the overall objectives of
the project, i.e. to "reduce discards of fish captured by shrimp trawlers" as stated on page 9 of the
project document, the way they are formulated and the levels of achievement they represent are not
consistent. For example, there are no outcomes or activities clearly supporting objective number three.
13
Moreover, there are few quantifiable indicators and there appears to be some confusion between
`indicators' and `means of verification', and assumptions and risks are not clearly explained.
31. These shortcomings make it difficult to use the logframe and its indicators as the main tool for
reviewing the project and evaluating progress. Nevertheless, a review of the different logframe
components at objectives, outcomes and results levels is included in ANNEX 6. However, in the
sections below the text is presented according to main areas of progress (see `Main Achievements To-
date' below).
Continued Relevance of the Expected Results, Outcomes and Objectives
32. The overall project objective to reduce discards and by-catch is found to be of continued or even
growing relevance to participating countries. However, it is noted that the project document was
conceived some seven or eight years ago and that the accumulated knowledge on the subject matters
dealt with has increased since that time. With regard to objective number three, `Increase knowledge
of the impact of shrimp-trawling on marine habitat' intending in particular the investigation of
damage on the bottom habitat by trawling studies during the last few years show that it is difficult to
get conclusive results on such impact (FAO Fisheries Technical Report No 4722). Moreover, "tropical
shrimp trawling often happens on smooth bottom [marine habitats] with very little growth of bottom
fauna and flora" (Half-yearly Project Progress/Operational Report to UNEP Jan-Jun 2006 from FAO).
While the issue remains an important concern and merits considerable attention, it is felt that the
inclusion of this objective in the project may have been an overly ambitious undertaking considering
the overall focus of the project, its level of funding and time frame as well as the capacities of the
participating countries.
33. With regard to the main goal of the project the reduction of by-catch it has to be recognised that
the situation and conditions under which the shrimp fisheries operate vary considerable among
countries. In some countries, notably in Indonesia and the Philippines in Southeast Asia and in
Nigeria, all or most of the by-catch is utilised and carries a although sometimes low commercial
value. Hence, operators have little incentive to reduce it. Boat owners and crew may also have
different incentives; in some place, by-catch is sold by the crew outside the control of the boat owner.
Moreover, low value fish play a role in food security by giving employment to traders/processors and
supplying local markets.
34. In other fisheries, e.g. in Mexico and some other Latin American countries, only a minor part of the
by-catch is retained i.e. large individuals of commercial species and the rest is discarded.
Operators are more interested in avoiding by-catch and, for example, save time on sorting the catch.
By-catch can also damage the shrimp in the codend and there is an economic incentive to improve the
quality of the catch and receive higher prices.
35. The focus of the project is on redesigned gear and BRDs but the project document also mentions
fisheries management in a broader sense. Several participating countries are addressing different
management issues in parallel with project activities (e.g. effort controls through closed seasons/areas
and limits on number of trawlers) and most counterparts appear aware of the need to look at the
introduction of BRDs as an integral part of fisheries management. This aspect merits further attention.
Modified nets and BRDs can constitute an important part of the solution but has to be seen in a larger
context of fisheries management and the application of a variety of management tools and approaches,
defined for the specific local conditions.
36. This integrated management approach is particularly important in fisheries and countries where the
by-catch has a commercial value and where the application of BRDs alone may not be effective. It is
2 Løkkeborg, S. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No. 472. Rome, FAO. 2005.
14
however also relevant where the industry welcomes modified gear and BRDs. This is usually because
the use of BRDs is profitable e.g. through reduced fuel consumption, less work on board and better
quality catch and if operations become more efficient, there is a risk that the fishing pressure will
increase. Close cooperation with the industry and other stakeholders would be a prerequisite and the
project has established valuable private sector partnerships.
37. The project addresses the need to formalise the use of the appropriate gear through the adoption of
new or revised laws and regulations. However, the next step to enforce these regulations is not
explicitly included. There is a need to look into monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) (also
where the voluntary use of BRDs by the industry in theory would eliminate the need for active law
enforcement!).
38. In most countries, the project activities focus on the industrial sector, i.e. the larger shrimp trawlers.
However, in many areas there is an important artisanal fishery, also targeting shrimp and/or species
included in the by-catch of the trawlers. The fisheries are hence closely related and to address the
broader issues of sustainable fisheries, both sub-sectors need to be considered and included when
addressing fisheries management.
Project Performance
39. Overall, the project has made important progress towards the objective of reducing discards and by-
catch although there are differences in progress among countries. In spite of a relatively slow start (see
`Project Management' below), substantial results have been produced with regard to data collection,
and testing and demonstration of BRD devices and improved gear. Although only a few countries can
show concrete results with regard to the wider implementation of the defined/developed BRDs and
gear or towards the formal legalisation of their use, most are likely to have made further progress at
the end of the project.
40. Considering the short-comings found with regard to the project document, in particular the poorly
defined indicators of the logframe (see paragraph 31), the reviewer did not find it appropriate to use
only the logframe as the basis for the evaluation of project progress. Hence, progress and
achievements have been reviewed within the overall context of project objectives, and the scope and
expectations as expressed in the project document as well as considering commonly accepted
concerns regarding by-catch. Below an assessment is given with regard the attainment of the three
objectives as stated in the logframe. Further comments on progress and achievements are also
provided under five headings attempting to summarise the outcomes and results of the project
document logframe.
Attainment of Objectives: Current Status and End-of-Project Prognosis
(i) Objective 1: Reduced by-catch taken by shrimp trawlers
41. By-catch reductions have been demonstrated in most participating countries but on a trial basis or by a
smaller segment of the industry using BRDs on a voluntary basis. The by-catch reduction rates vary
depending on the fishery and exactly what device is used but a reasonable average estimate appears to
be around 30-40 percent. TEDs are mandatory in some countries (Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and
Venezuela are certified for US exports) and used by the industry with generally good results. In
Nigeria, the project has contributed extensively to the reintroduction of TEDs and it appears that all
shrimp trawlers are now fitted with the device (new regulations took effect in August 2006 and
recertification for US exports awaited see also paragraph 47).
15
42. While the identification, development and testing of suitable BRDs are well under way in most
participating countries3, an important challenge will be the wider application by the industry. As
mentioned above (see `Continued Relevance of the Expected Results, Outcomes and Objectives'
above), economic incentives to the industry only exist in countries where by-catches are not utilised
and without market value. Assuming that enforcement of the use of redesigned gear and BRDs is
difficult if operators are against them, the project in its current form is likely to be more successful in
the Latin American (and Middle East) regions than in the countries in Southeast Asia and Africa.
However, also in the Latin American countries, it is likely that only a few countries will have reached
the stage where the use of BRDs is being implemented across the industry at end-of-project. This
should not necessarily be seen as a failure but a reflection of the time generally needed for introducing
changes to fishing practices in a participatory manner.
(ii) Objective 2: Reduce capture of juvenile fish, particularly of species used for human consumption
43. As for Objective 1, the progress made to reduce capture of juvenile fish consists of the development of
BRDs and their subsequent use by the industry, a phase that is still under implementation. While
assuming that a reduction of by-catches including of juveniles of commercially valuable species
will lead to increased abundance of larger size food fish in the longer term, it will be difficult to
measure this impact at end-of-project. Only in a few places will BRDs have been in use for any length
of time by a large enough share of the trawler fleet to start to have an impact on stocks. It will also be
difficult to separate the effect of the project from other impacts on the fisheries. Nevertheless, it is
expected that the objective will be attained in the longer-term with results showing some years after
project completion.
(iii) Objective 3: Increase knowledge on the impact of shrimp-trawling on marine [bottom] habitats
44. This objective has not been directly addressed by project activities. Changes in gear proposed and
introduced by the project have been evaluated with regard to its impact on catches and economic
efficiency of operations in accordance with the main focus of the project but not on the bottom
habitats. While the issue of damage to bottom habitats is important, it is felt that it may not belong to
the project considering its current scope and budget (see also paragraph 32). If to be addressed,
countries could review existing information on the issue and prepare reports to serve as a basis for an
evaluation of the need to address marine habitats at a later stage or under a different project
arrangements. This identification of issues would then constitute a partial attainment of the objective.
However, the reviewer is hesitant as to whether such efforts would represent optimal use of the
remaining time and resources of the project (see `Recommendations' below).
Main Achievements To-date
(i) Development and adoption of by-catch devices and alternative gear
45. For several fisheries in the participating countries, tests of BRDs have been completed and the types
of devices that should be promoted and recommended for regulations have been defined (e.g. in
Calbayog in the Philippines, in Colombia, in Nigeria, for the Pacific coast of Mexico).
46. In Nigeria (for TEDs, BRDs and codend mesh size) and in Mexico (for fishing in National Protected
Areas and for TEDs), new regulations have already been enacted based on recommendations
contributed by the project. Other countries will review the legislative requirements for introducing
BRDs as a subsequent step after the technical work on defining the devices has been completed. FAO,
through its project legal advisor, has recently started to support this work by assisting in the carrying
out of national baseline reviews. In a couple of countries, legislative reviews/revisions have taken
3 Exceptions are Cameroon (work has however been carried out in collaboration with Nigeria where Cameroonian
trawlers in fact land their catch), Trinidad and Tobago (trials just starting) and possibly Bahrain and Iran where
actual progress has been difficult to assess.
16
place recently although not or only partially influenced by the project (Indonesia, and Trinidad and
Tobago).
47. The project has been instrumental in the process of achieving recertification for Nigeria for exports to
the US through the reintroduction of TEDs. Among other things, a workshop on TEDs was organised
in Hirthals, Denmark, with the participation of a representative of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States Department of Commerce. An inspection
visit to Nigeria by an American team took place in September 2006 with positive results; a
confirmation of the recertification is expected to be forthcoming within the near future.
(ii) Improved management of shrimp trawling fisheries
48. As mentioned above (see `Continued Relevance of the Expected Results, Outcomes and Objectives'
above), some participating countries view and carry out the core project activities in a larger context
of shrimp fishery management. In some countries, these activities were already part of national
priorities and work plans before the project while in others it would appear that the project has
triggered increased recognition of these issues. It could be argued that the pragmatic and hands-on
technological approach of the project has served as an important entry point for wider management
discussions with the private industry and other stakeholders.
(iii) Increased cooperation among countries
49. Intra-regional technical cooperation has been extensive and useful, and inter-regional exchanges are
also appreciated. Considering the need to adopt technologies and regulations for the local context, an
important part of the work needs to done at the national level. At the same time, regional
harmonisation is important in areas where fishery resources and marine habitats are shared. Such
cooperation has been initialised between Nigeria and Cameroon and a further step is being taken by
the organisation of a workshop for neighbouring Gulf of Guinea countries in January 2007.
50. It is noted that the project has not followed the approach described in the project document, i.e. to
carry out demonstration activities in a limited number of countries, generating lessons that can then be
easily transferred to neighbouring countries. Instead, activities have been started in all countries in
parallel but with exchanges of experiences as part of these activities and some project partners playing
a leading role:
· Mexico is providing technical assistance to neighbouring countries, including Colombia, Costa
Rica, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.
· Nigeria is working closely with Cameroon.
· SEAFDEC provides assistance to its member countries Indonesia and the Philippines. In Box 1
and in ANNEX 7, further information is given on SEAFDEC's involvement in the project.
51. In some countries (e.g. Cameroon, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago), there is a lack of qualified
fishing technologists and the collaboration with neighbouring (i.e. Nigeria and Mexico) countries has
been particularly important for achieving results with regard to the development of BRDs.
(iv) Better understanding of the interactions between fishing gear and environment
52. While the project has not addressed the issue of bottom habitat impact by shrimp trawling, the
knowledge on interactions between fishing gear and the environment has been improved through a
better understanding of by-catch compositions and quantities. In several countries (notably in
Colombia, Nigeria, Philippines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela), the project allowed for
observer programmes or other investigations of the shrimp trawl by-catches. This information is
essential for understanding the impact of the shrimp trawl industry on the ecosystem.
17
Box 1: SEAFDEC and the REBYC-project
The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center or SEAFDEC is an autonomous
intergovernmental organization established in 1967 to promote fisheries development in Southeast
Asia. The organization currently has eleven member countries: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and
Vietnam.
SEAFDEC has a Secretariat based in Bangkok, Thailand, as its administrative arm and four
technical departments, i.e. the Training Department also in Bangkok, the Marine Fisheries
Research Department in Singapore, the Aquaculture Department in the Philippines and the Marine
Fisheries Resources Development and Management Department in Malaysia.
SEAFDEC started work on BRDs in 1996 and has been involved in developing the Thai Turtle
Free Device (TTFD) and four types of Juvenile and Trash-fish Excluder Devices (JTEDs) for
shrimp trawls. There are the Rectangular Shape JTED, the Circular Shape JTED, the Rigid Sorting
Grid JTED and the Semi-curved Rigid Sorting Grid JTED. The development and testing of the
devices continued in collaboration with the REBYC-project as of 2002. Under the umbrella of the
REBYC-project, SEAFDEC has supported the Philippines and Indonesia with practical
demonstrations and sea trials and experiments. Several collaborative workshops and training events
have also been organized jointly by SEAFDEC and the project. Another important contribution by
SEAFDEC to the project is the development and production of promotional and information
material. A complete list of the material produced for the project is included in ANNEX 7.
53. In Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, socio-economic studies are under way to provide information of
the social and economic importance of by-catches. As mentioned above (see paragraph 33), by-
catches appear to play an important role in food security for poorer population groups in some
countries but their exact role is not yet well understood. The results of the socio-economic studies will
help defining the need for mitigating measures to ensure that a reduction of by-catches do not unduly
affect those basing their livelihoods on the availability of small fish from shrimp trawlers. It will also
provide insight into how BRDs can be introduced more effectively, e.g. by a better understanding of
the reasons behind possible resistance.
(v) Capacity building, awareness raising and outreach
54. A major achievement of the project is the cooperation with the shrimp trawl industry and other
stakeholders. In some countries such collaboration existed already before the start of the project (e.g.
in Mexico) but the project has contributed to reinforcing and formalising this partnership. Industry
representatives are members of the NPSCs and have been closely involved in project activities such as
sea trials, meetings and workshops.
55. Thanks to this close collaboration, the awareness of the importance and usefulness of BRDs and the
knowledge of possible technical solutions have been considerably enhanced on behalf of the industry.
Also researchers and officials of relevant national institutions and administrations have benefited from
the project in this respect. At the policy and political level, results vary among countries but increased
attention to the issue of by-catches has been demonstrated through the enactment of new regulations
and policies (e.g. Nigeria, Mexico) or apparent willingness to do so (e.g. Philippines) (see also
`Project Impact' below).
18
56. The project has produced several publications that have played important roles in awareness raising
and knowledge enhancement, e.g.:
· Publication of an FAO manual/guide on BRDs. The document has been published in English and
Arabic and is in the process of being translated into French and Spanish (see Box 2).
· Publication of training materials on Juvenile and Trashfish Excluder Devices (JTEDs) by
SEAFDEC (see also Box 1 and in ANNEX 7).
Box 2: A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-Trawl Fisheries
The guide was developed by the REBYC-project and is designed for fishermen, net makers, fishing
technologists and others interested in a practical guide to the design, use and operation of by-catch
devices. The guide is also useful to fishery managers, policy makers and legislators needing to
develop specifications governing the design and application of these devices in shrimp trawl
fisheries.
