FINAL REPORT
ANNUAL REVIEW 2007
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT PROJECT (OFMP)
A Report Prepared for the Pacific Islands Forum
Fisheries Agency (FFA)
By
Les Clark,
Ray Research
March 2007
FINAL REPORT
OFMP ANNUAL REVIEW 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS
The key recommendation of this Review is that the FFA Secretariat should implement a
programme of targeted support to some, generally smaller FFA Members, using both the
resources of the OFMP and other FFA staff resources to strengthen, improve and speed
up implementation of the in-country activities under the law/policy/institutional
reform/compliance component. This work should be targeted at Pacific SIDS that are
struggling to participate in the WCPFC and to meet their WCPFC obligations, especially
the reporting obligations, and might involve support to establish or strengthen national
consultative processes for OFMP activities and oceanic fisheries management where this
is appropriate. It should draw on a broad range of FFA resources including the
availability of FFA technical staff in-country, attachments and FFA workshops, especially
those associated with MCS and the WCPFC TCC.
The other recommendations are:
· the IUCN contribution to the OFMP should be speedily re-designed and committed, to
include activities are appropriate, high quality, and can be effectively implemented
within the remaining Project life;
· the OFMP should seek to create opportunities for improved linkages with Indonesia
and the Philippines
· there should be more engagement with SPREP and GEF focal points
· the opportunity provided by the quality of the Knowledge Management Strategy
Consultancy Report should be taken to seriously consider the role and shape of
information/
understanding/awareness/communication
in
oceanic
fisheries
management generally, as well as within the OFMP specifically
· OFMP-supported meetings should be planned to reduce the impact/burden of the
regional meetings schedule
· a Baseline Study should be prepared
· revisions to OFMP budgets needed to manage the impact of exchange rate
movements and associated cost movements should ensure that the planned level of
commitment to in-country activities is maintained
· consideration should be given to the preparation of a simple analysis of co-financing to
assist the Mid-Term Review team.
· The Project should support the preparation of a simple summary of the achievements
and shortfalls of WCPFC commitments by SIDS, based on the information in the
Annual Part II Reports.
1
1
THE PROJECT
1.1
Background
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Waters (IW) Programme is
supporting the Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFMP) as the
second phase of GEF/IW support for Pacific Small Island developing States (Pacific
SIDS) efforts to enhance the management of the oceanic resources and protect the
environment of the Western Tropical Pacific Large Marine Ecosystem.
In the initial pilot phase, the GEF IW South Pacific Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
Project supported from 2000 the implementation of an IW Pacific Islands SAP, including
a pilot phase of support for three years for the Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM)
Component, which underpinned successful efforts to conclude and bring into force the
Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Convention.
In the OFMP second phase, GEF/IW is supporting Pacific SIDS (WCPF) efforts as they
participate in the setting up and initial period of operation of the new Commission that is
at the centre of the WCPF Convention, and as they reform, realign, restructure and
strengthen their national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up
the new opportunities which the WCPF Convention creates and discharge the new
responsibilities which the Convention requires.
1.2
Logic
The logic of the OFMP flows from the structure of the IW Pacific Islands SAP1.
It has two goals, targeting:
·
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; and
·
enhanced contributions to Pacific SIDS sustainable development from improved
management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources and from the conservation
of oceanic marine biodiversity generally
It has two objectives, addressing the two major deficiencies in management that were
identified by the IW Pacific Islands SAP as the ultimate root cause underlying the
concerns about, and threats to, International Waters in the region. They are:
·
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.; and
·
The Governance objective:
1 The key elements of the IW SAP relating to oceanic fisheries are set out in Attachment A
2
to create new regional institutional arrangements and reform, realign and
strengthen national arrangements for conservation and management of
transboundary oceanic fishery resources.
It has two major technical components associated with the two objectives:
1. the Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement Component; aimed at
providing improved scientific information and knowledge on the oceanic
transboundary fish stocks and related ecosystem aspects of the Western Tropical
Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem (WTP LME) and at strengthening the
national capacities of Pacific SIDS in these areas.
2. the Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening
Component; aimed at assisting Pacific SIDS as they participate in the earliest stages
of the work of the new WCPF Commission and at the same time reform, realign and
strengthen their national laws, policies, institutions and programmes relating to
management of transboundary oceanic fisheries and protection of marine
biodiversity.
And a third project support component:
3. the Coordination, Participation and Information Services Component; aimed at
effective project management, complemented by mechanisms to increase
participation and raise awareness of the conservation and management of oceanic
resources and the oceanic environment.
1.3
Implementation
Key features of the implementation of the Project for the purpose of this review include:
Implementing Agency:
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Executing Agency:
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA),
supported by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community
(SPC), the World Conservation Unit (IUCN), the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Pacific Islands Tuna
Industry Association (PITIA)
Participating Pacific SIDS:
Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji,
Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau,
Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
Project Duration:
5 years
GEF Financing:
US$10,946,220
GEF Approval (by the CEO):
May 2005
Implementation Start:
October 2005
3
2
THE REVIEW
2.1
Project Monitoring & Evaluation
This annual review is one part of a Project monitoring & evaluation framework2 that also
includes:
·
quarterly narrative & financial reporting
·
annual reporting combining the Annual Performance review of the GEF and the
Performance Implementation Review of UNDP (the APR/PIR)
·
annual Regional Steering Committee meetings to consider the APR/PIR
·
annual GEF Performance Results framework
·
annual reviews
·
mid-term review
·
terminal report
·
terminal evaluation
·
post-project evaluation
The annual reviews are scheduled to be undertaken in the 2nd, 3rd & 4th years as short
informal reviews to identify risks to project performance and propose adjustments to
address those risks. The reviews are relatively small pieces of work, budgeted at
US$10,000 each compared to the US$50,000 budgeted for the mid-term review, and so
are designed to address specific elements of the Project rather than provide the kind of
comprehensive assessment to be undertaken by the mid-term review. This is the first
annual review, undertaken around the end of the 2nd year of the Project life, with less
than half the Project budget spent, and this timing provides opportunities to identify
adjustments that can still be made. Because it was undertaken early in the project life,
it focuses on aspects related to inputs, since in most cases it is too early to
comprehensively and realistically measure achievement of outputs a outcomes.
By comparison, the mid-term review is unlikely to be completed and reviewed until well
into the 3rd year of the Project life, when most of the budget will have been spent and
much of the balance committed, so that there will be a stronger element of identifying
lessons learned, looking for opportunities to add value to activities already substantially
under way and looking at needs for sustainability of impacts beyond the Project life.
2.2
Review Objectives
The objectives of this review as set out in the terms of reference are:
i)
to identify specific issues, difficulties or problems in the implementation and
performance of the Project that involve risks to the achievement of Project
objectives, particularly any such aspects that might not have been identified in
the Project reporting and review processes to date; and
ii)
to make recommendations for necessary amendments and improvements for the
implementation of the project associated with the risks identified.
2 See Section J of the Project Document
4
In addition the terms of reference drew attention to some specific issues that had been
identified require the review to:
review and highlight the issues, difficulties and problems faced, lessons learned and
successes achieved, paying particular attention to, among other things:
· The level of project awareness by stakeholders;
· Impacts of negative financial events (salary increases, exchange rate losses etc)
on the overall project budget;
· The value and delivery of the project and overall progress by countries in
meeting their Commission commitments;
· Identification of activities and outputs not on target and recommend ways in
which to address matters (briefly);
· Impact of schedule of regional fisheries meetings on benefits that Pacific SIDS
should incur from the project; and
· Level of communication across line ministries at national levels on matters
relating to the Commission and country obligations.
2.3
Approach
The process of this review included:
i) A preliminary review of project documentation including the Project Document, and
documentation from the Regional Steering Committee meetings, including the
national reports
ii) Interviews in the margins of the fourth session of the WCPF Commission with
representatives of 7 of the 15 Pacific SIDS participating in the Project and more
general discussions with several others, and an interview with an SPC/OFP
programme manager. The interviews focused on the effectiveness of Project inputs
and outputs as well as the specific issues highlighted in the TOR noted in section 2
above. The interviews were informal, for the purpose of this review, taken as not
representing official government views nor cleared with governments. The results of
the interviews with the national officials are summarised in Attachment B.
iii) Meetings with FFA staff, particularly the Project Coordinator in Honiara, and review
of various project documents held by the Project Coordinating Unit
iv) Preparation of a draft report
v) Review of the draft report by the Project Coordinator, and FFA and SPC
Within the limited budget and scope of the Review, it was not possible to meet with
UNDP, IUCN, WWF or PITIA representatives.
The Draft Report of the Review was completed in March 2007.
5
3
FINDINGS
3.1
Project Design
3.1.1 Project Document
The Project Document is regarded by FFA and SPC as very good project
documentation. The Project Coordinator reports following the Project Document
"religiously" as an accurate guide for project implementation. In part, this positive
assessment may reflect the close involvement by those agencies in its preparation.
Country representatives also seem to have no significant problems with the Document.
There are indications that UNDP may have found the Document harder to work with, but
as noted below, there was no direct contact with UNDP as part of this review process.
Lack of involvement by UNDP Suva with the project preparation work may contribute to
any difficulties experienced by UNDP at around 250 pages in total including
compulsory and optional annexes, the Document is not going to be easy for anyone to
work with that was not involved in the original design work. However, the length and
associated complexity seem to result directly from the GEF and UNDP requirements.
The quality of the Project Document seems at least to reflect lessons learned from this
aspect of Phase I, and therefore to be a major improvement on the Phase I Project
Document, which was described in the Phase I Terminal Evaluation Report in this way:
"......the ProDoc fell short of expectations. It did not provide adequate guidance to those
implementing the OFM project; it did not build on past achievements and learn from past
experiences; project design did not seem to identify problem situations adequately and
their root causes; it was weak in terms of strategic planning, preparatory work and
implementation strategies; having identified some risks it provided no risk management
strategies; it failed to unify the two components and no synergies were planned."
Overall, the Project Document seems to be serving well to guide OFMP implementation,
and no significant issues were addressed in the review with the Project Document.
3.1.2 Project Financing
Project activities are financed by a mix of GEF grant funds in US dollars and a
substantial volume of co-financing from a range of sources. The decline in the US dollar
has created some difficulty, but this has been addressed by increased co-financing from
other sources so that there have been no apparent problems with the level of financing
for the Project in its first two years. The adequacy of the the level of financing for the
remaining three years of the Project will depend on exchange rate movements and the
ability of FFA and SPC to continue to access additional co-financing to compensate for
any losses in the real value of the Project's financial resources due to foreign exchange
movements and other cost increases. This and other issues associated with the project
finances are covered in Section 3.3.
3.1.3 Risk Analysis & Management
One of the two objectives of this Review is:
6
to identify specific issues, difficulties or problems in the implementation and
performance of the Project that involve risks to the achievement of Project
objectives
On the surface, the OFMP has "relatively high risks" as one member of the GEF Council
noted when the Project was submitted for approval, because it involves a relatively small
volume of assistance to be delivered to a large number of small administrations spread
over a wide area, highly leveraged against co-financing, and targeting institutional
establishment and strengthening in the management of oceanic fisheries where the
record in other regions globally is not good.
Two factors reduce these risks and are therefore important to Project risk management:
a) the Project buys in to the established administration, programmes, networks and
governance processes of two agencies with a good record of delivery in oceanic
fisheries management in FFA and SPC. However, it also involves delivery by WWF,
PITIA and IUCN which do not have the same background of delivery of this kind of
assistance with attendant higher risks; and
b) most of the oceanic fisheries in the region take place in the waters of coastal states,
particularly Pacific SIDS and Philippines, making them more accessible in some
ways to management processes than the largely high seas oceanic fisheries in other
regions. However, this accentuates the importance of the quality of national
management in these coastal states.
Against this background, the Logframe in the Project Document includes a
comprehensive set of assumptions and risks. A more summarised and updated set of
risks is identified in the UNDP Atlas Project Management system.
Attachment D includes an informal assessment of the extent of the risks included in the
Logframe based on information available for this Review.
