REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE
4th Meeting of the RSC
Apia, Samoa
17 - 18 October 2008
Paper Number
RSC4/WP.7
Title
MID-TERM PROJECT REVIEW OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS
OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Summary
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) is required
to monitor and evaluate in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures.
A prescribed suite of evaluation and monitoring tools are set out in the Project
Document. In addition to internal monitoring and evaluation processes, a series of
independent evaluations are also required through contract using a balanced group
of independent experts selected by UNDP in consultation with the Pacific Islands
Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). The first of the critical independent monitoring and
evaluation events is the Mid-term review.
The mid point of the OFM Project fell at the end of the first quarter in 2008. The third
meeting of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) at its meeting in the Cook Islands
in October of 2007 endorsed a process for the conduct of the Mid-term Review.
Through a process of interviews and consultations with the relevant project
stakeholders, the appointed consultants completed the review and presented UNDP
with their final report. The consultancy Team Leader, Dr Leon Zann will present the
findings and recommendations to the fourth meeting of the RSC to held at Apia,
Samoa, 17 18 October 2008 and UNDP will present management responses to the
review.
Discussion and decisions by RSC will be captured in the record of proceedings and a
revised document of UNDP Management Responses.
Recommendation
The Regional Steering Committee is invited to:
i)
Discuss and provide comment on the Mid-term Review, its evaluation
and recommendations in parallel with the preliminary Project
management responses;
ii)
Consider and comment on the UNDP Management Responses,
provide feedback and endorse the appropriate actions that need to
implemented; and
iii)
Agree to the finalised UNDP Management Response report for
submission to the UNDP Evaluation Centre.
MID-TERM PROJECT REVIEW OF THE
PACIFIC ISLANDS OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Introduction
1.
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) is
required to undergo a full package of independent monitoring through contract using
a balanced group of independent experts selected by UNDP in consultation with the
FFA. This package includes a mid-point review that will focus on project relevance,
performance (effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness), issues requiring decisions and
actions and initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and
management. The review is also expected to seek to identify best lessons and
practices for GEF projects which are transferrable and replicable.
Mid-term review arrangements
2.
The third meeting of the project Regional Steering Committee (RSC3) held at
Rarotonga, Cook Islands in October 2007 endorsed a process with which to
undertake the Mid-Term Review (MTR) for the project. They agreed that UNDP
would contract two consultants that would be engaged for the work based on a
combination of two options (2 & 4 of the UNDP presentation at RSC3) suggested by
UNDP.
3.
UNDP advised on 16 April 2008 of the selection of Drs Leon Zann and Veikila
Vuki as team leader and regional resource specialist respectively. Through a process
of stakeholder interviews and consultations the consultants prepared and presented
to UNDP a draft report which was made available by UNDP for initial comments on
21 June 2008 and cleared for wider circulation to project participating countries and
executing agencies by UNDP on 14 August 2008.
Review Outcomes
4.
A copy of the final Mid-term Review report is appended at Attachment A.
The report and its conclusions will be presented to RSC4 by UNDP and the
consultancy Team Leader Dr Leon Zann for further discussion.
5.
A further requirement for project monitoring at UNDP is to provide a
management response to the recommendations made in the MTR. The management
responses to the review seek to explain which corrective measures should be taken
to implement the recommendations, and to also provide explanations of why some
recommendations of the review can not be addressed. A set of draft responses have
been complied by the UNDP Technical Advisor and Project Coordination Unit which
are appended at Attachment B set out in a standardised UNDP format.
6.
The management responses prepared are to be considered by RSC4 with the
view to agree on and endorse the appropriate actions that are required before UNDP
is able to forward a finalised version to the UNDP Evaluation Centre.
Other Independent Evaluations
7.
The Project Document details in the indicative monitoring and evaluation work
plan a further two critical evaluation events. The Project will be required to undertake
a final evaluation (referred to as the Terminal Evaluation) that will focus on similar
issues as the mid-term review but will also look at early signs of potential impact and
RSC4/WP.7
2
sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the
achievement of global environmental goals. From this recommendations on follow-up
activities will also be provided.
8.
