FOURTH MEETING OF THE REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE (RSC)
FOR THE PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Apia, Samoa
17-18 October 2008
SUMMARY RECORD OF DISCUSSION1
1.
The fourth meeting of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) for the Pacific Islands
Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) was held in Apia, Samoa, 17-18
October 2008. Representatives from the following participating country governments and
organizations were present: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau,
Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), the Pacific Islands
Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
South Pacifc Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Pacific Islands Tuna Industry
Association (PITIA) and the United Nations Development Programme. A list of participants
is appended at Attachment A.
Opening of Meeting
2.
Povave Fainuuleilei, the new Head of Fisheries for Tokelau, opened the meeting with
a prayer. The Project Coordinator briefly welcomed the FFA member delegates, UNDP and
other organizations attending the meeting and thanked the Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries, Samoa for hosting the meeting.
Introductory Remarks
3.
Toily Kurbanov, Deputy Regional Representative, UNDP Suva, made introductory
remarks that explained the importance of the Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFMP)
and objective of the meeting. A copy of his introductory remarks is appended at Attachment
B.
Opening Remarks
4.
Dan Sua, Director-General of the Pacific Islands Forum fisheries Agency made an
opening address. A copy of his opening address is appended at Attachment C.
Procedural Issues
5.
The Co-Chairs for this meeting were Peter W. Graham, Ministry of Marine
Resources, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, and Toily Kurbanov, Deputy Regional Representative,
UNDP Fiji. The Co-chairs welcomed participants and representatives from various
organizations.
1 Endorsed in October, 2008.
RECORD OF MEETING
1
Apologies
6.
Apologies were received from the Tongan Project Focal Point, AusAID and the
WWF Pacific Programme.
Adoption of Agenda
7.
The provisional agenda was adopted, and a copy is appended at Attachment D.
Agenda Item 1: Annual Reports
8.
The OFM Project Co-coordinator, Barbara Hanchard provided an overview of the
"Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Annual Reports" contained in
working paper RSC4/WP. 4. She noted that these reports are required to be completed for
GEF funded projects and are designed to provide monitoring and evaluation information
required by both UNDP and GEF but that they also served as annual reports to the steering
committee each year.
9.
The UNDP/GEF Annual Performance Review/Performance Implementation Review
(APR/PIR); and the GEF International Waters Annual Project Performance Results
Framework (PPR) are prepared by the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) and UNDP. They
were tabled for the Committee's consideration noting that the overall rating for both reports
ranged between satisfactory to highly satisfactory. The annual reports were followed by
presentations high lightening progress of project activity delivery.
10.
The Committee noted and endorsed the 2007/2008 UNDP/GEF APR/PIR and the
GEF International Waters Annual PPR Framework reports.
Agenda Item 2: Implementation Reporting
11.
Staff from the FFA, SPC and IUCN made individual presentations relating to the
relevant project components and activities.
SPC
12.
Dr Don Bromhead, Fisheries Scientist Oceanic Fisheries Program from SPC outlined
progress in Component One of the OFM Project for which SPC have the responsibility for
implementing. The presentation by Dr Bromhead is available on the OFMP website2.
13.
SPC took the opportunity to update the Committee on their efforts to continue the
work achieved for developing national stock assessment capacity under the project and
explained that further funds needed to be sourced as the activity allocations under the project
had been completed. The Committee was informed that in order to access UN funds there is a
need for letters of support from countries to fund a further workshop next year. SPC thanked
those countries that had already supplied letters also mentioning that the UN had initially
indicated that only three countries needed to provide letters of support, but that SPC has since
been informed that all countries involved needed to provide letters of support. Dr. Bromhead
indicated that he would contact the remaining countries seeking support letters.
14.
Marshall Islands sought some clarification and update on SPC OFP's effort to secure
funding for next year's tuna data and stock assessment workshop through the UNFSA fund.
In responding to SPC's presentation, some countries expressed their concerns at the difficulty
2 www.ffa.int/gef
RECORD OF MEETING
2
they had in clearly identifying SPC projects that were GEF funded for reporting purposes.
SPC confirmed it would endeavour to minimize this confusion, noting that many OFM
Project activities were also supported from other funding sources, as was the case with the
stock assessment workshops in 2008. While initially funded under the project, they have been
continued to be held by securing funds from other sources.
15.
The OFMP Project Coordinator noted there is a logo to identify the project activities
and a summary of project activities is circulated to focal points annually in an attempt to
identify clearly for Focal Points the GEF funded activities.
16.
The Cook Islands noted that focal points may need to be clear in communicating
these to all relevant staff in country.
17.
PNG expressed appreciation for GEF OFMP funding in increasing the capacity of
national staff to contribute to tuna meetings and WCPFC meetings, noting that the stock
assessment and observer training had been of great value. They noted the need to continue
such capacity building work and to do training on statistics so officers could do basic
scientific analysis and understand key scientific papers. SPC indicated it would review which
of its activities currently address this need and if resources permit, look for ways to strengthen
those activities to increase basic analytical capacity.
18.
Niue echoed the appreciation expressed by PNG and others for assistance, raising the
additional issue of placing a list of reporting of species of interest to a country such as sharks
and wahoo.