The analysis identifies a small number of risks at the input/implementation level. The
following notes address the implications of these risks. Responses to these risks are
included in the later sections of the report. The major risks identified include:
i) failure to make progress on the IUCN activities: this failure puts at risk some of
the seamount-related outcomes, but the consequences are not very serious for the
Project. The IUCN activities, and the seamount elements more generally were rather
"tacked on" to the OFMP at a late stage in the Project design to take advantage of a
planned visit to the region by a deep-sea research vessel to increase awareness of
issues associated with deep sea fisheries management. Other elements of the
seamount-related work have been carried forward effectively by SPC/OFP. The
research voyage was cancelled because of reasons beyond IUCN control. The
failure of this component represents a lost opportunity, but should have little risk to
wider Project outcomes. In fact, there might be opportunities in the current setting to
redirect the resources and IUCN's contribution to even more effective activities than
those originally planned;
.
ii) The struggle of some Pacific SIDS, especially some of those with smaller
fisheries administrations to participate effectively in the WCPFC, including
7
meeting their Commission obligations, and to implement the necessary national
reforms and strengthening; this risk is important because it goes to the core of the
Project. The risk associated with WCPFC participation is not widespread, with
Pacific SIDS generally perceived, and perceiving themselves, as participating
effectively, but there are some Pacific SIDS "just scraping through" as one put it. In
terms of meeting WCPFC obligations, the risk is greater. There are too many Pacific
SIDS at this stage who are not meeting their basic annual reporting obligation, which
is not in itself major, but may be an indicator of deeper difficulties with meeting
obligations, and needs to be addressed
iii) Lack of commitment to National Coordinating Committees (NCCs): the
interviews and the RSC3 annual reports indicate a range of experience and
performance with respect to the establishment and operation of NCCs. The NCCs
were an important feature of the OFMP design as a response to the need for
coordination of OFMP activities and improved inter-agency coordination in oceanic
fisheries management. The mixed performance of the Project in this respect
requires both some consideration in greater depth than is possible in this Review,
and a response, particularly in Pacific SIDS where poor national coordination is
identified as a risk to successful implementation of OFMP activities and enhanced
oceanic fisheries management.
iv) Weak OFMP knowledge management processes: as discussed more specifically
in Section 3.2.4, these processes are weak in the OFMP. The strength of
consequences of this risk is not clear. The consequences are probably less than
they would be in many other project settings because there is a great deal of sharing
of experience and learning from the experience of others between Pacific SIDS
through the huge volume of regional oceanic fisheries management activities,
especially the various workshops and meetings. There is also a significant effort
being made through an ENGO and an INGO to promote broader participation and
communication of the Project values. However, given the importance of information,
understanding and awareness in the Project, this aspect needs attention.
For the other areas of significant risk identified in the risk analysis at the output or
outcomes level, it is generally either too early to assess the level of risk or the risks
relate to broader issues beyond the Project implementation. These include:
i) whether surveillance and compliance operations can be sufficiently effective in the
long term to avoid widespread IUU fishing damaging stocks
ii) whether Pacific SIDS will have the level of commitment and understanding to make
available the resources necessary for effective management and take the hard
decisions necessary to conserve stocks
iii) whether Commission Members more generally will be prepared to accept scientific
advice and adopt and implement effective conservation and management measures,
especially in the high seas
An additional risk that is not directly addressed within the OFMP, but could be, is that of
linkages with Indonesia and the Philippines. The risk arises because around 25% of the
total WCPO catch is taken in their waters, and the quality of data and level of research
undertaken on those fisheries is significantly lower than that available for other WCPO
8
oceanic fisheries. The problems with data in particular are a major source of uncertainty
in the assessments of WCPO tuna stock status.
3.1.4 Linkages
Project activities are very closely linked with the major relevant initiatives in oceanic
fisheries management in the region because they are integrated into the work
programmes of FFA and SPC/OFP. This is a source at the same time of one of the
Project's major strengths, and one of its major weaknesses. The Phase I Project had
the same feature which was nicely characterised by the Terminal Evaluation Team in
this way:
By "investing" its resources in an organization like SPC whose OFP had on-going
research activities directly related to the aims and objectives of the OFM Project; and
in the FFA whose fisheries management activities mirrored and extended those
proposed under the OFM Project, GEF has benefited from a broader input of
expertise and resources which would not have been available otherwise. It has
therefore obtained an incremental result, broader than it would have been able to
achieve on its own with its available resources, even though this result is
somewhat more difficult to extract and quantify on its own.(emphasis added)
At Phase II, the strengths of the approach of integrating the OFMP within the FFA and
SPC/OFP programmes have if anything been greater than in Phase I. This time.
perhaps because the two agencies and the FFA Member fisheries personnel were
deeply involved in the design of the Project and the timeframe is longer (5 years
compared to 3 for the pilot Phase I), the OFMP funded activities are generally more
central elements of the FFA and SPC/OFP work programmes, and have led to greater
leverage of ideas and additional resources than in Phase I.
At the same time, the weaknesses of the approach of integrating the OFMP with the FFA
and SPC/OFP are also still apparent. National fisheries personnel that participate in the
governing councils of the FFA and SPC/OFP programmes are typically aware of what
the OFMP does and does not do. Other national fisheries personnel involved in oceanic
fisheries personnel will usually be aware of particular OFMP funded activities within the
FFA and OFMP programmes from the "branding" on workshops etc. Nevertheless, it is
also sometimes difficult for national fisheries personnel to be able to coherently identify
OFMP-funded activities within the FFA and SPC/OFP programmes.
Two other broader linkages merit consideration:
a) with SPREP, the GEF and national GEF focal points; SPREP attend meetings of the
Commission and the Forum Fisheries Committee, the governing council of the FFA, and
make valuable contributions in both gatherings, but have little involvement in other
oceanic fisheries activities. The OFMP Project Document identifies SPREP as a
potential member of the RSC, but it is apparently not a Member. FFA and SPREP might
wish to review whether SPREP participation in the RSC would add value to the Project
and to oceanic fisheries activities generally, or whether these purposes are already
adequately served by SPREP participation at the Commission and WCPFC.
In terms of contact with GEF, the OFMP probably does not have the same richness of
participation and involvement in GEF activities as some other GEF Projects a lean
9
PCU, no significant budget for participation in GEF activities, remoteness from most
GEF gathering venues, the existing travel load on key Pacific SIDS project participants,
and the project design focus on technical activities rather than knowledge management
related functions all apparently contribute to this outcome one Pacific SIDS interviewee
who had attended a GEF IW Conference noted with some ambivalence that other GEF
project budgets included large elements for "getting together". One question worth
further consideration and beyond this Review is whether it would have been more
beneficial to give greater priority in the budget to providing resources for OFMP
participation in a wider range of GEF, especially GEF IW, activities.
The Project Coordinator maintains contact with GEF national focal points, visiting them
when in-country and emailing information about in-country activities. This is unlikely to
be sufficient to keep the national GEF focal points very well informed about the OFMP,
especially as many of the GEF focal points are themselves carrying a large range of
responsibilities, especially in the smaller countries. The PCU is unlikely to be able to do
much more in this direction within its limits, but it seems useful to provide guidance
encouraging those involved in organising any form of OFMP in-country technical activity
to ensure that GEF national focal points are informed and where appropriate, invited to
participate. This could be included in the Communications and Information
guide/handbook for OFM activities.
b) with Indonesia and Philippines: the case for a linkage with Indonesia and the
Philippines is made above. As background, the inclusion of Indonesia and Philippines in
the OFMP was considered during the project design but put aside because of the
institutional and legal difficulties. Subsequently, fisheries data has strengthened the
case for a similar approach to enhancing oceanic fisheries management in Indonesia
and the Philippines, and the WCPFC is sponsoring design of a GEF-funded project in
this direction. In the meantime, while Indonesia and the Philippines are not beneficiaries
of the OFMP and so Project funds can not be used to support their participation in
Project activities, FFA in particular should consider options for Indonesia and especially
Philippines to participate in appropriate OFMP activities, especially workshops, in the
manner that SPC/OFP supports Philippine participation in the OFMP funded stock
assessment workshops and the recent Tuna Data Workshop.
3.1.4 Design Issues to be Addressed
Two key related design issues emerge from the analysis above as needing to be
addressed. These could be feasibly addressed at this early point in a way that would
contribute to achievement of Project outcomes. They are under-resourcing of the PCU;
weakess at national level in establishing Project coordinating structures and formulating
and implementing national activities, particularly under the law/policy/institutional
/compliance component.
The PCU is lightly resourced for a project of this magnitude and complexity, with a
budget of around 12% of the total budget3. In particular, there are no resources
specifically directed towards coordination with participating Pacific SIDS and formulation
and implementation of national activities. The PCU has only one professional staff
member, the Project coordinator. The assumption underlying this feature of the Project
Design was that Pacific SIDS would be able to formulate and implement activities with
3 Based on the Component 3 budget excluding M&E and NGO funding
10
resources made available from the OFMP without substantial support. The basis of this
assumption was:
a) Pacific SIDS had been closely involved with the design of the Project and had
stressed the need for the Project to deliver more benefits at national level, including
identifying needs in each country that the Project could address
b) Pacific SIDS had the capacity to establish internal coordination mechanisms and
formulate and implement OFMP-supported activities with relatively little support
c) With the activities embedded in the FFA and SPC/OFP programmes, OFMP national
activities would be supported through broader interaction between Pacific SIDS and
the two agencies.
As a result of the low level of resources in the PCU and weaknesses in the pattern of
establishment and operation of national consultative committees, the progress in
formulating and implementing national activities has been mixed as can be seen from
the pattern of responses in the interviews to the question relating to the effectiveness of
OFMP inputs at national level, especially from the law/policy/institutional component.
Some countries, such as Cook Islands have been able to approach the Project as the
design anticipated with a good understanding of what they needed and how to get
support from the OFMP. Others have not been able to proceed in this way, relying on
prompting and support from the Project Coordinator and with the Project Coordinator
being also responsible for all the project management activities, her capacity to visit
countries and follow up with support for formulation and implementation has been limited
especially in the first 18 months of the Project, with the result that delivery of assistance
to some Pacific SIDS has been slow to start up. It is noticeable that some of the
countries in which OFMP national activities have been slow to develop are also some of
the countries in which the participation analysis in Attachment C suggests there has
been less effective engagement with the WCPFC processes, and where greater OFMP
support might be most needed and most valuable. Notwithstanding these comments,
some of the streams of in-country assistance in the law/policy/institutional component
such as the Institutional Strengthening Project (ISP) design activities, dockside
inspection training programmes and legal reviews are now developing effectively.
The slowness in start-up of delivery of national assistance in some Pacific SIDS
from FFA in some elements of the law/policy/institutional component is the
greatest single weakness in Project design and delivery identified in this Review.
Taken together with the lower level of engagement by some Pacific SIDS in the WCPFC
identified in section 3.2.3 of this report, this weakness requires a specific response from
FFA. This response should involve a programme of targeted support to some, generally
smaller FFA Members (perhaps including without being exclusive Kiribati, Niue, Tokelau,
Tonga, Tuvalu) using both the resources of the OFMP and other FFA staff resources to
assist such countries to formulate and implement OFMP activities, as part of a broader
programme of assistance for preparing for, and participating in WCPFC activities. This
issue is taken up further in relevant later sections of this report and features in the
Recommendations.
Other design aspects that merit attention based on the analysis above are:
· the need for speedy re-design and commitment to IUCN-implemented activities
· creating opportunities for improved linkages with Indonesia and the Philippines
· more engagement with SPREP and GEF focal points
11
3.2
Project Delivery
3.2.1
Volume & Quality of Inputs
No apparent problems, risks or substantial issues with the volume and quality of inputs
for the OFMP core activities implemented by FFA and SPC/OFP have been identified in
the Review. There is a completely highly positive response from Pacific SIDS to the
quality of inputs from national representatives, including the FFA and SPC/OFP staff
appointed, in-country and external consultants and capacity-building activities presented.
Overall, the quality of participants in training activities is regarded as good, although it is
recognised in some countries it can be challenging to find appropriately qualified
personnel for participation in scientific workshops. One issue raised is that it would be
helpful to have papers for workshops in the law/policy/institutional component made
available earlier.
The capacity building activities are particularly highly regarded, including the stock
assessment workshops, assistance from SPC/OFP for Part I report preparation,
monitoring support, TUFMAN database development, National Tuna Fisheries Reports,
WCPFC meeting briefs, management options workshops, MCS working group, legal
analyses and compliance staff training are all noted in the interviews in highly favourable
terms. Some of these core activities of the Project, such as the stock assessment
workshops are being delivered at higher levels than planned with co-financing support
Examples are the annual rather than two-yearly stock assessment workshops and the
management options workshops now being delivered in three sub-regions as well as the
overall annual regional workshop, which are regarded as having a substantial
contribution not just to the capacities of SIDS and the effectiveness of their participation
in the Commission, but also to the quality of measures being adopted by the
Commission.
It is early to judge the quality of the NGO implemented inputs, but the early contribution
from WWF is regarded very highly.
The IUCN delivery failure is a problem but there is time to correct this and there is an
opportunity for redirecting resources committed to those activities positively.