Provision is also made for a post-project evaluation that will be undertaken in
the third year after the completion of the technical activities1 of the Project. In order
to accommodate the budgeting for such post-project evaluation, the Project lifetime
will be extended by up to three years beyond the expected completion of all other
project activities and deliverables.
Recommendation
9.
The Regional Steering Committee is invited to:
i)
Discuss and provide comment on the Mid-term Review, its evaluation
and recommendations in parallel with the preliminary Project
management responses;
ii)
Consider and comment on the UNDP Management Responses,
provide feedback and endorse the appropriate actions that need to
implemented; and
iii)
Agree to the finalised UNDP Management Response report for
submission to the UNDP Evaluation Centre.
1 End of the third quarter 2010.
RSC4/WP.7
3
ATTACHMENT A
MID TERM EVALUATION
Governments of Cook islands, Federated Sates of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands,
Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu,
Vanuatu
United Nations Development Programme
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
To achieve global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of
trans-boundary oceanic fishery resources in the Pacific islands region and the protection of
the biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool LME.
RSC4/WP.7
4
ATTACHMENT A
PREFACE
This Mid Term Evaluation report sets out findings, lessons learnt and recommendations for
the UNDP/GEF Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project). The
report is developed in compliance with the terms of reference for the assignment. The
conclusions and recommendations set out in the following pages are solely those of the
evaluators and are not binding on the project management and sponsors.
The authors would like to thank all who assisted in the Mid Term Evaluation, particularly Alvin
Chandra (UNDP), Barbara Hanchard (FFA OFM Coordinator) and Les Clark (Ray Research),
and the country representatives who consented to be interviewed.
·
Contacts
Team Leader:
Leon Zann BSc Hons PhD
SPEER Consultants
4 Sunderland Street
Evans Head, New South Wales 2473
Australia
lpzann@hotmail.com
Regional Resource Specialist:
Veikila Vuki BSc MSc PhD
PO Box 5214, UOG Station,
Mangilao,
Guam 96913.
vuki61@yahoo.co.uk
UNDP Project code PIMS 2992
Date June 15 2008
RSC4/WP.7
5
ATTACHMENT A
GLOSSARY
List of acronyms and abbreviations
APR Annual Project Review
CROP Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific
DEVFISH Development Of Tuna Fisheries In Pacific ACP Countries (EU Project)
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
ENGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation
EU European Union
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation
FFA Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
FSPI Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific, International
GEF Global Environment Facility
ICWM Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management
IUCN The World Conservation Union
IW International Waters (focal area of the GEF)
LME Large Marine Ecosystem
MDGs Millenium Development Goals
NCC National Consultative Committee
NFP National Focal Point
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OF Oceanic fisheries
OFM Oceanic Fisheries Management
OFP Oceanic Fisheries Programme (of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community)
Pacific SIDS Pacific Small Island Developing States
PCU Project Coordinating Unit
PITA Pacific Islands Tuna Association
Prodoc OFM Project Document
RSC Regional Steering Committee
SAP Strategic Action Programme
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP Pacific Regional Environment Programme
UN United Nations
UNCED United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
US United States
USP University of the South Pacific
WCPF Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
WCPF Convention
WCPF Commisssion
WTP Western Tropical Pacific
WTP WP LME Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem
WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature
RSC4/WP.7
6
ATTACHMENT A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and context
1.2. Objective and Purpose of the Mid-term Evaluation
2. Project and development context
2.1. Logic and objectives
2.2. Components, outputs and activities
3. Approach and methodology of Mid-Term Evaluation
3.1. Approach
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Desk study, literature review
3.2.2. Site visits
3.2.3. Consultation and questionnaires
3.3. Evaluation Team
4. Results
4.1 Project Impact
4.1.1. General achievements
4.1.2. Sustainable oceanic fisheries management
4.1.3. Capacities of Pacific SIDS
4.1.4. Governance
4.1.5. Intended beneficiaries