The guide has so far been printed 1 000 copies in English and 2 000 in Arabic. Almost all the
English copies have been distributed and FAO is currently in the process of reprinting another
1 000 copies. A Spanish translation will be printed in 2 000 copies and the text has recently been
translated into French in collaboration with GAPCM (Groupement des Aquaculteurs et Pêcheurs
de Crevettes de Madagascar) who has also offered to be responsible for the printing. The document
is also available as a downloadable version on the REBYC-project website.
Besides obvious receivers like all the project NCs and the FAO offices in the project
countries, UNEP and GEF, copies of the guide have been sent to the Maritime Stewardship Council
(MSC), WWF, NOAA and to selected Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) projects. Copies have
also been distributed to participants in the 3rd GEF International Waters Conference in 2005, and at
project workshops. About 1 500 of the Arabic version have been sent to the FAO Regional Office
in Cairo for further distribution to Arabic speaking non-project countries. According to feedback
received, it appears that the English and Arabic downloadable versions have been accessed by
national fisheries authorities, universities, NGOs, fishing magazines, etc.
Bibliographic reference: Eayrs, S. A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-Trawl
Fisheries. Rome, FAO. 2005.
57. The project has a website that is managed by FAO. Project progress reports, meeting minutes, news
briefs and other information are posted on the site. However, there have been delays in the inclusion
of new material and the web site is not overly user friendly.
58. It is worth noting that BBC World recently has broadcast a programme on shrimp trawling and by-
catches ("Potted Shrimps"). The programme team visited two of the project locations in Mexico and
the Philippines and also interviewed FAO staff (Mr Turner, Chief FIIT).
Likely End-of-project Achievements
59. Assuming that no major interruptions take place and that project activities are continued as currently
planned, the following achievements are expected at the completion of the project in June 2008:
19
· Suitable BRD designs for all shrimp trawler fleets will have been identified in all participating
countries.
· At least 25% of the industrial shrimp trawlers in at least half of the participating countries will be
using BRDs and by-catches will have been reduced by 30-40 percent on the vessels using the
devices.
· Relevant new and/or revised legislation will have been enacted in at least half of the participating
countries. The need and scope for legislative changes for formalising the use of BRDs will have
been identified in all other participating countries.
· Discussions will have been initialised and preliminary agreements to harmonise regulations on
BRDs in at least one (West Africa/Gulf of Guinea), possibly two (Latin America), of the
participating regions will have been reached. Moreover, at least ten non-project countries will
have participated in project meetings and formally expressed interest in developing BRDs through
regional cooperation.
· The awareness and knowledge on BRDs will have been enhanced and at least half of the industrial
shrimp trawl owners and operators in the project areas will know and be able to explain the basics
regarding the usefulness and how to operate BRDs.
· Studies in Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago will have been finalised and there will be an
improved understanding of the socio-economic importance of by-catches, in particular as a source
of income for poorer population groups.
· A number of high quality publications and visual material will have been produced (in addition to
that produced already, mentioned in paragraph 56 above):
o The FAO by-catch/guide will have been published in Spanish and French in addition to
current Arabic and English versions.
o At least one technical paper (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper or similar) and one legal
technical paper including experience from at least five of the participating countries has
been published.
o At least three scientific articles written jointly by researchers from participating countries
haven been published in accredited journals and/or presented at international conferences.
o Videos have been produced (based on the BBC World documentary) in English and
Spanish and have been widely distributed.
60. In addition, if the recommendations given in this report are implemented, additional outputs are likely
to be produced, in particular with relevance to an exit strategy for supporting the sustainability of
results after project completion and measuring to the extent possible the impact of the project on
the environment (see (see `Recommendations' below and proposed targets in ANNEX 6).
Project Impact
61. Project impact so far relates in particular to the creation of awareness of the problem of by-catches
and to improved knowledge of available technical solutions. As discussed above (see `(v) Capacity
building, awareness raising and outreach'), this has been achieved at different levels, i.e. industry,
researchers, government officials and decision makers. Impact at the political level appears to have
been best achieved where FAO support has been visible, through meetings and visits by staff and
consultants. Examples demonstrating political influence include the active involvement in project
activities by the mayor's office in Calbayog, the Philippines, and the participation of the Minister of
State of Agriculture and Rural Development in the opening session of a recent project workshop in
Lagos, Nigeria.
62. The project has also contributed to increased awareness and knowledge at the global level by
publishing reports that are accessible to a wider global audience. The BBC World programme (see
paragraph 58) is another important contribution to `global awareness'. The exact impact of this type of
20
outreach is difficult to measure but it has to be assumed that it improves the political willingness to
address the concerns relevant to the shrimp industry and by-catches.
63. The project has had a more concrete impact in the countries where new or revised regulations for the
use of BRDs have been enacted and their use is under implementation (Nigeria and Mexico). The
degree to which other participating countries will have completed similar processes by end-of-project
will be decisive for project impact in this area (see also paragraph 68 below).
64. Impact at the higher level of positive environmental changes is still early to judge but if the
assumption that reduced by-catches have a positive effect of on the ecosystem holds and no negative
externalities are created in the process, such impact will be achieved once the technical solutions
provided by the project are implemented on a wider scale. The project document stipulates a final
review to take place two years after project completion. This indicates recognition of the time required
for environmental impact to start to show. To introduce changes to the industry is generally a time
consuming task and to be able to see the clear results on resources will take even longer.
Sustainability and replicability
65. The project seems generally well integrated in national work plans and policies. In some countries,
work on BRDs started before the project and its activities are now supporting already existing
programmes (see Table 1). Other countries have incorporated the objectives and activities of the
project into overall national priorities and work plans and are going to continue the activities of the
project also after its completion. This may be at a slower pace considering that the external funding
will be lacking but most countries already make substantial in-kind and cash contributions (of which
the latter was not foreseen in the project document) which would appear to be a clear sign that
national budget could also be made available in the future (see also `Budget and Expenditures'
below).
66. Country ownership is demonstrated by the considerable level of initiative and planning capacity that
has been required by the participating countries. This role appears to have been played successfully by
the NCs and the NPSCs. All NPSCs include members from the shrimp trawl industry / private sector
and this participatory approach is seen as a key to the progress achieved. Sea trials have often been
carried out in close cooperation with the industry and awareness and knowledge have also be
dissemination through workshops and training events involving the industry. Activities although
supported and coordinated by FAO are largely country-driven, and planned and implemented with a
great deal of local initiative.
67. With regard to likely sustainable impact of the project, there is an important difference between the
countries where by-catch is utilised and carries a commercial value and those where by-catch is
generally not wanted and discarded. As mentioned above (see, for example, paragraph 42), the project
is likely to be more successful and sustainable in countries where there are economic incentives
for the industry to reduce by-catches.
68. Several countries are expecting to pass new regulations although in some cases this may not take place
before the end of the project due to the lengthy processes involved. Moreover, while NCs generally
are in the position to make official recommendations for changes in legislation and the introduction of
regulations with regard to the use of BRDs, many do not have the mandate or political power to
actually ensure that these changes in the legislative framework take place. In some cases, the
successful implementation of the project results will depend on a political process that it can only
partly influence.
21
Table 1: Preliminary baseline assessment: pre-project BRD status by country
Policy and legislation on or related
Certification
Country
Use of BRDs pre-project
to BRDs existing pre-project
for US exports
Cameroon
General fisheries legislation. None None. No
specific to shrimp trawling.
Colombia
General fisheries legislation and TEDs. Yes
regulated shrimp trawl fishery (gear,
vessel type, fishing areas, species
etc.) since 1970s. TEDs mandatory
for shrimp trawlers.
Costa
Rica New general fisheries and
TEDs. Yes
aquaculture law with specific
reference relating to TEDs that are
mandatory for shrimp trawlers.
Cuba
Only mesh size regulations.
None.
No
Indonesia
TEDs (and BRDs?) mandatory for BRDs (double oval frame of pipes)
No
industrial vessels using shrimp and TEDs (`Super shooter') but
trawls.
industry experiencing difficulties in
operating them.
Iran
General fisheries legislation and Information not available.
No
regulations specific to shrimp
trawling with gear specifications.
Mexico
General fisheries legislation and 4 types of TEDs and BRDs in Gulf
Yes
regulations specific to TEDs which of California (fish eye).
are mandatory for shrimp trawlers.
Nigeria
General fisheries legislation. TEDs TEDs.
No (but in
mandatory for shrimp trawlers (but
process)
no penalty regime) and codend
regulations.
Philippines
General fisheries legislation. Only No use of BRDs but limited
No
mesh size regulations regarding by- experiments with TEDs.
catches.
Trinidad and General fisheries legislation and TEDs. No
Tobago
1994 Conservation of Marine
Turtles Regulations and Notification
for Use of TEDs for Commercial
Shrimp Trawling
Venezuela
General fisheries and aquaculture Experiments with BRDs (square
Yes
legislation. TEDs mandatory for mesh window) carried out.
shrimp trawlers.
Bahrain
General fisheries legislation. Ban on None. No
capture of sea turtles and shrimp
trawl net specifications.
Source: Legal review questionnaires (administrated by FAO project legal advisor), FAOLEX
(http://faolex.fao.org/faolex/index.htm) and national project reports.
22
69. In addition to the industry's interest and incentives for using BRDs and the enactment of legislation to
formalise their use, another important component from a sustainability perspective is enforcement.
While the requirements in this area could in principal be defined by the project, the actual
implementation of MCS would generally involve collaborative action by a larger number of players
(e.g. fisheries department, navy/coast guard, etc) which would not necessarily be within the scope of
the current project. The issue relates to the need for a wider fisheries management perspective, already
referred to above.
70. Several non-participating countries have expressed interest in joining the project. In addition to the
initiative taken in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa (see paragraph 49), meetings and workshops have
been held in Latin America to which non-project countries have been invited to participate at their
own expense, i.e. Brazil, Suriname and Guatemala. In Asia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia and
Myanmar have participated in project meetings. Moreover, the Coastal and Marine Programme of the
Environment Initiative of NEPAD4 - COSMAR in Nairobi has also expressed interest in the project.
71. It would appear possible to replicate many of the project's approaches and extend the project to new
countries, in particular considering the interest already shown by potential candidates. The focus on
technology, the involvement of the private industry, and the regional and international cooperation
have proved to be valid approaches. However, in order to ensure sustainable results a wider fishery
management needs to be considered (see also `Recommendations' / `A New Project' below).
Project Management
Project Operations
72. In most countries, project activities and hence the achievement of results were delayed due to
administrative difficulties at inception. It was initially foreseen that the project would be executed by
counterpart institutions through direct funding by FAO via Letters of Agreement (LOAs). However, in
several of the participating countries, local regulations make it impossible or difficult to establish
LOAs and funds are instead channelled through the local FAO Representation. The initial difficulties
have been overcome and work plans are now generally adhered to. However, overall progress has in
most countries been slower than originally expected and a no-cost extension until June 2008 has been
recommended to compensate for the original delay (original completion date was May 2006).
73. The tsunami in December 2004 put considerable pressure on the FAO Fisheries Department and FIIT
was particularly closely involved in the emergency response. This could have had a certain negative
impact on the support extended to the project during the first half of 2005 although no particular
delays were mentioned by the NCs in the interviews with the reviewer.
74. The current technical and operational support from FAO is generally appreciated and considered
adequate. However, it appears that the technical and operational support at the beginning of the
project could have been strengthened. Many countries feel that they could have benefited from more
information on existing BRDs (in the world and in their regions) and a more detailed discussion on the
technical solutions that are likely to be appropriate for the different countries and fisheries. Moreover,
at present a clear process for documenting the results of technical trials carried out and lessons learnt
appears to be lacking.
75. Visits by FAO (and UNEP) headquarter staff and the participation in project meetings by local FAO
Representatives constitute valuable inputs to national processes requiring political support. Such
visibility can play an important role and give increased weight to recommendations from the NPSCs
regarding, for example, legislative amendments. The cost of providing technical and operational
4 New Partnership for Africa's Development.
23
support, in particular through visits and participation in meeting, should however not be
underestimated.
76. In the last international project meeting the Global National Coordinators Review meeting in the
Philippines simultaneous interpretation between English and Spanish was provided for the first time.
This proved to be a great advantage for several of the Spanish speaking participants who felt they
could participate more fully in the meeting.
77. The participating countries submit six-monthly work plans and project progress reports to the Project
Coordinator, generally in a timely manner but with a few exceptions5. In turn, FAO provides progress
reports and financial reports to UNEP. Due to the weakness of project logframe indicators, monitoring
progress against them has not been useful. FAO coordinates work at the global level although no
detailed work plan for the current period was available at the time of the review.
78. The involvement of UNEP has been limited; virtually no feedback has been provided to FAO and the
participating countries on the progress made and reports submitted. It appears that the Global National
Coordinators Review Meeting in the Philippines in October 2006 was the first in which a UNEP
official with responsibility for the project participated.
Budget and Expenditures
79. Project budgets appear in most countries to be adequate considering the focus on technology
development and the co-financing contributed by government and the industry in the participating
countries. However, in some countries, e.g. Cameroon, funds have been minimal, limiting the
possibilities to carry out any extensive activities. This problem has to some extent been overcome
through regional cooperation.
80. The level of total disbursement of GEF funds (delivery) was 56 percent on 30 September 2006.
Partners having spent at least 70 percent of their funding granted by GEF include Cameroon,
Colombia, Mexico, Philippines and SEAFDEC. Iran and Costa Rica have spent only about 20 percent,
and Trinidad and Tobago about 30 percent. While information and reporting from Iran is insufficient
for assessing the situation, Costa Rica is planning to use the available funds before end-of-project; the
delay in delivery so far is due to the administrative problems which took particularly long time to
solve in Costa Rica encountered at project inception (see paragraph 72). In Trinidad and Tobago,
limited staff resources has constituted a problem. This is not project specific; the fisheries department
does not, for example, have a fishing technologist. Support is currently being given to Trinidad and
Tobago by Mexico and the department plans to hire a national gear technologist for the project.
81. A table summarising the financial situation of the project is included in ANNEX 8. It is noteworthy
that the total actual level of co-financing by governments has exceeded that planned. In addition to in-
kind contributions, foreseen in the project document, some countries have also contributed in cash
(e.g. Mexico and Colombia). Contributions by the private sector have also been substantial although
the reporting thereof has been deficient and the sums included in the table are likely to be significantly
underestimated. It should be noted that also the co-financing information is incomplete for some
countries (e.g. for Bahrain, Cameroon, Iran and Nigeria).
5 Reports from Iran are generally lacking and monitoring of progress has mainly taken place during visits by the
FAO Project Operations Coordinator.
24
3 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT
Summary of Findings
Project Design
82. The project document and the logic framework (logframe) are found to be lacking in clarity. In
particular, the logframe indicators are poorly formulated and not particularly useful for progress
monitoring purposes.
83. The overall project objective to reduce discards and by-catch is found to be of continued relevance
to participating countries. However, with regard to objective number three, `Increase knowledge of the
impact of shrimp-trawling on marine habitat' intending in particular the investigation of damage on
the bottom habitat by trawling it is felt that the inclusion of this objective in the project may been an
overly ambitious undertaking considering the overall focus of the project, its level of funding and time
frame as well as the capacities of the participating countries.
