Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
(GEF/UNDP Project ID - PIMS 2992)


INCEPTION WORKSHOP
31 August 2005
Suva, Fiji


SUMMARY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1.
The Inception Workshop for the Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
convened at Suva, Fiji on 31 August 2005. Representatives of the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) were present at the
workshop. The list of participants is appended at Attachment A.
Opening of workshop
2.
It was agreed that Dr. Jan McDonald of the UNDP Honiara sub-office would chair
proceedings and she welcomed participants to Suva and the workshop.
Apologies
3.
Apologies were made on behalf of the project co-executing partners, the Secretariat for
the Pacific Community (SPC) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) and the UNDP country offices of Samoa and Papua New Guinea.
Adoption of agenda
4.
The Chair suggested that while flexibility could be applied to the order and timing of
matters on the draft programme, certain topics needed to be addressed at specific times to allow
for the attendance of the UNDP Fiji Regional Representative, Mr. Richard Dictus and other
UNDP Fiji financial staff.
5.
A copy of the agreed programme is appended at Attachment B.
Introduction and Purpose of the Workshop
6.
An introduction to the workshop was made the FFA Executive Officer, Barbara
Hanchard. It was explained that the key objective of the project Inception Workshop was twofold:
to assist the project staff understand and take ownership of the project's goals and objectives; and
to ensure that a draft Annual Work Plan (AWP) was consistent with the expected outcomes of the
project.
7.
It was also explained that the workshop offered an opportunity to introduce key project
staff which would support the project implementation and to have the roles of the support
services required of UNDP Fiji as the project Implementing Agency, and the Project
Coordination Unit based at FFA, detailed. This would require presentations on UNDP and GEF
reporting and financial formats and monitoring and evaluation requirements; including discussion
on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs), Multipartite Review meetings, annual
reviews and audits and mid-term, final and post evaluations processes.
8.
The workshop would also take the opportunity to explain the project governance, in
particular the role of the Regional Steering Committee and discuss the development of the
Inception Report, project requirement.

1

---

9.
The FFA Project Design Consultant, Mr. Les Clark, undertook to brief SPC, IUCN and
UNDP Samoa and UNDP Papua New Guinea on the outcomes of the Inception Workshop when
he was next in-country.
Update on administrative/institutional arrangements
10.
An brief overview of administrative and institutional arrangements, including the FFA
institutional structure, in relation to the project was discussed. The workshop was advised that
recruitment of positions for the Project Coordinating Unit had been delayed due to restructuring
and job sizing requirements at FFA but were now ready to be advertised. The timing however
meant that the positions would not be filled before the first meeting of the project Regional
Steering Committee in early October. Technical project positions at SPC have already been
advertised and their recruitment and activities are expected to commence in the fourth quarter of
2005.
Introduction to GEF/IW - Key GEF/IW Policies
11.
Mr. Randall Purcell highlighted his role as the UNDP/GEF Technical Advisor to the
project and explained that his position was to manage relations between the UNDP country
office, UNDP/GEF and the executing agency.
12.
On the matter of the Inception Report, Mr. Purcell described the report should contain.
He explained that the Inception Report should serve to guide and assist the first meeting of the
Regional Steering Committee and it should contain the following:
· A summary overview of the project;
· An brief overview of the risks identified by the STAP Review and the GEFSEC
in the project document;
· An update on changes to activities;
· An update on changes to the budget;
· An overview of governance and administrative arrangements;
· It should set out a clear annual workplan (AWP) for the first year with
indicators;
· A narrative summary of the projected activities for the coming year;
· An outline of what country beneficiaries can expect at in-country level activities
and responsibilities; and
· A brief update of the progress of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission (WCPFC).
13.
The workshop agreed that the issues outlined by Mr. Purcell should form the Inception
Report which will presented to the Regional Steering Committee (RSC).
UNDP as the Implementing Agency
14.
The role of UNDP as the project implementing agency is contained in Attachment 2 of
the UNDP letters of delegation of authority which is appended to this report at Attachment C
and the project document.
15.
With regards to monitoring and evaluation an organisational chart of UNDP Suva,
appended at Attachment D, shows the relationship with the UNDP Honiara sub-office with