4.1.6. Lessons learnt and sustainability of results
4.1.7. Recommendations from results
4.2 Project Design
4.2.1. Relevance of overall design
4.2.2. Relevance to capacity development and sustainability
4.2.3. Impacts on root causes
4.2.4. Effectiveness
4.2.5. Potential for replication
4.3. Project Management and Administration
4.3.1. General effectiveness
4.3.2. Implementing agency UNDP
4.3.3. Executing agency FFA
4.3.4. SPC
4.3.5. IUCN
4.4. Project Implementation
4.4.1. Efficiency and cost effectiveness
4.4.2. Applicability of logical framework tool
4.4.3. Project reporting
4.4.4. Information dissemination
4.4.6. Adaptive management processes
4.4.7. Partnership arrangements
4.4.8. Cross-cutting issues
4.4.9. Coordinating mechanisms
4.5. Project Finances
4.5.1. Budget procedures
4.5.2. Disbursements and spending
4.5.3. Actual spending and budget expectations
4.5.4. Co-financing and leverage
4.5.5. Effectiveness
RSC4/WP.7
7
ATTACHMENT A
4.6. Lessons learned
4.6.1. Country ownership/driveness
4.6.2. Regional cooperation and inter-governmental cooperation
4.6.3. Stakeholder participation
4.6.4. Adaptive management processes
4.6.5. Efforts to secure sustainability
4.6.6. Role of M&E in project implementation
4.7. Summary and explanation of findings and interpretations
5. Recommendations
5.1. Corrective actions for the design, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of the project
5.2. Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the
project
5.3. Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
-----------------------------------------------
ANNEXES
1. TOR
2. Itinerary
3. List of persons interviewed
4. Summary of country visits
5. List of documents reviewed
6. Questionnaire used and summary of results
7. OFM Project Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
8. OFM Project FFA Annual workplan and activities
9. OFM Project Logical framework
RSC4/WP.7
8
ATTACHMENT A
Executive summary
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (OFM Project) has been
developed to assist Pacific SIDs sustainably manage their oceanic oceanic resources, which
include the world's largest stocks of highly migratory tunas, and conserve ocean biodiversity.
The Project is large in scope and complex in design. It spans a vast area, around 40 million
sq km of the Central Western Pacific, and the jurisdictions of 15 Pacific Island nations and
territories. It is a multi-governmental, five year project (2005-2010), funded by US$
11,644,285 from Global Environment Facility (GEF) and US$ 79,091,993 of co-financing from
participating countries, regional organisations and other sources. At the mid-term of the OFM,
the GEF Implementing Agency, UNDP, has commissioned this MTE to assess progress,
provide feedback on lessons learnt and future directions.
The MTE found that the Project was well designed and implemented, and has already had a
significant impact on the immediate regional objectives (i.e. improved OFM in Pacific SIDS,
and sustainable development of resources), and contributed to its wider global objectives (i.e.
management of oceanic fishery and oceanic biodiversity). The capacities of most Pacific
SIDS to meet their obligations under the WCTF Convention have been substantially
enhanced, and the performance and outcomes of the Project were highly rated by the WCPF
Commission. However, it is evident that smaller, less developed Pacific SIDs require greater
levels of support. This is occurring in some countries through bilateral funding. As capacity-
building in the Project has largely focused on immediate objectives (needs under the WCPF
Convention), long-term, more strategic capacity-building will be required in the future. The
commencement of one component, the IUCN Seamounts study, as been delayed for matters
beyond the organisation's control but has now been redesigned and will commence in the
near future.
Project management and administration is rated as very efficient and effective. UNDP, the
GEF Implementing Agency has been efficient and responsive. Its bureaucratic procedures
were initially considered onerous by the Executing Agency (FFA) resulting in some delays in
disbursements, but these issues since have been resolved. FFA, a regional body with 30
years experience in OFM, has been very effective in its key role. Project management and
coordination, undertaken by the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) within FFA has been
effective. However, the PCU is under-resourced for such a large project, and does not have
resources for regular country visits and information dissemination. SPC, the main scientific
organisation, has also been effective in increasing knowledge of the status of oceanic
fisheries. However, a number of countries indicated their desire for greater capacity in this
area.