19.
Kiribati supported these statements of appreciation and wanted noted for the record
that it did submit a national report but this was not reflected in last year's record. Kiribati also
requested further TUFMAN and basic observer training.
20.
Samoa acknowledged the contribution of GEF OFMP funding to increasing national
capacity and supported initiatives which encouraged staff to not just collect but analyze data.
21.
Vanuatu also expressed appreciation for GEF OFMP assistance particularly in
relation to support for the national data coordinator and training for this position, mentioning
that in the process of establishing a fish plant they may need assistance for biological
sampling.
22.
In joining others expressing appreciation for GEF OFMP assistance, Nauru asked
whether staff submitting online training feedback had been responded to. SPC indicated this
was the case but only a few countries had participated in the second online revision exercise
and that continuation of the online training is dependant on future participation levels being
higher.
23.
Tonga/PITIA supported comments about the need to build capacity of officials and
industry in relation to scientific issues.
24.
The Cook Islands echoed appreciation for GEF OFMP assistance and noted that this
had been of practical use in responding to the needs of industry and their Fisheries Minister.
The Cook Islands also expressed support for capacity building initiatives which they
considered prepared fisheries staff for participation at Management Options and WCPFC
meetings.
25.
Palau expressed appreciation for GEF OFMP assistance and asked about further
training of staff in TUFMAN which SPC indicated that this request would be communicated
to the Data/statistics section of OFP who would respond to Palau directly.
RECORD OF MEETING
3
26.
Tuvalu expressed appreciation for GEF OFMP assistance in capacity building and
asked whether it would be possible to take this further by training of staff to perform stock
assessments. SPC indicated undertaking regional stock assessment depends on firstly, having
access to all required data (which individual countries generally do not have) and secondly
having staff with a much higher level of statistical and mathematical training (i.e. PhD level)
than OFP-SPC could possibly provide to national fisheries staff. SPC encouraged countries to
support their staff in obtaining tertiary qualifications in fisheries science and indicated that
SPC will wherever possible provide support to such endeavours. Niue requested to look at
developing exercises in the stock assessment training workshops which utilize national level
data. SPC indicated such data could be utilized in the workshop to help countries better
understand the relative impacts of their fisheries on the stocks.
IUCN
27.
Kelvin Passflied, Marine Programme Officer, IUCN made a presentation on the
redesigned IUCN activities under the OFMP components one and two explaining his role and
work of IUCN Hawaii researcher Eric Gilman and that of consultant Paul Bartram. He
pointed out that both his position and that of Eric Gilman were partly funded by this project
and partly by IUCN core budget. The IUCN project activities within the scope of the project
objectives now involves a study of the impacts of pelagic longline fishing on seamounts,
based on interviews with fishermen and an associated workshop and report. A copy IUCN's
presentation is available on the OFMP website.
28.
IUCN further acknowledged the mid-term review recommendations that suggested
that IUCN should improve their knowledge of the project, increase coordination between
OFMP partners and be collaborative with other regional research. He noted that the
coordination of the IUCN work plan of the OFMP had only recently been transferred to the
Pacific earlier this year and that he himself had only recently been recruited. In that time, a
strong relationship with other project partners was emerging and in particular he wished to
thank Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries staff for their assistance in facilitating fisher
interviews in Samoa and Valerie Allain at SPC for providing relevant seamount data. He
recognized that a certain amount of information and past research
reports
on
seamounts
existed and requested countries to let him know of any information or further research
regarding seamounts either in-country or which they were aware of regionally.
29.
Palau raised the question of which countries would be involved in the study to which
IUCN responded that it would focus on those with domestic longline fleets. Palau suggested
that IUCN might like to approach NOAA or Japan, both of whom conducted seamount
research in the region.
30.
Niue noted a point of interest of the interaction between whales and seamounts and a
need for information about this.
31.
Samoa raised the question of what the purpose of the seamount research is including
whether any recommendations affecting fishing development would come out of it. Tonga
raised similar concerns relating to seamounts and snapper fishing and the possibility of
linking such research with certification. IUCN reiterated that it was not looking to make
recommendations regarding bottom fisheries and its intent is that the research would inform
policy makers about sustainability of fish stocks and seamounts rather than specific fisheries
management recommendations for countries.
32.
Cook Islands pointed out the limited reliability of research dependant on industry
sources and the study should include scientific information and advice from SPC. IUCN
responded that there was close collaboration with SPC on this work.
RECORD OF MEETING
4
33.
PNG considered that the seamount research is timely and will have implications
wider than fishing (such as seabed mining) and other benefits of this increased knowledge.
34.
In response to a query from the Co-chair about the date of release of the IUCN
research report, IUCN responded that they hoped to have a draft completed by mid 2009.
FFA
35.
Presentations were made by key staff of the FFA in relation to activities of
Component two of the OFMP.
36.
Dr Manu Tupou-Roosen, Legal Counsel, FFA, presented information on the progress
of legal reform activities in the OFMP (noting that many of these activities were funded by
various sources including the GEF OFMP). The presentation by the FFA Legal Counsel is
available on the OFMP website.
37.
