5th Meeting of the Regional Steering Committee
FFA Headquarters
Honiara, Solomon Islands
7 November 2009


Paper Number RSC5/WP
5
Title MID TERM REVIEW ­ RESPONSES AND ACTIONS



Summary
The Implementing Agency (Untied Nations Development Programme ­ UNDP) monitors the
responses taken to the recommendations to mid term reviews of projects that they implement
on behalf of GEF. The fourth meeting of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC4) held at
Apia, Samoa in 2008 reviewed the UNDP Management Response template which captured the
recommendations by the consultants that undertook the OFMP Mid-Term Review. At RSC4
UNDP provided an explanation of Adaptive Management and stated that this process allowed
for flexibility in project delivery for projects that were "over designed" and allowed managers
to keep track of adjustments. The steering committee indicated that they looked forward to
receiving a follow-up report at their next meeting.

Recommendation
The Regional Steering Committee is invited to provide comments on the follow-up report of
the recommendations in the Mid-Term Review as required by UNDP.


RSC5/WP.5.......2

---

MID TERM REVIEW ­ RESPONSES AND ACTIONS


Introduction
1. The Mid-Term Review (MTR) for the Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management
Project (OFMP) was tabled at the fourth meeting of the Project's Regional Steering
Committee (RSC4) held at Apia, Samoa in October 2008.
2. In order to capture the management responses to the MTR and monitor the outcomes
of the recommendations in the Review, the UNDP Evaluation Unit require the
completion of a `Management Responses' tracking form on which tthe Review
recommendations are entered along with the responses to those at the time of the
Reviews completion. The form also delegates responsibilities and timing in which the
actions responding to the recommendations must occur.
3. In Apia, UNDP representatives explained UNDP's management responses to the
recommendations in the MTR. The process of Adaptive Management, it was further
explained, would be applied to project amendments. In discussing the Adaptive
Management Framework it was also pointed out that Global Environment Facility
(GEF) projects tend to be over designed 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 for those
changes.
Reporting to RSC on Actions
4. When endorsing the UNDP Management Responses information in principle, RSC4
also indicated that they looked forward to a report on the responses and actions at the
next meeting of the Project Steering Committee meeting in 2009.
5. This paper has been prepared to provide RSC5 with a report on the status of the
responses to the MTR Management Responses.
Midterm Review Management Responses
6. The MTR made a number of recommendations for adjustments to the OFMP and
these are captured in detail in the UNDP Management Responses template appended
at Attachment A.
7. 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;
RSC5/WP.5.......2

---

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.
8. To report on the actions to the MTR recommendations are contained in the last two
columns of the template appended at Attachment A.

Tracking*
Status Comments
9. The Regional Steering Committee is invited to provide comments on the follow-up
report of the recommendations in the OFMP Mid-term Review as required by UNDP.


RSC5/WP.5.......3

---

ATTACHMENT A
UNDP Management Response Template
[Name of the Evaluation] Date:
Prepared by:
Position:

Unit/Bureau:
Cleared by:
Position:

Unit/Bureau:
Input into and update in ERC:
Position:

Unit/Bureau:

Overall comments:
The MTR concludes that the project is well designed and implemented, with significant impact on the immediate regional objectives and global objectives.
Notably, the capacities of Pac SIDS to meet their WCPFC obligations are enhanced as a result of project intervention but that the smaller countries of this membership require
more support. The review also recognizes that the management and administration of this large project owes to a large extent the high efficiency and effective rating to the
execution through established regional organizations with extensive experience. The review recommendations range from minor to more strategic long term issues that need to be
addressed both within the remainder of the project and in the development of a further project.


Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 1:




Results (4) 1
Management Response:




Future developments requires more specific attention on the
smaller Pac SIDs capacity to fulfill their conservation &
management responsibilities in the long term. The MTR
identifies a number of issues that will need to be considered for
sustainability.

Continued support to capacity development in SIDS beyond the
project will be provided by UNDP and FFA core programmes
and efforts will be made to mainstream the objectives of the
OFM project into long-term plans and strategies of the
executing agencies that are supporting regional marine
governance, including the Pacific Plan, in order to ensure
sustainability.