Financial management by FFA was ranked highly and financial procedures, disbursements
and spending have been effective. However, the decline in the US$ has created significant
problems, requiring some reallocations of budgets in the second term. The weakening in the
US$ will contribute to the loss in the value of the Project budget and staff costs, particularly in
SPC's scientific assessment and monitoring component. The loss in the value of the budget
has been effectively managed by increasing co-financing. While it is not possible to comment
on the co-financing and contributions in kind of the regional partners, the high level of the
commitment does indicate their overall effectiveness. Leverage funding to date has been
substantial and further external funds are foreshadowed. This will greatly assist in
sustainability of the Project. The overall cost/effectiveness, risk assessment and adaptive
management were rated highly, but quantitative indicators should be developed for monitoring
and assessment of progress. Cross-cutting issues of institutional strengthening, national
development and innovation (cornerstones of the Project) have been very well addressed, but
gender, equity and human rights were not explicitly addressed in the Project design.
The positive negative lessons learnt from the Project include: its strong emphasis on planning
and design and engagement of stakeholders; reducing risks in implementation through the
utilisation of existing resources, organizations and arrangements; and maximising stakeholder
participation and collaboration through partnership arrangements. The OFM Project is an
appropriate model for other regional, multi-stakeholder and inter-governmental projects.
RSC4/WP.7
9
ATTACHMENT A
However, long-term sustainability of the Project objectives will require longer-term, strategic
approaches to capacity-building.
Recommendations relating to the second term of the OFM Project include: the need for
greater coordinated and integrated approaches in the Seamount research component; greater
involvement of interested Pacific SIDs in oceanic fisheries science; identification of
appropriate indicators for monitoring progress and final evaluation of the Project; a focused
information dissemination and media programme; need for greater collaboration with other
CROP agencies (e.g. USP, SPREP); need for closer linkages with the Pacific Plan and
Pacific Forum Secretariat; and need for additional support to the FFA PCU to enable greater
focus on information dissemination, monitoring and reporting, and future project development.
New initiatives recommended are that planning is commenced as soon as possible on a new
project to focus on longer-term capacity building in OFM, especially on the smaller and less
developed Pacific SIDs. As the small populations and technical capacities of the smallest
Pacific SIDS are insufficient for a comprehensive technical OFM capacity, new approaches
are also recommended to assist them in OFM (e.g. collaborative, sub-regional approaches;
staff attachments for national OFM officers at FFA; specialist staff or consultants at FFA to
look after their interests).
RSC4/WP.7
10
ATTACHMENT A
1. Introduction
The Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Project is a globally important
project spanning around 40 million sq km of the Central Western Pacific region (over 10% of
the entire world's surface), and the jurisdictions of 15 Pacific Island nations and territories.
The region is encompassed by the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool (WTPWP) Large
Marine Ecosystem, a oceanographically complex and variable, and scientifically poorly
known, waterbody of great global biodiversity and fisheries value. This supports the world's
largest stocks of oceanic fisheries, including about one third of the world's tuna landings.
These are migratory species which cross vast distances of ocean and many national
jurisdictions, necessitating large scale, international, collaborative approaches to
management.
1.1. Background and Context
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have special conditions and needs that were identified
for international attention in the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable
Development of SIDS, and in the World Summit for Sustainable Development's
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation which specifically calls for support for the Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (the WCPF Convention). The third phase of the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF-3) identified sustainable management of regional fish stocks as
one of the major environmental issues SIDS have in common, and as a target for activities
under the SIDS component of OP 9, the Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area
Operational Programme. The GEF-3 also promoted the adoption of an ecosystem-based
approach to addressing environmental problems under the Large Marine Ecosystem
Component of OP 8, the Waterbody-Based Operational Program. In the current fourth phase
of the GEF (GEF-4), the priorities from GEF-3 has been further sharpened and articulated into
strategic programmes (SPs). The OFM project is consistent with SP1 on `Restoring and
Sustaining Coastal and Marine Fish Stocks and Associated Biological Diversity'.