In terms of input volumes, the Project overall seems to be on track apart from the IUCN
component and the issues noted above with the slowness of start-up of delivery of in-
country activities in some Pacific SIDS. This is confirmed by the pattern of
disbursements as discussed in Section 3.3.2.
3.2.2
Management, Coordination And Operational Issues
A substantial part of the design of the Project and its apparent initial operational
success, is based on the long-established working relationship between FFA and
SPC/OFP. This may not always be completely smooth the recent initiative to fold FFA
into SPC for example didn't help but it is very effective, and the two organisations
clearly work together well.
The relationship with UNDP Suva is newer. The pilot phase was implemented through
UNDP Apia, which is closely involved with SPREP, but the phase II implementation was
12
transferred at a late stage in the project design to UNDP Suva. It seems the
implementation may have been initially challenging to UNDP since it is a large and
complex project in which they had very little involvement in the design activities, but FFA
and SPC/OFP indicate that the relationship with UNDP Suva is working well.
The relationship between FFA and WWF is excellent, assisted by the involvement of a
WWF staff member in the project design, and the working relationship with the Pacific
Islands Tuna Industry Association is developing well.
At a broader operational level, there has to be some underlying concern about the risks
to project operations from political instability in Fiji and Solomon Islands, but the FFA
Headquarters in Honiara and the UNDP Suva Office have shown resilience in relatively
difficult conditions in the past and can be expected to have the necessary backup plans
in place if conditions worsen and threaten OFMP operations.
NCC Weakness
One clear weakness in coordination is the mixed performance of the establishment and
operation of National Consultative Committees (NCC). In the Project Document, the
NCCs are designed to serve the dual purposes of national coordination of OFMP
activities and enhancing national coordination of oceanic fisheries management.
The NCCs were an important design feature for the GEF. The apparent rationale is to
secure broader stakeholder participation in Project activities. That is understandable. A
decade ago, donors might have been prepared to grant funds to FFA and SPC more or
less to go forth and do good work in association with the national fisheries agencies. But
now there is a much greater emphasis on stakeholder involvement to ensure the
appropriateness and effectiveness of development activities, and donors want to see
coordination structures that ensure stakeholder involvement, and this was a particularly
weak aspect of the Phase I project.
However, there are wide differences between Pacific SIDS in their sizes and approaches
to Government. Five of the15 Pacific SIDS have populations of less than 20,000 4
have less than 10,000 all of these with a Cabinet of 6 Ministers or less holding multiple
portfolios, and very small fisheries administrations, and a large external aid programme.
The administrations of these countries generally have a very limited number of formal
inter-agency structures with most of the key functions relevant to fisheries included in a
small number of agencies with very broad functions or falling under one or two Ministers
and largely coordinated at that level. For some of the smaller countries, who most need
the assistance of the OFMP, donor coordination arrangements are a fatiguing burden, to
nobody more so than the Environment Service, usually a single officer or two, and seen
as an essential member of every donor's national coordination arrangements. For
projects where there is a large in-country programme or activity, nationally executed,
with substantial involvement of the national stakeholders in shaping the activities,
national consultative structures are essential and welcome. But the OFMP is regionally
executed; much of its in-country activity is provided in terms of standardised training and
advisory modules that have been designed and are reviewed at regional level, especially
in the monitoring and science component; the level of funding of individual in-country
activities is relatively small and there may not be separate in-country activities in every
participating country every year; and establishing a separate OFMP national
13
coordination mechanism, as one senior interviewee from a smaller country noted, is
simply "not worth it".
On the other hand, the Papua New Guinea fisheries administration is structured as an
Authority, run by a Board including representatives of key agencies and the private
sector, with at least sporadic consultations with broader stakeholders including NGOs
that have all the necessary elements to serve as an NCC.
The result has been difficulties in establishing NCCs in some countries. This doesn't
mean that an NCC is not useful, or even necessary in some Pacific SIDS, or that
improved national coordination is not required it definitely is in many Pacific SIDS, but
maybe one size doesn't fit all. This is an issue that also deserves closer attention by the
mid-term review. In the meantime, however, there is a need to look at ways to improve
OFMP activity coordination and coordination of oceanic fisheries management in
countries where in-country OFMP activities are lagging and where lack of national
coordination is contributing to difficulties that a Pacific SIDS may be having in
participating effectively in the WCPFC and meeting WCPFC obligations.
Effect of the Regional Meeting Schedule
One operational issue that has emerged as particularly significant in the operation of the
OFMP is that of the impact of the regional meeting schedule. The record of the RSC3
includes the following:
"The Committee noted the numerous fisheries meetings and the impact this
agenda on effective participation. It was suggested that the FFA plan and
prioritize the meetings to minimize the undertaking of too many meetings."
This issue also features in some of the annual OFMP reports. In the interviews, there
was a systematic difference between some Pacific SIDS that acknowledged there were
a lot of meetings but considered they were important and needed to be worked around,
including through better scheduling, and others, typically smaller countries to whom
coastal fisheries and other priorities were relatively important, who were more concerned
about the impact of the heavy meeting schedule.
This is a perennial and perhaps intractable issue. After a mission where key contacts in
some countries were not available because they were away at regional and international
meetings, an FFA legal consultancy report4 in 2003 identified as one of the constraints
on implementation of UNCLOS
an increasingly high, even excessive, level of demand for participation placed on key
national level personnel by the international and regional level law and policy
making system - the relative lack of integration of the international and regional
agencies has significant impact at a national level;
Since then, the position has got a lot worse with additional WCPFC, and WCPFC-
related, meetings.
4 Constraints Affecting the Implementation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Pacific
Island States: A Report to the Forum Fisheries Agency and other Pacific Regional Agencies
14
The meeting schedule clearly has an impact on some OFMP activities. There were
occasions when the Project Coordinator had to defer country visits because key
personnel were off-island; participation in some meetings and workshops is not complete
or includes less appropriate personnel because of the travel load; and the RSC is clearly
shorter than some would like and scheduled to fit in with in with other meetings, which
also affects who comes to it. One activity that seems to have been particularly affected
is the attachment programmes in the two technical components, where heavy travel
loads have made it difficult to synchronise availability of the national attachment
participants and the relevant regional experts.
In practice, the regional meeting and travel load has become a limiting factor on regional
and national fisheries activities generally, perhaps less marked on oceanic fisheries/
OFMP activities than some others, because of the higher priority attached to WCPFC-
related activities than to others.
The situation is not likely to change. As reflected in the prominence given to fisheries,
especially oceanic fisheries, at the Forum in 2007, fisheries is if anything, becoming
even more prominent regionally. The international and regional setting for oceanic
fisheries management is also becoming more prominent and more complex as fishing
presses up more closely against biological limits. Within the WCPFC, there are some
elements that will want increased meetings, precisely because of the difficulties that
Pacific SIDS face in participating in them. There are likely to be few, if any, options for
managing the meeting and travel load to reduce its impact. The organisations involved
already make a substantial effort to prioritise and programme meetings. Possibilities
include:
a) replacing regional meetings with more nationally focused activities. The scope for
this is likely to be limited, since there are between 14 and 20+ Pacific SIDS involved
in regional fisheries activities, and few activities are large enough to sustain that
number of separate in-country activities as alternatives to regional activities, such as
in-country courses or workshops. Even if they are, very few can put on workshops or
courses in every country in the same year. Most can only manage to deliver 3-5
national workshops or courses each year, which means it takes several years to
deliver a programme to all SIDS. Steps in this direction include:
i) sub-regional activities: the FFA sub-regional Management Options Workshops
were highly regarded in the interviews, particularly because they allow more
depth of participation. They also reduce travel time since the venues are closer
and allow three countries to host the meetings each year.
ii) Transferring functions to national institutions, particularly training activities
b) Improved planning; in the last two years, some regional meetings have been
organised on short notice, as the organisations come to terms with the WCPFC
schedule, disrupting national planning. This year the FFA activities are better
planned, and the FFA website calendar includes most regional fisheries meetings
which is helpful, but some are still missing.
c) Choice of venue: geography now plays a bigger role. Fiji has usually been the
centre of gravity for regional meetings. With the establishment of the WCPFC
15
Headquarters in Pohnpei, there are now more meetings in northern areas (in 2007,
the three major WCPFC meetings were in Guam, Honolulu and Pohnpei, in 2008
they will be in Pohnpei, Port Moresby and Korea) which are harder, longer and more
expensive for countries such as Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau and Tonga. A
conscious effort to hold OFMP and other non-WCPFC meetings in a venue such as
Fiji might partially redress some of this change in geography.
3.2.3
Participation
Two participation-related issues were important in the design phase of the Project and
remain key issues, both needing attention. They are effective participation of Pacific
SIDS in the Commission; and participation by Pacific SIDS in OFMP activities
Throughout the MHLC and Prep Con processes leading up to the establishment of the
Commission, Pacific SIDS emphasised the importance of their effective participation in
the Commission they saw themselves as dependent on the region's tuna resources;
these resources could not be effectively managed without their full participation; and
they did not want to be, and could not afford to be, bystanders in the process. The
importance of this issue was heightened by a series of GEF-funded study tours to attend
meetings of tuna commissions in other regions where large fishing states, including the
EU, Japan and the US were seen brutally over-riding the interests of developing coastal
states, especially smaller developing coastal states, by being able to dominate the
processes of those commissions, especially technical meetings. In response, Pacific
SIDS put specific provisions into the WCPFC Rules of Procedure and Financial
Regulations to fund Pacific SIDS participation and limit the numbers of sessions of
WCPFC meetings.
Attachment C provides some measures of participation by Pacific SIDS in the
Commission and by comparison, in OFMP activities.
The first seven columns in Attachment C list the numbers of Pacific SIDS participants in
the WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC), Technical & Compliance Committee (TCC) and
the Commission itself. Broadly, the data indicates a healthy level of participation. The
only cases where Pacific SIDS did not attend WCPFC meetings were apparently due to
visa difficulties, and there have been an average of around 50 Pacific SIDS participants
at each WCPFC meeting, more at the Commission sessions, less at the Committee
meetings. Within this data, there are however large differences. Countries such as
Papua New Guinea and Marshall Islands consistently send delegations of three or more,
helped by industry participation. On the other hand, countries such as Niue, Kiribati,
Tokelau and Tonga typically send a single representative using the WCPFC funding. At
these meetings, it is difficult for a single person to be effective, especially when it is not
the same person attending all the meetings, because of the volume of material, the
complexity of discussions, the amount of informal work that is done on the side and the
importance of continuity in the discussions. Some measure of the difficulty that small
administrations face in participating in the WCPFC processes is given by the estimates
in the table of the amount of time scheduled for WCPFC-related meetings in 2007.
Overall, this is estimated to have required around 79 days, or over 11 weeks, of time to
participate in the Commission meetings and key FFA Workshops. Some officials from
Pacific SIDS administrations attend all of these meetings, and the list does not include
the various technical workshops and SPC and FFA governance meetings (FFC and
16
Heads of Fisheries). Over time, despite Pacific SIDS opposition, the number of WCPFC
meetings is increasing because of pressure for the WCPFC to make progress and large
fishing state preference to work through technical working groups rather than have work
undertaken by the WCPFC Secretariat. The WCPFC load is on top of, not instead of,
most of the fisheries meetings that were held previously.
This data is supported by the information from interviews and national reports that
indicate that Pacific SIDS consider that they are participating effectively in the WCPFC,
but that it is a strain. Comments note Pacific SIDS inexperience in this setting, and that
Pacific SIDS participation is noticeably still dependent on a small number of experienced
participants. This participation is also strongly supported by, and dependent on OFMP-
funded and other support from FFA and SPC/OFP. Overall, the effectiveness of Pacific
SIDS participation, despite the difficulties listed is one of the major positive features of
the early period of the WCPFC, and a major success of the Project. However,
performance is uneven, and some additional targeted effort is appropriate to support
Pacific SIDS having particular difficulty in participating.
The 8th and 9th columns list the submission of WCPFC reports the Part I report (fishery
overview and science) and the Part II reports (compliance). This data provides a less
satisfactory picture of Pacific SIDS involvement in the WCPFC. Four of 15 Pacific SIDS
apparently did not submit Part I reports for 2007 by December 2007, and six apparently
did not submit Part II reports. Provision of the annual reports is the most basic obligation
of Commission members. Continuing failure to provide reports at this level would
undermine the effectiveness of Pacific SIDS participation and Commission programmes
and measures; and represent a significant risk to the achievement of planned outcomes
of the OFMP. SPC/OFP provides support to Pacific SIDS to prepare Part I reports, and
this was noted in interviews as a valuable output of the OFMP. FFA does not apparently
provide similar support, at least in any systematic way, for the preparation of Part II
reports. A systematic effort needs to be made to correct the non-reporting.
