|
1
|
- MID TERM EVALUATION
- Governments of Cook islands, Federated Sates of Micronesia, Fiji,
Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Vanuatu United Nations Development Programme
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
|
|
2
|
- Team Leader: Leon Zann BSc Hons
PhD SPEER Consultants 4 Sunderland Street Evans Head, New South Wales
2473 Australia lpzann@hotmail.com
- Regional Resource
Specialist: Veikila Vuki BSc MSc
PhD PO Box 5214, UOG Station,
Mangilao, Guam 96913.
vuki61@yahoo.co.uk
|
|
3
|
- Executive Summary
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Project and development context
- 3. Approach and methodology of Mid-Term Evaluation
- 4. Results
- 4.1 Project Impact
- 4.2 Project Design
- 4.3. Project Management and Administration
- 4.4. Project Implementation
- 4.5. Project Finances
- 4.6. Lessons learned
- 4.7. Summary and explanation of findings and interpretations
- 5. Recommendations
- 5.1. Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation
- 5.2. Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
- 5.3. Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
- ANNEXES (9)
|
|
4
|
- OFM Project developed to assist Pacific SIDs sustainably manage their
oceanic oceanic resources, and conserve ocean biodiversity.
- The Project is (unusually) large
in scope and complex in design.
- Spans a vast area, around 40 million sq km of the Central Western
Pacific, and
- Jurisdictions of 15 Pacific Island nations and territories.
- Multi-governmental, five year project (2005-2010)
- Funding US$ 11,644,285 from Global Environment Facility (GEF) and US$
79,091,993 of co-financing from participating countries, regional
organisations and other sources.
Mid-term Evaluation commissioned by GEF Implementing Agency
(UNDP) to assess progress, provide feedback on lessons learnt and future
directions.
|
|
5
|
- RESULTS : Major Achievements
- OFM Project well designed and implemented
- Significant impact on the immediate regional objectives (i.e. improved
OFM in Pacific SIDS, sustainable development of resources)
- Significant contribution to wider global objectives (i.e. management of
oceanic fishery and oceanic biodiversity).
- Capacities of most Pacific SIDS to meet their obligations under the WCTF
Convention enhanced
- Performance and outcomes of the Project highly rated by the WCPF
Commission.
|
|
6
|
- Smaller, less developed Pacific SIDs require greater levels of support
(currently occurring in some countries through bilateral funding).
- Capacity-building largely focused on immediate objectives (needs under
the WCPF Convention) not long-term …
- Long-term, more strategic capacity-building required in the future.
- IUCN Seamounts study: delayed for matters beyond the organisation’s
control. Now redesigned and underway. (Current status IUCN: Kevin
Passfield)
|
|
7
|
- Overall - Efficient and effective.
- UNDP (GEF Implementing Agency): efficient and responsive
Issues: bureaucratic procedures affected Executing Agency (FFA);
some delays in disbursements, issues generally resolved.
- FFA: very effective in key management/coordination role.
- Project Coordination Unit (FFA/PCU): effective but under-resourced
Issues: PCU under-resourced (4-5% of GEF allocation; 0.5% of
total!!; 15-20% admin overheads usual)
Lacks resources for regular country visits, information
dissemination etc.
- SPC: very effective in increasing knowledge of the status of oceanic
fisheries.
Issues: a number of countries indicated their desire for greater
domestic capacity in monitoring & modelling
|
|
8
|
- FFA procedures efficient and effective
Issues: Decline in the US$ 2007-mid 2008 created significant
problems, requiring some reallocations of budgets.
Loss in the value of the Project budget and staff (esp SPC’s
scientific assessment and monitoring).
- Loss in the value of the budget effectively managed by increasing
co-financing.
- Recent strengthening of US$ against AU$ (Oct 08: 15%) should reverse
this trend in second term.
- Leverage funding substantial and further external funds expected.
Will greatly assist sustainability of the Project.
- NOTE ALSO:
- OVERALL COST/EFFECTIVENESS, RISK ASSESSMENT AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
RATED HIGHLY.