The OFM Project is the second phase of GEF/IW support for Pacific SIDs to enhance
management of fishery resources and to protect ocean biodiversity. The initial, pilot phase,
the GEF International Waters (IW) South Pacific Strategic Action Programme (SAP), provided
support for OFM, assisted in the conclusion of the Wesern Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention (WCPF Convention) and in the developed the present Project. The OFM Project
now provides support for Pacific SIDS efforts as they commence participation in the
establishment and initial period of operation of the new WCPF Commission. This necessitates
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 to discharge the new responsibilities which the Convention requires.
The OFM Project is a multi-governmental, five year project (2005-2010), with a total cost of
US$ 90,736,217, comprising US$ 11,644,285 from Global Environment Facility (GEF) and
US$ 79,091,993 of co-financing from participating governments, regional organisations,
industry, fishing nations and other sources. The OFM Project is implemented by the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP), and executed by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA).
The major objectives of the OFM Project address: (a) the threats to the sustainability of the
use of the region's oceanic fish resources identified in the SAP (ie the lack of understanding
and the weaknesses in governance relating to oceanic fisheries in the International Waters in
the region); and (b) the need for improved understanding of transboundary oceanic fisheries
resources and create new regional institutional arrangements as well as realigning, reforming
and strengthening national arrangements for the conservation and management of
transboundary oceanic fishery resources. The OFM Project Document (PRODOC) and its
Annexes describe full details of the project.
RSC4/WP.7
11
ATTACHMENT A
1.2. Mid-term Evaluation (MTE)
In accord with the accountability and adaptive management policies of GEF and UNDP,
MTEs are undertaken to identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards
the achievement of objectives, identify and document lessons learned and repeatability, and
to make recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the
project. They identify strengths and weaknesses, and provide an evaluation of the
implementation and management of the project by identifying factors that have facilitated or
impeded the achievements of the project objectives and outputs. MTEs also provide
recommendations and lessons learned to assist on defining future directions for the project.
The key beneficiaries for the MTE include the GEF (and the global community), UNDP,
Pacific SIDS, Pacific regional organizations, relevant donor organizations and industry and
environment non-government organizations.
The objectives of this MTE are to examine initial results for possible amendments and
improvements; promote financial accountability; and provide early feedback on progress, and
lessons learned. (The background and TOR for the MTE are contained in Annex 1).
RSC4/WP.7
12
ATTACHMENT A
2. The OFM Project and its development context
The background and context of the OFM Project are described in detail in the PRODOC, and
summarised above (1.1). The following examines the logic of the Project, and its major
components, outcomes and activities.
2.1. Logic and objectives
The logic of the OFMP flows from the structure of the IW Pacific Islands SAP. It has two main
goals, targeting: (a) global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and
management of trans-boundary 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 (b) enhanced contributions to Pacific SIDS sustainable development from
improved management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery resources and from the
conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity generally.
The OFM Project 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. These are the: (a)
Information and Knowledge objectives (to improve understanding of the trans-boundary
oceanic fish resources and related features of the Western and Central Pacific Warm Pool
Large Marine Ecosystem); and (b) Governance objectives (to create new regional institutional
arrangements and reform, realign and strengthen national arrangements for conservation and
management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery resources.
The Project has two major technical components associated with the above objectives, and a
support component: (a) Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement Component to
provide improved scientific information and knowledge on the oceanic trans-boundary fish
stocks and related ecosystem aspects of the WTP LME and to strengthen the national
capacities of Pacific SIDS in these areas. (b) Law, Policy and Institutional Reform,
Realignment and Strengthening Component to support Pacific SIDS as they participate in the
earliest stages of the work of the new WCPF Commission, and at the same time to reform,
realign and strengthen their national laws, policies, institutions and programmes relating to
management of trans-boundary oceanic fisheries and protection of marine biodiversity. (c)
Coordination, Participation and Information Services Component for effective project
management, complemented by mechanisms to increase participation and raise awareness
of the conservation and management of oceanic resources and the oceanic environment.
2.2. Stakeholders and targeted beneficiaries
The stakeholders and targeted beneficiaries of the OFM Project include: the Global
Community; Pacific Islanders dependent on oceanic fish resources; Pacific Island
communities; other users of the oceanic fish resources of the region; government sectors;
technical and policy personnel in government agencies; the private sector; national, regional
and global NGOs concerned with conservation of oceanic fish resources and protection of the
marine environment, including the WCPF Commission; other island communities and other
SIDS geographical groups, regional organizations participating in the Project and those whom
they serve.