2

---

regards to the division of responsibility for functions relating to the Pacific Oceanic Fisheries
Management project.
16.
UNDP Fiji Team Leader Development Services Unit and GEF Portfolio Manager Ms.
Asenaca Ravuvu stated that the UNDP project finance and administration would be provided
through the UNDP Honiara sub-office and that technical support to the project would be handled
by a combination of UNDP Honiara, Suva, UNDP/GEF in Bangkok and on occasion UNDP New
York.
17.
Further clarification will be provided by UNDP of the process for streamlining feedback
to enable FFA to rely on "sign-off from one officer.
The Pacific Islands OFM Project
18
Mr. Les Clark, principal expert in the design of the Pacific OFM project presented an
overview of the project for which the UNDP Regional Representative, Mr. Richard Dictus was
present. A copy of the presentation is appended at Attachment E.
19.
The key issues outlined in the presentation included:
· A reminder that the Pacific Strategic Action Plan (SAP) remains the underlying guidance
of all the International Waters work in the region, a copy of which will be made available
to the workshop participants; and
· That the programming of national activities in the project will be a key task principally
the promotion of national ownership of the project and stakeholder participation in the
project activities including the involvement of the GEF Official Focal Points;
20.
During the course of discussions advice and guidance was sought as to what GEF
requires for additional status and pressure indicators and others since the current indicators relate
to process. The UNDP/GEF Technical Advisor, Mr. Randall Purcell undertook to seek
clarification and provide follow up.
Project Annual Work Plan (2005), Schedule of disbursements and ATLAS
21.
UNDP indicated that the total project work plan (UNDP ATLAS Budget for Project) as it
appears in the endorsed project document would be entered into UNDP's accounting programme
ATLAS after which a range of changes could be made in the first revision.
22.
The revisions discussed and which will be made to the current draft AWP include:
· A revision to reflect actual six year timeframe, i.e. 4th quarter 2005 to 3rd quarter 2010;
· Changes to reflect the compression of the IUCN activities over five years to completion
within a three time frame; and
· Specific reference recorded in the record of the first meeting of the Regional Steering
Committee approving revisions to the AWP and budget will suffice as authority for
budget revisions for UNDP purposes.
23.
In further discussions UNDP advised that:
· audits consistent with their guidelines are required for all expenditure over USD100,000;
· signed financial reports need to be submitted to the UNDP Sub-office with two weeks at
the end of each quarter;
· financial reports also serve as request for advances for the next quarter and must have a
work plan attached; and

3

---

· at the first request for advance extra should be added to cover the two week lag into the
next quarter.
24.
The workshop considered general monitoring and evaluation requirements and their
timing.
25.
A template of the Annual Project Report (APR) will be provided to FFA by UNDP/GEF
and clarify the role of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) at the Multipartite Review (MPR).
Regional Steering Committee (draft agenda, determine National Focal point, draft TORs)
26.
A presentation on the project RSC was made by the FFA Executive Officer, Barbara
Hanchard. A copy of the presentation is appended at Attachment F.
27.
In discussing the composition of the RSC, the workshop considered that the RSC would
include the inclusion of environmental non governmental organisations (NGOs) and that there
was merit in the involvement of the GEF NGO focal point based in Fiji, Mr. Rex Hanui (sp?).
28.
The timing of the first meeting of the RSC (14 October) acting as the Multipartite
Review, was considered appropriate in relation to the requirement to submit a Annual Project
Implementation Review (PIR) and the Annual Project Report (APR) which will serve the same
purpose. Typically the submission date for the PIR/APR is the 2 September for UNDP/GEF
purposes after a full year of operation.
29.
Drafts of the terms of reference (TORs) for the RSC and the agenda for the first meeting
were tabled at the workshop. Revisions of these will be circulated for further comment by
Barbara Hanchard.
30.
Dr McDonald closed the workshop by thanking the participants for their attendance and
contributions over the day. She considered that the discussions had been useful and would
contribute greatly to the successful implementation of this significant project that would assist
Pacific island beneficiaries achieve creditable efforts to conserve and management regional
fisheries resources for global benefits.