PNG expressed their thanks for the legal assistance provided by Legal Counsel and
other staff and consultants participating in sub-regional workshops and for the funding
agencies enabling these activities. PNG also noted that they saw a real difference in the
ability of countries to participate in WCPFC meetings and this was due to assistance provided
including that for the sub-regional workshops under OFMP.
38.
Moses Amos, Director of Fisheries Management, FFA, outlined policy reform and
institutional strengthening activities under OFMP and the progress made to date. The FFA
Director of Fisheries Management's presentation is appended at is available on the OFMP
website.
39.
He noted the concerns of countries about national capacity and staff turnover and
pointed to the assistance available for short term attachments both through the project and the
work programmes of the FFA & SPC. He pointed out that project attachments did not
necessarily require country nominations to undertake their fellowships at the FFA but that
short term training or attachments at other relevant organizations or institutes could be
entertained. He reiterated that FFA's key interest is to increase national capacity for effective
tuna management, control and development in any way it can.
40.
PNG suggested that funding be continued for such projects as this is very useful for
Pacific Island countries and reiterated their support of GEF and others funding that would
result in the improved participation at WCPFC by Pacific Islanders due to better preparation.
41.
The UNDP Fiji Deputy Regional Representative asked FFA what they thought were
the policy reform initiatives and approaches that stand a chance of informing best practices
across the region and what were the lessons learnt from institutional strengthening activities
under the OFMP were?
42.
FFA responded that the implementation of institutional strengthening activities are
also supported by AusAID funding and were discussed at FFC in May. Capacity building
remains a major challenge for many countries unable to deliver on implementation of
WCPFC measures because of lack of institutional capacity. Political stability and will also
hold up progress on many institutional strengthening initiatives and can require a lot of work
at the national level to overcome.
43.
Samoa echoed the sentiments expressed about institutional strengthening challenges
and argued that there would still be a continued need to build and consolidate national
RECORD OF MEETING
5
capacity. The Cook Islands pointed out limited numbers of staff meant that staff had to cover
several areas of expertise.
44.
The Co-Chair pointed out that this national capacity challenge is not unique to the
Pacific but by expanding the breadth of capacity building initiatives to include many
individuals, by doing work in-country and building procedures, mechanisms and processes at
the institutional level could assist. Interventions that are sustained and co-funded had been
proven to be effective in other parts of the world.
45.
Andre Volentras, Director of Fisheries Operations, FFA, reported the progress of
work being undertaken by the Monitoring Compliance and Surveillance (MCS) group under
Component 2 of the OFMP which relates to the sub-component on Compliance Strengthening
which. A copy of the presentation by the FFA Director of Fisheries Operations is available on
the OFMP website.
46.
He also acknowledged the importance of fisheries and environmental staff working
together to ensure fisheries is taken into account as part of broader environmental initiatives
and potential GEF5 funding.
47.
Marshall Islands outlined a national observer training that they themselves had
recently conducted and asked if assistance for this under OFMP was possible. The FFA
indicated this seemed feasible and would be examined.
48.
Tuvalu suggested training of trainers for observer training would be more cost
effective for the FFA and at the same time build national capacity. SPC and PNG confirmed
this has happened in the past with observer training and this approach had also assisted
Solomon Islands (through exchange of staff).
49.
The Project Coordinator, outlined the progress for activities regarding project
coordination, information strategies and stakeholder awareness through industry and
nongovernment organization agreements with PITIA and WWF and cooperation in activities.
A copy of her presentation is available on the OFMP website.
50.
The Project Coordinator also explained that a draft baseline study for the project had
been completed and would be circulated for comment shortly.
Annual Report 2007
51.
The Project Coordinator made a presentation on the final Report of the Annual
Review 2007 contained in working paper RSC4/ WP.4 as an output of the monitoring and
evaluation responsibilities of the PCU. She noted that the report had been circulated earlier in
the year to the Steering Committee and that no comments were received. It was thought useful
to draw the Committee's attention again to the findings and recommendations of the annual
report and the progress made towards the implementation of the recommendations, along side
the Mid-term Review.
National Project Reports
52.
National project reports (verbal) were provided to the meeting by all except FSM
which was not in attendance on the first day due to a delayed arrival in Samoa. Copies of
written National Reports3 submitted to the PCU are available on the OFMP website.
3 Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands,
Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
RECORD OF MEETING
6
Agenda Item 3: Financial reporting, work plans and budgets
53.
Royden Gholomo, Project Finance and Administration Officer, presented financial
reporting as detailed in working paper RSC4/WP 6. This included the 2007 Financial Report
and Auditors Report, the 2008 approved Budget, a 2008 Interim Financial Report, a report of
the 2008 estimated carry forward and the draft 2009 Budget and AWP. His presentation is
available on the OFMP website.
54.
In relation to 2008 Interim Financial Report, the PCU noted that the $3.2million total
included actual carry forward not spent last year and the full IUCN budget in anticipation of
work commencing in 2008. A revision of the IUCN budget is now allocated across 2008-2010
but these adjustments do not affect the overall budget.
55.