2.3. Project components and outcomes
The Project comprises three main Components, 11 Subcomponents, 36 Outputs and 109
specific Activities. Details are provided in the PRODOC, and the modified FFA OFM Project
Annual Work Plan (Annex 8). The following summarises the components and their expected
outcomes.
RSC4/WP.7
13
ATTACHMENT A
OFM Project Components and Outcomes
COMPONENT 1: SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING ENHANCEMENT
SUB-COMPONENT 1.1. FISHERY MONITORING, COORDINATION AND ENHANCEMENT
Outcome: Integrated and economically sustainable national monitoring programmes in place including
catch and effort, observer, port sampling and landing data; Pacific SIDS providing data to the
Commission in the form required; national capacities to process and analyse data for national
monitoring needs enhanced; improved information on fishing in national waters and by national fleets
being used for national policy making and to inform national positions at the Commission. Enhanced
quality and accessibility of fisheries information and data leading to more effective development and
improvement of the Commission's policy and decision-making process
SUB-COMPONENT 1.2. STOCK ASSESSMENT
Outcomes: Detailed information available on the status of national tuna fisheries, including the
implications of regional stock assessments and the impacts of local fisheries and oceanographic
variability on local stocks and fishing performance; strengthened national capacities to use and interpret
regional stock assessments, fisheries data and oceanographic information at the national level, to
participate in Commission scientific work, and to understand the implications of Commission stock
assessments.
SUB-COMPONENT 1.3. ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS
Outcomes: Enhanced understanding of the dynamics of the WTP warm pool pelagic ecosystem, with
particular focus on trophic relationships; enhanced understanding of the ecology of seamounts, in
particular their impacts on aggregation and movement of pelagic species and the fisheries impacts
thereon; provision of ecosystem-based scientific advice to the Commission and to Pacific SIDS;
enhanced information on the magnitude of by-catch in WCPO oceanic fisheries.
COMPONENT 2: LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT AND
STRENGTHENING
SUB-COMPONENT 2.1. LEGAL REFORM
Outcomes: Major Commission legal arrangements and mechanisms in place, including provisions
relating to non-Parties and sanctions for non-compliance; national laws, regulations, license conditions
reformed to implement the WCPF Convention and other relevant international legal instruments;
enhanced national legal capacity to apply the Convention and national management regimes, including
domestic legal processes for dealing with infringements.
SUB-COMPONENT 2.2. POLICY REFORM
Outcomes: Commission Secretariat and technical programmes established and conservation and
management measures beginning to be adopted; national oceanic fisheries management plans, policies
and strategies prepared, implemented and reviewed; adoption of a more integrated and cross-sectoral
approach and, improved coordination between government departments (Fisheries, Environment,
Development, Economy, etc); enhanced understanding by policy makers and enhanced national
capacities in regional and national policy analysis for sustainable and responsible fisheries; enhanced
stakeholder understanding of Commission and national policy issues, especially the private sector.
SUB-COMPONENT 2.3. INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Outcomes: Public sector fisheries administrations reformed, realigned and strengthened; capacities of
national non-governmental organisations to participate in oceanic fisheries management enhanced;
consultative processes enhanced to promote a more integrated approach to fisheries management and
administration that encourages coordination and participation between diverse government and non-
government stakeholders.
SUB-COMPONENT 2.4 COMPLIANCE STRENGTHENING
Outcomes: Realigned and strengthened national compliance programs; improved regional MCS
coordination; strategies for Commission compliance programs; enhanced national compliance
capacities (inspection, observation, patrol, VMS, investigation).