Project Performance and Impact
(i) Major Achievements and Strengths
84. Overall, the project has made important progress towards the objective of reducing discards and by-
catch although there are differences in progress among countries. In spite of a relatively slow start,
substantial results have been produced with regard to data collection, and testing and demonstration of
BRD devices and improved gear. Although only a few countries can show concrete results with regard
to the wider implementation of the defined/developed BRDs and gear or towards the formal
legalisation of their use, most are likely to have made further progress at the end of the project.
85. Main project strengths include the close partnership with the industry. The focus of the project on
technology appears to have been an important entry point for this partnership; the industry has shown
keen interest in gear development as something concrete to work on. As the knowledge of the role of
by-catches increase, the understanding of the wider management issues will also increase. In some
countries (e.g. Mexico), the industry is asking for better management of the shrimp fishery, seeing that
closed seasons and areas would benefit them by providing sustainable catches of larger size shrimps.
However, the interest of the industry remains focused on profit, in particular in the short-term, even
though a better understanding of the resource dynamics and ecosystem is likely to make boat owners
more inclined to think of sustainability of production in the longer term.
86. Another strength of the project is the regional and although to a somewhat lesser extent
international, cooperation. While the technical solutions to by-catch reduction need to be adapted to
local conditions, the technology transfers and exchanges of experiences together with the technical
support by FAO staff and consultants have been instrumental in the success of the project. The
reviewer also found it interesting to note the apparent close friendships among project NCs and staff
and the unusually positive atmosphere during the Global National Coordinators Review Meeting in
the Philippines. The importance of this positive `project spirit' should not be underestimated although
it would be difficult to demonstrate a direct link to more healthy ecosystems!
87. Regional cooperation has also been achieved in the context of harmonisation of regulations, i.e. the
cooperation initialised between Nigeria and Cameroon. A further step is being taken by the
organisation of a workshop for neighbouring Gulf of Guinea countries in January 2007.
88. The project has produced a high quality publication `A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical
Shrimp-Trawl Fisheries'. Training material has also been produced by SEAFDEC, in particular on
the use of JTEDs. In this important area of outreach and awareness creation, the project is in a strong
position for doing more considering its technical results and lessons learnt.
25
(ii) Weaknesses
89. With regard to likely end-of-project achievements, there are important differences between the
countries where by-catch is utilised and carries a commercial value and those where by-catch is
generally not wanted and discarded. The project is likely to be more successful in the Latin American
(and Middle East) regions than in the countries in Southeast Asia and Africa. This argument is based
on the assumption that enforcement of regulations will be difficult and that the voluntary cooperation
of the industry is essential. Moreover, where by-catch is being used, it often plays an important role in
food security for poorer population groups and this situation needs to be better understood.
90. While industry cooperation is strong and a fundamental basis for a successful introduction of BRDs,
there is also a need to formalise their utilisation. The project addresses the need of legislative revisions
but the next step to enforce the revised or new regulations is relatively poorly addressed.
Moreover, due to the technical focus of the project, most countries are only starting to address the
legislative issues now. While this would appear to be a natural sequence of events, it will be important
to give emphasis to the revision of relevant legislation during the remaining part of the project. It
should be noted that the enactment of regulations as well as questions regarding MCS generally
require action and political support beyond the normal sphere of influence of the project.
91. While the technical focus of the project has been a successful approach, it would appear important
that the development and introduction of BRDs are combined with other management tools and that a
holistic approach to safeguarding the sustainability of shrimp trawl fisheries is taken. Several
participating countries are addressing different management issues in parallel with project activities
(e.g. effort controls through closed seasons/areas and limits on number of trawlers) and these aspects
merit further attention.
92. Changes take a long time and results can generally not be rushed. Applying a participatory and
partnership approach requires time and patience and this has to be accepted for good results to be
achieved. While project results could possibly have been enhanced by avoiding the initial
administrative delay and by provision of more technical and operational guidance at project inception,
the reviewer feels that it generally would have been difficult to achieve more and will be within the
remaining duration of the project than what has been done and is planned. It is not expected that the
application of a broader management focus and addressing MCS mentioned above as important but
weak components could have been fully considered within the scope and timeframe of the current
project. However, to ensure sustainability and further address ecosystem concerns, these aspects need
to be addressed together with continued work on the use of BRDs in the future.
93. The project is based on the assumption that a reduction of by-catches has a positive impact on the
ecosystem. While the validity of this assumption is not questioned, there is a need to review and
document how the project results impact on ecosystem conditions. A process for documenting the
results of the technical trials carried out and lessons learnt appears to be lacking and this is something
that needs to be addressed during the reminder of the project.
Recommendations
Suggestions for the Remaining Part of the Project
94. A clearer logical framework with well-defined impact indicators would help in the monitoring of
progress of the project. While it would appear somewhat late in the day to spend substantial effort on
rewriting the logframe at this point in time, it does appear necessary to make some amendments to the
current indicators for monitoring purposes. It would also be desirable to better reflect work actually
carried out and important results achieved. This was discussed in the Global National Coordinators
Meeting in the Philippines and a set of indicators referring to the overall objective is currently under
26
review by the participating countries and FAO. As an input into this work, end-of-project targets for
all the logframe objectives, outcomes and results have been suggested by the reviewer (see ANNEX
6).
95. Baseline data will be needed to demonstrate the project's role in achieving the targets and such
baseline information should be documented together with the revised indicators. Some indications are
already being included in this mid-term review report (e.g. situation pre-project with regard to work
on by-catches/BRDs see Table 1) but the information needs to be verified and detailed on a country-
by-country basis.
96. In addition to the revision of targets and indicators, work plans for the remaining time of the project
should be reviewed at both the national and the global levels and updated with appropriate detail,
including milestones for close monitoring of progress. NCs should submit national work plans as soon
as possible to the Project Coordinator who will also establish a global work plan. For monitoring and
accountability purposes, progress against these work plans should be documented.
97. The overall project approach based on close cooperation with the industry should be continued and
further strengthened. This type of partnership is invaluable for implementing management measures
and could also, for example, form the basis for future co-management. Measures should be taken by
governments and participating counterpart institutions to institutionalise the arrangements in order for
the collaboration and consultations to continue beyond project completion. Regular meetings and
events organised by government institutions/departments to which the industry is invited, joint
research or gear development activities and a widely distributed newsletter with contributions by the
private sector could support such long-term partnerships and should be planned to continue after
project completion. The discussions with the industry could be broadened to exchange information
and opinions among the industry, researchers and politicians on fishery management and to solicit
views and advice on what is needed from the industry's point of view to ensure the sustainability
of the shrimp fisheries. Preferably such consultations should be followed up by action, not to make the
industry `waste time only talking' although the current project may offer little scope in this respect
and follow-up activities need to be planned as part of the `exit strategy' or a new project (see below).
98. During the remaining part of the project, results should be consolidated and efforts made in particular
to ensure that the necessary legislative enactment takes place. Countries should make sure that they
benefit from the available support from FAO in this respect. At the national level, NCs should strive at
involving relevant legal advisors and policy makers to facilitate the process.
99. Additional visibility of FAO/UNEP in project countries could play an important role in soliciting
support from higher national political levels for new policies and regulations. The agencies should
support this process to the extent possible. NCs and NPSCs should inform the Project Coordinator of
when such support is required and in what form, and detailed plans should be made in the project and
FAO/UNEP work plans, as necessary.
100.
While no new activities are suggested for the remaining part of the project consolidation of
existing results and ongoing activities is considered more important efforts should nevertheless be
made to review and document the results achieved and analyse their importance in relation to the
environment and ecosystems. It would, for example, appear worthwhile to conduct a consolidated
review of the sea trials carried out, demonstrating the differences in selectivity of different gear and
BRD types. By relating the data obtained by the project to the knowledge and theories currently
available within the wider international research community, such an analysis could provide some
indication or `pointers' of the project's likely impact on the ecosystem. The results of the analysis
should be published (see paragraph 103 below).
101.
While it would be possible to partially address project objective number 3, `Increase knowledge of
the impact of shrimp-trawling on marine habitat', by carrying out a (desk) study to identify issues and
concerns with regard to the impact of shrimp trawling on marine habitats in specific project areas, the
27
reviewer is uncertain as to whether this would be a worthwhile effort. However, considering that the
objective is part of the project design, it is suggested that the issue is discussed at the forthcoming
international Project Steering Committee meeting. If it is decided not to pursue any activity in this
respect, the decision should be clearly justified and documented.
102.
The project website requires some attention, e.g. uploading of most recent reports, ensuring that
titles of reports include country and date, provision of additional links within the website to reports to
make them more easily accessible, etc. Countries should also ensure that links between the website
and the homepages of relevant national organisations are set up. Considering the completion of the
project in 2008, participating countries should discuss the need to maintain the website in the future
and, if so, how this could be done. A more useful approach than maintaining a separate (ex-)project
website may be to link it, or include essential material from it, to a wider shrimp trawl or by-catch
website that could be set up by FAO. This would obviously require a long-term commitment on behalf
of FAO.
103.
While the website constitutes an important tool for communication, it would appear more
important for outreach and impact to ensure that project results are documented in published reports. It
is strongly recommended that a number of high quality articles/reports are prepared and published in
journals as well as in the FAO Fisheries Technical Report series (or similar). This would probably be
the most efficient way to ensure that project results and lessons-learnt are available to a wider
audience, in particular after project completion. The review and analysis of the results of the BRD
trials in relation to ecosystem impact mentioned in paragraph 100 above could constitute one such
report. Information on the legal requirements and data collected through reviews could form the basis
for a legal technical paper. It would also be opportune to evaluate the large amount of training and
promotional material produced in particular by SEAFDEC and reproduce/translate/elaborate
important items for a wider distribution.
104.
The project could also consider organising an international end-of-project technical seminar or
conference in which results and achievements are presented. International experts, researchers and
other interested parties should be invited and working groups to discuss specific issues could be part
of the agenda. The proceedings from the conference should be edited into a high quality document and
published. Similar events could be organised at the regional and national levels, as appropriate.
105.
Exit strategies i.e. post-project follow-up activities to ensure sustainability of results at
national and global levels need to be developed with some urgency. Concise and practical plans
formulated for how the work will continue after the project funding ceases in order to ensure best
possible impact should be made and documented. Research and other counterpart organisations in
participating countries should make every effort to include relevant activities in their future work
plans and budgets.
A New Project? Yes!
106.
While the project is likely to have a sustainable impact on the use of BRDs in a number of
countries, this achievement could be further strengthened if continued support was given. The
approaches established, in particular the close government-industry cooperation and the regional
collaboration are valuable and this momentum should be used to expand both the scope of the project
and its geographical coverage.
107.
Accordingly, a continuation of the project a phase 2 is recommended, allowing to follow-up
on existing activities but with a broader scope also addressing other management issues. Aspects to
consider for such a project include:
28
· Consolidation of results already achieved and support to ensure that the necessary legislation is in
place to support the use of modified gear and BRDs (in countries where this has not yet been
achieved during the current project).
· Support to continued dissemination of knowledge, awareness raising etc, to encourage the
industry to reduce by-catches. Continuation of the experiments and sea trials in collaboration with
the industry to further improve gear and BRDs.
· Consideration of the socio-economic importance of by-catches, in particular in areas where they
have a role in poverty alleviation and food security. Identify and implement mitigating measures.
· Review of the status of the shrimp resources and its impact on other fishery resources and
identification of management options as well as MCS needs. This process should take place in
close collaboration with the industry and artisanal fisheries as appropriate. Possible management
measures to consider include Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), closed seasons, limitations of
licences and capacity controls. Co-management approaches should be considered where
appropriate.
· Develop management plans, again in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including realistic
and practical approaches to improving the sustainable management of the resources.
108.
A project with a broader management focus needs to be carefully formulated and the lessons-
learnt from the current project should be taken into account (see examples under `Lessons Learnt'
below). It is believed that one reason for the successful stakeholder participation has been the practical
technological focus of the project. While the scope of the new project is proposed to be much broader,
similar suitable approaches should be identified and objectives and outcomes clearly formulated.
109.
Additional countries should be invited to participate in the project and regional cooperation and
technological transfers between countries encouraged. There are several countries that have already
expressed interest and participated in some meetings. If the number of countries becomes large, more
focus on the intra-regional collaboration may need to be considered, or the setting up of several
regional projects under one global umbrella programme. The possible role that could be played by
Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) should be investigated (e.g. OLDEPESCA in Latin America).
110.
Eco-labelling constitutes an incentive for the industry to adopt sustainable production practices. In
the design of a new project, this concept should be investigated to determine whether it contains a
possibility for promoting more sustainable shrimp trawling.
111.
The current project finishes in June 2008, i.e. in one and a half year's time. If a follow-up project
is to be launched, it should preferably start immediately or as soon as possible after the end of the
current project. This would require that work on project formulation be started without delay. The
process should be participatory using the mechanisms for stakeholder consultations already
established in the countries participating in the current project and creating similar procedures in new
countries and allow for sub-regional and country specific activities under an overall umbrella of
improved management of tropical shrimp trawl fisheries.
Lessons Learnt
112.
When designing a new or second phase project, the following lessons are worth keeping in mind:
· True and active participation of the fishing industry is essential for success.
· Country-driven activities and national coordinators with a fair amount of autonomy and
responsibility are likely to lead to more successful projects. At the same time, international
technical and operational support is important for guiding and facilitating national activities and
developments. Moreover, appropriate national capacities for project implementation need to be
available or, if not, supported as appropriate.
29
· Visibility of international agencies (UNEP/FAO) can play a critical role in obtaining national
political support
· While fisheries management and ecosystem approaches are highly complex matters, a project with
a clear focus and a `simple' design is likely to be more successful than one that is trying to `do
everything'.
· Changes in behaviour, practices and attitudes in particular those with substantial and sustainable
impact are likely to take time and resources and both these aspects need to be provided for in a
project.
· Communication is important at all levels and means of communication need to be provided, e.g.
opportunities to meet and discuss, interpreters when language could constitute a barrier, etc.
· Publishing valuable results `properly', i.e. not only in project (`grey literature') reports but in
journals or (FAO) technical papers is essential for making these results known and useful to a
wider audience.
Final Remarks
113.
The reviewer found the mid-term review assignment to be an unusually interesting and
stimulating exercise. The REBYC-project appears to be a successful project making real changes
happen on the ground. Although the final impact and sustainability of the project results are still to be
verified and efforts continue to be needed during the remaining part of the project and beyond the
hard work put in so far by the project partners seems to well worthwhile.
114.
The last one and half year will obviously be crucial for the final results of the project. It is
important to plan this period carefully and it is suggested that the FAO Project Coordinators prepare
suggestions for actions and a detailed global work plan to be presented and decided on in the
International Steering Committee meeting to be held in March 2007 or agreed on by project partners
in any other suitable way as soon as possible. National Coordinators should do the same at the
national level.
115.
Moreover, good results need to be documented and communicated in order to gain support and
exercise influence. Also for accountability purposes, it would be desirable to improve the monitoring
mechanisms of the project and the planned revision of the project indicators appears essential in this
respect. It is felt that UNEP would be in a strong position to contribute to this process in close
collaboration with FAO and the national and regional partners.