Tonga asked about unspent funds and the process for country application for using
these funds. FFA confirmed that under spending in some areas are attributable to over
budgeting and some may be due to lack of requests by countries. The PCU reiterated that any
unspent funds would be used for activities in the approved work plan and program of the
project rather than entirely new or unrelated projects. The PCU anticipated that at the end of
the project cycle there would not be significant unspent funds in part due to exchange losses
regarding the USD and increased costs for project funded posts.
56.
The Co-Chair commented the finances seemed well managed in that the audit
recommendations had been taken on board by the project team and encouraged the team to
continue to improve financial administration of the project.
57.
The Committee noted and endorsed 2007 Financial and Audit Reports, the 2008
Interim Financial Report, the amended IUCN Budget and work plan and the 2009 Draft
Budget and work plan.
Agenda Item 4: Mid Term Project Review
58.
The Lead consultant for the independent Mid-Term Review of the project, Leon Zann
presented the outcomes and recommendations to the Steering Committee of the review which
was contained in working paper RSC4/WP.7. He began by acknowledging all effort involved
in the project and considered that it was successful due to the dedication of many individuals
particularly as the project is immense in its scale and complexity making it a remarkable step
in management. The Mid-term Review consultant's presentation is available on the OFMP
website.
59.
During the review the Consultant noted issues relating to capacity were raised and
while institutional strengthening, national development, innovation were seen to be `well
addressed' by OFMP, gender and equity/human rights issues were not.
60.
The consultant empahsised that effective planning and design had ensured a timely
start, high level of cooperation, `ownership', coordination & maximised chances of success
for the project. Existing resources were utilised and he considered that the OFMP provided an
appropriate model for other multi-stakeholder projects.
61.
However, the Consultant highlighted a number of weaknesses that would need to be
addressed, if not within the current project, than in any future programme of assistance. These
included:
RECORD OF MEETING
7
i)
that the needs of smaller Pacific SIDS were not adequately considered
ii)
some key stakeholders (e.g. SPREP & USP) were not involved
iii)
some national consultation committees were inadequate
iv)
information dissemination needs were not met
v)
the PCU was insufficiently resourced (particularly in terms of administration);
vi)
adaptive management capacity was limited; and that
vii)
longer-term financial support to WCPT Commission was uncertain and there
was a need for a strategic approach to the Commission in general.
62.
In concluding his presentation the Consultant drew the Committees attention to the
recommendations in the review contained in the report.
63.
Anna Tengberg UNDP Regional Technical Advisor made a presentation of the
UNDP's Management Response to the recommendations of the Mid-Term Review and
further explained the process of Adaptive Management which would be applied to project
amendments. A copy of her presentation is available on the OFMP website.
64.
The UNDP Management Response template contains the review recommendations
and responses to those and the delegation of timing and responsibilities to address the
recommendations. The Mid-term Review recommendations include that:
i)
OFM PCU is better supported & greater focus is given to information
dissemination in the second term of the Project.
ii)
SPC should assist in the development of oceanic fisheries science within
Pacific SIDs in this term of the Project.
iii)
Development in oceanic fisheries science within Pacific SIDs is a priority in the
proposed new capacity-building Project.
iv)
Seamounts program is coordinated by the new scientist at the IUCN Oceania
Office to ensure collaboration within the SPC/IUCN Seamounts programme,
with other OFM Project activities, and with other agencies involved in
seamount research in the region.
v)
A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed within the Logical
Framework to better monitor progress in Project Outputs and Activities. (and
progress in achieving outcomes and impacts)
vi)
partnerships with appropriate agencies be enhanced
vii)
Gender, human rights and equity issues should be better promoted
viii)
performance of each NCC should be evaluated by the PCU and be reported to
the Project Steering Committee, and assistance in kind be given where
appropriate to assist in their operations.
ix)
new project should be developed for strategic, long-term capacity-building in
OFM in Pacific SIDS
x)
strengthened linkages to MDG targets and Pacific Plan for mainstreaming of
GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability (GPAS) and Coral Triangle Initiative
(CTI) and that
xi)
a future programme should include private sector engagement supply-chain
analysis, certification schemes, etc.
65.
The UNDP Technical Advisor further outlined the Adaptive Management Framework
and pointed out that GEF projects tend to be overdesigned so Adaptive Management softens
the common criticism that project documents are too rigid, and that it is important to be aware
of changes allowed and levels of authority required for approval.
66.
Samoa asked about the recommendation regarding direct involvement of other
agencies such as with USP and SPREP? The consultant suggested that SPREP and USP be
invited to participate in the Steering Committee and the Co-Chair suggested as an interim step
these organisations be provided with information about the Steering Committee with the view
RECORD OF MEETING
8
towards involving them in the meetings in future. SPC supported these suggestions, indicating
that it would improve communication on overlapping activities and potential areas of
collaboration between USP, SPREP and SPC.
66.
The Federated States of Micronesia commented on the involvement of other
organisations in the project reflected in the review and considered that the reason that the
current project was so successful was that it had a narrow focus and that if the
recommendation was implemented, it may mean the focus of the project on benefits at the
ground level would be lost. It was agreed by UNDP that there was a trade off between scope
and focus and that this should not jeopardise the direction of the project.
67.