There is concurrence that any long-term strategic approaches to
develop the capacity of in OFM and ensure sustainability
should be encapsulated in future planning and funding
initiatives
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
Status Comments
Project Impact - Governance (4.1.4.)
Mainstreaming efforts
FFA &
Ongoing
Long-term institutional capacity building needs
It is therefore recommended that the OFM Project should be
in agencies are ongoing UNDP
for Pac SIDS are a significant feature of the
more explicitly linked to the Pacific Plan and a new project be
and will be further
concept for a further project phase. This

1 Bracketed numeral references are the order in which evaluations & recommendations appear in the MTR Report.
RSC5/WP.5.......2

---

ATTACHMENT A
developed to implement the long-term strategic approach to
strengthened in the
includes human capacity building although
capacity-building in OFM recommended under the Vavau
second term of the
presently in the form of short term
Declaration. Discussions should be held between FFA and the
project.
attachments, as long term academic training of
Pacific Forum Secretariat in developing this project.

individuals cannot be directly supported by
Long-term capacity
GEF grants that are meant for strengthening of
building needs will also
institutional and systemic capacity. However,
be considered during
efforts to support post graduate studies in
the design of Phase III,
fisheries for Pac SIDS has been successful
late 2008 - 2009
using other donor funding.
Discussions with other regional organizations
included ForSec are expected to occur during
the design of phase II.
Recommendations from results (4.1.7.)
Second term of
PCU, FFA,
Ongoing
A consultant was engaged to design a concept
It is recommended that:
ongoing project.
SPC
for a further phase of the project. Feedback
(a) the second term of the OFM Project, and any future
Incorporate in the
from UNDP on the draft indicated that the
developments of the Project, specifically addresses the design of Phase III -
proposed budget would not be supported and
needs of smaller Pacific SIDS;
Late 2008 - 2009
that priorities would need to be revisited. The
(b) alternative strategies should also be considered to
concept was also considered by the governing
support smaller Pacific SIDS in OFM (e.g. Sub-
body of the FFA who were informed that the
regional groupings, country-specific support from
concept would need to be substantially revised.
FFA);
(c) long-term, strategic approaches should be developed to
build capacity in OFM and ensure sustainability, and
should be the focus of a future OFM Project. (These
recommendations are elaborated upon in 5.2 and 5.3)
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 2:




Project Design (4.2)
Management Response:




See comments for issue 1. Long-term capacity building needs
will also be considered during the design of Phase III which
commence in late 2008 - 2009
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
Project Design (4.2.2)
For consideration
PCU, FFA
Ongoing
Design consideration in phase II concept
Relevance to capacity development and sustainability
during the design of
It is therefore recommended that:
Phase III (late 2008 ­
· the above proposed long-term capacity building
2009)
project in OFM be based on systematic assessments of
training needs in OFM in each country, and
appropriate Fisheries institutional models and
arrangements. (See 5.3 for details)
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 3:




RSC5/WP.5.......3

---

ATTACHMENT A
Project Management & Administration (4.3)
Management Response:




Efforts to address shortfalls during the second half of the
project in terms of management & administration will need to
be elevated, including information dissemination.
There have been some developments at FFA since the review
was completed that have dramatically changed the work load at
the PCU. FFA has finally recruited a very dynamic Media
Information officer who is providing excellent assistance to the
OFM Project (publications, newsletters, media releases and
website). The need to allocate one more full-time position to the
PCU is therefore not as urgent as when the review was
conducted and funding constraints also makes this difficult.
Opportunities to both continue and add to the development of
oceanic fisheries science capacity within Pac SIDS should be
maintained over the remainder of the project and should be a
central element in the next phase.
IUCN have appointed the coordinator who has responsibility
for ensuring collaboration within the SPC/IUCN Seamounts
programme, with other OFM Project activities, and with other
agencies involved in seamount research in the region.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
Project Management & Administration (4.3)
By second quarter
PCU &
Completed
Significant support has been provided to the
Executing agency FFA (4.3.2.)
2009.
UNDP (c)
PCU to address shortfalls in information
It is therefore recommended that:
dissemination project activities which are now
(a) The OFM PCU is better supported in the second term
considered on target.
of the Project.
(b) Greater focus is given by the PCU to information
dissemination on the OFM Project amongst
stakeholders, and wider community in the Pacific
SIDs. (See 4.4.4. for details).
(c) GEF should be informed on the need for greater
flexibility in allocations for Project management.
SPC (4.3.3.)
Ongoing during current SPC & for
Ongoing
Refer to earlier comments on the preparations
It is therefore recommended that:
project and for
consideration
for a further project phase.
(a) Where possible, SPC should assist in the development
consideration during
during the
of oceanic fisheries science within Pacific SIDs in this
the development of a
design of
term of the Project.
follow-up phase, late
phase III.
(b) Development in oceanic fisheries science within
2008 - 2009
Pacific SIDs is a priority in the proposed new
capacity-building Project.
RSC5/WP.5.......4