116.
Finally, the reviewer would like to repeat the recommendation for a follow-up project. There is a
unique opportunity to reinforce and broaden the impact of the project, in existing participating
countries and new ones, and this momentum should be taken advantage of to reduce by-catches,
improve fisheries management and support healthier ecosystems
30
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Mid-Term Independent Review of the UNEP GEF project
"Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical Shrimp Trawling, through the Introduction of
By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change of Management"
UNEP GF/4030-02-04
FAO EP/GLO/201/GEF
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Project rationale
Shrimp exploitation by tropical trawl fisheries generates significant amounts of non-shrimp by-catch. In
some countries, by-catch has become an important source of income and contributes to food supply. In
others, by-catch of fish, particularly small-sized, is discarded at sea. The capture of juveniles of valuable
food fish constitutes a threat to the sustainable production of fish from an area. Extensive removal of non-
target fish is also a threat to the biodiversity in a fishing area. If the introduction of fishing technologies
and practices that reduce the capture of juveniles is successful in a few selected countries in various
regions, it can be assumed that such technology and practices would be adopted by other shrimp fishing
countries also experiencing problems with by-catch. In addition to the expected increased fish production
and conservation of biodiversity as a result of project intervention, shrimp trawling will earn an improved
reputation and so continue to produce needed export income for several poor developing countries.
The overall objective of the project is to reduce discards of fish captured by shrimp-trawlers, primarily by
introducing in a selected number of developing countries, technologies that reduce the catch of juvenile
food-fish and other by-catch.
The main objectives were stated as:
· Reduced by-catch taken by shrimp trawlers;
· Reduce capture of juvenile fish, particularly of species used for human consumption; and
· Increase knowledge on the impact of shrimp-trawling on marine habitat.
Relevance to GEF Programmes
This project was in conformity with the GEF Operational Strategy and Operational Programmes, in
particular OP #9 - International Waters: Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area, where there is a
focus on an integrated management approach to the sustainable use of [land and] water resources on an area-
wide basis. It also had relevance to OP #2 - Biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystems, and specifically
to aspects of eco-system management including elements of: targeted research, information-sharing, training,
institutional-strengthening, demonstrations, and outreach (or `extension').
Executing Arrangements
The proposal was to be executed by having a National Steering Committee (with a membership including
representatives of the fishery managers, researchers, shrimp-fishers, non-shrimp-fishers, NGOs, etc. as
appropriate) and a National Coordinator, to be involved on important issues regarding project
implementation. Depending on the existing facilities/infrastructure in every participant country, and the
work plan for the activities to be carried out by the project, FAO was to contract local or national
31
institutions to undertake specific works, or recruit directly experts and specialists as required. Also FAO
was to organize external training activities or study tours (if necessary), or provision of
equipment/materials.
Project Activities
The project duration is 60 months from February 2002 to January 2007.
The project had a total of eight components:
1. Inventory of by-catch reduction devices; legal and policy framework
2. Identification of problems of by-catch
3. Mapping of distribution of catches of target species and by-catch; determination of catch composition
in different fishing grounds
4. Development and adoption of by-catch reduction technologies
5. Testing of by-catch reduction devices in industrial and artisanal fisheries
6. Testing of alternative fishing gears for shrimp fishing
7. Demonstration and training for fishers on by-catch reduction devices
8. Dissemination of the results to the fishing industry
Budget
The total budget was US$ 9,150,000 with US$ 4,780,000 funded by the GEF Trust Fund and co-funding
from UNEP (in kind) US$ 110,000, Governments US$ 3,250,000 and FAO (in kind) US$ 1,010,000.
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REVIEW
1. Objective and Scope of the Review
At the mid-point of the project, the Review is intended to make recommendations for any necessary
changes in the overall design and orientation of the project and make detailed recommendations on the
work-plan for the remainder of the project.
The objective of this mid-term Review (MTR) is to assess operational aspects, such as project
management and implementation of activities and also the extent to which objectives are being fulfilled.
The Review will assess project performance and the implementation of planned project activities and
planned outputs against actual results. It will focus on corrective actions needed for the project to achieve
maximum impact. Review findings will feed back into project management processes. Further, the report
will provide specific guidance on plans to extend the project beyond its current planned closure in June
2008.
Specifically, the Review will assess:
1. the continued relevance of the expected results, outcomes and objectives to the participating
countries;
2. the quality of the outputs produced thus far, and their use by member countries;
3. the likely sustainability of any results/outcome so far and impact of the project. A measure of the
project success would be an increased likelihood, since the project began, that desired impacts
will be achieved. This could be due to various manifestations of interest shown in the project by
countries, changes that have taken place in shrimp trawling regulation/practices, etc.
32
4. identify possible replication mechanisms, potentially involving more countries.
5. strengths and weaknesses of the project's management structure, operations, and the various
partnership arrangements of the project (including the appropriateness of the execution means vis-
à-vis the project objectives) and
6. consideration (and justification) for another similar project, with different or additional countries,
perhaps more ambitious in scope.
2. Methods
This Mid Term Review will be conducted as an in-depth reflection of project progress and future priority
actions. The consultant will liaise with the UNEP/EOU, the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager and the project's
technical staff in FAO's Fishing Technology Service (FIIT) on any logistic and/or methodological issues
to properly conduct the review in as independent a way as possible, given the circumstances and resources
offered.
A draft report will be prepared and circulated to UNEP - DGEF Task Manager, FAO FIIT technical staff,
key representatives of the national executing partners, and the UNEP / EOU. Any comments or responses
to the draft report will be sent to UNEP - EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of any
factual errors to be corrected.
The findings of the Review will be based on the following:
1. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to:
(a) The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and financial reports
to UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review reports) and relevant
correspondence.
(b) Review of specific products including the website .
(c) Notes from the Steering Committee and other meetings.
2. Discussions with National Coordinators at their annual meeting, to be held in Manila in October
2006.
3. Consultation with stakeholder groups, especially private sector partners, during field visits to
project locations in the Philippines Mexico and Nigeria.
4. Interviews with project management (such as Project Coordinators, the Executing Agency etc.).
5. Interviews and telephone interviews with other stakeholders, including NGOs which participated in
the project. As appropriate, these interviews could be combined with an email questionnaire.
6. The Consultant shall determine whether to seek additional information and opinions from
representatives of donor agencies and other organisations by e-mail or through telephone
communication.
When possible, the consultant will provide recommendations for improvement of project performance in
each of the six categories outlined in section 1 above, so that the project could incorporate the
recommendations for the improvement of the project performance for the remaining duration of the
project. The reviewer will also prepare a proposal for the development and application of indicators for
project performance (see Annex 4).
3. Mid Term Review report format
The report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain; the purpose of the Review,
exactly what was evaluated and the methods used. The report must highlight any methodological
limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based findings, consequent conclusions,
recommendations and lessons. The report should be presented in a way that makes the information
33
accessible and comprehensible and include an executive summary that encapsulates the essence of the
information contained in the report to facilitate clear managerial responses.
Evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a complete and balanced
manner. The Review report shall be written in English, be of no more than 40 pages (excluding annexes),
use numbered paragraphs and include:
i)
An executive summary (no more than 3 pages) providing a brief overview of the main
conclusions and recommendations of the review;
ii)
Introduction and background giving a brief overview of the project, for example, the
objective and status of activities;
iii)
Scope, objective and methods presenting the purpose of the review, the assessment
criteria used and questions to be addressed;
iv)
Project Performance and Impact providing factual evidence relevant to the questions
asked by the reviewer and interpretations of such evidence. This is the main substantive
section
v)
Conclusions of project implementation success giving the reviewer's concluding
assessments. This section should present a concise synthesis of main findings in the
preceding sections of the report and should draw conclusions regarding the relevance and
adequacy of the project objectives and design, the efficiency in project execution and
effectiveness in reaching the intended objectives (the production of outputs, the probable
effects and impact, the sustainability and replicability), strengths and weaknesses of the
design and implementation of the project, and the prospects for follow-up. The findings
should provide a clear basis for the recommendations which follow.
vi)
Recommendations suggesting actionable proposals regarding improvements that can
benefit the project in its remaining lifespan. The reviewer shall make clear
recommendations that primarily aim to enhance the likelihood of project impacts.
Recommendations should always be clearly addressed to each one of the concerned
parties, i.e. UNEP, the GEF, the host Government, the executing agency or the project
management, as appropriate. They should be realistic, specific and stated in operational
terms to the extent possible. A mid-term review should normally include a suggested
workplan as an annex and should summarise major changes required in planned inputs
and outputs and, if applicable, the outcomes required to meet the objectives.
vii)
Lessons learned presenting general conclusions from the standpoint of the design and
implementation of the project, based on established good and bad practices. Lessons must
have the potential for wider application and use, and the wider context in which lessons
may be applied should be specified;
viii)
Annexes include a breakdown of actual expenditures against activities and the current
status and expenditure relating to co-financing for the project. This information will be
prepared in consultation with the relevant project Fund Management Officers at UNEP
DGEF and FAO (see table attached in Annex 1 Co-financing and leveraged resources);
terms of reference, list of interviewees, and so on.
The draft and final reports will be assessed for quality as set out in Annex 3. Review comments on the
draft report will be shared with the consultant.
Examples of UNEP GEF Evaluation Reports are available at www.unep.org/eou
4. Submission of Final Mid Term Review Reports.
The final report shall be submitted in electronic form in MS Word format and should be sent to the
following persons:
34
Segbedzi Norgbey, Chief, Evaluation and Oversight Unit
UNEP, P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi,
Kenya
Tel.: (254-20) 624181
Fax: (254-20) 623158
Email: segbedzi.norgbey@unep.org
With a copy to:
Olivier Deleuze, Officer-in-Charge
UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination
P.O.
Box
30552
Nairobi,
Kenya
Tel: + 254-20-624166
Fax:
+
254-20-624041/4042
Email: olivier.deleuze@unep.org
Takehiro Nakamura
UNEP/GEF SPO International Waters
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF)
PO Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 20 7623886
Fax: 254 20 7624041/2
Email: takehiro.nakamura@unep.org
Janne Fogelgren
Project Operations Coordinator
Fishing Technology Service
Fishery Industries Division
Fisheries Department
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome
Tel. +39-06-5705-2377
Fax. +39-06-5705-5188
e-mail : janne.fogelgren@fao.org
The reviewer is fully responsible for the independent review report which may not necessarily reflect the
views of UNEP, the GEF or FAO. The final review report will be considered as an `internal document'
with the circulation of the report to be determined by DGEF management.
5. Resources and schedule of the review
This review will be undertaken by an international reviewer, selected by the UNEP Evaluation and
Oversight Unit. The contract for the reviewer will begin on 20th October 2006 and end on December31st
2006 (27 days) spread over 10 weeks study).
The review will be conducted in four phases.
- Preparation/background reading at home (1 day, early October).
35
- the Philippines to attend the National Coordinators' annual meeting, to be held in Manila in 8 16th
October 2006 (8 days including travel).
- Field visits to Nigeria and Mexico (9 days including travel mid-November).
- A visit to FAO HQ 3 days including travel time
- report writing at home 6 days, and submission of first draft, mid-December.
The reviewer will submit a draft report on 15th December 2006 to UNEP/EOU, UNEP/DGEF, FAO FIIT
and key representatives of the executing agencies. Any comments or responses to the draft report will be
sent to UNEP / EOU for collation and the consultants will be advised of any necessary revisions.
Comments to the final draft report will be sent to the reviewer by 22nd December after which, the reviewer
will submit the final report no later than 31st December.
The reviewer will, after an initial telephone briefing with EOU and UNEP/GEF, travel and meet with
project staff at the beginning of the review. The reviewer should have the following qualifications:
The reviewer should not have been associated with the design and implementation of the project, should
be an international expert in fishing gear, marine biology and have experience with project evaluation.
Knowledge of UNEP and FAO programmes and GEF activities is desirable. Fluency in oral Spanish and
oral and written English is required.
6. Schedule Of Payment
The reviewer will receive an initial payment of 40% of the total amount due upon signature of the
contract. Final payment of 60% will be made upon satisfactory completion of work. The fee is payable
under the individual SSAs of the reviewer and is NOT inclusive of all expenses such as travel,
accommodation and incidental expenses. Ticket and DSA will be paid separately.
In case, the reviewer cannot provide the products in accordance with the TORs, the timeframe agreed, or
the products are substandard, the payment to the reviewer could be withheld, until such a time the
products are modified to meet UNEP's standard. In case the reviewer fails to submit a satisfactory final
product to UNEP, the product prepared by the reviewer may not constitute the review report.
36
Annex 1. Standard Terminal Evaluation issues (for reference only)
The following evaluation issues are applied to the terminal evaluation of UNEP GEF projects. The success
of project implementation is assessed and rated with respect to the eleven aspects defined below. These
are provided for information and will be re-examined at a later stage during the terminal review of
the project.
A. Attainment of objectives and planned results:
The evaluation should assess the extent of progress towards the project's major objectives
and whether such progress has been effectively and efficiently achieved. The
"achievement" indicators provided in the log frame of the project document should be
used together with the evaluation parameters described.
· Effectiveness: Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project objectives
have been met (by components), taking into account the "achievement indicators"
in the project logframe / project document. Relevance: Are the project's intended
outcomes consistent with the focal areas/operational program strategies?
· Efficiency: Include an assessment of outcomes achieved to date in relation to
inputs, costs, and implementation times based on the following questions: Is the
project costeffective? How does the cost-time vs. outcomes compare to other
similar projects? Has the project implementation been delayed?
B. Achievement of outputs and activities:
A full and systematic assessment of the project's success to date in producing each of the
programmed outputs, both in quantity and quality as well as usefulness and timeliness as
compared with workplan and progress towards achieving the immediate objectives. Is the
project on track?
C. Cost-effectiveness:
Cost-effectiveness assesses the achievement of the environmental and developmental
objectives as well as the project's outputs in relation to the inputs, costs, and
implementing time. It also examines the project's compliance with the application of the
incremental cost concept. The evaluation will:
· Assess the cost-effectiveness of the activities of the project funded by GEF and
whether these activities are likely to achieve the goals and objectives within the
planned time and budget. How do the costs compare to the costs of similar
projects in similar contexts?
· Assess the contribution of cash and in-kind co-financing to project
implementation and to what extent the project has so far leveraged additional
resources.
· Determine the extent to which scientific and technical information and knowledge
have been incorporated within, and have influenced the execution of, the project
activities.
D. Financial Planning and Control
Review of financial planning requires assessment of the quality and effectiveness of
financial planning and control of financial resources throughout the project's lifetime. The
evaluation should assess whether the use of project funds is commensurate with the
attainment of physical progress, efficacy and the timeliness of procurement and
disbursement activities and should:
· Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including financial reporting,
and planning. Are the financial management systems adequate to allow the
project management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow
37
for a proper and timely flow of funds for the payment of satisfactory project
deliverables?
· Verify the sources of co- financing as well as leveraged and associated financing
(in co-operation with the IA and EA).
E. Impact:
Impacts (long term effects) stemming from project interventions can take time to be fully
realised. Some effects, however, can be realised as a part of the implementation process.