Opportunities for this include directed efforts by FFA and SPC/OFP through attachments
and country visits, and inclusion of work on WCPFC Annual reports within the work
undertaken in workshops such as the sub-Regional Management Options Workshops
and the Stock Assessment or Monitoring Workshops.
3.2.4 Knowledge Management
Knowledge management is a relatively new concept to participants in the OFMP. A
recent OFMP report5 describes it this way:
"managing knowledge can be thought of as a process maximizing best use of
what is known. The sharing of knowledge transforms it into information; the act of
that sharing being communication. Whatever the wording chosen or level of
language used, the ultimate aim is usually the same: managing knowledge
allows an organization or project to store, access, transform and disseminate
information to support the goal of effective communication"
5 Knowledge Management Strategy: OFMP draft report by Lisa Wil iams-Lahari
17
Knowledge management has become an important instrument to development agencies
especially in connection with environmental programmes as a means of increasing
programme impacts. To UNDP-GEF, the objective of its knowledge management efforts
is to "leverage lessons learned from projects, and to replicate successes". Typically,
there is an element of advocacy in knowledge management efforts of "getting the
message out".
Knowledge management efforts are treated in a fairly cursory manner in the Project
Document. There is no discussion of it in the text, but the structure of the Project does
include an Output 3.1.2: Knowledge management process identifying innovative, best
practice and replicable ideas within the Project and relevant to the Project and active
involvement with IW:LEARN and including Knowledge Management Components for
Website/page, newsletters, and progress reports.
In the event, relatively little has been done in this direction. There is a Project logo and
website, and OFMP activities are more clearly identified with the Project than in Phase I,
but there are no Project newsletters as such, though newsletters are produced within
some of the Project's components, the structure and language of progress reports in the
UNDP & GEF system makes them relatively limited in value to a broader audience, and
the OFMP webpage is dry. Against this background, the OFMP Knowledge
Management Strategy report prepared by Ms Williams-Lahari provides an excellent
rationale and proposal for a comprehensive knowledge management strategy for the
Project, recommending the following ten elements:
1.Analysis of information and knowledge needs of National Focal points
2.Electronic Reference Group
3.Communications and Information guide/handbook for all OFM project meetings
and activities
4. Media, information and Knowledge management roundtable or workshop for
national focal points and partners and stakeholders
5. Training for key stakeholders in IW: LEARN and the global GEF Project
Information Management System (PIMS) and other relevant database systems.
6. Development of a Pacific GEF database for the FFA website to ensure
ownership and broader access to IW: LEARN or the UNDP/GEF PIMS
7. Development of a directory/database of Pacific KM facilitators
8. Pacific media internships to drive mainstream understanding, reportage, and
support information outputs
9. Regional workshop for Fisheries/Marine/Environment information officers on
linking their work plans to OFM Information Strategy
10. Launch of two key electronic discussion and information lists on OFM issues
one open and the other restricted
Some context might be useful in considering these proposals. The Phase I project was
criticised by the Terminal Evaluation Team for failing to address public participation in
the Project's activities. In response, the project design includes provision and funding
for an environmental NGO and an industry NGO to be enrolled into Project
o\implementation in order to promote non-governmental stakeholder and public
awareness of oceanic fisheries management issues and strengthen NGO participation in
oceanic fisheries management. This was in itself an innovative step which introduced a
communication/advocacy element, but kept it at some distance from the key agencies in
the Project. The latest proposals would involve the FFA in particular in media,
18
information and communications-related areas far beyond its current involvement. In
part, the limited current involvement of FFA and SPC/OFP in these areas reflects
attitudes from the Member governments that do not encourage the secretariats of the
organisations to present views separately from the members. Releases for the public
media tend to be brief statements covering particular meetings, often tightly negotiated
in clearance processes between members. The websites of the FFA and SPC/OFP
provide relatively little information suitable for non-technical readers such as students or
media personnel researching a story (compared to say the SPREP website), and neither
appears to be very actively involved currently in generating material for distribution
beyond their designated technical audiences. However, the current programme of
invited visits by Pacific Island Heads of Government to FFA Headquarters in Honiara
provides an example of the value of increased media coverage of oceanic fisheries
management issues.
The position of the WCPFC Secretariat is probably even more limited three months
after the 4th session, there is not even a record of the meeting available because the
Commission Members have apparently not even been able to agree on a record of what
they said.
A measure of the interest or support (or difficulty?) of this issue for FFA Members may
be the failure of even a single FFA Member to respond to an email questionnaire sent
out to gather information for the Knowledge Management Strategy Report.
Nevertheless, Ms Williams Knowledge Strategy Report provides a good basis for
discussion on strengthening the knowledge/information/circulation/advocacy package of
activities related to oceanic fisheries information and deserves the close attention of the
FFA and SPC/OFP Secretariats and Pacific SIDS. Full implementation of the
recommendations is not likely to be possible even if they were accepted because of
funding implications, but some could be, and others deserve attention in a longer term,
broader perspective within the organisations involved, especially the FFA. The
recommendation for a Communications and Information Guide/Handbook for all OFM
project meetings and activities seems a particularly useful way to make more effective
use of OFMP resources for increasing awareness and promoting understanding given
the limits in PCU capacity in this direction. Among other options, those involved in
OFMP project activities could be guided to involve national GEF focal points and to
actively pursue opportunities for media exposure of the Project's activities.
3.2.5 Monitoring and evaluation
The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy sets the objectives for monitoring and
evaluation of GEGF projects as:
a) promote accountability for the achievement of GEF objectives through the
assessment of results, effectiveness, processes and performance of the partners
involved in GEF activities.; and
b. promote learning, feedback and knowledge sharing on results and lessons
learned among the GEF and its partners, as basis for decision-making on
policies, strategies, program management, and projects and to improve
knowledge and performance.
19
Effective monitoring and evaluation of Pacific Island regional activities and programmes
is difficult. The reporting processes are very heavily oriented towards reporting up to the
funding agencies, in this case the GEF and UNDP. The technical capacities of these
agencies are limited and remote, and there is typically very little feedback on technical
elements. UNDP Suva is best placed to play an active external role because it is closely
involved in monitoring the Project through the level and pattern of disbursements, and
can pick up in particular whether some activities are failing to be implemented, and is
able to attend the RSC meetings and meet with Pacific SIDS personnel independently in
the process of its work in the region.
External evaluations by consulting teams are also difficult. They can usually only visit a
limited number of countries as well as the Executing and Implementing Agency Head
Offices, and also usually are scheduled to meet with Pacific SIDS representatives on
some other occasion where the representation might or might not be appropriate.
RSC meetings are difficult to organise within the tight regional fisheries meeting
schedule. They almost always have to be piggybacked on another meeting, which
means the pattern of participants is heavily influenced by the content of the associated
meeting, the RSC meetings have to be brief, and the content may be overshadowed by
the other meeting(s). National focal points are appointed at a range of levels. Initially,
they tended to be senior officers but in some cases that responsibility is passed on to
other personnel with a lesser work and travel load. The result is some national focal
points who would like the chance to become more involved in the Project with a longer
RSC meeting and additional sessions, and others who can't afford more than the one
day currently programmed.
However, two additional elements add in a very positive way to the monitoring &
evaluation framework of the OFMP. They are:
a) the written national reports presented to the RSC, which reflect a substantial effort
and provide a very good review of the key aspects of the Project at both the input,
output and outcome levels
b) the fact that the Project activities are subject to additional review when the work
programmes of FFA and SPC/OFP are presented to the governing councils of those
agencies
The Terminal Evaluation of the phase I OFM Component was very influential in shaping
the OFMP and in securing GEF and UNDP support for it. Timing points to the Mid Term
Review being the most important external review of the OFMP, and preparation for it is,
and should continue to be, a high priority.
Overall, within the limits noted above, the monitoring and evaluation process seems to
be working effectively, and there are no clear alternatives for enhancing it at this point.
One element that is missing however, is a Baseline Study. In the pilot phase I, a
Baseline Study and a Progress Report were prepared. The Terminal Evaluation Report
described the Baseline study as excellent, and the two reports as "of great help to the
Evaluation Team." It is not clear that these reports which involved a substantial effort
were used in any other way, but they provide a valuable basis for carrying monitoring
forward. A Baseline Study now needs to be undertaken for the OFMP, documenting the
20
status of ocean fisheries management in 2005 or 2006, and using the GEF IW Indicator
structure.
3.2.6 Delivery Issues to be Addressed
The key delivery issue is the need for FFA to strengthen, improve and speed up
implementation
of
the
in-country
activities
under
the
law/policy/institutional
reform/compliance component. This work should be targeted at Pacific SIDS that are
struggling to participate effectively in the WCPFC and to meet their WCPFC obligations,
especially the reporting obligations, and might involve support to establish national
consultative processes for OFMP activities and oceanic fisheries management where
this is appropriate.
Other delivery issues identified in the review include:
· the need to ensure that alternative IUCN-implemented activities are appropriate, high
quality, and can be effectively implemented within the remaining Project life;
· the opportunity provided by the quality of the Knowledge Management Strategy
Consultancy Report to seriously consider the role and shape of information/
understanding/awareness/communication in oceanic fisheries management generally,
as well as within the OFMP specifically
· planning to reduce the impact of the regional meetings schedule
· preparation of a Baseline Study
21
3.3
Finances
3.3.1 The Budget
A budget summary is given in the table below. 47% of the budget is committed to the
science & monitoring component; 35% to the law/policy/institutional/compliance
component, and the balance to coordination, participation & information services.
1. Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Component
(US$)
1.1 Fishery Monitoring
1,260,000
1.2 Stock assessment
880,000
1.3 Ecosystem Analysis
2,551,000
Data processing/management
150,000
SPC Project Support
306,250
5,147,250
2 Law, Policy and Compliance Component
2.1 Legal Reform
679,000
2.2 Policy Reform
1,849,000
2.3 Institutional Reform
392,000
2.4 Compliance Strengthening
729,000
FFA Project Support
234,850
3,883,850
3. Coordination, Participation and Information Services Component
3.1 Information Strategy
35,000
3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
222,000
3.3 Stakeholder Participation & Awareness Raising
400,000
3.4 Project Management & Coordination
1,159,000
FFA Project Support
99,120
1,915,120
TOTAL
10,946,220
The budget is well understood by the Implementing Agencies who use a more
disaggregated working budget that was developed during the project design.
The main issue with the budget has been the loss in the value of the Project budget from
the related factors of the weakening of the US dollar, and increasing staff costs in a
budget which did not build in any cost increases. Staff costs are currently running at 30-
40% above the budgeted values. This particularly affects the science & monitoring
component. The loss in the value of the budget has largely been managed by sourcing
increased co-financing, especially for consultancies. The situation appears to have been
transparently dealt with at Regional Steering Committee meetings with budget revisions,
and does not generally seem likely to put at risk Project outcomes.
As noted above, one of the issues with the budget is that the aggregated budget at the
level of reporting to UNDP and Pacific SIDS does not separately identify budgets for
regional and national in-country activities, especially in the law/policy/institutional/
compliance component. More detail at this level is available in the working budgets
used by FFA and SPC/OFP. One concern should be to ensure that the budget
22
adjustments to maintain the salary components do not result in any reduction of in-
country activities, by replacing national in-country consultancy and other budgets with
budgets for consultancies for regional activities.
3.3.2 Disbursements
The table below outlines the patterns of disbursements and expenditures by comparison
with the initial Project budget. By December 31 2007, 45% of the way through the life of
the Project, UNDP had disbursed 48% of the Project budget, and 46% of the Project
budget had been spent. This is below the delivery rate provided for in the initial
approved budget which provided for 56% of the budget to be spent by December 2007,
but of the shortfall of around $900,000, $610,000 is due to the failure of the planned
IUCN activities which are now being reprogrammed, and the balance seems largely
attributable to the slow start-up of some of the law/policy/institutional/component. On
balance, the rate of delivery is consistent with full implementation of the Project within its
planned 5 year life, provided the IUCN activities can be speedily programmed and
implemented. If they cannot, these resources should be diverted to other areas of the
Project.
Initial
Received Cumulative
Cumulative
Approved
from
Spent
Cumulative %
% of Total
% of Total
Budget
UNDP
(US$)
of Project Life
Budget
Budget
(US$)
(US$)
2005
668,675
628,676
5.7%
208,139
1.9%
5.0%
2006
2,751,365
1,834,068 22.5%
2,092,871 19.1%
25.0%
2007
2,737,105
2,775,661 47.9%
2,745,510 46.1%
45.0%
2008
2,058,330
2009
1,622,445
2010
1,108,300
10,946,220
From discussion with the PCU and SPC/OFP, the process of disbursement seems to
have gone generally smoothly, after some initial concerns from UNDP about the size of
the advances, and some resulting difficulties with cashflow for the Implementing
Agencies.