4

---

ATTACHMENT A


List of Participants





United Nation Development Programme
United Nations Development

Programme/Global Environment Facility
Richard Dictus

Regional Representative
Randall Purcell
UNDP Fiji
GEF Regional Technical Advisor
Email: richard.dictus@undp.org
Land Degradation and International Waters

Email: randall.purcell@undp.org
Asenaca Ravuvu

Team Leader Development Services Unit &
Forum Fisheries Agency
GEF Portfolio Manager

UNDP Fiji
Barbara Hanchard
Email: asenaca.ravuvu@undp.org
Executive Officer

Email: barbara.hanchard@ffa.int
Dr. Jan McDonald

Manager, Environment Programme,
Les Clark
Solomon Islands.
Project Design Consultant
UNDP Fiji - Honiara sub office
Email: les_g_clark@xtra.co.nz
Email: jan.mcdonald@undp.org.sb


David Rupokets
Alvin Chandra
Finance and Administration Manager
Environment/GEF/Energy Associate
Email: david.rupokets@ffa.int
UNDP Fiji
Email: alvin.chandra@undp.org

Cecelia Pau'u
UNDP Account

Alice Lum
Finance Associate
UNDP Fiji



5

---

ATTACHMENT B

Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
(GEF/UNDP Project ID - PIMS 2992)


INCEPTION WORKSHOP
31 August 2005
Suva, Fiji

PROGRAMME

PACIFIC ISLANDS OFM PROJECT
INCEPTION WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
UNDP Suva, Fiji - 31 August 2005
BACKGROUND
Led By:
0900
Opening
UNDP
0915
Introductions/Purpose
FFA
Introduction to GEF/IW
0930
UNDP/GEF
Key GEF/IW Policies
1015
Morning Tea

1030
UNDP as the Implementing Agency
UNDP Fiji
1115
The Pacific Islands OFM Project
FFA
1230
Lunch

Project Annual Work Plan (2005), Schedule of
FFA/UNDP
1330
disbursements and ATLAS
Regional Steering Committee (draft agenda, determine
FFA
1430
National Focal point, draft TORs)
1500
Afternoon Tea

1515
Review of Workshop Progress & Issues Arising
UNDP
1600
Round-Up & Inception Report
UNDP/FFA
1630
Close


6

---

ATTACHMENT C








7

---

8

---

ATTACHMENT D

UNDP-GEF STEP BY STEP PROJECT PROGRESS






UNDP ROLE







GEF ROLE
Project Brief
UNDP, Other
Comments &
LPAC
UNDP Project Document
Format
To GEF for DOA
Issue of the Delegation of
AWP & Signature
Authority (DOA)
To UNDP-GEF for Final
Clearance
Project Document signed
by Govt/ Operational
Focal Point & UNDP
UNDP Finance for Clearance
UNDP-GEF
and Commitment Control
checks

ATLAS AWP
What I need?
Issue Authorized
1. UNDP Prodoc.
Spending Limit (ASL)
2. LOE from Govt.
3. Signature Page
4. ATLAS AWP
5. LPAC Minutes
Executing Agency
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Submit Request for

Advance form &
Recruitment
Signatory Specimen

Page
Implement Project & Activities


Quarterly Reporting


Annual Project review (APR) & TPR
9

Final Review & Project Closure

---

ATTACHMENT D

UNDP PROJECT MANAGEMENT FLOWCHART






10

---

ATTACHMENT E


THE PACIFIC ISLANDS OFM PROJECT

Overview of the Project and its Inception

Strategic Action Programme of the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SAP)
Goal:

Integrated sustainable development and






management of International Waters

Priority Concerns:
Degradation of water quality



Degradation of associated critical habitats



Unsustainable use of resources

Imminent Threats/
Pollution from land-based activities
Proximate Root
Modification of critical habitats
Causes

Unsustainable exploitation of resources

Ultimate Root:
Management deficiencies
Causes

a) governance



b) understanding

Solutions:
Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management Oceanic Fisheries
Management

The South Pacific SAP Project/IWP
2 main elements:
­Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM)
­Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM)