The Marshall Islands commented regarding national consultative committees (NCCs)
and whether these have been helpful for some noting that the Marshall Islands has yet to
establish one. The Marshall Islands asked if the effectiveness of NCCs would be analysed in
regards to coordination with this project.
68.
The PCU acknowledged that there were mixed responses to NCCs as reflected in the
Annual Review 2007 and suggested the PCU would look at doing a consultancy on the
effectiveness and issues associated with establishing NCCs. The PCU reminded the Steering
Committee that there were limited project funds are available to assist countries with NCCs
and to date only one country has made use of this.
69.
Tonga suggested contact points and responsibilities could be broadened to identify
key contacts with other groups as has been done with an industry contact point in Tonga and
reiterated the importance of getting the right representatives of groups which may or may not
be sitting on other committees.
70.
The Co Chair recommended The Mid-Term Review as an important learning tool for
all involved and thanked UNDP and Consultant for the report.
71.
The Steering Committee to endorsed the Mid-term Review Report and management
responses in principle and looked forward to a report on the response and actions at the next
Steering Committee in 2009.
Agenda Item 5: Project sustainability and follow up
72.
The Project Coordinator outlined the purpose and relevant issues in regard to project
sustainability and follow-up as outlined in working paper RSC4/WP 8. The issues raised drew
from the outcomes of the Annual Report 2007 and the Mid-term Review and considered that
it was not too soon to consider the sustainability of achievements of the OFMP and the
possibility of a further phase of assistance from GEF, taking into account project
achievements, uncertainty of the funding priorities of GEF and emerging initiatives that may
impact on the design or approval of a further phase. A copy of the presentation is available on
the OFMP website.
73.
Additionally, the Project Coordinator considered that in order to evaluate project
progress, information in the baseline study (available shortly) will be necessary. This should
provide a comprehensive analysis of the status of stocks, robustness of available science, the
quality of management and economic and development aspects.
74.
The Steering Committee discussed the merits of considering a next phase of
assistance, how an application for a next phase to GEF would happen and what the prospects
of approval were. It was also pointed out to the Steering Committee that a higher level of
endorsement would be required, such as the FFC, for the development of a further phase.
RECORD OF MEETING
9
75.
UNDP provided advice on the timeline for a further phase coming online if it was
approved but underlined the need to conceptualise the next stage before considering the
practicalities of application. The UNDP Technical Advisor noted that there would probably
be an issue of a possible gap between the current phase and next phase of the GEF funding
due to the anticipated schedule of GEF replenishment between GEF4 and GEF5 funding
tranches and suggested the need to set aside bridging funds for this period.
76.
Niue expressed concerns for the level of assistance for WCPFC participation that
would be available to them as a small fisheries administration if the project came to an abrupt
halt or there were delays in the commencement of a next phase. The PCU explained that
while the project activities would end, the work programmes of the FFA and SPC supported
by other donors would continue to provide that assistance to countries albeit with some
consideration to priorities.
77.
PNG noted its previous comments on the value of assistance from OFMP to the
countries and also emphasised the co-funding responsibilities for national governments in
some areas, pointing out that the smaller island nations would probably require more funding
from donors for quite a while yet. PNG considered that capacity building still needed funding
and that the PCU should draft documents now that brings funding and project activities online
so there is not a lag in progress of OFMP.
78.
The Federated States of Micronesia noted, supported by Niue, the issue of limited
capacity in countries and need for continued assistance from GEF. The Cook Islands
concurred and further suggested that the concept of a scoping study of national needs and
priorities was needed in the first instance. The scoping exercise would tease out the different
national needs with the view towards sustainability and weaning off GEF funding in future.
79.
Samoa echoed these comments regarding the need for a second phase to further build
capacity for the oceanic fisheries management at national level and international level, and
suggested the need for a suite of options in the scoping study.
80.
Vanuatu also supported the sentiments expressed by others for the support of a
second phase of OFMP, noting that compliance with WCPFC measures and the strain that
places on Pacific Island countries, concluding that the OFMP has been important assistance
and this should continue.
81.
The Cook Islands drew the Steering Committee's attention to the MCS audit currently
underway as part of development of the regional MCS Strategy and that the outcomes of this
should be considered in the scoping study for the requirements of OFMP assistance.
82.
The Steering Committee endorsed the recommendation to forward to the special
FFC68 for consideration the possibility of a further phase of assistance from GEF after 2010;
and the commissioning of the terms of reference for a scoping study to develop a concept
note.
83.
In closing the Steering Committee meeting the Co Chairs thanked the participants for
their attendance and contributions to discussions noting the progress made over the day and
half. Appreciation was expressed to the PCU for meeting preparations and again to the hosts,
Samoa Fisheries.
RECORD OF MEETING
10
Next Meeting
84.
The PCU advised that the venue and timing of the next Committee would depend on
the Management Options Consultations but that timely advice would be provided once a
decision had been made.
85.
Samoa accepted the nomination to co chair the next meeting of the Steering
Committee with UNDP.
Adoption of the Summary Record of Proceedings
86.
The record was adopted.