3.3.3 Financial Management
This Review has not included any detailed analysis of the Project's financial
management. The Auditor's Reports are satisfactory; reporting between FFA,
SPC/OFP, UNDP and RSC Members seems comprehensive, if a little cumbersome; and
the Project Finance & Administration Officer is widely regarded as highly competent and
diligent. At this level, the financial management of the Project seems exemplary.
It should be noted that all disbursements for national activities are being made by the
Implementing Agencies, even for local purchases. The Project Document is silent on
how disbursements for national activities should be made, and there is a case to be
made for encouraging national disbursement as a way of securing greater participation
and buy-in to national activities. However, national fisheries administrations generally
23
prefer to have disbursements made through FFA or SPC even for local consultancies or
equipment purchases rather than having the payments made to their national treasuries.
This, taken with the very strong financial management capabilities of FFA and SPC, and
the potential difficulties with managing disbursements through such a large number of
small administrations, supports the present approach.
3.3.4 Co-Financing
The large volume and complex pattern of co-financing is an important feature of the
OFMP. There is no specific arrangement within the UNDP/GEF processes for
accounting of co-financing, which seems a weakness for programmes where co-
financing is a relatively important element of the Project design and approval process.
There is therefore no systematic documentation of the volume and pattern of co-
financing for Project activities. However, the obvious strength of support from other
donors and Pacific SIFDS for Project-related activities suggests that the level of co-
financing meets the commitments and projections in the Project document and may well
exceed them substantially.
This area might be covered by the Mid-Term Review (MTR), but in practice, given the
range of other elements of the Project that the MTR is required to address, it is difficult
for the Review team to be able to assess co-financing from scratch. In this situation,
there would be value in the Project preparing a simple assessment of estimated co-
financing that could be made available for the MTR.
3.3.5 Finance Issues to be Addressed
This Review has not identified any financial issues that need to be addressed beyond
the current approaches.
Managing the impact of exchange rate movements and associated cost movements will
himportant to maintain the planned level of commitment to in-country activities within the
budget revisions necessary to respond to cost increases.
There would be value in having a simple analysis of co-financing prepared to assist the
Mid-Term Review team.
24
3.4
Results
3.4.1 Outcomes
After only two years, it is early to make firm assessments of output gains from the
capacity building and institutional development that are the core of the Project. The
following table summarises the responses from the interviews related to some of the key
outcomes targeted by the Project.
Is your delegation better prepared for WCPFC4 Al answered yes, some emphatical y, and identified OFMP contributions to
than WCPFC2 (2005) or not?
these gains from both components - two with reservations related to national
positions not yet being ful y developed and lack of continuity in delegates
Are your national oceanic fisheries management Four answered yes, two others said not yet but expected gains from OFMP
arrangements better than in 2005 or not?
inputs, one wasn't sure - al identified OFMP inputs from both components
that had contributed to these gains or potential gains
What progress has your country made in Three felt that progress was satisfactory and the meeting of commitments
meeting its WCPFC commitments?
was fairly complete, and the other four reported only partial y meeting
commitments for reporting and application of measures. Al reported OFMP
contributions to this progress, especial y from the monitoring and science
component, with several indicating the need for additional legal support.
Is the Commission being effectively established Al considered the Commission was being effectively established, with two
(in terms of staffing, headquarters, budget, noting problems with staffing and the HQ office. Al considered OFMP
research etc ?
inputs had contributed substantial y, noting the dependence on the
Commission's data and science programmes on SPC input, and the
importance of FFA standards and CROP administrative structures
Is the Commission functioning effectively?
Opinions varied, six responded three were positive; three were negative.
Al noted substantial OFMP inputs to the effectiveness of the Commission,
and the Commission's heavy dependence on inputs from FFA Members and
SPC/OFP
Are FFA Pacific Island Countries participating Al considered that FFA Pacific Island countries are participating effectively,
effectively in the work of the Commission?
some noting more could be done and capacity limits. Al noted important
OFMP contributions, especial y from the Briefs, preparatory meetings and
Stock Assessment and Management Options Workshops
In summary:
·
all felt their delegations were better prepared for the Commission meeting in 2007
than two years earlier, and that Pacific SIDS are participating effectively in the
Commission
·
most reported improvement in their oceanic fisheries management arrangements
and others were optimistic about future improvement
·
progress on meeting WCPFC commitments was mixed
·
the Commission is regarded as being generally effectively established in terms of
staffing budget etc but opinions vary about whether it is functioning effectively
OFMP inputs are reported as important to the overall pattern of progress being made.
This measure of perceived achievements of outcomes is satisfactory at this stage. Two
particular uncertainties about achievement of outcomes arising from the above analysis
are worth noting:
25
a) the first is the uncertainty attached to the effectiveness of the functioning of the
Commission. This depends substantially on cooperation from other Commission
Members, especially fishing states; and
b) the second is the apparent unevenness in SIDS progress in meeting their WCPFC
commitments. This supports the proposal discussed above that increased OFMP effort
should be directed at supporting Pacific SIDS in meeting their WCPFC commitments.
This initiative would be helped by having a clearer picture than is currently available of
the pattern of achievements and shortfalls with respect to SIDS WCPFC commitments.
The information is included in the Annual Part II Reports. Preparing a simple summary
of this information would assist the directing of Project resources in this work.
The other reported limits and uncertainties should be noted in Project planning.
3.4.2 Sustainability and Follow-Up
Project Activities: an immediate issue relating to sustainability is that of the sustainability
of project activities specifically, will the kinds of programmes being carried out by FFA
and SPC/OFP and national activities that are being supported be able to continue,
where necessary, when GEF support stops, and in particular, are there actions that
could or should be taken within the Project now to ensure that necessary programmes
do continue?
With respect to the regional activities, there is a difference between the activities under
the two technical components of the Project. The budget of the Law, Policy and
Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening Component is largely committed to
consultancies, workshops and attachments directed towards specific capacity building
activities with relatively little at stake in terms of sustainability. The budget of the
Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement Component on the other hand is
largely committed to funding four posts at SPC/OFP, about which there must be more
concern in terms of sustainability. A major achievement of Pacific SIDS and SPC/OFP
has been to have funding of the stock assessment posts that were GEF-funded in the
first pilot phase taken up within the WCPFC budget, ensuring the sustainability of this
core scientific function. The four posts funded now are for coordination of monitoring,
national scientific support and two scientists working on ecosystem analysis. Within
these efforts, the area that will likely draw attention as the Project progresses is the
ongoing training of observers and port samplers. Taking these training activities along
with the training of inspectors under the Compliance sub-component, there is likely to be
a need to shift the focus of this training from the regional organisations to training service
providers with sustainable cost recovery-based funding. This issue was noted by the
SPC/OFP Programme Manager at RSC3, and some strategic thinking on this issue
should be promoted by the Project.
The pattern at country level is more mixed. There are indications that in many Pacific
SIDS there are growing benefits from oceanic fisheries, there is enhanced awareness of
the need for improved oceanic fisheries management, and increased resources are
being made available to support national oceanic fisheries programmes, especially in
areas such as monitoring, compliance, policy analysis and participation in regional
fisheries affairs. That isn't surprising. It is just as true for example in Australia and New
Zealand, where increased concerns about the quality of marine resource conservation,
management and protection have seen increased resources made available for fisheries
26
management generally, reflecting global trends. However, in Pacific SIDS where the
role of the fisheries sector is relatively small, it has been harder for fisheries
administrators to make the same case for increasing resources available for
programmes such as port sampling, observers, MCS, and meeting participation, and
there will be particular challenges in sustaining national programmes. In large part, the
outcome will depend on the perceived economic value of the increased oceanic fisheries
management efforts that Pacific SIDS are now making and the effectiveness of
awareness raising related to oceanic fisheries management.
The two major issues related to sustainability of Commission-related activities are:
· Funding of the Commission itself, largely from Member contributions, but in future
perhaps from cost recovery charges should not be a major issue because of the
relatively small budget in relation to the value of the fisheries funding issues are
more likely to be political efforts to obstruct Commission activities by tightening
budgets rather than a failure to meet financial commitments.
· Pacific SIDS participation: seems likely to be much less of a problem than it could be
because of the unique provision in the WCPFC financial regulations providing funding
for a participant from each Pacific SIDS member to all WCPFC meetings, including
meetings of working groups and other subsidiary bodies
Follow Up: while it is relatively early in the OFMP execution period, it is important that
planning for any further GEF involvement should begin early enough for a further phase
to be taken into account in planning at the GEF, and within the work programmes of
FFA, SPC and other organisations involved in executing project activities. Any follow up
should also follow logically from what has been a decade long stream of work both on
the WCPFC Convention beginning in earnest with the Majuro meeting of 1997 and the
preparation of the Pacific Islands IW SAP which was also initiated in 1997.
A perspective that might be useful in developing ideas for any follow-up project is this:
· The first pilot phase of GEF assistance focused on the preparation of an international
legal instrument, supporting Pacific SIDS' efforts to "conclude and bring into force the
WCPF Convention".
· The second phase of GEF assistance is being used to support Pacific SIDS efforts in
institutional development and strengthening, as they "participate in the setting up and
initial period of operation of the new Commission that is at the centre of the WCPF
Convention, and as they reform, realign, restructure and strengthen their national
fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities
which the WCPF Convention creates and discharge the new responsibilities which the
Convention requires"
· Within this second phase, significant progress is likely to be made in adopting
conservation and measures and closing the black hole of unregulated high seas
fishing, but the conservation and measures are very much stopgap, aimed at holding
the line and capping fishing effort at recent levels, rather than representing a long-term
strategic approach towards optimal utilisation of the resources and protection of the
WTP LME. For that, there will need to be a more strategic approach, reshaping the
way resources are harvested and cutting back on some forms of use
27
Against this background a further phase of GEF assistance might move on from
institution building to focus on the implementation of measures, including streams of
work on:
·
Strategies and Measures for the sustainable use of target stocks
·
Strategies and Measures for the protection of non-target species affected by
fishing, and for protection of the marine environment
·
Ecosystem analysis and protection, including work on climate change
·
Compliance with measures, possibly based on implementation of the FFA
Regional MCS Strategy by Pacific SIDS
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
The key recommendation of this Review is that the FFA Secretariat should implement a
programme of targeted support to some, generally smaller FFA Members, using both the
resources of the OFMP and other FFA staff resources to strengthen, improve and speed
up implementation of the in-country activities under the law/policy/institutional
reform/compliance component. This work should be targeted at Pacific SIDS that are
struggling to participate in the WCPFC and to meet their WCPFC obligations, especially
the reporting obligations, and might involve support to establish or strengthen national
consultative processes for OFMP activities and oceanic fisheries management where
this is appropriate. It should draw on a broad range of FFA resources including the
availability of FFA technical staff in-country, attachments and FFA workshops, especially
those associated with MCS and the WCPFC TCC.
The other recommendations are as follows:
· the IUCN contribution to the OFMP should be speedily re-designed and committed, to
include activities are appropriate, high quality, and can be effectively implemented
within the remaining Project life;
· the OFMP should seek to create opportunities for improved linkages with Indonesia
and the Philippines
· there should be more engagement with SPREP and GEF focal points
· the opportunity provided by the quality of the Knowledge Management Strategy
Consultancy Report should be taken to seriously consider the role and shape of
information/
understanding/awareness/communication
in
oceanic
fisheries
management generally, as well as within the OFMP specifically
· OFMP-supported meetings should be planned to reduce the impact/burden of the
regional meetings schedule
· a Baseline Study should be prepared
28
· revisions to OFMP budgets needed to manage the impact of exchange rate
movements and associated cost movements should ensure that the planned level of
commitment to in-country activities is maintained
· consideration should be given to the preparation of a simple analysis of co-financing to
assist the Mid-Term Review team.
· The Project should support the preparation of a simple summary of the achievements
and shortfalls of WCPFC commitments by SIDS, based on the information in the
Annual Part II Reports.
29
30
ATTACHMENTS
A.
IW SAP
B.
Summary of Interviews
C.
Participation Analysis
D.
Risk Analysis
E.
Project Budget
F.