·The OFM Component was funded as a 3 year, $3.5 million pilot programme, including
­Fisheries management activities, implemented by FFA, including support for WCPF
Convention participation,
­Scientific assessment and monitoring activities, implemented by SPC,
Key Results of the IWP
·WCPF Convention completed and brought into force largely by Pacific Island Countries

·Pacific Island Countries participated effectively in the Conferences to negotiate the Convention
and establish the WCPF Commission

·Gains in stock assessment

·Ecosystem analysis on the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool LME

·Improved logsheet, observer and port sampling programmes

·Tuna management plans completed for most countries

·Legal reforms to ratify the Convention in most countries


11

---

IWP Project Terminal Evaluation
Conclusions
·the project has been good value for money"
·"Stakeholders and beneficiaries agree that this was a good project."
·Capacity building has been the most significant benefit of the OFM Project"
·"the ProDoc fell short of expectations"
·"Both the original and the revised LogFrame Matrices, have created confusion"
·"Project design, ..., was weak,"
·"stakeholder involvement has been fairly weak in most aspects of the Project"
·The Evaluation Team does not believe that M&E has been used effectively as a management tool
in directing the implementation of the OFM Component
·"The Evaluation Team sees the need for better understanding of GEF processes, objectives,
procedures, etc, among current and prospective stakeholders."

Recommendations

·UNDP/GEF accept that...the Project has been very successful in strengthening the institutional
framework, the knowledge base and the stakeholders capacity for managing this unique tuna
resource which is of global significance.

·UNDP/GEF confirm their support for a follow-up project as the best way of ensuring the
sustainability of the benefits obtained from this Project.

. UNDP/GEF organize a GEF Workshop or series of workshops in the region, for GEF National
Focal Points and others, to raise awareness and improved understanding of GEF processes,
objectives, procedures and the GEF focus on global environmental benefits.

·That the prime benefit that should be targeted from the follow-up project is the framework,
capacity and functioning of the proposed Tuna Commission ...

·That an equally important target of the follow-up project is the further building of capacity and
capability of the Pacific Island region, at regional, government, private sector and community
levels ....

. That the follow-up project places emphasis on the realignment, restructuring and strengthening
of national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities
that the Convention has created and discharge the new responsibilities that it requires.

. That fisheries management capacity at country level be enhanced for data collection and
analysis, stock assessment, MCS and enforcement and the development and application of
contemporary fisheries management tools, ...

·That Pacific Island countries that have adopted Tuna Management Plans and are having
difficulties with implementation, be assisted to identify and address the barriers that are
hindering implementation.

. That the regionally based pool of expertise provided by the FFA and SPC will remain a cost-
effective means of underpinning the implementation of an effective fisheries management
framework, for the foreseeable future.



12

---

PROJECT DESIGN
·$698,000 PDF Grant
·2/3 design; 1/3 bridging
·Approved Feb 2004;
·Major Design Activities
­Planning meeting
­National Missions: 3 2-person teams to 5 countries each ­ needs assessment/stakeholder
consultation/incremental cost analysis
­Regional Synthesis Meeting
­Project Structure Design
­Project Design Workshop
­Project Brief/ProDoc preparation
·Draft Project Brief/ProDoc completed October 2004
·Approved by February 2005 GEF Council Intersessional meeting
·Convention came in to force June 2004

MAJOR DESIGN ISSUES
·Increased national focus
·Stakeholder participation in activities
·National/regional execution
·The "cash cow" issue
·sustainability

PROJECT RATIONALE
·The Project will provide a contribution towards meeting the incremental costs of implementation
by Pacific SIDS of the WCPF Convention, which is the first major regional application of the UN
Fish Stocks Agreement
·Provides independent multilateral agency for support for PacSIDS in the WCPF process ­
UNDP/GEF comparative advantage
·support Pacific SIDS in making the necessary national legal, policy and institutional reforms for
the implementation of the SAP and the WCPF Convention
·provide support to give effect to the adoption of the principles of the ecosystem approach
·will mobilise a major increase in resources for conservation and management from resource
users

·The approach of the Project closely matches the GEF approach to IW Projects-
SAP/transboundary concerns/ associated threats/root causes ­ sustainable institutional outcome