---

ATTACHMENT A
IUCN (4.3.4.)
Completed - IUCN
IUCN
Completed
Responsibility for IUCN activities of the
It is recommended that:
have appointed a
project are now coordinated by the IUCN
· the Seamounts program is coordinated by the new
coordinator (Eric
Pacific Programme office based in Suva.
scientist at the IUCN Oceania Office to ensure
Gilman) early 2008
collaboration within the SPC/IUCN Seamounts
programme, with other OFM Project activities, and
with other agencies involved in seamount research in
the region
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 4:




Project Implementation (4.4)
Management Response:




The GEF Council adopted new focal area strategies at its June
2007 meeting. The IW strategy was thus updated and
environmental process, stress and status indicators for the
Strategic Programme on Fisheries were strengthened and
updated. UNDP/GEF will provide further guidance on
adjustment to the LFA & the appropriate indicators with which
to monitor progress of Outputs & Activities and how they link
to measurement of project outcomes/results and impacts. To
date financial records and budgets have monitored output and
activity progress. Reporting processes and their effectiveness
could usefully be reviewed with UNDP/GEF taking the lead.
Other project implementation recommendations should be
implemented in the remainder of the project or are
considerations for the next phase.
The Baseline study for the project will investigate the issues
that have arisen in relating to reporting against indicators and
will make recommendations for changes to indicators. The
outcomes of the Baseline study will also be the basis for
discussions between the PCU & UNDP to review reporting
processes and their effectiveness.
After considerable time lapse the FFA has managed to fill the
position of Media Information officer who is now providing
some increased assistance to the OFM Project (publications,
newsletters, media releases and website). She is also working
with WWF on some joint initiatives.
A number of issues require clarification in advance of
developing further assistance focused on capacity building.
This includes the need to understand GEF and UNDP policies
on issues such as support for formal academic training, gender,
human rights and equity in terms of resource projects of this
nature.
RSC5/WP.5.......5

---

ATTACHMENT A
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
Project Implementation (4.4.)
December 2008
PCU &
Completed
A second annual review, assessment by the
Applicability of logical framework tool (4.4.2)
UNDP
PCU and the Baseline Study reviewed project
It is therefore recommended that:
indicators with the Logical Framework
· A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed
resulting in some adjustments to the LFA.
within the Logical Framework to better monitor
[UNDP advises that indicators at activity level
progress in Project Outputs and Activities.
is not required]
Project reporting (4.4.3.)
December 2008
PCU &
Ongoing
Informal review of the reporting process yet to
It is therefore recommended that:
UNDP
occur.
· The OFM Project Coordinator and UNDP Project
2nd Annual Review expected to comment on
Management should undertake an informal review of
effectiveness of the RSC
the reporting processes and their effectiveness with the
view of reducing the number and/or detail, while
maintaining their effectiveness.
Information dissemination (4.4.4.)
December 2008
PCU & FFA
Ongoing
OFM Knowledge Management strategy
It is recommended that:

implemented and dependent in available
(a) the OFM media strategy should be implemented and
FFA media officer now
funding.
there should be a greater focus on dissemination of
recruited and assisting
Increase in PCU staffing constrained by
information from the OFM Project by the PCU.
funding but a consideration in the design of
(b) the capacity of the OFM/PCU should be increased to
phase II.
undertake these additional functions. The previously
recommended additional staff member may be charged
with these responsibilities.
Partnership arrangements (4.4.7.)
For consideration
PCU & FFA
Ongoing
Project design consideration
It is therefore recommended that:
during the design of
· the proposed future Project in capacity-building in
Phase III, late 2008 -
OFM involves partnerships with appropriate CROP
2009
agencies (including Pacific Forum Secretariat, USP
and SPREP), regional NGOs, and international
assistance agencies.
Cross-cutting issues: Institutional strengthening, innovation,
By 3rd quarter 2010 &
PCU, FFA,
Ongoing
GEF relies on its partner agencies on
national development, gender, human rights, and equity (4.4.8.) for consideration
SPC
mainstreaming of gender, human rights and
It is therefore recommended that:
during the design of
equity into projects that it funds. Gender
· gender, human rights and equity issues should be
Phase III, late 2008 -
policies are in place at both UNDP, SPC &
better promoted in the second term of the OFM
2009
FFA and are promoted in work programmes
Project, and be a focus in the proposed future capacity-
for member countries. High numbers of female
building project.
lawyers are targeted for legal fellowships at
FFA and this is being tracked in the logframe
indicator on the number of lawyers (men and
women) that have been trained .
GEF guidelines for these issues need to be
RSC5/WP.5.......6

---

ATTACHMENT A
apparent during the design of a further project
phase.
Coordinating mechanisms (4.4.9.)
By RSC5 October 2009 PCU
Incomplete
A review of the mixed performance of the
it is therefore recommended that:
NCCs and the level of inter-ministry
· the performance of each NCC should be evaluated by
cooperation is pending. (delayed until late
the PCU and be reported to the Project Steering
2009, early 2010)
Committee, and assistance in kind be given where
appropriate to assist in their operations. Where this is
not possible, alternative strategies should be
considered for national coordination





Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 5:




Corrective actions for the design, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of the project (5.1.)
Management Response:




See earlier comments on issues for corrective actions for
design, implementation and evaluation of the project.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking
Unit(s)
Status Comments
Design (5.1.1.), Implementation (5.1.2)
(a) Completed &
PCU (a,b &
Completed
IUCN work programme redesigned and
(a) The revised design for the IUCN Seamount sub-
ongoing
d)
Ongoing
consistent with project objectives.
component Output 1.3.2. should be closely
(b) Ongoing
UNDP Fiji ­
See earlier comments on PCU support.
coordinated, integrated with the wider OFM Project
(c) December 2008
b & c
SPC continuing to assist countries develop
objectivities, and be collaborative with other regional
(d) 3rd quarter 2010
oceanic fisheries scientific capabilities
research. 5.1.2. Implementation
(b) The OFM PCU should be better supported in the
second term of the Project.
(c) GEF should be informed on the need for greater
flexibility in allocations for Project management.
(d) Pacific SIDs should be assisted where possible in
developing their capacities in oceanic fisheries
science.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 6:




Partnership agreements (5.1.3.)
Management Response:




Earlier comments apply to (a). Some engagement with USP
(TSC Training) & SPREP (Turtle conservation and project
oversight) occurs but the recommendation to increase the

2 Please refer to the Jan ­ April and July reports of the Pacific Plan Action Committee and the 2007 Pacific Forum Leaders Communiqué (Vavau Declaration)
and the 2008 Forum Leaders Communiqué (Annex A)
RSC5/WP.5.......7

---

ATTACHMENT A
dialogue with these organization with the view to collaborate on
capacity and oceanic biodiversity and conservation is well
founded. Whilst the project has fulfilled the designed activities
to engage Pacific tuna industry through stakeholder
participation in the Commission and awareness raising, there is
room to strengthen communication between the PCU & PITIA.
The OFM Project is explicitly linked to the Pacific Plan and
regular reports against the Vavau Declaration and the Plan are
submitted to the Pacific Plan Action Committee2. Presently, the
reports do not profile the activities as OFMP & GEF funded
and this needs to be rectified immediately.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
(a) the OFM Project should be more explicitly linked to
(a) For consideration
PCU
Ongoing
a) - see earlier comments
the Pacific Plan and a new project be developed to
during the design

implement the long-term strategic approach to
of Phase III, late
b) ­not yet actioned
capacity-building in OFM, as recommended under the
2008 ­ 2009