RECORD OF MEETING
11
ATTACHMENT A
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Cook Islands
Aketa Taannga
Senior Fisheries Officer
Mr Ian Bertram
Ministry of Fisheries & Marine
Secretary
Resources Development
Ministry of Marine Resources
P O Box 64
Box 85, Rarotonga
Bairiki, Tarawa
Tel: +682 28730/28721
Tel: 21099
Fax: +682 29721
Fax: 21120
i.bertram@mmr.gov.ck
aketat@mfmrd.gov.ki
Mr Peter Graham
Marshall Islands
Legal Advisor/ Focal Point
Ministry of Marine Resources
Samuel Lanwi Jr
Box 85, Rarotonga
Deputy Director
P.W.Graham@mmr.gov.ck
MIMRA PO Box 860
Majuro MH 96960
Fiji
Tel: +692 625 8262/5632
Fax: +692 625 5447
Mr Sanaila Naqau
skljr@mimra.com
Director
Fisheries Department
Nauru
Ministry of Fisheries, Forestry &
Agriculture
Mr Terry Amram
P O Box 2218
Nauru Fisheries & Marine Resources
Government Building, Suva
Authority
Tel: +679 330 1611
Aiwo District, Nauru Island
Fax: +679 331 8769
Tel: +674 444 3733
naqali@hotmail.com
tamramnr@yahoo.cm
Kiribati
Peta Gadabu
Nauru Fisheries & Marine Resources
Mr Kintoba Tearo
Authority
Principle Fisheries Officer
Aiwo District, Nauru Island
Oceanic Fisheries Program
Tel: +674 444 3733
Fisheries Department
aiuelodge@yahoo.com
P O Box 64
Bairiki, Tarawa
Niue
Tel: 21099
Fax: 21120
James Tafatu
kintobat@yahoo.co.uk
Principal Fisheries Officer
aketat@mfmrd.gov.ki
Niue Fisheries Sector
Department of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries
Tel: +683 4302
jtafatu@yahoo.co.uk
RECORD OF MEETING
12
K. Sinahemana Hekau
Samoa
Crown Counsel
Crown Law Office
Atonio P. Mulipola
Tel: +683 4228
ACEO (Fisheries)
Fax: +683 4208
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
sh.legal.premiers@mail.gov.nu
PO Box 1874
Apia Samoa
Papua New Guinea
Tel: +685 23863/20369 ext 112
Fax: 685 24292
Noan Pakop
apmulipola@lesamoa.net
Executive Manager (MCS)
amulipola@hotmail.com
National Fisheries Authority
P O Box 2016, Port Moresby, NCD,
Savali Time
Papua New Guniea
Principal Fisheries Officer
Tel: +675 3090 444
Fisheries Division,
Fax: +675 320 2069
Ministry of Agriculture
npakop@fisheries.gov.pg
Tel: 20369/751 4324
Fax: 24292
Mr Ludwig Kumoru
sgtime@lesamoa.net
Manager-Tuna
National Fisheries Authority
Solomon Islands
P O Box 2016, Port Moresby, NCD,
Papua New Guinea
Hudson Wakio
Tel: +675 3090442
National Data Coordinator
Fax: +675 320 2061
Fisheries (under GEF)
lkumoru@fisheries.gov.pg
Tel: +677 38730
lkumoru@gmail.com
Fax: 671 38730
hwakio@fisheries.gov.sb
Mr Augustine Mobiha
Executive Manager,
Tonga
Fisheries Management
National Fisheries Authority
Vilimo Fakalolo
P O Box 2016, Port Moresby,NCS,
Principal Fisheries Officer
Papua New Guinea
Ministry of Agriculture, Food Forests &
Tel: +675 3090 444/321 2643
Fisheries Division
Fax: +675 320 2061
Tel: +676 21 399/27 799
amobiha@fisheries.gov.pg
Fax: 676 23 891
amobiha@yahoo.com
vilimof@tongafish.gov.to
suliasi_f@yahoo.com
Palau
Naitilima Tupou
Ms Nannette Malsol
Executive Officer
National Focal Point
Tonga Export Fisheries Association
Bureau of Fisheries
(representing PITIA also)
P O Box 385
Tel: +676 28867/63117
Koror
Fax: +676 26039
fishexport.tonga@gmail.com
Theo Isamu
Director
Bureau of Marine Resources, Ministry
of Resources and Development
Tel: +680 488 3125/2897
Fax: +680 488 3555
tekoilchi@palaunet.com
RECORD OF MEETING
13
Tuvalu
Royden Gholomo
Project Finance and Administration
Samasoni Finikaso
Officer
Director of Fisheries
royden.gholomo@ffa.int
Fisheries Department
Vaiaku, Funafuti, Tuvalu
Tel: +688 20836
Dr Manu Tupou Roosen
Fax: +688 20151
Legal Adviser
safin70@yahoo.com
manu.tupou-roosen@ffa.int
sfinikaso@gov.tv
Andre Volentras
Falasese Tupau
Director, Fisheries Operations
Fisheries Information & Licencing
Andrea.volentras@ffa.int
Officer
Department of Fisheries.