Terms of Reference
31
Attachment A
SUMMARY OF THE OCEANIC FISHERIES RELATED ELEMENTS OF THE
STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME
FOR INTERNATIONAL WATERS OF PACIFIC ISLANDS
Goal Integrated sustainable development and management of
International Waters
Priority Concerns: Unsustainable use of resources
Imminent Threats Unsustainable exploitation of resources
Ultimate Root Causes:
Management deficiencies
a) governance
b) understanding
Solutions:
Oceanic Fisheries Management Programme
OFM Activity Areas: - sustainable ocean fisheries
- improved national and regional management
capability
- stock and by-catch monitoring and research
- enhanced national and regional management links
32
Attachment B
ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEWS
Country 1
Country 2
Country 3
Country 4
Is
your
delegation
better Yes,
better
understanding, Yes
Yes, better understanding, but Yes
prepared for WCPFC4 than knowing
the issues, more
national positions not ful y
WCPFC2 (2005) or not?
continuity
developed yet
What is the Project contribution? -
from
a)
the
science/monitoring Better
informed,
analysis, High quality scientific inputs, From the SA workshops
SA workshops outstanding
component
understanding, national reporting
involvement in EAFM, NTFSR
b) the law, policy/institutional Sub-regional MOWs outstanding, MCS proposals, MOWs, briefing From the MO workshops, options Huge - briefs, SR MOWs,
component
the regional MOW, legal gaps papers, FAD mgmt plan
analyses & briefings
draft measures
analysis
Are
your
national
oceanic Yes, plans in place, database Yes
Not real y, but the EAFM & ISP Yes,
more
industry
fisheries
management developed, more personnel
work are expected to improve it
engagement,
greater
arrangements better than in 2005
openness
or not?
What is the Project contribution to
this position? - from
a)
the
science/monitoring SA workshop, NTFSR
Same no. of staff but improved The NTFSR & EAFM inputs wil Nat.
coordinator,
new
component
capacity, in-country training
contribute
appointment,
data
now
flowing
b) the law, policy/institutional Legal advice, WCPO awareness Same, port state workshop
The
ISP
contribution
is Legal, VMS fol owing PC visit
component
workshop, dockside inspection
potential y huge, EAFM work is
training, NPOA-IUU, seabirds,
important, & VMS is working
high seas mgmt
fol owing the visit of the
Coordinator
What progress has your country Yes
Highly effective, data, reporting & OK data is OK, Pt I reporting Data very good, applying al
made in meeting its WCPFC
CMM implementation
OK, not Pt II
the measures, (authorisation,
commitments?
marking etc) reporting on
time
What is the Project contribution to
Moderately effective
this position? - from
a)
the
science/monitoring Basis of al reporting
Data requirements
SPC on Pt I
Large SPC input
component
b) the law, policy/institutional Framing of measures not to be Legislation
Need help on Pt II, and legal Legal
support,
but
no
component
burdensome,
advice
on
analysis is lacking, expected national training
reporting,
nature
of
from ISP
commitments, legal advice
33
Attachment B
Is
the
Commission
being OK
Yes, but it needs more staff
Yes, average
Yes,
but
some
minor
effectively established (in terms
problems in the HQ
of staffing, headquarters, budget,
research etc ?
What is the Project contribution to
this position? - from
a)
the
science/monitoring Significant
Quality of data and scientific Dependent on SPC structures
A lot
component
inputs
b) the law, policy/institutional Largely FFC-driven
FFA Members have made major Admin structures use CROP Regional standards
component
contributions to getting the standards
commission started,
Is the Commission functioning On its way, relatively miles Yes
Not real y
Don't think so
effectively?
ahead
What is the Project contribution? -
from
a)
the
science/monitoring Major inputs
SPC inputs underpin WCPFC Very large contribution to data Helpful
component
scientific work
and science functions
b) the law, policy/institutional Major inputs
Commission outcomes largely Major contributions to MCS, Very helpful
component
driven by FFA ideas, policies and (ROP & VMS esp) measures
proposals for measures
Are FFA Pacific Island Countries Yes, but they can do more, they Becoming more effective over Yes
Not as much as would like,
participating effectively in the stil lack experience, and it is a time
capacity limits, limits on
work of the Commission?
new cultural setting
caucusing
What is the Project contribution to
this position? - from
a)
the
science/monitoring Training, knowledge
See above
SA
workshops,
scientific SPC presentations in internal
component
analyses of options
meetings
increases
understanding
b) the law, policy/institutional MOWs extremely effective
See above
Huge contribution briefs, Very helpful, esp. preparatory
component
workshops
meeting briefs
B.
INPUTS
Have the technical inputs from
the
Project
met
your
expectations/needs:
a) at national level, from
i) science/monitoring component;
Real y good, there when needed
Happy, especial y the science
Yes
OK
i ) the law, policy/institutional Same
Happy
Yes
OK
component
a) at regional level
i) science/monitoring component;
No shortfal
High quality
Yes
OK
i ) the law, policy/institutional No shortfal
High quality
Very much so
OK
component
34
Attachment B
Are there any shortfalls in
technical inputs from the Project
that need to be addressed.
a) at national level, from
i)
the
science/monitoring No
No
No, its OK
National
awareness
and
component;
priorities
i ) the law, policy/institutional No
Maybe
No, its working
Same
component
b) at regional level
i)
the
science/monitoring N0
Its good
No, OK
OK
component;
i ) the law, policy/institutional No
Its good
No, very good
OK
component
C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT &
COORDINATION
How
effective
has
national No NCC, but there is an active Not very effective, using the NCC just set up after Coordinator Need to have one, GEF focal
project
management
& national focal point.
Board, state-based government visit
point under another agency,
coordination been (is there an National coordination is limited processes
not much contact
NCC)? Why?
because it is not worth it, and the
Env Service can't decide
How
effective
has
regional
project management been in
terms of:
a) the Project Coordinating Unit?
No problem, regular contact, Needs more staff, more public Good
Doing good job, contact,
updates
awareness, but smal overhead,
been visited
high delivery
b) The
Regional
Steering Needs 2 days
OK
OK
OK
Committee?
D. OTHER ISSUES/OVERALL
IMPRESSIONS
1. What is the level of awareness of Weak, GEF awareness issues It's a problem
Low
Good at MIMRA
the Project among stakeholders;
handled by another Project
2. What is the impact of the Reduces time for the RSC, too Its a burden, but the meetings Nothing major, its easier when No real impact
schedule of regional fisheries many
meetings,
better are important
they are back-to-back
meetings on national benefits from scheduling is needed
the project?
3. What is the level of Excel ent with Police (Maritime Not good
OK through the Board and at Very high
communication
across
line Affairs), Foreign Affairs, as
higher level
ministries on matters relating to the required with others
Commission
and
country
obligations?
Running wel
Very happy
Very helpful
Very positive
4. Other issues/Impressions
35
Attachment B
Country:
Country 5
Country 6
Country 7
Is your delegation better prepared for Yes, but ..., internal constraints, Obviously yes more vocal, awareness Yes, know the issues and national
WCPFC4 than WCPFC2 (2005) or not?
problem with continuity
of issues, where we should have been 2 positions
years ago
What is the Project contribution? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
SA workshops
Capacity building, new staff,
NTFSR
b) the law, policy/institutional component
MOW, pre-WCPFC FFCs, MCS WG
Very effective brief & workshops
Policy advice, workshops
Are your national oceanic fisheries Yes, more staff, revised data col ection Difficult to say, staff limitations, Not yet, restructuring work with ISP,
management arrangements better protocols
resources are stretched
whole-of-govt problems
than in 2005 or not?
What is the Project contribution to this
position? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
NTFSR in the pipeline, observer Improved data col ection, little bit of data Improving
strengthening, SA workshop
analysis
b) the law, policy/institutional component
None, because of constraints in Identifying legal gaps & amendments Legal gaps analysis, constrained by
capacity to formulate requests
needed, raised stakeholder awareness
availability of senior personnel & FFA
staff
What progress has your country made Scraping through
Not al CMMs are implemented
Constraints in the legal framework,
in meeting its WCPFC commitments?
being done by the ISP
What is the Project contribution to this
position? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
Strong on data, setting up systems, Data obligations met, SPC help with Pt I
Data commitments met with support to
analysing & compiling data
the statistics person, project funded
recruit
b) the law, policy/institutional component
Reporting backup, awareness, legal Not great, need legislative project
Yes, see above
gaps analysis
Is the Commission being effectively Not completed
Yes
Yes
established (in terms of staffing,
headquarters, budget, research etc ?
What is the Project contribution to this
position? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
SPC support
Not known
b) the law, policy/institutional component
Yes, FFA Member proposals from briefs
Regional standards being applied in
admin & MCS, briefings
Is
the
Commission
functioning Not completed
No, not in terms of access to info
Yes
effectively?
What is the Project contribution? - from
a) the science/monitoring component
Provisions of advice
Almost total y dependent on SPC,
including GEF components
b) the law, policy/institutional component
+ve contribution
Heavily dependent on inputs from FFA
Members
36
Attachment B
Are FFA Pacific Island Countries Yes
Yes
Yes
participating effectively in the work of
the Commission?
What is the Project contribution to this
position? from
a) the science/monitoring component
Minor not yet, but SA workshops Info, assessment work
contribute
b) the law, policy/institutional component
A lot, from the briefs & workshops
Yes, pre-WCPFC session col ective
work otherwise we would be lost
B.
INPUTS
Have the technical inputs from the No, because of internal constraints in
Yes
Project met your expectations/needs:
formulating requests
a) at national level, from
i) the science/monitoring component;
See above
Yes
Yes
i ) the law, policy/institutional component
See above
A little bit
Yes
b) at regional level, from
i) the science/monitoring component;
Yes
OK
Definitely yes
i ) the law, policy/institutional component
Yes
Very good
Definitely yes
Are there any shortfalls in technical Yes
inputs from the Project that need to
be addressed.
a) at national level, from
i) the science/monitoring component;
Need NTFSR
No
No, substantial support is available from
an ISP
i ) the law, policy/institutional component
Complete the management plan, Yes, could do more
Same as above
infrastructural, association support
b) at regional level
i) the science/monitoring component;
No
No
No, the support is good as it is
i ) the law, policy/institutional component
No
No
No, same as above, but the papers
could be made available earlier
C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT &
COORDINATION
How effective has national project No, no NCC, little coordination, largely NCC & tuna management body
Not established
management & coordination been (is because of internal circumstances,
there an NCC)? Why?
change in focal point, less buy-in
How effective has regional project
management been in terms of:
a) the PCU?
Hard to say, national y weak, regional y Little
The information is getting out effectively
strong
b) the RSC?
?
Yes, effective
Yes, pleased with it
37
Attachment B
D.
OTHER
ISSUES/OVERALL
IMPRESSIONS
1. What is the level of awareness of the Low
Low
Little
Project among stakeholders;
2. What is the impact of the schedule of To some degree
High
Could not schedule a national WCPO
regional fisheries meetings on national
legal consultation
benefits from the project?
3. What is the level of communication Not much
Good
Poor, also internal y within the Ministry,
across line ministries on matters relating
but quite close at higher levels
to the Commission and country
obligations?
4. Other issues/Impressions
Regional y strong, Niue could make General y very good
Appreciate the Project
better use of opportunities at national
level
38
Attachment C
WCPFC Reporting OFMP
Activities
WCPFC Meeting Participation (no. of delegates)
2007
2007
Pt
I Pt
II
OFMP
SC2
TCC2
WCPFC3 SC3
TCC3 WCPFC4
Total
RSC3
Report
Report
Report
Cook Islands
2
3
4
2
0
3
14
FSM
2
2
4
2
7
9
26
Fiji
3
2
1
2
2
6
16
X
Kiribati
1
2
1
1
2
1
8
X
X
X
Marshall Islands
2
4
4
4
5
17
36
X
Nauru
1
3
5
1
1
3
14
X
Niue
1
1
3
1
1
2
9
X
X
Palau
1
1
3
1
2
9
17
Papua New Guinea
8
13
20
16
6
14
77
X
Samoa
1
2
14
3
2
3
25
X
Solomon Is
1
3
5
0
4
4
17
X
X
Tokelau
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
X
X
Tonga
2
3
1
1
2
1
10
X
Tuvalu
1
2
3
1
1
3
11
X
X
Vanuatu
3
5
4
1
1
6
20
Total FFA
29
47
73
37
37
82
305
11
9
12
11
Japan
11
16
21
14
16
36
114
Time (meeting days)
15
13
12
40
Travel (days)
6
6
6
18
Sub-Regional
Mgmt
Options
Other
Mgmt Options
Workshop
Time
5
4
9
Travel
6
6
12
Total 2007 Meeting days,
Total
with travel
79
39
Attachment D
ANALYSIS OF RISKS IN THE PROJECT LOGFRAME
OVERALL PROJECT OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL
ASSUMPTIONS Assessment at December 2007
INDICATORS
AND RISKS
WCPF Commission has adopted Commission Members make good Too early to judge effectiveness of
measures to regulate fishing in the faith efforts to implement the WCPF overall implementation.
high seas, and has formulated and Convention and other relevant
assessed
proposals
for
the MEAs. PacSIDS have the capacity PacSIDS participation is variable
conservation and management of to effectively participate in the but generally effective, but some
fishing
for
globally
important Commission, and to support the countries
are
having
trouble
transboundary
oceanic
stocks development and operation of the participating effectively
throughout their range. These Commission in a way that fulfils the
proposals
include
measures
to WCPF
Convention.