The evaluation will:
· Evaluate the immediate impacts of the project on the countries selected (if any);
· As far as possible, also assess and comment on the potential longer-term
impacts of the project's interventions, considering that the evaluation is taking
place at the mid term and that longer term impact is expected to be seen in a few
years time. Frame recommendations to enhance future project impact in this
context. Which will be the major `channels' and required actions for longer term
impact? The evaluation should formulate recommendations that outline possible
approaches and necessary actions to facilitate the terminal evaluation and an
impact assessment study in a few years time.
F. Sustainability:
Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-derived
outcomes and impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The evaluation will identify
and assess the key conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the
persistence of benefits after the project ends. Some of these factors might be outcomes of
the project, i.e. stronger institutional capacities, legal frameworks, socio-economic
incentives / or public awareness. Other factors will include contextual circumstances or
developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are relevant to the
sustainability of outcomes. The evaluation should ascertain to what extent follow-up work
has been initiated and how project outcomes will be sustained and enhanced over time.
Five aspects of sustainability should be addressed: financial, socio-political, institutional
frameworks and governance, ecological (if applicable), and replication6. The following
questions provide guidance on the assessment of these aspects:
· Financial resources. What is the likelihood that financial and economic resources
will be available such as the project outcomes/benefits will be sustained once the
GEF assistance ends (resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public
and private sectors, income generating activities, and market trends that support
the project's objectives)? Was the project was successful in identifying and
leveraging co-financing.
· Socio-political: What is the likelihood that the level of stakeholder ownership will
allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Is there sufficient public /
stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project
· Institutional framework and governance. What is the likelihood that institutional
and technical achievements, legal frameworks, policies and governance structures
and processes will allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? What
is the relevance and applicability of the project's recommendations to federal and
6 Replication refers to repeatability of the project under quite similar contexts based on lessons
and experience gained. Actions to foster replication include dissemination of results, seminars,
training workshops, field visits to project sites, etc. GEF Project Cycle, GEF/C.16/Inf.7, October
5, 2000
38
local authorities? While responding to these questions consider if the required
systems for accountability and transparency and the required technical know how
are in place.
· Ecological. The analysis of ecological sustainability may prove challenging.
What is the likelihood that project achievements will lead to sustained ecological
benefits?
· Replication and catalysis. What examples are there of replication and catalytic
outcomes that suggest increased likelihood of sustainability? Replication
approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as lessons and experiences
coming out of the project that are replicated or scaled up in the design and
implementation of other projects. Replication can have two aspects, replication
proper (lessons and experiences are replicated in different geographic area) or
scaling up (lessons and experiences are replicated within the same geographic
area but funded by other sources).
G. Stakeholder participation / public awareness:
This consists of three related and often overlapping processes: information dissemination,
consultation, and "stakeholder" participation. Stakeholders are the individuals, groups,
institutions, or other bodies that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the GEF-
financed project. The term also applies to those potentially adversely affected by a
project. The evaluation will specifically:
· Assess the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification and
engagement of stakeholders and establish, in consultation with the stakeholders,
whether this mechanism was successful, and identify its strengths and
weaknesses.
· Assess the degree and effectiveness of collaboration/interactions between the
various project partners and institutions during the course of implementation of
the project.
· Assess the degree and effectiveness of any public awareness activities that were
undertaken during the course of implementation of the project.
H. Country ownership / driveness:
This is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental agendas,
recipient country commitment, and regional and international agreements. The evaluation
will: · Assess the level of country ownership. Specifically, the reviewer should assess
the countries' level of commitment.
I. Implementation approach:
This includes an analysis of the project's management framework, adaptation to changing
conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes
in project design, and overall project management. The evaluation will assess the
efficiency of project organisation and management with respect to its size and
composition, organisational structure, personnel management and policy, the
qualifications of local staff and consultants. Specifically the evaluation will:
· Ascertain to what extent the project implementation mechanisms outlined in the
project document have been followed. In particular, assess the role of the various
committees established and whether the project document was clear and realistic
to enable effective and efficient implementation, whether the project was
executed according to the plan and how well the management was able to adapt to
changes during the life of the project to enable the implementation of the project.
39
· Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project management
and the supervision of project activities / project execution arrangements at all
levels.
· Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial support
provided by FAO and UNEP/DGEF.
· Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and constraints that
influenced the effective implementation of the project.
· Assess whether the logical framework was used during implementation as a
management tool and whether feedback from M&E activities more broadly was
used for adaptive management.
J. Replicability:
· Assess whether the project has potential to be replicated, either in terms of
expansion, extension or replication in other countries and/or regions and whether any
steps have been taken by the project to do so and the relevance and feasibility of
these steps. Specifically, the reviewer will develop recommendations for a possible
replication mechanism, potentially involving more countries.
K. Monitoring and Evaluation:
The evaluation will consider the effectiveness of the M&E system (in defining
performance indicators and collecting and analysing monitoring data on project progress)
and follow-up on primary stakeholders' reactions to project activities.
· The evaluation shall include an assessment of the quality, application and
effectiveness of project monitoring and evaluation plans and tools, including an
assessment of risk management based on the assumptions and risks identified in the
project document. The evaluation shall comment on how the monitoring mechanisms
were employed throughout the project's lifetime, whether this allowed for tracking of
progress towards project objectives and how the project responded to the challenges
identified through these mechanisms. The tools used might include a baseline, clear
and practical indicators and data analysis systems, or studies to assess results that
were planned and carried out at specific times in the project.
40
Annex 2. Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
Co-financing (basic data to be supplied to the consultant for verification)
IA own
Government
Other*
Total
Total
Financing
Disbursement
Co financing
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(Type/Source)
Planne
Actual Planned
Actual Planned Actual
Planne
Actual Planned
Actual
d
d
-
Grants
-
Loans/Concession
al (compared to
market rate)
-
Credits
-
Equity
investments
-
In-kind
support
-
Other (*)
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs, the
private sector and beneficiaries.
Leveraged Resources
Leveraged resources are additional resources--beyond those committed to the project itself at the time of approval--that are mobilized later as a
direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO's, foundations, governments,
communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since inception and indicate how these resources are
contributing to the project's ultimate objective.
41
Annex 3
Review of the Draft Report
Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or Project Officer
and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff and senior Executing
Agency staff provide comments on the draft evaluation report. They may provide feedback on any
errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such errors in any conclusions. UNEP EOU collates
the review comments and provides them (with an EOU commentary) to the reviewer for consideration in
preparing the final version of the report. General comments on the draft report with respect to
compliance with these TOR, are also shared with the reviewer.
Quality Assessment of the Evaluation Report
All UNEP GEF Mid Term Reports are subject to quality assessments by UNEP EOU. These apply GEF
Office of Evaluation quality assessment and are used as a tool for providing structured feedback to the
reviewer.
The quality of the draft evaluation report is assessed and rated against the following criteria:
GEF Report Quality Criteria
UNEP EOU Assessment notes Rating
A. Did the report present an assessment of relevant
outcomes and achievement of project objectives in the
context of the focal area program indicators if applicable?
B. Was the report consistent and the evidence complete
and convincing?
C. Did the report present a sound assessment of the
potential sustainability of outcomes?
D. Were the lessons and recommendations supported by
the evidence presented?
E. Did the report include the actual project costs (total
and per activity) and actual co-financing used?
F. Did the report include an assessment of the quality of
the project M&E system and its use for project
management?
UNEP EOU additional Report Quality Criteria
UNEP EOU Assessment
Rating
G. Quality of the lessons: Were lessons readily applicable
in other contexts? Did they suggest prescriptive action?
H. Quality of the recommendations: Did
recommendations specify the actions necessary to correct
existing conditions or improve operations (`who?'
`what?' `where?' `when?)'. Can they be implemented?
I. Was the report well written?
(clear English language and grammar)
J. Did the report structure follow EOU guidelines, were
all requested Annexes included?
K. Were all evaluation aspects specified in the TORs
adequately addressed?
L. Was the report delivered in a timely manner
GEF Quality of the TE report = 0.3*(A + B) + 0.1*(C+D+E+F)
EOU assessment of TE report = 0.3*(G + H) + 0.1*(I+J+K+L)
Combined quality Rating=(2* `GEF EO' rating + EOU rating)/3
The Totals are rounded and converted to the scale of HS to HU
Rating system for quality of terminal evaluation reports
A number rating 1-6 is used for each criterion: Highly Satisfactory = 6, Satisfactory = 5, Moderately
Satisfactory = 4, Moderately Unsatisfactory = 3, Unsatisfactory = 2, Highly Unsatisfactory = 1, and
unable to assess = 0.
42
Annex 4 Project Performance Rubric
Project proposal Logframe
Agreed Project performance indicators and targets
Overall
Objectively Verifiable Means of Verification
Highly
Satisfacto Moderate
Moderate
Unsatisfa
Highly
Objectives
Indicators
(Monitoring focus)
Satisfacto ry
ly
ly
ctory
Unsatisfa
ry
Satisfacto Unsatisfa
ctory
ry
ctory
Reduced by- Reports by countries of Collection of data on All
No
catch taken by reduced discard levels catch rates and catch countries
countries
shrimp trawlers
and non-capture of
composition before and show
show a
turtles or other key after introduction of any large
substantia
marine living resource by-catch reduction device substantia
ted
(e.g. juvenile finfish)
or any change in fishing ted
reduction
operations
reduction
in by
s in by
catch,
catch,
some
large in
magnitud
e
Reduce capture Increased production of Same as above, as well as
of juvenile fish, food fish in the fishing an increase in landings of
particularly of
areas
relevant fish species
species used for
human
consumption
Increase
Reports about quality Changes in gears and
knowledge on the and magnitude of
fishing operations
impact of
distortion of bottom
shrimp-trawling
habitat caused by
on marine habitat trawling
43
Outcomes
Minimizing the Countries involved have Evaluation of research
pantropical
assigned priority for and development
problem of
research institutions and programmes
unwanted by- administration to solve
catch from
the problem.
shrimp trawling
Introduction of Number of vessels that Monitoring of vessels
appropriate
change their fishing Dissemination of
fishing
practice and adopt new guidelines and manuals
technology and technologies. Preparation for applying the new
practice
of guidelines and
techniques
manuals for applying the
new techniques
Enactment of
Adopted and published Adoption of regulations
relevant
regulations and laws
by the fishing industry
legislation and
development of
an improved
management
framework
Enhance
Increased demand for Monitoring of number of
awareness of the materials and
documentation requests
problem of
publications on shrimp and replies; statistics on
shrimp by-catch
fisheries and by-catch; web-site visitors
number of hits on web
site to be maintained by
FAO
Increase
Specific technical
Monitoring and reporting
dialogue,
assistance provided by of active participation and
interaction and resource countries;
interactions among
joint operations number of joint activities countries and resource
at the country implemented among
countries
and regional
participating countries
levels
44
Results
Adoption of by- Installation of devices in Reports of observers on
catch reduction the shrimp-trawling gear use of by-catch reduction
devices by
devices and on results of
national and
using them
regional shrimp-
trawling fisheries
Improved
Introduction of new Catch statistics by vessels
management of management systems
and/or observer records
shrimp-trawling
fishery
Increased co- Number of agreements Joint scientific
operation among between governments on publications; reports of
countries in
fishery research
relevant scientific
research on and (especially relevant to meetings and conferences
management of the problems addressed
the resources
by the project)
Better
Number of new research Scientific reports and
understanding
programmes on
publications
of the
environmental issues
interactions
between fishing
gear and
environment
45
ANNEX 2: TRIP TO THE PHILIPPINES, INCLUDING FIELD TRIP TO CALBAYOG
CITY (SAMAR PROVINCE)
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE TRIP
The purpose of the travel to the Philippines was to participate in the Global National Coordinators Review
Meeting, to interview the Project National Coordinators participating in this meeting, and to visit one of
the project sites in the country (for discussions with project stakeholders and implementers). The local
Project National Coordinator, Dr Jonathan Dickson, was accompanying the consultant and the other
National Coordinators during the stay in the Philippines. The following is a summary of information
collected and views expressed in the interviews carried out, in particular with regard to the project site
Calbayog.
ITINERARY
Date of
City
Date of arrival
Visits/meetings
departure
Rome (Italy)
7/10/2006
Global National Coordinators Review Meeting
Manila,
8/10/2006 12/10/2006
and interviews with National Coordinators.
Philippines
Meeting with UNEP representative.
Meeting with the Mayor's office and project
Calbayog,
implementers. Sea trip and trawling trial
12/10/2006 14/10/2006
Philippines
(JTED).
Discussions with boat owners and a skipper.
Manila,
Interviews with National Coordinators
14/10/2006 15/10/2006
Philippines
(continued) and with FAO Project Coordinators.
Halifax
15/10/2006
(Canada)
BACKGROUND
The marine fishery in the Philippines is categorised in two main categories:
· The municipal fishery consisting of boats of 3 GT or less operating in the coastal area < 15 km from
the shoreline.
· The commercial fishery operating with larger boats outside the 15 km limit.
The project works with the commercial trawl fishery of which there are 356 registered vessels. This is
however not a specialised shrimp fishery; boats target a larger range of commercially valuable fish and
shellfish. Sometimes different nets are used with fish being targeted during daytime trips and shrimp
trawling taking place at night. By-catch is rarely discarded although larger sized fish are generally
preferred. Juveniles and small fish are also normally used (e.g. for aquaculture feed). A smaller
proportion of the catch is classified as non-commercial `trash fish' and discarded. The often large
proportion of juveniles of commercially important fish species in the catches is of great concern.
46
In 1997, the shrimp production from the commercial vessels amounted to 7 156 tonnes and the municipal
fishery sector produced 25 334 tonnes. Shrimps from capture fisheries are for local consumption while the
aquaculture sector produces for export.
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS ACHIEVED TO-DATE
Training and demonstration events, including sea trials, have been carried out in five major trawling
grounds of the Philippines. As part of these activities, consultations with stakeholders were held and gear
inventories carried out. Different types of JTEDs were tested in the sea trials and changes in catch
recorded. The young/juvenile fish, trashfish and other by-catch escapement rate varied between 30 and 79
percent (by weight) depending on the fishing area and the type of device used. The training and
demonstration exercises also allowed to raise the awareness of boat owners, government staff and other
stakeholders of the importance of BRDs and to show how to use JTEDs. The project has made use of the
support from SEAFDEC who organised one workshop on the use of JTEDs in the Philippines in 2004.
Training material developed by SEAFDEC, in particular the short movies on VCD, have proved useful
tools in the awareness raising and demonstration activities.
Following the initial activities, a pilot implementation project was started in one of the
training/demonstration sites: Calbayog City in Samar province. A local technical working group was
established including industry representatives and local government officials and all local trawlers
(the number of which has recently decreased from eighteen to twelve) now use JTEDs. The pilot project
continues to evaluate the performance of JTEDs and to work closely with the Local Government Unit
who is also implementing a coastal zoning project. The coastal zoning project is a partnership activity
between the Calbayog mayor's office, the fishing industry, coastal communities and neighbouring
municipalities that has resulted in the establishment of a `fishing highway' delimitation of a trawl
fishing area starting 8.1 km from the shore improved monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) to
address illegal fishing, and decreased use of destructive gear and fishing methods. The implementation of
the use of JTEDs has become an integral part of this initiative. A dramatic increase in catches and
incomes has been reported thanks to the activities; boat owners interviewed by the reviewer claimed a
50% increase in income since the introduction of the JTEDs but it is difficult to separate the results of the
BRDs from the impact of other management measures under implementation.