·contributes to achievement of IW Strategic Priorities - SIDS/LMEs

·response to WSSD JPOI call for actions to:
"Further implement sustainable fisheries management and improve financial returns
from fisheries by supporting and strengthening relevant regional fisheries management
organisations, such as ... the (WCPF) Convention"

Baseline Scenario
·PacSIDS manage stocks in their waters independently, within a framework of cooperation
between themselves at the regional level, executed through FFA and SPC
·relatively little cooperation with other states in the region

13

---

·PacSIDS national oceanic fisheries management functions continue to remain relatively poorly
resourced
·some PacSIDS begin to apply limits to fishing within their waters but the effectiveness of these
efforts is undermined by the lack of any coherent regional framework for those limits and by the
knowledge that vessels limited from fishing in national waters can operate freely in the high seas
without limits or other controls
·cooperation on a voluntary basis with states whose vessels operate on the high seas, achieves
mixed results
·High seas fishing remains unregulated and largely unreported. Vessels operating from the high
seas make illegal incursions into national waters, undermining national efforts at conservation
and management.
·Lacking detailed comprehensive data, substantial uncertainty in stock assessment results
weakens the basis for management action
·Lack of a legally-binding mechanism weakens the scope for effective conservation and
management measures.
·Essential regional science and monitoring programmes remain funded on an ad hoc basis by
donors increasingly uneasy about long-term use of development assistance monies for this
purpose,
·There is no systematic progress in ecosystem analysis.

Alternative Scenario
·based on the implementation of the SAP and the WCPF Convention with GEF support
·key fishing states ratify





·The Commission begins operating based on Rules of Procedure and Regs adopted following the
PrepCon



·Secretariat is appointed, headquarter facilities are established

Within 3 years:
·science and compliance programmes established
·these programmes include:
­establishment of a register of authorised vessels;
­ vessel marking;
­boarding and inspection on the high seas;
­provision of catch and effort data and establishment of databases, and regional observer, vessel
monitoring and port sampling programs.
­End to unregulated fishing on the high seas
­improvement in data and reduction in uncertainty associated with assessments of key stocks.
­Advice on key stocks provided to the Commission.
­ core technical programmes of the Commission financed by financial contributions from
Commission Members- user pays
­ETC

PROJECT STRUCTURE
Goals
­Global environmental goal
­Broad development goal
Objectives
­Information and Knowledge objective
­Governance objective


14

---

3 Components ­ with Outcomes, Sub-Components, Outputs & Activities
1. Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement,
2: Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening,
3. Coordination, Participation and Information Services

GOALS
Global environmental goal:
·to achieve global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of
transboundary oceanic fishery resources in the Pacific Islands region and the protection of the
biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem.

Broad development goal:
·to assist the Pacific Island States to improve the contribution to their sustainable development
from improved management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources and from the
conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity generally.

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

The Governance objective:
to create new regional institutional arrangements and reform, realign and strengthen
national arrangements for conservation and management of transboundary oceanic
fishery resources.

·Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement (SPC with IUCN)
1.1 Fishery monitoring coordination and enhancement
1.2 Stock assessment
1.3 Ecosystem Analysis

2: Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment & Strengthening (FFA with IUCN)
2.1 Legal Reform
2.2 Policy Reform
2.3 Institutional Reform
2.4 Compliance Strengthening

3. Coordination, Participation and Information Services (FFA)
3.1 Information Strategy
3.2 Monitoring & Evaluation
3.3 Stakeholder participation & awareness raising
3.4 Project Management & Coordination

KEY EXECUTING AGENCIES
FFA:
·Overall execution
·Law, Policy, Institutional & Compliance activities
·PCU Host
SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP)
·Fishery Monitoring & Scientific activities

15

---

World Conservation Union (IUCN)
·Some Seamount activities ­ science, legal & policy
An Environment NGO
· undertake co-financed awareness raising activities
An Industry NGO
·Support industry engagement in the WCPF process

INCEPTION ISSUES
·Recruitment
·Programming national activities
·Avoiding overhead buildup
·Project identity/developing country ownership
·Setting up the NGO co-financing arrangements
·Stakeholder participation in Project processes ­ workshops, steering committee etc
·Effective M & E
·Monitoring indicators
·GEF Focal Point involvement
·Logframe

BASIS FOR THE AWP

For 2005:
Component 1:

SPC recruitments (4) beginning national database & reporting template design; national
fishery status report & scientific advice to PacSIDS; ecosystem monitoring programme design &
ecosystem modelling development ­ IUCN seamount survey design
Component 2:
FFA recruitment; preparations for the 2nd Commission meeting, including meetings of regional
compliance specialists and legal specialists
Component 3:

Establish the PCU, hold the RSC

For 2006,

Based on Year 1 from the ProDoc, adjusted for the 2005 start-up.