- MTE UNABLE TO SEPARATIE/EVATUATE GEF FUNDING COMPONENT BECAUSE OF
EXTENSIVE CO-FUNDING.
- CO-FINANCING AND CONTRIBUTIONS IN KIND OF THE REGIONAL PARTNERS NOT
POSSIBLE TO EVALUATE IN MTE.
|
|
9
|
- Institutional strengthening: well addressed
- National development: well addressed
- Innovation: well addressed
- Gender: not specifically
addressed
- Equity and human rights: not well
addressed
|
|
10
|
- Strong emphasis on planning and design has ensured timely start, high
level of cooperation, ‘ownership’, coordination & maximised chances
of success.
- Detailed, prescriptive approach very useful
- Effective engagement/ownership of stakeholders
- Reduced risks in implementation by:
- -
utilisation of existing resources, organizations and arrangements
- maximising stakeholder participation and collaboration through
partnership arrangements
- OFM Project process appropriate model for other regional,
multi-stakeholder and inter-governmental projects.
|
|
11
|
- Needs of smaller Pacific SIDS not adequately considered. (Country needs
assessment & specific approaches required.)
- \Some key stakeholders not involved (eg USP in capacity-building and
SPREP in biodiversity conservation). (Need for wider engagement of CROPS
etc. in future)
- Some National coordination (NCCs) inadequate. Limited govt capacities,
aid overly bureaucratic, excessive reporting & meetings etc?. (Need
for other approaches)
- Information dissemination inadequate. (Need for wider public information
and media programmes to inform and engage other stakeholders (eg other Government Departments,
industry, community NGOs, schools etc.)
- PCU insufficiently resourced for large and complex project. (Need for
greater resources to PCU.)
- Adaptive management limited. Lack of flexibility in budgets. Currency
fluctuations. MTE Lags. (Need for great contingency finding in Aid
Projects)
- SUSTAINABILITY: Longer-term financial support to WCPT Commission
uncertain. OFM Project does not take a long-term, strategic approach to
Commission, esp smaller countries. (Need for long-term strategic
approaches)
|
|
12
|
- 5.1. Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the project
- 5.1.1. Design: The revised design for the IUCN Seamount sub-component
Output 1.3.2. should be closely coordinated, integrated with the wider
OFM Project objectivities, and be collaborative with other regional
research. IUCN Seamount activities should be coordinated by the
Principal Investigator, IUCN Oceania Office in Fiji. Activities and
outputs should be related to other aspects of the OFM Project such as
management options, law reform, compliance, information strategy etc.
Where possible, there should be collaboration with other seamount
research and management initiatives in the region (e.g. by French
research vessel Alise; Japan Fisheries University /USP seamounts
research on Koyo Maru).
- (Notes: refer to IUCN progress report, 17 Oct, Kelvin Passfield.)
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
- Objectives: Long-term capacity building in OFM in Pacific SIDS.
- Project development & Consultation: TOR scoped by consultants
reporting to the OFM Steering Committee? Details developed by
consultants and workshop of stakeholders (eg. OFM experts, Pacific SIDS,
regional organisations (e.g. FFA, SPC, Pacific Forum Secretariat, USP,
SPREP), potential donors (e.g. GEF, EU, Japan, AusAID) and NGOs (e.g.
WWF, Greenpeace, FSPI).
- Considerations:
- Build on current OFM Project, partnership agreements etc
- Take mid (5-10 yr) and long-term (decadal?), strategic and inclusive
approach.
- Greater focus on specific needs of each country in OFM (mid- to
long-term)
|
|
26
|
- Utilise existing institutions, (e.g. USP, SPREP, other regional and
International institutions) …
- Funding: GEF? EU? multilateral and bilateral aid, private sector
contributions.
- Funding/in kind support: partnership arrangements and contributions
(e.g. commitment to additional staff in OFM in Fisheries Departments).
- Private sector: closer engagement of the private fisheries sector in
OFM.