The results of the project so far include an improved understanding of the catch composition in the major
trawl areas of the Philippines as well as the likely effect of the application of different types of JTEDs.
Through the pilot implementation project in Calbayog, a model for how to implement improved
management of the trawl fishery is in the process of being developed with important lessons-learnt
generated already, e.g. with regard to the importance of an integrated management approach and the
direct involvement of the industry and other stakeholders.
EXPECTED END-OF-PROJECT RESULTS
The results of the pilot project in Calbayog in combination with the costal zoning experience will serve as
a model for improved trawl fishery management, including the use of JTEDs, in other major trawl fishing
grounds in the country. Demonstration in other sites will have been carried out and the level of awareness
and knowledge among stakeholders regarding the use of JTEDs will have been considerably improved.
The project experience will also form the basis for the formulation of nation-wide recommendations on
the introduction of BRDs and improved management. A national policy on the use of BRDs by
commercial trawlers will have been adopted at the end of the project.
47
In Calbayog, the project will take the initiative to draft revised local regulations and to develop a local
management plan in collaboration with the coastal zoning initiative. These activities will be carried out in
a process of stakeholder consultations and training. By end-of-project, a new municipal regulation on
BRDs will have been approved and be under implementation. The aim is to reduce the catch of juveniles
of commercially valuable fish by 40 percent in Calbayog.
SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY
Since the trawlers in the Philippines as well as in other Southeast Asian countries are generally not
dedicated shrimp trawlers and since by-catch is mostly wanted and used, the incentives for the industry to
use BRDs is limited. Nevertheless, the industry would rather catch large fish than small and recognises
that if juveniles are left to grow, they can be caught at a later time fetching a better price. However, for
this to be valid for the individual fisher it is necessary to also introduce a management system in which
the industry trusts. The apparent success of the Calbayog pilot project would probably not have been
achieved in isolation from the coastal zoning initiative and the direct participation of the stakeholders that
this has entailed. The project staff are well aware of this fact and wider management aspects will be
included in the replication activities and policy formulation.
When the project ends, gear development and testing of further improvements of BRDs will continue
under the regular national budget, possibly in combination with other projects for fisheries management.
Funding is expected to be available for the general promotion of the use of JTEDs but a nation-wide
implementation and enforcement of new BRD regulations may prove more difficult to achieve in the
short-term. The willingness of the industry to use BRDs on a voluntary basis will hence be of importance
for the overall impact of the project.
OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
At the beginning of the project, an international meeting was held in FAO, Rome, to discuss its
implementation with all the participating countries. The advice given and support to setting national
objectives at inception were found to be insufficient and project staff feel they have not known what has
been expected from them with regard to activities and results in the Philippines. Technical support has
been given by FAO and by SEAFDEC and this has been adequate. However, more clearly defined
indicators, closer monitoring and feedback regarding achievements as well as more inter-regional
technical exchanges would be desirable (the possible introduction of suripera fishing gear as used in
Mexico for the Philippine artisanal fishery is currently being looked into).
No delays or other problems with regard to fund transfers and other administrative matters have been
noted. The project operates through financial allotment advices administered by the local FAO office.
A NEW PROJECT?
If a new project were to be implemented, the following components and activities could be considered:
· Inclusion of new countries in the region (e.g. Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Vietnam).
· Further development and improvement of gear.
· Inclusion of the small-scale/artisanal fishery.
· Addressing enforcement issues.
48
ANNEX 3: FIELD TRIP TO MEXICO
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE TRIP
The purpose of the travel to Mexico was to visit two of the project sites and to discuss with project
participants from the private industry as well as with government counterpart agencies. During the stay,
the consultant was accompanied by the Assistant Project National Coordinator, Mr Ignacio Mendez. The
following is a summary of information collected and views expressed in the interviews carried out.
ITINERARY
Date of
City
Date of arrival
Visits/meetings
departure
Halifax (Canada)
12/11/2006
Visit to National Institute of Fisheries (INP) and
Mexico City
12/11/2006
13/11/2006
discussions
Visit to Comision Nacional de Aquacultura y
Pesca (CONAPESCA) and discussions
Visit to harbour and discussion with skipper
Mazatlan 13/11/2006
15/11/2006
Visit to supplier of net materials
Discussions with net maker/project technology
consultant
Discussions with boat owner/export company
Visit to regional office of INP
Visit to harbour and discussions with boat
Huatulco/Salina
15/11/2006 16/11/2006
owner and skippers (using new nets)
Cruz
Discussions with Fisheries Department of
Oaxaca State Government
Mexico City
16/11/2006
17/11/2006
Transfer
Halifax (Canada)
17/11/2006
BACKGROUND
There are about 2 000 shrimp trawlers in Mexico. Some 1 100 boats are fishing on the Pacific coast and
the remaining 900 are based on the Atlantic side in the Gulf of Mexico. In Mazatlan in Sinaloa province
on the Pacific coast, the main fishing port, about 600 shrimp trawlers are based. Shrimp is also fished by
the artisanal fishing fleet and on the Pacific coast it is estimated that there are some 10 000 artisanal craft
operating. However, these are generally multipurpose boats, targeting shrimp among other species. On the
other hand, the industrial fleet focuses on shrimp and by-catch is generally not used or wanted, and hence
discarded (with the exception of large fish that accrue to the crew).
TEDs are mandatory and exports of shrimp to the United States are important to the industry. However,
the industry complains that international prices are low while their costs (in particular fuel) are increasing.
There is also increased competition from the aquaculture industry.
49
In the industrial fishery, boat owners do not generally fish but employ skippers and crew. Decisions on
gear and investments are however taken by the boat owner who may be influenced by the skipper.
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS ACHIEVED TO-DATE
The project targets the industrial fleet and does not work with the artisanal sector. Project activities build
on work already carried out by the Mexican government and the INP on BRDs and gear development and
have so far been mainly implemented on the Pacific coasts. Two experimental trips for testing BRDs
have been completed. A third trip had to be cancelled due to bad weather (hurricanes) and will be
resumed early 2007. A fourth trip is also scheduled for next year. The trips take place in different fishing
areas of the Pacific coast. Activities in the Gulf of Mexico will follow after the trials on the Pacific coast
have been completed.
The gear and devices tested include trawl nets of new material with slightly different design and bigger
mesh (2"1/4 instead of 2" or 1"3/4 depending on the area), fish eye (double or single), double foot rope
and double cover TEDs. The results so far show that:
· By-catch is reduced (25-70% reduction depending on combination of devices) and the quality of the
shrimp catch is improved, i.e. larger size shrimp.
· The new nets, which are lighter than the old ones, decrease fuel consumption by some 30%.
· Work onboard, i.e. sorting of catch, has become easier and is quicker.
The industry takes a great interest in the new nets considering the reduction in fuel consumption. Some
100 vessels are using new nets (with or without the BRDs) on a voluntary basis. A few have received
funding through a Government gear replacement programme for investing in the new nets. The new
netting material is however expensive and some boat owners are switching to new nets but of cheaper
material (and not necessarily of the design and with the devices proposed by the project).
In addition to the sea trials, a number of meetings and workshops have been held for researchers,
government officials and private stakeholders, including training on the operation of onboard electronic
equipment and on shrimp trawl design. Relevant equipment has been purchased through the project for
the INP research vessels, including fish finder, navigation system, echo sounders, trawl and catch
monitoring systems, and sea floor mapping instruments. Mexico is also providing technical assistance to
neighbouring countries, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.
The mandatory use of BRDs has been introduced in National Protected Areas and new regulations with
regard to TEDs have been put in place. As soon as the final trials of the new nets/devices are finalised for
the Pacific coast, the results will be submitted as a proposal for new standards for the shrimp trawl
fishery. Nevertheless, already at this point in time, there is a good understanding of the technical
specifications required.
EXPECTED END-OF-PROJECT RESULTS
At the end of the project, it is expected that:
· the new standards for nets and BRDs have been become formalised and are under implementation for
the Pacific fishery.
· the technical specification of nets and BRDs for the Gulf of Mexico have been finalised through sea
trials and the process for its legalisation has been initialised (but the actual formal adoption of the new
standards may take place after end-of-project)
50
· an increased number of fishers are using the new nets and BRDs on a voluntary basis (also before it is
legally required).
When using the new nets and devices, the by-catch reduction is calculated to be at least 30%, possibly up
to 40-50%. In addition, there is an expected decrease in fuel consumption of around 30%. The exact
effects will depend on the combination of gear used (improved net, single or double fish eye, double foot
rope and double cover TED).
SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY
The project activities are well integrated into regular national activities and will continue after the
completion of the project. Research on improved nets and BRDs had started already before the project,
which has allowed to consolidate the efforts to develop new net designs/devices. The project is also
politically important since the recommendations for changing standards and regulations will carry more
weight when supported by FAO.
In the industry, there is generally a resistance to change but boat owners are motivated by financial gains
to use new gear. The new net design and material, which decrease by-catch together with the BRDs, also
reduces fuel consumption and this is the most important incentive for the fishers to adopt the new
technologies. The larger mesh size and change of codend material also allow for better quality shrimp to
be caught (bigger size and less damage) . Hence, while the introduction of the new nets is likely to be
easy, it may prove more difficult to introduce the use of BRDs. Legislation and enforcement are likely to
be required unless the devices are proven to enhance the quality of the shrimp and do not entail loss in
shrimp catch. The experience from the TEDs show though that such devices can be introduced and are
being used by the industry. Nevertheless, the willingness of the industry to use BRDs needs to be
confirmed and proper training, awareness building and means of enforcing the new regulations and
standards when they take effect should be part of the implementation process for the new gear.
If gear is introduced that increases the efficiency of the fishery, care has to be taken not to increase fishing
effort beyond the carrying capacity of the resources. There is currently a buy-back programme in place
and new licences are not issued as measures to limit fishing capacity. The industry would like to see more
strict management, including the regulation of the artisanal fishery and closed areas to allow shrimp to
grow to larger size, fetching higher prices in international markets, before being caught.
While it is recognised that different fisheries, boats and fishing areas require customised gear solutions,
general designs and lessons-learnt can be transferred to other areas and fisheries. The experiences from
the Pacific coast will feed into the work to be carried out in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mexican
experience is useful for many other countries in the region and even internationally. The Philippines has
asked for assistance from Mexico in introducing the environmentally friendly suripera technology for
their small-scale sector While the situation of the artisanal fishery is considerably different from that of
the industrial trawl fleet and more complex and complicated it is believed that the experience gained
from the project will also be useful when in the future working with the artisanal sector on gear
selectivity, BRDs and fisheries management.
The netting material used in the experimental gear, and which is the material that is now being promoted
by the government, is of high quality but expensive. It is imported (from the United States), only sold by
one company and the availability in the Mexican market is limited. There are substitutes but since these
materials have not been tested, their performance has not been evaluated and is hence not known.
However, once the new nets become more widely used, it would seem likely that market forces will
adjust supply to demand (and substitute material be evaluated by the use of the private sector).
While the inter-regional cooperation provided through the project is appreciated, it is felt that the regional
collaboration is more important from a technical point of view. The BRDs used in Southeast Asia or in
51
Africa are not immediately suitable for the Latin American / Caribbean region. However, the technical
support and advice provided by FAO through staff and consultants have been useful.
OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
The National Project Steering Committee is the same group as the Comite Consultivo Nacional de
Normalizacion de Pesca Responsable and is hence well placed for processing and bringing forward the
results of the project to relevant authorities and legislators. The project has also worked closely with the
industry and project management appears to have a good understanding of the views, constraints and
opportunities of the fishers. This type of consultative process is not unique to the project but was
established already before its start.
The project was considerably delayed at the beginning due to confusion with regard to how to transfer
funds from FAO to the project counterpart institutions. This issue was solved and the project now
operates through allotment advices administered by the FAO Representation in Mexico City. Sometimes
there are delays in the delivery of funds and equipment but these do not constitute major obstacles to
project implementation.
A NEW PROJECT?
If a new project were to be implemented, the following components and activities could be considered:
· A continuation of the testing of new gear and devices, e.g. experiments with other (less expensive)
netting materials.
· Inclusion of the artisanal fishery.
· Inclusion of other countries in the Latin American/Caribbean region (of which some have participated
in regional meetings and several have expressed their interest in the project).
· Improved research to support management, e.g. the closure of areas and the regulation of fishing
seasons (area specific measures would be desirable).
52
ANNEX 4: FIELD TRIP TO NIGERIA
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE TRIP
The purpose of the travel to Nigeria was to participate in the Post-certification TEDs and BRDs
Workshop on 29-30 November 2006 and to hold discussions with project participants from the private
industry representatives of the shrimp trawl companies and other stakeholders and the government
counterpart agencies. During the stay, the consultant was accompanied by the Project National
Coordinator, Mr James Ogbonna, and the Project Fishing Gear Scientist, Dr Boluwaji Solarin. The
following is a summary of information collected and views expressed in the interviews carried out.
ITINERARY
Date of
City
Date of arrival
Visits/meetings
departure
Halifax (Canada)
26/11/2006
Visits to Nigerian Institute for Oceanography
and Marine Research / NIOMR and Lagos
Annex, Department of Fisheries, Federal
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Lagos 27/11/2006
1/12/2006
Development (FDF).
Discussions with representatives of the private
shrimp trawl industry-
Participation in workshop (NIOMR).
Visit to fish market.
Rome (Italy)
2/12/2006
For debriefing
BACKGROUND
In Nigeria, 240 shrimp trawlers are licensed to fish beyond the five miles delimiting the inshore area
reserved for the artisanal fishery. There are an estimated 35 000 artisanal fishermen fishing shrimp. The
Niger Delta area is particularly important for shrimp fishing. This is also the major oil production area
and oil spills and related pollution is a growing concern for the fishery resources.
The shrimp trawlers belong to 22 fishing companies and almost all boats are based in Lagos. The major
share of the shrimp caught is sold to Europe. There are generally foreign interests invested in the
companies and they are also often managed by foreigners or non-native Nigerians (Indians). By-catches
are important and generally fully utilised, either landed (frozen) and sold in the local market or sold and
transhipped by crew to smaller fishing boats. In value, shrimp make up some 20-25 percent of the value
of the landed catch while fish contribute 75-80 percent. About 7 000 tonnes of shrimp are exported per
year, yielding some USD 50 million in export earnings. Nigeria is also a major fish importer with an
estimated 560 000 tonnes coming into the country annually.
The main problems the industry are facing include increases in fuel prices, decreasing shrimp prices in
international markets and piracy. Lately, armed robberies of shrimp trawlers appear to have increased
dramatically, hampering the shrimp trawl operations. Companies claim to have to restrict their fishing
efforts to areas considered safe. The exact reasons behind the attacks are unclear but most likely related to
the militant movement in the Niger Delta. Moreover, claims are being made that trawlers attract the
53
pirates by their own actions, e.g. fishing too close to the shore and carrying cash for illegal trade. With
regard to fuel prices, subsidisation by the government is under discussion.
Nigeria used to export to the United States (US) but lost its certification in 2004.