PacSIDS Too early to be definitive, but most
address the impacts on other species governments and civil societies have PacSIDS are moving to implement
in the globally important WTP the
necessary
awareness
and limits to fishing in their waters
LME. PacSIDS have undertaken commitment to take the hard
reforms to implement the WCPF decisions
involved
in
limiting
Convention and related multilateral fishing in their waters.
environmental agreements (MEAs)
and
have
strengthened
the
management
of
fishing
for
transboundary oceanic fish in their
waters.
Improved
information
on
the Commission Members can establish, No
obvious
problems
with
biology and ecology of target fish resource and manage effective data resourcing of data and research
stocks, including their exploitation and research programmes. Project programmes, except for Indonesia &
characteristics and fishery impacts, mechanisms contribute effectively Philippines
the fishery impacts on non-target, to raising awareness and improving
dependent and associated species understanding
within
PacSIDS Tooearly to assess effectiveness of
and on the pelagic ecosystem as a about
oceanic
fisheries of
raising
of
awareness
and
whole. Substantially improved management.
improving
understanding,
but
understanding
of
Seamount
remains a risk
ecosystems, especially their relation
to migratory pelagic fisheries.
The WCPF Commission established The WCPF Convention is ratified No risk, Ratification comprehensive
and functioning. PacSIDS amend by sufficient states to make the (excl. Indonesia)
their domestic laws and policies and Commission effective. PacSIDS are
strengthen their national fisheries able to secure financing and Slight risk, most PacSIDS seem to
institutions
and
programmes, sufficient political commitment to be securing necessary financing and
especially in the areas of monitoring make necessary legal, institutional commitment, but a few are not
and compliance, to implement the and policy changes.
WCPF Convention and apply the
principles
of
responsible
and
sustainable fisheries management
more generally.
40
Attachment D
COMPONENT ONE - SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING
ENHANCEMENT
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
INDICATORS
RISKS
Substantial, relevant and reliable Commission membership prepared Too early to assess.
information collected and shared to accept scientific findings and
between stakeholders with respect to statistical evidence in formulating
transboundary oceanic fish stocks what
may
be
difficult
policy
and
related
ecosystem
aspects, decisions on management of the
(particularly for seamounts). The fisheries, and difficult management
Commission using this information proposals
for
the
ecosystems.
as the basis for it discussions and Sufficient sustainability available or
policy
decisions
on
WCPF identified through project to support
management.
National
technical national capacity improvements in
capacity and knowledge greatly technical and scientific functions as
improved
well as to support continued regional
data coordination and analyses.
Database and associated software
In place, no risk
developed.
Reporting
modules
available for Commission data.
National
monitoring
systems, National commitment sufficiently Good performance overall, one or
including port sampling and observer strong to ensure allocation of staff
two countries struggling to make
programmes in place. All PacSIDS
appointments, no significant risk
reporting regularly to Commission.
Common
data
formats
made All countries can agree on data No significant risk, generally good
available to PacSIDS, and adopted reporting formats (some may have to progress on data formats and
by
each
country
to
provide change existing formats). Staff reporting
comparable data. Information on available
to
maintain
website.
fishery monitoring including best Countries willing to network with
practice examples, being shared Commission on a regular basis, and
between
stakeholders
through each country agrees on a focal point
newsletters, website and regional for this networking.
workshops.
In-country Courses and training Countries can afford to release staff Some PacSIDS finding it difficult to
activities conducted. Two regional for training and attachments.
send appropriate participants to
workshops
undertaken.
National
workshops
monitoring personnel attached to
SPC/OFP
Collaborative work undertaken on Countries
have
scientific
and CHECK WITH JOHN
National Tuna Fishery Status in 6 technical staff available and willing
countries
annually,
including to undertake national fishery status
presentations at in-country national reports and workshops (with GEF
workshops.
funding assistance)
41
Attachment D
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
INDICATORS
RISKS
Advice on scientific issues provided PacSIDS able to find the financial Assisted by WCPFC financial rules
in briefing papers to PacSIDS before human
resources
to
participate requiring funding
for PacSIDS
each meeting of the Scientific effectively in the scientific processes participation,
PacSIDS
are
Committee and the Commission, and of the Commission
participating effectively overall, but
presented to PacSIDS preparatory
some are struggling and the PacSIDS
meetings.
effort is dependent on a few
experienced individuals
Regional Workshops carried out. PacSIDS can afford to release staff JOHN, HOW SIGNIFICANT IS
National technical and scientific staff for
training
and
attachments THE RISK
trained through attachments and in-
(national
human
resource
country counterpart training.
limitations)
Technical and scientific counterparts
producing independent technical and
scientific analyses by the end of the
Project.
Observer-based data collections and National and regional observer ASK JOHN
lab
analyses
undertaken
in programmes,
including
a
accordance with a workplan for the Commission
programme,
are
ecosystem
analysis
component running and providing data for
established in year 1.
ecosystem analysis. Sufficient
observers available.
Seamount planning and review Sufficient sea-time available to be Seamount-related work at risk due to
workshops carried out. Seamounts able to undertake surveys and lack of progress by IUCN
described, historical fishing patterns complete reports effectively and on-
around seamounts analysed, and time. National scientists available to
seamounts selected as sites for field take part (human resource limitation
work. Field data collected at issues)
selected
seamounts,
including
tagging,
trophic
sampling
and
analysis - 2 cruises per year in years
2, 3, plus 1 cruise to research benthic
biodiversity.
Participation
by
national scientists in field work
supported (2 participants per cruise).
Reports on seamount-associated field
data prepared.
Data incorporated into ecosystem Agreement can be reached on Too early to assess the risk
models. Models enhanced and used realistic options for management to
to
assess
management
options, be assessed. Effective models
including options related to fishing available
and
sufficient
data
around seamounts.
collected to drive models and reach a
scientifically justifiable conclusion
42
Attachment D
COMPONENT TWO - LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM,
REALIGNMENT AND STRENGTHENING
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
WCPF Commission operating with a Commission
remains
effective Too early to assess the risk. Early
formally adopted framework of rules throughout project lifetime and indications are mixed. Commission
and
regulations.
Commission beyond. Countries continue to meet is regarded as being effectively
Secretariat has been established and financial
commitments
to established, but there are doubts
the core science and compliance Commission
to
ensure
its about its likely effectiveness
programmes
and
Committee sustainability. Enormous Convention
structures are operational. PacSIDS area and project system boundary
are
participating
effectively
in can be effectively monitored to
provision of information and in ensure compliance. Programmes of
decision-making and policy adoption information collection and data
process
for
WCPF
fisheries analyses can be sustained throughout
management. National institutions and
beyond
project
lifetime.
and supportive laws and policies PacSIDS able to participate in the
have been reformed effectively to Commission effectively.
support
national
roles
in
Commission and to meet national
commitments
both
to
WCPF
Convention, and to other relevant
MEAs, and global treaties and
conventions.
Legal
and
technical
reviews Appropriate
legal
consultants No
risk,
high
quality
legal
(regional and national) undertaken available within timescale.
consultants are available and being
and results available to regional
used
Legal Consultation. Consultation
carried out.
Templates
for
legal
provisions Country
commitment
to
legal No significant risk, strong national
necessary to implement Convention reviews (consultants cannot be interest and support for legal reviews
provided to PacSIDS. Legal reviews effective without national support
undertaken in PacSIDS which have and transparency)
not already updated their legislation.
Legal reviews and studies on Countries willing to share national No significant risk, good flow of info
Commission and Convention issues legal position and information with the Commission on legal issues.
undertaken and legal briefs for Commission. PacSIDS prepared to PacSIDS
active
in
making
discussion
in
Commission
and make submissions to Commission on submissions on legal issues
related bodies prepared and lodged legal policy issues following this
with countries. Briefs discussed in consultative process
PacSIDS consultations (see 2.1.1)
National and Regional legal training Countries willing to host and No significant risk,
workshops carried out and assessed. participate
in
workshops.
Legal staff attached to relevant Appropriate
national
personnel
institutions and participating in permitted
to
attend.
National
analyses.
specialists available to take part
(human resource limitation issues)
43
Attachment D
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
Plan/policy/strategy
documents Fisheries
Management
Adviser No risk, appointment made
prepared, implemented and reviewed appointed to oversee the Policy
based on feedback and lessons
Reform sub-Component. National
policy-makers accept and adopt
strategies and prepared to make
necessary reforms to implement.
Briefing papers provided to PacSIDS Appropriate
national
personnel No significant risk overall, but some
on establishment of the commission permitted
to
attend.
National PacSIDS are having difficulty
and on regional conservation and specialists available to take part
management
measures. Regional (human resource limitation issues)
consultations and workshops on
Fisheries Management undertaken
annually.
Technical studies on management of Technical capacity available to Seamount-related work at risk due to
oceanic
fisheries
related
to undertake studies within timeframe. lack of progress by IUCN
seamounts undertaken completed Commission continues to operate
and
circulated
to
stakeholders. effectively. Pac SIDS Stakeholders
Workshops
undertaken
for can agree on management measures
stakeholders
on
seamount in order to make proposals.
management issues. Proposals based
on outcomes of seamount policy and
technical analyses considered by
PacSIDS, and if appropriate, the
Commission.
Regional
Policy
Consultation Countries willing to host and No significant risk overall. PacSIDS
workshops carried out. TSC/USP participate
in
workshops. express
strong
support
and
training course developed and on Appropriate
national
personnel appreciation for regional workshops.
offer.
National
Fisheries permitted
to
attend.
National A few PacSIDS having difficulty
Management Seminars available and specialists available to take part with
appropriate
levels
of
workshops carried out. Fisheries (human resource limitation issues)
participation in workshops, courses
Management
personnel
on
& Ministerial meetings
attachment to FFA. Study tours
arranged
to
other
Fisheries
Commissions. Support given to
relevant Ministerial meetings.
Review
the
lessons
and
best Conditions
in
PacSIDS
are No significant risk, strong interest
practices in institutional reform sufficiently common for national and
support
for
Institutional
carried out. Reviews of national best practices to be replicable.
strengthening programmes (ISPs)
fisheries management institutions
carried out. National institutional
reform workshops prepared and
undertaken.
National consultative process carried PacSIDS govts prepared to continue Too early to assess risk
out between stakeholders. National to improve transparency. National
ENGOs and INGOs given support to ENGOs & INGOs exist & have the
empower
their
participation
in capacity to participate. Consultation
oceanic fisheries management
fatigue does not unduly constrain
their participation
44
Attachment D
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
Review the national compliance PacSIDS
willing
to
provide No
significant
risk,
growing
implications
inherent
in
the transparent
information
on willingness
to
share
info
on
Convention,
and
identify compliance procedures and data.
compliance
procedures
and
strengthening
requirements
for
compliance data
national compliance to meet these
implications
Regional consultations to coordinate Sufficient regional capacity and Good
progress
in
enhancing
patrols (air and sea). Advice given willingness to undertake an effective surveillance
capacity,
esp
with
on
MCS
coordination
between level of air and sea patrols
Australian,
also
support
and
PacSIDS and other stakeholder
coordination with US, France, NZ -
countries. Niue Treaty subsidiary
but long term effectiveness of
arrangements prepared
surveillance remains a risk
Technical studies undertaken on Commission Members can find basis Extent of risk not clear. Some good
compliance
issues
relevant
to for
agreement
on
compliance early progress on agreement on high
Convention. Meetings of PacSIDS measures to regulate fishing in the seas B&I, observers, VMS despite
MCS Working Group held. Reports high seas
obstruction from fishing states.
on
regional
compliance
issues
prepared and presented to PacSIDS.
PacSIDS follow up those reports
with proposals in the Commission &
its
Technical
&
Compliance
Committee.
National courses and training on Appropriate
national
personnel No significant risk, strong support
inspection, VMS and other MCS available
for
attachments
and for, and participation in, MCS
issues
undertaken.
National permitted
to
attend.
National training activities
compliance staff attached to FFA specialists available to take part
and/or other established PacSIDS (human resource limitation issues)
compliance and monitoring agencies.