Moses Amos
Ministry of Natural Resources,
Director, Fisheries Management
Vaiaku, Funafuti, Tuvalu
moses.amose@ffa.int
Tel: +688 20143
Fax: +688 20151
Samasoni Sauni
ffavms@tuvalu.tv
Fisheries Management Adviser
ftupau@gov.tv
samasoni.sauni@ffa.int
Vanuatu
Anouk Ride
Media and Communications Officer
Wesley Obed
anouk.ride@ffa.int
Fisheries Licencing & Surveillance
Officer
Pacific Islands Tuna Industry
Vanuatu Fisheries
Association
Tel: +678 27244/774 1318
James T Movick
Fax: +678 23641
Chairman PITIA
wesley.obed@vanuatu.com.vu
Tel: +691 920 7803
wes.obed@gmail.com
Fax: +691 320 8101
mbps@mail.fm
Robert Jimmy
Director (Acting)/Focal Point
Dept of Fisheries Vanuatu
Secretariat of the Pacific
Tel: +678 23641
Community
Fax: 678 23641
robert.jimmy@gmail.com
Dr Donald Bromhead
Fisheries Scientist
FFA
Oceanic Fisheries Programme
SPC
Tanielu Sua
+687 260 120
Director General
DonaldB@spc.int
dan.sua@ffa.int
IUCN
Dr Transform Aquorau
Kelvin Passfield
Deputy Director General
Marine Programme Officer
transform.aqorau@ffa.int
Tel: +679 331 9084
kelvin.passfield@IUCN.org
Barbara Hanchard
Project Coordinator
barbara.hanchard@ffa.int
RECORD OF MEETING
14
SPREP
United Nations Development
Joe Stanley
Programme
GEF Support Adviser
Tel: +685 21929
Toily Kurbanov
Fax: +685 20231
Deputy Resident Representative
joes@sprep.org
UNDP Multicountry Office
Suva, Fiji
Tel: +679 331 2500
toily.kurbanov@undp.org
Asenaca Ravuvu
Assistant Resident Representative
UNDP Suva Country Office
Suva, Fiji
Tel: +679 3312500
Fax: +679 330 1718
asenaca.ravuvu@undp.org
Anna Tengberg
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP Regional Centre, Bangkok
+66 2288 2730
Anna.Tengberg@undp.org
RECORD OF MEETING
15
ATTACHMENT B
UNDP OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Toily Kurbanov, Deputy Resident Representative
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Fiji
Pacific Island Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
Apia, Samoa, Friday 17 October 2008
Director General of the Forum Fisheries Agency,
Esteemed participants of the 4th Steering Committee meeting of the Oceanic
Fisheries Project
Ladies and gentlemen,
For many of you, the meeting is part of week long events and discussions
on various issues important for development in the Pacific. Therefore we in UNDP
warmly appreciate your commitment and making your time available. It is important
that you at the meeting provide us with the feedback and guidance on the project
priorities and at the same time make sure that the project itself and decisions that are
going to be made produce tangible benefits for your countries.
Ladies and gentlemen, this month one year ago we had our last meeting
of the steering committee. The year since then has brought us many new challenges
in the Pacific and the rest of the world rising food prices create inflationary impacts
and affect household budgets, oil prices (even though stabilized recently) make
transportation of people and goods more expensive and of course as the community
level, we continue to feel increasing impact of climate change. But Pacific peoples
and communities are resilience and in the middle of all this communities seize new
opportunities as witnessed over the last year: there is new emphasis on sustaining
livelihoods all across the region, many countries with renewed energy started to
encourage local food production, there's also now renewed attention to strengthen
national fisheries. It is all these developments that provide context to the activities of
the Oceanic Fisheries Management Project and, in a way, sets the scene for today
and tomorrow's discussions.
First and foremost, together with you, we are looking forward to review
and discuss the project's annual report. As you may have noted from the text
distributed, the project has made strong progress on some fronts but there are also,
as anywhere, areas for improvement.
Secondly, we should be able to take a step back from monthly, quarterly
and annual reports and have a look at what the project has or has not achieved over
a longer period of time, since its beginning. For that we are pleased to share with you
the results of independent mid term project evaluation. Along with the report and its
findings, we will also discuss UNDP's commentary to the report and proposed action
points, which is referred to in the agenda as management response.
There will be also discussions of other important sessions on the agenda.
I'm sure this will be time well spent and at the end of the meeting we will make
decisions that will ensure the project's progress and delivery of tangible benefits for
the Pacific. Before concluding I'd like to thank the project team and FFA as the
executing agent for thorough preparations for the meeting.
Thank you.
16
ATTACHMENT C
4th Regional Steering Committee Meeting of the Pacific Islands Oceanic
Fisheries Management Project, 17 18 October 2008, Apia, Samoa
Opening Address of the Director General of the
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
Talofa lava and welcome to Samoa,
It gives me great pleasure to address you this morning and to warmly welcome you
to the fourth meeting of the Regional Steering Committee for the Pacific Islands
Oceanic Fisheries Management Project.