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS ACHIEVED TO-DATE
The project works closely with the shrimp trawling companies, individually and through the Nigerian
Trawler Owners' Association (NITOA). Work on TEDs for the recertification for the American market
had started before the project and became one of its main focuses. The project also works on the
development and testing of BRDs for exclusion of juveniles and redefinition of the codend mesh size. An
observer programme has been implemented to improve the knowledge of catch and by-catch composition
and use. A study is under way to better understand the socio-economic importance of by-catch and the
possible implications of its reduction. Various training events, demonstration activities, workshops and
meetings have taken place and the activities have been carried out in close collaboration with the industry.
Regular meetings with the industry have been introduced to discuss Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
(MCS). Some project activities have been carried out in close collaboration with Cameroon. The main
outputs of the project so far include:
· Recertification for the US market under way (official confirmation awaited any time).
· BRDs tested through trials during one-day fishing trips in Lagos West and three suitable models
defined: (i) square mesh codend, (ii) square mesh window, and (ii) 90 degrees turned codend.
· New regulations in place for TEDs, BRDs and codend mesh size (minimum 44 mm) for shrimp
trawls. The amendment of the Fishing Regulations took effect in August 2006.
· Increased awareness and knowledge on the need for and use of BRDs on behalf of the industry.
· Better knowledge and data on catches/by-catches and their utilisation.
· 49 data collectors trained and a system for continuous shorebased data collection in place.
· A partnership established between the government and the fishing industry allowing for open
dialogues and discussions on issues also outside the scope of the project.
· Formal agreement at project level with Cameroon to harmonise the fishing regulations and MCS of
the two countries and a workshop planned for January 2007 to start similar discussion with eight
other shrimp fishing countries in the southern part of the Gulf of Guinea.
The project has also supplied essential equipment to NIOMR, e.g. a vehicle, computers, freezer (for
samples), etc.
EXPECTED END-OF-PROJECT RESULTS
In addition to the results achieved already, it is expected that the following activities will have been
completed and outputs produced by the end of the project:
· Formal confirmation of the US recertification.
· Finalisation of the socio-economic study and improved knowledge of the likely impact of a by-catch
reduction on those making a living on collection and trade of the produce today. Alternative
employment opportunities and the need for mitigating measures will also have been explored.
54
· Further refinement of the technical aspects of BRDs through trials during longer commercial fishing
trips.
· Further increased knowledge by the industry on the use of BRDs and 40 percent of the vessels using
the device.
· By-catches reduced by up to 40 percent by those vessels using the device.
SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY
While the industry claims to understand the need for protecting the environment (e.g. turtles) and the
logic in letting small fish grow larger before they are caught, there is no immediate financial incentive to
use the new devices, except for the US certification that requires TEDs. Captains interviewed sometimes
complained about the loss of time in rigging the TED properly and shrimp losses of 7-10 percent. They
also explained that few turtles had been caught even before TEDs were introduced but admitted that
accidental catches stop when using TEDs. Nevertheless, in spite of strong initial resistance to TEDS, it
appears that shrimp trawlers are now using them. Demonstrations and training both for boat owners and
crew have been essential for reaching this result. Since the devices are mandatory according to the
revised regulations, boat owners expressed confidence in that the TEDs will continue to be used and so
will the BRDs once they have been introduced through demonstrations and training. The heavy penalties
for boats caught not using TEDs/BRDs is also discouraging non-compliance.
However, the possibilities of the Federal Department of Fisheries (FDF) to enforce the regulations are
difficult to assess. Problems also appear to exist with regard to trawlers fishing illegally in inshore area.
Efforts are currently being made to improve the capacity and capabilities in the field of MCS and the
project is working on this initiative with FDF. Improvements that are being sought by the department
include the introduction of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), use of `co-management' (co-
surveillance) approaches by which the industry is encouraged to supervise each other, the dissemination
of information regarding regulations and `black lists' of non-compliant companies through a news letter,
and the establishment of a surveillance platform, including the necessary equipment, under the authority
of the department. Currently, FDF makes request to the navy when interventions are required.
The role of the navy was discussed in the workshop on 29 November 2006 in relation to the issue of
the increased piracy, or sea robbery, incidents involving fishing vessels. The representative of the navy
suggested a co-financing mechanism (including other government departments and the industry) to allow
them to better serve the fishing industry. No conclusions on this important issue were reached but all
parties expressed willingness to work together to find a solution to the piracy problem although blame
was also passed around. At the moment, the issue of piracy is overshadowing all other concerns and its
solution would appear to also be of relevance to the future monitoring and surveillance of law compliance
by fishing vessels with regard to TEDs/BRDs.
Although the confirmation of recertification for the US market has yet not been received, it is expected to
be received. With an additional market to supply, care has to be taken so that fishing pressure does not
increase in an unhealthy manner in order to increase production for this new market.
Project activities are well integrated into the work of NIOMR and FDF who are assuming full ownership
of the work. While certain activities will not be continued without project funding, e.g. regular socio-
economic field surveys and the already completed at-sea observer programme, it would appear that
NIOMR and the department have the staff resources (including fishing technologists and social scientists)
to ensure a general continuation of the initiatives started.
Considering the shared waters and fishery resources in the Gulf of Guinea, cooperation between all
countries utilising these resources is important. As mentioned above, discussions are under way with
55
Cameroon for the harmonisation of fishing regulations and MCS and a similar initiative has been taken
for other countries in the region. It would appear that the experience gained in Nigeria could be useful in
the development of BRD technologies and regulations in neighbouring countries (although the current
local situation in these countries is not known).
It is also noted that the opportunity for international exchanges of experiences and technologies that the
project has provided appears appreciated and useful. For example, the methodologies used for the socio-
economic study in Trinidad and Tobago have provided inputs into the questionnaire used for the Nigerian
work on the same issue. With regard to BRDs, the international exposure to different techniques has
allowed Nigeria to evaluate a variety of existing devices before deciding what is likely to be most suitable
for local conditions.
OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
The project operates through Letters of Agreement (LOA) between FAO Rome and NIOMR and FDF.
Certain expenses are paid through the FAO Representation in Abuja. The involvement of the local FAO
office has been limited, at least partly caused by the vacancy of the FAO representative post until October
2005. The project has generally communicated directly with Rome but the local FAO office is likely to
become more involved in monitoring and new procedures for, for example, forwarding project reports via
the FAO Representation have recently been agreed upon.
After the project budget was drawn up four years ago, prices as well as the rates for government
allowances for staff travelling in-country also applied by the project have increased more than
expected. This has had implications for some of the activities and the socio-economic study that was
started recently has had to reduce travel and time spent in the field by data collectors and researchers.
NIOMR and FDF make in kind contributions to the project through staff time but do not have a general
budget for support in cash.
The visit by the FAO Project Operations Officer and his meeting with the Minister of State for
Agriculture and Rural Development in September 2006 was much appreciated. Visible support by FAO to
the project and related initiatives is important for the political acceptance and support for project activities
and objectives. It is noteworthy the Minister participated in the opening session of the Recertification
TEDs and BRDs Workshop on 28 November 2006.
A NEW PROJECT?
If a new project were to be implemented, the following components and activities could be considered:
· Extension of project activities to neighbouring countries, i.e. notably shrimp trawling nations in the
southern part of the Gulf of Guinea.
· MCS
· Further review of the potential socio-economic consequences of by-catch reductions and the need for
mitigating measures
· Support to the further implementation and introduction of BRDs (demonstrations, training,
workshops, etc)
· Shrimp fisheries management in a wider context, including stock assessments and socio-economic
aspects, and covering both the industrial and the artisanal fisheries.
56
ANNEX 5: PERSONS MET
MEXICO
Dr Guillermo Compeán, Project Coordinator (Director, Instituto Nacional De La Pesca / INP)
Mr Ignacio Mendez (Director-General de Investigacion Pesquera En El Pacifico Sur, INP)
Mr Andrés Antonio Seefó Ramos, Fishing Technologist (Sub-Director De Tecnología, INP) (met
in Manila, Philippines)
Mr Raul Villaseñor, Technical Secretary Project Steering Committee and National Committee for
Responsible Fisheries Standards (Director Sports Fishing, Comision Nacional de Aquacultura y
Pesca / CONAPESCA, Mazatlan)
Mr Rafael Basto Beserra, Project Regional Consultant (Fishing technologist/trader, Mazatlan)
Mr Fernando Medrano Freeman (boat owner/shrimp exporter, Mazatlan)
Mr Antonio (skipper, shrimp trawler, Mazatlan)
Mr Oswaldo Morales Pacheao (Sub-director of Administration and Economic Analysis, Regional
INP Office, Salina Cruz)
Mr Eduardo Ramos Santiago (Researcher, Regional INP Office, Salina Cruz)
Mr Miguel Angel Baldenebro Valeuzuela (Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuacultura, Oaxaca State
Government, Oaxaca) (met in Salina Cruz)
Mr Magdaleno Maldonado Ventura (boat owner, Salina Cruz)
Mr Marcelino Perez Barcelo (skipper, Salina Cruz)
M Javier Lopez Perez (skipper, Salina Cruz)
NIGERIA
Mr James Ogbonna, National Coordinator (Deputy Director of Fisheries, Federal Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development)
Dr Boluwaji Solarin, Fishing Gear Scientist (Assistant Director, Nigerian Institute for
Oceanography and Marine Research / NIOMR)
Dr B.I. Ezenwa (Executive Director, NIOMR)
Dr O.A. Ayinla, Director (Bio/Fishtech) (NIOMR)
Mr Phillips Amiegheme (acting Director Department of Fisheries, Federal Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development / FDF, Abuja)
Dr Akinsola V. Amire (Deputy Director, FDF, Lagos Annex)
Mr E.E. Edit (Assistant Director / MCS, FDF, Lagos Annex)
Mrs B.A. Kupolati (Chief Fisheries Officer / Planning and Evaluation, FDF, Lagos Annex)
Ms Parcy Ochuko Abohweyere (Fisheries Economist, NIOMR) and
members of staff carrying out the project socio-economic study.
Owners, managers and captains of the following shrimp trawling companies:
- Karflex Fisheries Ltd (5 shrimp trawlers)
- ORC Fishing Company (15 shrimp trawlers)
- Atlantic Shrimpers Ltd (71 shrimp trawlers)
- Banarly Group (24 shrimp trawlers)
- Honeywell Fisheries Ltd (9 shrimp trawlers)
- Seabless Fishing Company Ltd (10 shrimp trawlers)
57
Participants in the 2-day Post-certification TEDs and BRDs Workshop:
Ms Amber. A. Aura (Political/Economic Officer, United States Consulate General, Lagos)
Ms Abdeola Akinrinlola (Program Assistant, FAO, Abuja)
Mr Nenibarini Zabbey (Head Conservation Programme, Centre for Environment, Human Rights
and Development / CEHRD, Eleme, River States)
Ms Deaconess Foluke O. Areola (National President, Fisheries Society of Nigeria)
NN Captain A.O.A Ikioda (Commanding Officer MNS Bearcraft)
PHILIPPINES
Dr Jonathan O. Dickson, National Coordinator (Chief, Capture Fisheries Division, Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources)
Mr Rafael V. Ramiscal (Supervising Aquaculturist, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources)
Mr Efren V. Hilario (Aquaculturist, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources)
Mr Mel Senen S. Sarmiento (Mayor, Calbayog City)
Mr Ronaldo Aquino (Vice-Mayor, Calbayog City)
Ms Angelica T. Realino, Co-chair JTED Techncial Working Group (Chief Fisheries Division,
Calbayog)
Ms Merla Abarquez-Rosalado (Documentor, City's Special Projects, Calbayog)
Mr Apolinario Catarus (boat owner, Calbayog)
Ms Matilda C. Merencillo (boat owner, Calbayog)
Ms Herbita S. Montiman (boat owner, Calbayog)
Mr Hendrik D. Balareit (boat owner, Calbayog)
Mr Greg P. Jusayan (boat owner, Calbayog)
Mr Fulicisimo Gonesio (boat owner, Calbayog)
Mr Edelbesto Smilla (master fisherman, Calbayog)
FAO
Mr Janne Fogelgren, Project Operations Coordinator
Mr Thomas Moth-Poulsen, Project Coordinator (technical)
Dr Mr. Blaise Kuemlangan, Project Legal Advisor (Legal Officer)
Mr Jeremy Turner (Chief, Fishing Technology Service / FIIT)
ADDITIONAL PERSONS MET / INTERVIEWED IN MANILA, PHILIPPINES
CAMEROUN
Mr Oumarou Njifonjou, National Coordinator (Ministry of Livestocks and Fisheries and Animal
Industries)
Dr Meke Soung Pierre Nolasque (Fishing Activities Control and Surveilance Brigade, Ministry
of Livestocks, Fisheries and Animal Industries / MINEPIA)
COLOMBIA
Dr Mario Enrique Rueda Hernández, National Coordinator (INVEMAR)
58
COSTA RICA
Mr Antonio Porras, National Coordinator (Director General Tecnico Instituto Costarriceuse de
Pesca y Acuicultura / INCAPESCA)
CUBA
Mr Luis Font Chávez, National Coordinator (Fishery Ministry)
INDONESIA
Mr Tyas Budiman, National Coordinator (Directorate General of Capture Fisheries, Ministry of
Marine Affairs and Fisheries / MMAF)
Mr Imron Rosyidi, Assistant Project Coordinator (MMAF)
Mr Imron Rosyidi, Assistant Project Coordinator (MMAF)
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Ms Suzette Soomai, National Coordinator (Fisheries Officer, Ministry of Agriculture Land and
Marine Resources)
VENEZUELA
Mr José Javier Alió, National Coordinator (Researcher, National Institute Agricultural Research)
Mr Luis Marcano (Instituno Nacional Investi Agricola)
SEAFDEC
Mr Bundit Chokesanguan (Head of Information and Extension Division, Training Department)
Mr Suppachai Ananpungsok (Training Department)
Mr Mokkara Punchuen (Training Department)
UNEP
Mr Takehiro Nakamura (UNEP/GEF SPO International Waters) (met in Manila, Philippines)
59
ANNEX 6: PROJECT PERFORMANCE RUBRIC
Project Document Logframe
Means of
Comments on Project Performance and Indicators
Objectively
Overall
Verification
Verifiable
(new proposed end-of-project targets in italics)
Objectives
(Monitoring
Indicators
focus)
1. Reduced by-
50% reduction of
Collection of data
By-catch reductions have been demonstrated in most participating countries but on a trial basis or
catch taken by
discards7
on catch rates and
by a smaller segment of the industry using BRDs on a voluntary basis. TEDs are mandatory in
shrimp trawlers
Reports by
catch composition
some countries and used by the industry. In Nigeria, the project has contributed extensively to the
countries of
before and after
reintroduction of TEDs and all shrimp trawlers are apparently fitted with the device.
reduced discard
introduction of any
While the identification, development and testing of suitable BRDs are well under way in most
levels and non-
by-catch reduction
countries, an important challenge will be the wider application of the devices by the industry.
capture of turtles or device or any
Economic incentives to the industry only exist in countries where by-catches are not utilised and
other key marine
change in fishing
without market value.
living resource (e.g. operations
Only a few countries will have reached the stage where the use of BRDs is being implemented
juvenile finfish)
across the industry at end-of-project and a 50% a reduction of by-catch overall is likely to be an
overly optimistic target.
· Total by-catches by the shrimp trawl fleets in participating countries reduced by at least 5%.