45
Attachment D
COMPONENT
THREE
-
COORDINATION,
PARTICIPATION
AND
INFORMATION SERVICES
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
Project achieving its objectives. National commitment needs to be Too early to assess
Project
implementation
and high to ensure fully participatory
management is fully participatory involvement in project over lifetime.
with appropriate involvement of Stakeholder commitment also needs
stakeholders
at
all
levels. to be high to ensure continued
Information access is transparent and contributions, sometimes at own
simple. Information available is cost. Policy-makers are receptive to
relevant and significant. Public awareness-raising information and
awareness raising at national and presentations.
regional policy level is effective.
High project evaluation ratings.
Project branding, webpage and Staff available to operate and update Website poor, needs attention, some
document
catalogue
system website, Sufficient interest among associated risk to Project outcomes
developed. Webpage operational and stakeholders
to
make
website
updated.
Project
information effective means of communication
materials available.
and information dissemination
Knowledge management strategy Sufficient information and examples Strategy
prepared,
and
some
prepared and adopted.
of best practices to drive a elements may be adopted. Some risk
knowledge management strategy, or to Project outcomes
resources available to develop them.
Regular assessment and evaluations PCU adheres to reporting and No apparent risk, PCU reporting &
of performance and delivery as per evaluation
requirements evaluation performance seems good.
UNDP and GEF requirements
(responsibility of IA)
Process,
Stress
Reduction
and IW indicators developed for project Indicators identified, but not closely
Environmental
Status
indicators are effective and comprehensive. integrated into the Project. No
adopted.
National
review
and Sufficient national and regional apparent risk
assessment mechanisms in place by capacity to collect information on
end of year 1.
status of IW indicators. Effective
support from project.
Co-financing agreements in place Commission members agree to Risk & assumption statement not
with Pacific ENGO. An ENGO ENGO
participation.
ENGO well framed. No significant risk.
participating
in
Commission. identified that is appropriate willing WWF
co-financing
agreement
Information packages circulated to to participate. Civil society has concluded. 5 ENGOs attaended
ENGOs
(including
access
to sufficient interest in oceanic fisheries WCPFC4.
website). National and regional to participate.
ENGO
workshops
carried
out.
Public
Awareness
materials
developed and distributed. National
fora for civil society participation
organised.
46
Attachment D
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
INDICATORS
RISKS
Co-financing agreements in place Commission members agree to Risk & assumption statement not
with Pacific Industry NGO. An INGO participation. INGO identified well framed. No significant risk.
INGO participating in Commission. that
is
appropriate
willing
to PITIA participating in the project
Information packages circulated to participate.
and as observer to the WCPFC
INGOs (including access to website)
and
national/regional
INGO
workshops
carried
out
as
appropriate.
Project Coordinator and other PCU Effective and acceptable Project No risk, PCU operational and
staff appointed. Necessary PCU Coordinator
identified
within effective,
good
IA
&
EA
support equipment procured.
timeframe Project staff hired at performance
appropriate time to suit workplan
(and not too late to be of use).
Realistic equipment procurement
plan developed and adopted by PCU
at earliest opportunity. IA and EA
efficient in authorising expenditure
of funds for procurement.
Initial EA/IA consultations carried Appropriate EAs and IAs in project. No risk, EAs & IAs are appropriate
out.
Necessary
LoA
finalised Clear understanding of importance
between EAs and IA. On-going of on-going consultative process
consultations between EAs and IA
throughout project lifetime
Inception workshop carried out to All attendees committed to attending No risk, 14 of 15 PICs attended
begin project. Regular Steering Inception Workshop. Appropriate RSC1,
Committees thereafter
presentations
to
ensure
good
understanding or project process.
National Focal Points nominated and Appropriate NFPs adopted by Significant risk, lack of commitment
approved.
National
Consultative countries. Country commitment to to NCCs
Committees active
NCCs.
Appropriate
level
of
membership on NCCs.
Regular reporting as required by PCU fully aware of reporting No risk, reporting requirements
GEF, IAs and Steering Committee
requirements (assisted and advised appear well understood by PCU
effectively by IA)
47
Attachment E
OFMP PROJECT WORKING BUDGET (IUCN BUDGET NOT ALLOCATED BY YEAR)
COMPONENT 1
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 8
Total
1.1 Fishery Monitoring
Monitoring Specialist
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
Monitoring Consultants
20,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
130,000
Travel
18,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
19,000
100,000
Regional
Fishery
Monitoring
Consultations/Workshops
42,000
42,000
84,000
Monitoring Attachments
9,000
15,000
15,000
12,000
9,000
60,000
National Coordinators
60,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
380,000
Computer equipment/support
3,000
3,000
6,000
Sub-total Fishery Monitoring
210,000
288,000
246,000
288,000
228,000
1,260,000
1.2 Stock Assessment
Stock Assessment Specialist
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
Stock Assessment Consultants
20,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
130,000
Travel
18,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
19,000
100,000
Regional Stock Assessment Workshops
42,000
42,000
84,000
Stock Assessment Attachments
9,000
15,000
15,000
12,000
9,000
60,000
Computer equipment/support
3,000
3,000
6,000
Sub-total Stock Assessment
150,000
208,000
166,000
208,000
148,000
880,000
1.3 Ecosystem Analysis
SPC
Ecosystem Analyst
50,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
450,000
Ecosystem Monitoring Specialist
100,000
100,000
100,000
50,000
350,000
Travel
33,000
33,000
33,000
33,000
10,000
142,000
Consultant services - tissue sample analysis
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
60,000
Consultant services - seamount mapping
50,000
50,000
48
Attachment E
Field Operations
Vessel charter and associated costs
315,000
315,000
630,000
Equipment
100,000
50,000
50,000
200,000
Field assistance
60,000
60,000
120,000
Travel
16,000
16,000
32,000
National involvement in field operations
7,500
7,500
15,000
Observer sampling support
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
100,000
Computer equipment
8,000
4,000
12,000
Planning Workshop
20,000
20,000
Attachments
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
12,000
Review workshop
42,000
42,000
Sub-total SPC
401,000
724,500
728,500
226,000
155,000
2,235,000
IUCN
Short-term Consultants
96,000
Cruise participation costs
50,000
Equipment for cruises
50,000
Activity coordinator
60,000
Communications/awareness materials
20,000
Coordination/Quality Assurance
40,000
Sub-total IUCN
316,000
Sub-Total Ecosystem Analysis
2,551,000
SPC Data processing/management
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
150,000
SPC Project Support
53,270
85,435
79,835
50,540
37,170
306,250
COMPONENT TOTAL
844,270
1,335,935
1,250,335
802,540
598,170
5,147,250
COMPONENT 2
2.1 Legal Reform
Legal Consultants
72,000
72,000
72,000
72,000
72,000
360,000
49
Attachment E
Regional Legal Workshops
60,000
60,000
60,000
180,000
National Law/Prosecution Workshops
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
Legal Attachments
6,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
6,000
39,000
Sub-Total Legal Reform
158,000
101,000
161,000
101,000
158,000
679,000
2.2 Policy Reform
FFA
Fisheries Management Adviser
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
Travel
20,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
130,000
Computer
5,000
5,000
Fisheries Management Consultants
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
Regional Policy Consultations/Workshops
0
0
0
0
0
0
Policy Training Course
0
70,000
0
0
0
70,000
National Fisheries Management Workshops
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
140,000
High Level Meetings
20,000
10,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
70,000
Equipment
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
25,000
Office Improvements
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
Policy Attachments/Study Tours
10,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
65,000
Sub-Total FFA
300,000
370,000
310,000
300,000
275,000
1,555,000
IUCN
Short-term Consultants
144,000
Travel
40,000
Workshops
60,000
Communications
10,000
Coordination & Quality Assurance
40,000
Sub-Total IUCN
294,000
Sub-Total Policy Reform
1,849,000
2.3 Institutional Reform
50
Attachment E
Institutional Reform Consultants
48,000
72,000
72,000
72,000
48,000
312,000
National Institutional Reform Workshops
10,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
80,000
Sub-Total Institutional Reform
58,000
92,000
92,000
92,000
58,000
392,000
2.4 Compliance Strengthening
Compliance Consultants
40,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
40,000
260,000
Regional MCS Consultations/ Working Groups
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
300,000
National MCS Courses/Workshops
20,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
130,000
MCS Attachments/Study Tours
6,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
6,000
39,000
Sub-Total Compliance Strenghtening
126,000
159,000
159,000
159,000
126,000
729,000
FFA Project Support
44,940
50,540
50,540
45,640
43,190
234,850
COMPONENT TOTAL
686,940
772,540
772,540
697,640
660,190
3,883,850
COMPONENT 3
3.1 Project Information System
Communications Consultants
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
15,000
Printing/Materials etc
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
20,000
Sub total Project Information System
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
35,000
3.2 Monitoring & Evaluation
Inception Workshop
60,000
60,000
Baseline Study
15,000
15,000
Evaluations
0
0
50,000
0
50,000
50,000
150,000
Annual reviews
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
40,000
Auditing
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
15,000
M&E Total
88,000
13,000
63,000
13,000
53,000
50,000
280,000
51
Attachment E
3.3 Stakeholder Participation & Awareness
Raising
Environmental NGO Participation & Awareness
Raising
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
200,000
Private Sector Participation & Awareness Raising
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
200,000
Stakeholder Total
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
400,000
3.4 Project Management & Coordination
Coordinator
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
500,000
Travel
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
150,000
Accountant
15,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
95,000
Training
5,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
0
12,500
Consultancies
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
Sundries
2,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
2,500
20,000
Office Eqpt etc
5,000
2,500
2,500
0
0
10,000
Reg. Steering Committee
0
20,000
50,000
20,000
20,000
110,000
National Consultative Committees
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
37,500
PCU Total
185,000
207,500
237,500
205,000
200,000
1,035,000
FFA Overhead (10%)
27,900
22,650
30,650
22,400
25,900
5,000
134,500
TOTAL
386,900
329,150
417,150
326,400
364,900
55,000
1,879,500
PROJECT TOTAL
1,926,860
2,448,485
2,448,485
1,836,980
1,621,910
53,500
10,946,220
52
Attachment F
Terms of reference
Annual Review of the Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries
Management Project (PIM 2992)
Background
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) commenced
in late 2005 and seeks to assist Pacific SIDS improve sustainable development through
the conservation and management of transboundary oceanic fisheries.
Project monitoring and evaluation requirements for the project include the need to
conduct annual evaluations in the second, third and four years of the project. The project
has been operational for two years. Further a mid-term evaluation is expected to be
completed by late 2008 and it is anticipated that the outcomes of the first of the three
project annual reviews will contribute to the analysis performed by the independent mid-
term evaluation consultancy.
The annual review will take the opportunity to identify, comment and provide
recommendations for issues that have arisen over the course of project implementation
to date. It will in the first instance address the critical assumptions and risks identified
during the design of the project to analyse those events and their impacts on project
implementation and outcomes.
Objective
The objectives of the annual evaluation are:
iii)
to identify specific issues, difficulties or problems in the implementation
and performance of the Project that involve risks to the achievement of
Project objectives, particularly any such aspects that might not have been
identified in the Project reporting and review processes to date; and
iv)
to make recommendations for necessary amendments and improvements
for the implementation of the project associated with the risks identified.
Responsibilities (Scope)
The scope of the work to be undertaken will include; but not be limited to:
i)
Assessing the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the project and the
sustainability of outcomes to date;
ii)
review and highlight the issues, difficulties and problems faced, lessons
learned and successes achieved, paying particular attention to, among
other things:
· The level of project awareness by stakeholders;
· Impacts of negative financial events (salary increases,
exchange rate losses etc) on the overall project budget;
53
Attachment F
· The value and delivery of the project and overall progress by
countries in meeting their Commission commitments;
· Identification of activities and outputs not on target and
recommend ways in which to address matters (briefly);
· Impact of schedule of regional fisheries meetings on benefits
that Pacific SIDS should incur from the project; and
· Level of communication across line ministries at national levels
on matters relating to the Commission and country obligations.
Review Requirements
Services rendered between the beginning of the review and the acceptance of the final
report should span no more than two calendar months from November 2007 to February
2008. The review should commence late November 2007.
The review phases will include:
· Interviews with Pacific SIDS, SPC, WWF, Industry and other relevant
stakeholders in the margins of the Commission meetings to be held at Guam
between 26 November 7 December 2007;
· Briefing meeting with the PCU at Honiara, Solomon Islands 17 - 21 December
2007;
· Draft review report and submission to PCU; and
· Submit final report.
Expected Outcomes
The outcomes of the review will include:
· The interviewing of relevant project stakeholders and records of the interviews;
· Advice to the PCU in a preliminary report identifying issues, difficulties or
problems that are impacting the project implementation and recommendations
with which to address the issues;
· A professional review report.
54