I am sure you will join with me in thanking that Samoan Government and officials for
hosting not only this Steering Committee meeting but all the meetings held this week
and those to be held next week. It's a rather congested and tiring period of fisheries
meetings, particularly for those of you who came straight to Apia from the
Commission TCC meeting in Pohnpei. For those of you that may not normally attend
Commission related meetings or any of the other FFA fisheries gatherings, I hope
you will take advantage of the opportunity provided to you through this project to
attend other meetings held this and next week.
Please let me acknowledge your presence as the focal points and national
representatives to this project, officials from UNDP as the Implementing Agency for
the project and the co-chair of this Steering Committee, staff of the FFA, SPC and
IUCN as executing agencies and observers which I believe includes representatives
attending on behalf of regional environmental NGOs and the Pacific Tuna Industry
Association. Welcome.
Allow me to be retrospective and remind you all of the reasons this project evolved.
The Global Environment Facility responded supportively to the Pacific small islands
developing countries concerns for unsustainable use of the targeted transboundary
oceanic fish stocks of the Pacific region and inter-related issues such as non-target
fish stocks, other species of interest such as marine mammals, seabirds and turtles,
fishing around seamounts, impacts on food webs and biodiversity.
GEF acknowledged that the threats to the sustainable use of the region's oceanic
fish resources had two root causes; one a lack of understanding of the resources;
and secondly a weaknesses in governance. For the last three years the project has
delivered on a wide number of activities that have contributed to the improvement of
understanding the oceanic fish stocks and to supporting the FFA member countries
in their part to establish the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and
to address their own national fisheries governance arrangements.
The GEF grant has been timely, and without it, Pacific countries would certainly have
found that keeping pace with the Commission and its demands overwhelming. It
remains a challenging arena in any case and one that will continue to require Pacific
countries to find strength in close collaboration but not without assistance from
international funding sources and regional organisations.
We do need to know how effective this assistance has been and what impact the
project has had on progress towards good governance and better understanding of
the Pacific fish stocks. Regular monitoring and evaluation are critical parts of the
17
management of a any project but especially one of this size. Close to 11 million US
dollars over a five year period is not unsubstantial. Each year you would have
reviewed annual reports in the prescribed GEF/UNDP formats and overseen
budgetary issues and this year is no exception. They may appear detailed but they
are good records of progress, or non-progress for that matter, as are the brief
national reports that you yourself prepare each year.
The first of three annual reviews, not to be confused with the annual reports, has
been completed for the Project. The objective of these reviews is to highlight specific
issues, difficulties or problems in the implementation of the project not identified in
the annual; reports which may affect the projects objectives. The reviews must make
suggestions to address these issues. You will have received the first the three annual
review reports that will be produced during the life of the project very early in the
year. It was thought prudent to provide you with another opportunity to comment on
the review and also to have it available along side the Mid-Term Review.
You will have noticed that more meeting time than usual is set aside this year for you.
The additional task this year is for the Steering Committee to consider the Mid-term
Review of the project. The review has been completed under the guidance of UNDP
using independent consultants. It conforms to GEF and UNDP requirements and will
be presented to this meeting by UNDP and the lead consultant Dr Leon Zann later in
the program. I would urge you to provide meaningful feedback on the outcomes of
the review, and to also consider the comments provided by UNDP on those
outcomes and recommendations. I am pleased to note that overall the review is
favourable and the consultants consider that the: "The OFM Project is rated as
generally very effective in its design, methodologies, activities and outcomes".
Consider carefully please, all the recommendations at this juncture. I think we can be
proud of the progress made to date but it isn't completely accurate to say it is picture
perfect. Therefore we have the opportunity before us to make the adjustments,
consider if what the project delivers is sustainable; and what future strategies need to
be developed to ensure sustainability.
As the name of this Committee implies, your agenda over the next two days focuses
on steering the project in the right direction. You will consider reports of progress and
deal with financial matters and work plans; and will also take the time to discuss
forward looking matters. We look forward to your active participation in discussions.
At this point I would like to take the opportunity to thank you as project focal points for
assuming the additional task of over seeing the project activities and your national
interests, the staff at FFA and SPC for their roles in delivering activities and UNDP
and GEF professionals for their involvement in the progress the project has made to
date. It's also gratifying to see that the refined work plan that forms IUCN's
contribution to project has been developed and is well under way after unfortunate
delays beyond their control. We now look forward to reaping the benefits of
understanding the effects of pelagic fishing on seamounts in our region as part of the
project work directed towards ecosystems analysis.
I think I have taken enough of your time this morning. Just let me say again that I
appreciate the effort of everyone involved in this project and that I wish you well with
deliberations over the next two days.
18
ATTACHMENT D
ADOPTED AGENDA
a.
Opening of Meeting
b.
Apologies
c.
Adoption of Agenda
1. Annual reports
· UNDP/GEF Annual Project Report (APR), Project
Implementation Report (PIR)
· GEF IW Results Framework Report
· Annual Review 2007
2. Implementation reporting
· Presentations (project activities) by Executing Agencies
· National Project Reports
3. Financial reporting, work plans and budgets
4. Mid-term Project Review (presentation of the final report by UNDP
and the consultant)
5. Project sustainability and follow-up
6. Other matters
d.
Next Meeting Adoption of Agenda
e.
Adoption of the Summary Record of Proceedings
f.
Close of the meeting
19