2. Reduce capture
Increased
Same as above, as
While assuming that a reduction of by-catches including of juveniles of commercially valuable
of juvenile fish,
production of food
well as an increase
species will lead to increased abundance of larger size food fish in the longer term, it will be
particularly of
fish in the fishing
in landings of
difficult to measure this impact at end-of-project. Only in a few places will BRDs have been in
species used for
areas
relevant fish
use for any length of time by a large enough share of the trawler fleet to start to have an impact on
human
species
stocks. It will also be difficult to separate the effect of the project from other impacts on the
consumption
fisheries. Where data on landings exist or sampling of landed fish can be carried out in relevant
areas, indications could possibly be obtained that sizes and landings of fish are stable:
· Sizes and landings of food fish in shrimp trawling areas where BRDs are used stable or
improved.
3. Increase
Reports about
Changes in gears
This objective has not been addressed by project activities. Changes in gear proposed and
knowledge on the
quality and
and fishing
introduced by the project have been evaluated with regard to its impact on catches and economic
impact of shrimp-
magnitude of
operations
efficiency of operations in accordance with the main focus of the project and not on the
trawling on marine
distortion of bottom
bottom habitats. While the issue of damage to bottom habitats is important, it is felt that it may
habitat
habitat caused by
not belong to the project considering its current scope and budget. If to be addressed, countries
trawling
could review existing information on the issue and prepare reports to serve as a basis for an
evaluation of the need to address marine habitats at a later stage or under a different project
arrangement.
· Issues and concerns with regard to the impact of shrimp trawling on marine habitats in
project areas identified.
7 Not in original logframe but mentioned in the main text of the project document.
60
Project Document Logframe (cont.)
Means of
Objectively
Comments on Project Performance and Indicators
Outcomes
Verification
Verifiable
(new proposed end-of-project targets in italics)
(Monitoring
Indicators
focus)
1. Minimizing the
Countries involved
Evaluation of
Many of the participating countries were carrying out limited experiments with BRDs before the
pantropical problem have assigned
research and
project that became an integral part of existing work programmes and allowed for a consolidated
of unwanted by-
priority for research development
and technically sounder approach to BRD experiments and introduction. Work is likely to
catch from shrimp
institutions and
programmes
continue after project completion in several countries.
trawling
administration to
· Workplans and budgets of relevant institutes include continued research on by-catch
solve the problem.
reduction in at least half the participating countries for the period after June 2008.
2. Introduction of
Number of vessels
Monitoring of
All countries have or are in the process of testing BRD suitable for local conditions. An FAO
appropriate fishing
that change their
vessels
BRD guide/manual (Eayrs, S. A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-Trawl Fisheries.
technology and
fishing practice and Dissemination of
Rome, FAO. 2005) has been published by the project and widely distributed (initial English
practice
adopt new
guidelines and
version needs to be reprinted) (see also Outcome 4 below).
technologies.
manuals for
· Suitable BRD designs for their shrimp trawler fleets identified in all participating countries.
Preparation of
applying the new
guidelines and
techniques
manuals for
applying the new
techniques
3. Enactment of
Adopted and
Adoption of
Participating countries are currently at different stages of the process of developing and
relevant legislation
published
regulations by the
introducing BRDs. The need, process and priority given at the higher political level for changing
and development of regulations and
fishing industry
relevant regulations also vary from one country to another. In some countries, the process may be
an improved
laws
initialised during the project period but there will not be enough time for formal adoption of the
management
new/revised regulations.
framework
Some regional initiatives have been taken to look into the possibilities to harmonise legislation in
neighbouring countries (Nigeria/Gulf of Guinea).
· The need and scope for legislative changes for formalising the use of BRDs identified in all
participating countries.
· Relevant new and/or revised legislation enacted in at least half of the participating countries.
61
Project Document Logframe (cont.)
Objectively
Means of
Comments on Project Performance and Indicators
Outcomes
Verifiable
Verification
(new proposed end-of-project targets in italics)
Indicators
(Monitoring focus)
4. Enhance
Increased demand Monitoring of number
In most countries, the project has been working closely with the industry on sea trials and
awareness of the
for materials and
of documentation
demonstration and the awareness of BRDs has been raised. Concerned government staff have also
problem of
publications on
requests and replies;
increased their knowledge on BRDs considerably.
shrimp by-catch
shrimp fisheries
statistics on web-site
In some countries, studies are being implemented to increase the understanding of the socio-
and by-catch
visitors
economic importance of by-catches.
Number of hits on
The project has a website that is managed by FAO. Project progress reports, meeting minutes,
web site to be
news briefs and other information are posted on the site. However, there are certain delays in the
maintained by
inclusion of new material and the web site is not overly user friendly.
FAO
An FAO BRD guide/manual has been published and widely distributed (initial English version
needs to be reprinted) (also mentioned under Outcome 2 above). SEAFDEC has produced
promotional and information material for the project.
· At least half of the shrimp trawl owners and operators in the project areas know and can
explain the basics regarding the usefulness and how to operate BRDs.
· Improved understanding of the socio-economic importance of by-catches, in particular as a
source of income for poorer population groups.
· FAO by-catch/guide published in Arabic, English, French and Spanish) and distributed to all
relevant stakeholders.
5. Increase
Specific technical Monitoring and
Intra-regional technical cooperation has been extensive and useful, and inter-regional exchanges
dialogue,
assistance
reporting of active
are also appreciated. However, considering the need to adopt technologies and regulations for the
interaction and
provided by
participation and
local context, an important part of the work need to done at the national level. At the same time,
joint operations at resource countries interactions among
regional harmonisation is important in areas where fishery resources and marine habitats are
the country and
Number of joint
countries and resource
shared.
regional levels
activities
countries
· Discussions initialised and preliminary agreements to harmonise regulations on BRDs
implemented
reached in at least two of the participating regions.
among
· At least ten non-project countries have participated in project meetings and formally
participating
expressed interest in developing BRDs through regional cooperation.
countries
62
Project Document Logframe (cont.)
Means of
Objectively
Comments on Project Performance and Indicators (new proposed
Results
Verification
Verifiable
end-of-project targets in italics)
(Monitoring
Indicators
focus)
1. Adoption of by-
Installation of
Reports of
See comments above, e.g. under Objective 1 and Outcome 2).
catch reduction
devices in the
observers on use of
· At least 25% of the shrimp trawlers in at least half of the participating countries use BRDs.
devices by national
shrimp-trawling
by-catch reduction
· By-catches reduced by 40% on trawlers using the devices.
and regional
gear
devices and on
shrimp-trawling
results of using
fisheries
them
2. Improved
Introduction of new Catch statistics by
The focus of the project is on the development of BRDs and the reduction of by-catches although
management of
management
vessels and/or
the project document does also mention management in a broader sense. Several participating
shrimp-trawling
systems
observer records
countries are addressing different management issues in parallel with project activities (e.g. effort
fishery
controls through closed seasons/areas and limits on number of trawlers) and most counterparts
appear aware of the need to look at the introduction of BRDs as an integral part of fisheries
management. An important step for governments in the process of introducing improved
management is to establish partnerships with the industry and other stakeholders and this
collaboration has been established and formalised in most participating countries.
· The need for and potential main components of improved management of shrimp fisheries
identified, documented and discussed with the industry in at least two thirds of the
participating countries.
3. Increased co-
Number of
Joint scientific
See comments above, e.g. under Outcomes 5.
operation among
agreements
publications;
· At least one paper FAO Fisheries Technical Paper (or similar) including experience from at
countries in
between
reports of relevant
least five of the participating countries published.
research on and
governments on
scientific meetings
· At least three scientific articles prepared jointly by researchers from at least three
management of the
fishery research
and conferences
participating countries each published in accredited journals and/or presented at
resources
(especially relevant
international conferences.
to the problems
addressed by the
project)
4. Better
Number of new
Scientific reports
See comments above, e.g. under Objective 3.
understanding of
research
and publications
· Research priorities identified and included in workplans and budgets of relevant research
the interactions
programmes on
institutes in at least five participating countries.
between fishing
environmental
gear and
issues
environment
63
ANNEX 7: PROJECT PROMOTIONAL AND INFORMATION MATERIAL
PRODUCED BY SEAFDEC
The following material has been produced by SEAFDEC within the framework of BRD
promotion and the REBYC-project:
Research papers
Distributed to: SEAFDEC network libraries; research institutes and fishing gear technologists/researchers;
and participants in relevant meetings and event.
No
Title
No. of Copies
1
Study on Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTEDs) in Philippines
1,000
2
Study on Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTEDs) in Indonesia
1,000
3
Study on Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTEDs) in Thailand (cost share)
1,000
4
Study on Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTEDs) in Malaysia (cost share)
1,000
5
Study on Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTEDs) in Brunei (cost share)
1,000
6
The Study on 2nd Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTEDs) in Brunei (cost
1,000
share)
7
Study on Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTEDs) in Vietnam (cost share)
1,000
Printed material
Distributed to: visitors and audience (including children) of SEAFDEC Training Department exhibitions;
participants in on-site demonstrations; researchers; and participants in relevant meetings and event.
No
Title
No. of Copies
1
Brochure of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) (Eng, Thai, and Jap)
2,000 of each
language
2
Brochure of Juvenile and Trash Excluder Devices (JTEDs) (Eng, Thai, and Jap)
2,000 of each
language
3
Manual of Construction and installation of Thai Turtle Free Device (TTFD)
1,000
4
Manual of Construction and installation of The Semi-curve rigid sorting grid
1,000
JTED
5
Poster of TTFD
3,000
6
Poster of 4 types of JTEDs
2,000
7
Drawing book of Story of Tanu (Eng and Thai)
2,000 of each
language
8
Cartoon book of Story of Tanu (Eng and Thai)
2,000 of each
language
Documentary VCDs
Distributed to: participants of national and international conferences, meetings and workshops;
participants of training courses on demonstration and experiment of TEDs and JTEDs in Southeast Asian
countries; educational institutes, school, collages and university; and interested people during SEAFDEC
exhibitions.
No
Title
Narration
Time
No. Of copies
1
Regional Practical Workshop on Selective Fishing BGM 10.30
Min 200
Devices
2
Demonstration and training on TEDs and JTEDs in BGM 10.00
Min 200
the Arafusa sea, Indonesia
3
Thai Turtle Free Device
Thai
12.10 Min
200
4
JTEDs in the Philippines
BGM
09.30 Min
250
64
5
The training course in the use of TEDs and JTEDs
BGM
08.30 Min
200
6
JTEDs in Southeast Asia (6 Countries)
BGM
10.00 Min
300
7
Demonstration and Training on By-catch Reduction BGM 06.20
Min 200
devices (Indonesia)
8
JTEDs in SAN MIGUEL Bay
BGM
13.00 Min
400
9
Demonstration and training on By-catch Reduction BGM 10.30
Min 200
Devices SIBOLGA-NORTH SUMATERA
10 Practical
Training/Demonstration and Experiments BGM 17.30
Min 200
on the Juvenile and Trash Excluder Devices
(Calbayog City, Samar)
11 Trainors Training/Workshop and Demonstration on BGM 18.00
Min 200
Juvenile and Trash Excluder Devices THE
AQUARIAM BEACH RESORT, Brgy Bani, La
Union, the Philippines
12 The Implementation of By-Catch Reduction Eng 10.50
Min 200
Devices TEDs & JTEDs in Republic of Indonesia
13 JTEDs in Indonesia (Summary)
BGM
& 08.30 Min
250
Sound
Track
14 Juvenile and Trash fish Excluder Device BGM &
11.00 Min
350
Experiments and Demonstrations in Southeast Asia Sound
(8 Countries)
Track
15 JTEDs in the Philippines (Summary)
BGM
& 09.00 Min
250
Sound
Track
16 Seminar - Orientation and Demonstration on the BGM &
15.00 Min
200
JTED Pilot Project Calbayog City , Samar , The Sound
Philippines
Track
17 TEDs Television Program
Spanish
45.00 Min
80
18 The use of Turtle Excluder Devices in Thailand
Spanish
12.00 Min
80
19 Training on the use of Turtle Excluder Device Spanish 06.00
Min
80
(Songkhla, Thailand)
20 Demonstration and training on TEDs and JTEDs in Spanish 10.00
Min
80
the Arafusa sea, Indonesia
21 JTEDs in the Philippines
Spanish
09.30 Min
80
22 JTEDs in Brunei
Spanish
12.00 Min
80
23 JTEDs in Vietnam
Spanish
08.15 Min
80
24 JTEDs in Malaysia
Spanish
05.30 Min
80
25 JTEDs (Sea Trial) in Rayong
Spanish
05.45 Min
80
26 The training course in the use of TEDs and JTEDs
Spanish
08.30 Min
80
27 JTEDs in Southeast Asia (6 Countries)
Spanish
10.00 Min
80
28 TEDs and JTEDs in Myanmar
Spanish
13.20 Min
80
29 Demonstration and Training on By-catch Reduction Spanish 06.20
Min
80
devices
30 The Regional Practical Workshop on Selective Spanish 10.30
Min
80
Fishing Devices
NB: BGM = Background music (It means that VCD showing with original sound and
background music)
65
Souvenirs
Distributed to: participants in meetings and events; audience of SEAFDEC Training Department
exhibitions; participants in on-site demonstrations;
No
Title
No. of Product
1
Turtle Conservation Magnetic
500
2
Turtle Conservation Key Chain
1,750
3
Fish Conservation Key chain
1,750
4
Sticker of TTFD
2,000
5
Sticker of JTED
2,000
6
Sticker campaign Small fish conservation
2,000
7
Polo-shirts on JTEDs
100
8
Polo-shirts on REBYC (FAO/GEF Project)
100
9
T-shirts for TEDs
200
10 T-shirt for JTEDs
200
11 T-shirt for REBYC (FAO/GEF project)
200
12 Cap for JTEDs
100
13 Cap for TEDs
100
14 T-shirt for Sea turtle Save!
100
66
ANNEX 8: PROJECT CO-FINANCING AND LEVERAGED RESOURCES
(USD, rounded to nearest 1,000)
Implementing /
Total
GEF financing
Governments *)
Private sector **)
TOTAL
Co-financing
executing agencies
disburse-
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
ment
- Grants
4,780,000
4,780,000
4,780,000
4,780,000
2,067,000
- In-kind support
Governments
1,445,000
663,000
1,445,000
663,000
663,000
Private sector
1,805,000
234,000
1,805,000
234,000
234,000
FAO
1,010,000
925,000
1,010,000
925,000
585,000
UNEP ***)
110,000
110,000
110,000
110,000
110,000
- Cash support
Governments
0
1,425,000
0
1,425,000
1,425,000
Private sector
0
223,000
0
223,000
223,000
FAO
340,000
0
340,000
225,000
UNEP ***)
TOTALS
4,780,000
4,780,000
1,120,000
1,375,000
1,445,000
2,088,000
1,805,000
457,000
9,150,000
8,700,000
5,532,000
*) Data from Bahrain, Cameroon and Iran are missing completely. For Nigeria, only partial information.
Contributions by SEAFDEC of USD 193,000 included.
**) Contributions from the private industry are likely to be underestimated because of insufficient recording of vessel and crew time during sea trials.
Time spent in training/workshops/meetings by private sector representatives is usually not recorded at all.
***) UNEP contributions according to pledges in project document.
67