Vavau Declaration. Discussions should held between
(b) Before 3rd quarter
c) regional tuna industry association
FFA and the Pacific Forum Secretariat in developing
2010
inactivated early 2008. PCU undertaking
this project.
(c) By February 2009
efforts to produce and dissemination OFM
(b) Discussions should be held with USP and SPREP to
information tailored towards industry.
more actively involve them in capacity-building and

oceanic biodiversity and conservation.

(c) Special efforts should be made to more closely engage
with the private sector, tuna industry and related
business communities in the promotion of the OFM
Project objectives.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 7:




Monitoring and reporting (5.1.4.)
Management Response:




See earlier responses. At the time of writing, the baseline study
for the project has commenced.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
(a) A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed
(a) By December
PCU &
Complete/ongoing a) see earlier comments
within the Logical Framework to better monitor
2008
UNDP
b) completed
progress in Project Outputs and Activities.
(b) September 2008
c) This cannot be changed at this stage, but
(b) A baseline study of OFM in Pacific SIDS, including a
(c) December 2008
streamlining of reporting should be considered
summary of the achievements and shortfalls of WCPF
for the new project that is under development.
Convention commitments, should be prepared.
(c) The monitoring and reporting requirements of the
major donor, GEF, and implementing agency UNDP,
RSC5/WP.5.......8

---

ATTACHMENT A
should be assessed to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic
procedures.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 8:




Coordination (5.1.5.)
Management Response:




To be commenced after the projects 4th meeting in Apia in Oct
2008.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
· A review of the functions and effectiveness of the
December 2008
PCU
Ongoing
2nd Annual Review to address issue of
Regional Coordination Committees should be
effectiveness of RSC. Incomplete to-date
undertaken by the PCU and alternative strategies for in-
country coordination is developed where necessary.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 9:




Information dissemination (5.1.6.)
Management Response:




To be implemented subject to available resources.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking*
Unit(s)
· the OFM Knowledge Management Strategy should be
December 2008
PCU
Ongoing
See earlier comments
fully implemented and there should be a greater focus on
dissemination of information from the OFM Project by
the PCU.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 10:




Actions to follow up or reinforce initial
benefits from the project (5.2.)
Management Response:




See Issue 11
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking
Unit(s)
Status Comments
(a) The specific needs of small Pacific SIDS should be
(a) By 3rd quarter
PCU, FFA,
Completed
a) SPC & FFA work programmes (included
identified, and a strategic plan developed to provide
2010
UNDP
project funded activities) are aligned to
appropriate support.
(b) For consideration
assisting countries that challenged by
(b) The Knowledge Management/Media programme
during the design
Commission reporting and other requirements
should highlight significant achievements in the first
of Phase III, late
and is reflected in business and strategic plans.
term. (see 5.3).
2008 ­ 2009
b) This has been factored into the draft concept
(c) Discussions should be held as soon as possible with
(c) RSC4 to consider
and budget and is being addressed in the
potential donors for a future project (see 5.3).
second half of the project term.
c) completed
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 11:




Proposals for future directions underlining (5.3.)
RSC5/WP.5.......9

---

ATTACHMENT A
Management Response:




The MTR has highlighted a number of issues that will bear
closer inspection in the development of a future phase of the
project. Many of the recommendations relate to the gaps
identified or a range of activities that simply could not be
undertaken in the current project. A preliminary report will be
prepared for the next RSC to draw to the attention of the
stakeholders the need to consider a further project and taking
into consideration the recommendations made by the MTR.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible
Tracking
Unit(s)
Status Comments
New initiatives (5.3.1.)
For consideration
PCU, FFA & Completed completed
· A new project should be developed for strategic, long-
during the design
SPC
term capacity-building in OFM in Pacific SIDS, and to
of Phase III, late
specifically assist smaller Pacific SIDS and those with
2008 ­ 2009
governance problems.

* The implementation status is tracked in the ERC.


RSC5/WP.5.......10

---