- Greater focus on science, better understanding of the ecology of the WTP
Large Marine Ecosystem, and the status and conservation of its marine
biodiversity. This component might be implemented in collaboration with
IUCN, SPREP and SOPAC.
|
|
27
|
- Continuing need for capacity in fisheries management in most Pacific
SIDS. (Small size of Fisheries Depts, high turnover of staff, trained
staff leave to join regional organisations/migrate, past training in
fisheries development, not sustainable use; senior staff cohort
approaching retirement etc)
- Decline in fisheries training organisations, declining enrolments (AMC,
USP, Nelson Polytechnic, Japan National Fisheries University).
- Need for specialised training. Need to for training in sustainable (ecosystem-based)
fisheries approaches.
- Need for evaluation of country needs (mid- long-term), identification of
appropriate training programs etc.
- Need for greater engagement of private sector/industry in OFM
management. (eg PNG National
Fisheries Authority model)
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
- 5.1.1. Design: The revised design for the IUCN Seamount sub-component
Output 1.3.2. should be closely coordinated, integrated with the wider
OFM Project objectivities, and be collaborative with other regional
research.
- The various IUCN Seamount activities should be coordinated by the
Principal Investigator who is to be recruited by IUCN Oceania Office in
Fiji.
- The activities and outputs of the IUCN Seamount research should be
related to other aspects of the OFM Project such as management options,
law reform, compliance, information strategy etc.
- There should be collaboration
with other seamount research and management initiatives in the region
(e.g. by French research vessel Alise; Japan Fisheries University /USP
seamounts research on Koyo Maru).
- UPDATE: IUCN?
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
- A second phase (or a new project) should be developed for strategic,
long-term capacity-building in OFM in Pacific SIDS, and to specifically
assist smaller Pacific SIDS and those with governance and other
problems.
- Rationale:
- The need for continuation and long-term sustainability of the OFM
initiatives, and need for more focused assistance to small Pacific SIDS
has been raised throughout the MTE.
- The 2007 Pacific Forum Leaders’ Vavau Declaration calls for long-term,
strategic capacity-building in OFM in the Pacific SIDS.
- Timing:
- Planning should commence as soon as possible on a new project. Although
the details of this are outside
the scope of this MTE, some general suggestions on process are provided.
|
|
33
|
- Need:
- Lack of substantial progress in capacity-building in the smallest
Pacific SIDs in the past 30 years, and
- Reality that those with very
small populations (e.g. under 25,000?)
will probably always lack the critical mass/human capacity for
specialised OFM etc,
- Alternative approaches should be developed to better assist small
Pacific SIDS.
- Possible mechanisms to develop strategies?
- Expert group? ‘Think tank’? (eg experts in OFM and international
assistance, private sector, donor organisations and ‘problem solvers’
)
- Open forum or workshop? involving country representatives etc.
|
|
34
|
- Need for collaboration to share OFM expertise sub-regionally.
- Groupings might be based on current FFA sub-groupings of countries with
similar challenges, cultures and experiences, with shared EEZ borders
and shared tuna stocks. Special assistance from
historical/regional developed countries.
- (a) East Sub-Regional Group: Cook Islands, Tokelau, Niue, Tonga, Samoa
and New Zealand (shared Polynesian culture, political
affiliations with New
Zealand etc.)
(b) West Sub-Regional Group: Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon
Islands,
Vanuatu (and Australia?)
(Melanesian, larger, more resources, greater capacity)
- (c) North Sub-Regional Group: FSM (Ponape, Yap, Chuuk), Palau and
Marshall Islands (Micronesian, small countries, former US
affiliations), and
Nauru, Kiribati and Tuvalu (Micronesian/Polynesian, atoll
countries, former
British affiliations (Australia?)). (Note: Subgroups (a) and (c) largely
comprise small, isolated island countries. There may be benefits in
separating the two groups within (c) on geographic
and cultural grounds.)
|
|
35
|
- a national Fisheries staff member might be situated at FFA to look after
their country’s interests; or
- a dedicated (non-national) FFA staff member or consultant might
undertake this task; or
- a number of technical experts within FFA to look after the specific
interests of several/all small countries.
- country responsibilities in OFM which cannot be carried out by small
governments might be delegated to FFA (or contracted to private
consultants etc)?
|
|
36
|
|
Notes