16

---

ATTACHMENT F


Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
(UNDP/GEF PIMS No. 2992)

REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE (RSC)
Discussion
·Overview of the role of the RSC
·RSC draft Terms of Reference
·Draft agenda for the first meeting of the RSC
·Establishing National Focal Points
·National Consultative Committee
·Project Coordinating Unit


Overview of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC)
·Consists of National focal points, IA, EA, Co-EAs, Co-funding partners, SPREP (key regional
GEF partner)
·Observers could be: fisheries industry, environmental NGOs (int & reg), other donor agencies


- agreed by consensus
·Chair: joint national representative (rotational), UNDP

·Meets annually, in conjunction with an existing regional fisheries meeting
·Function:

- monitor project progress

- coordinate and discuss project objectives & activities & progress of the Commission

- provide strategic & policy guidance & review & approve the annual work plans &
budgets (approve changes, amendments or additional activities recommended by the IW)

- review & endorse all formal monitoring & evaluation reports & findings

- provide regional forum for reviewing & resolving national concerns

- regional forum for stakeholder participation

- platform for new project related initiatives sourcing other donors

- Serve as the project Multipartite Review.

Draft TORs for the RSC
·Approved by the Regional Steering Committee
·Inception Workshop may like to consider the draft TORs
Draft Agenda for 1st RSC

a.
Opening of Meeting

b.
Apologies

c.
Selection of the Chair

d.
Adoption of Agenda
·Purpose and Objective of the meeting
·Draft Terms of Reference for the Regional Steering Committee
·Consideration of Observer Attendance at Annual Regional Steering Committee Meetings

17

---

·Inception Workshop Outcomes:

- Report of the Inception Workshop

- Annual Work Plan and Budget
·National Level Project Management and Coordination

- National Focal Point appointments

- National Consultative Committees
·Other Matters

d.
Next Meeting

e.
Records of Proceeding

f.
Close of the Meeting

National Focal Point (NFP)
·Each country will designate a NFP
·NFP establishes the NCC
·NFP sits on NCC & typically should act as the countries representative to the RSC
·Key point focal point for interaction with the PCU.

·GEF Focal Points ­ typically Environment or Ministries of Foreign Affairs


- PDF (2x), Project Document & final endorsement being undertaken by

UNDP (update)
·Development of Prodoc through broad consultative process (refer stakeholder lists for national
Needs Assessment)

·Fisheries representatives


- central in designing project (Project
Design Workshop)


- progress reports to FFC


- negotiated & intimate knowledge of the WCPFC



National Consultative Committee (NCC)
·Senior policy representatives: Fisheries, Environment, Foreign Affairs, Police, Attorney
General's, etc
·Meets at least once annually (before RSC)
·If an appropriate intersectoral national body already exists, this can be mandated to act as NCC

·Function:

- endorse in-country project activities

- monitor effectives of in-country activities

- prepare workplans for project activities (based on needs assessments)

- discuss project progress & implications at a national level

- identify national concerns (activities & delivery
·Ensure intergrated coordination of activities (govt. departments responsible for fisheries &
Commission relates issues)
·Voice for national NGOs
·Opportunity for govt reps & NGOs to update
·Ensure transparency of process & multisectorial participation

18

---

Project Coordination Unit (PCU)
·Situated at EA (FFA)
·PC, PFAO & FMA
·Facilitate regional coordination & collaboration
·Day to day project management
·Act as Secretariat to project & provide technical advice
·Organise facilities & admin requirements for regional workshops & meetings
·Administer disbursements of equipment & finance & recruitment of staff & consultants
·Directly accountable to the IA & RSC.


19

---