COMPONENT 3: COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES
Outcomes: Effective project management at the national and regional level; major governmental and
non-governmental stakeholders participating in Project activities and consultative mechanisms at
national and regional levels; information on the Project and the WCPF process contributing to increased
awareness of oceanic fishery resource reflecting successful and sustainable project objectives
RSC4/WP.7
14
ATTACHMENT A
SUB-COMPONENT 3.1. INFORMATION STRATEGY
Outcomes: Enhancement of awareness about the Project and understanding of its objectives and
progress; establishment of a Clearing House for lessons and best practices within the Pacific SIDS, as
well as through linkages to other global fisheries and their issues; capture of up-to-date information and
advice on related ecosystem management and innovative fisheries management approaches; transfer
of lessons and replication of best practices through an active mechanism linked to the Commission;
active participation with IW:LEARN
SUB-COMPONENT 3.2. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Outcomes: Effective monitoring and evaluation of progress and performance, including monitoring of
process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators; monitoring and evaluation outputs used
in project management and in assessing the effectiveness of Commission measures.
SUB-COMPONENT 3.3. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND AWARENESS RAISING
Outcomes: Non-governmental stakeholder participation in national and regional oceanic fisheries
management processes, including the Commission, enhanced; awareness of oceanic fisheries
management issues and the WCPF Convention improved. Specific forums developed for NGO
participation and discussion process; promotion of awareness of national and regional development and
economic priorities and how these relate to sustainable fisheries management.
SUB-COMPONENT 3.4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION.
Outcomes: Project effectively managed and coordinated between implementing and executing
agencies and other participants in the Project; effective participation in Project management and
coordination by stakeholders; reports on Project progress and performance flowing between Project
participants and being used to manage the Project.
RSC4/WP.7
15
ATTACHMENT A
3. Approach and methodology of Mid-Term Evaluation
3.1. Approach
The MTE assesses and reviews: the extent to which the overall project design remains valid;
the project's concept, strategy and approach within the context of effective capacity
development and sustainability; the approach used in design and whether the selected
intervention strategy addresses the root causes and principal threats in the project area; the
effectiveness and the methodology of the overall project structure, how effectively the project
addresses responsibilities especially towards capacity building and challenges; and plans and
potential for replication.
The MTE also assess the extent to which project management has been effective, efficient
and responsive; and the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various institutional
arrangements for project implementation, and the level of coordination between relevant
players (including the oversight role by UNDP as GEF Implementing Agency, project
execution role of FFA agency, the PCU and the project focal points, project implementing role
of FFA, SPC and IUCN, multipartite review processes via the Regional Steering Committee
(RSC) and the national consultative committees.
3.2. Methodologies
The MTE was undertaken through a combination desk research of project and related
documents; selected site visits; and questionnaires and interviews. A total of 71 person days,
comprising in-country travel, meeting participation, desk research, write-up and presentation),
was undertaken by the consultants.
3.2.1. Desk study, literature review
OFM Project and related documentation (e.g. PRODOC, Quarterly and Annual Project
Implementation Reports, background UNDP documents, FFA Project management
documentation, reports from Project activities) and a range of background technical and
scientific reports (e.g. on tuna fisheries, biology, oceanography, seamounts) were examined.
Most material required was readily accessible from UNDP and FFA, in digital form. The OFM
Project website located within FFA's website was particularly effective in providing detailed
project management and financial information. The SPC website was an excellent source of
technical and scientific material, demonstrating the potential of the Internet in information
dissemination and coordination in the OFM Project. (Information sources are cited in Annex 5,
Literature review).
3.2.2. Site visits
The TOR stipulated visits to six selected countries (Fiji, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia,
Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Kiribati) in May 2008. However, as most OFM
stakeholders were attending the 67th Forum Fisheries Committee and Related Meetings in
Palau in May, the Consultants, with UNDP and FFC approval, visited Palau to consult with
stakeholders from the above and other countries, in the margins of the meetings. The
following summarises countries visited, and stakeholders consulted. (Details are given in
Annex 2: Itinerary; Annex 3: Persons Consulted).
Fiji Islands (Apr 27-May 2, 2008)
Briefing on PIOFM and MTE were held with UNDP Suva Office and the Regional Technical
Advisor from UNDP's Regional Centre In Bangkok. Interviews were also conducted with
stakeholders from WWF South Pacific Programme, Fiji Fisheries Department and University
of the South Pacific Marine Programme (USP).
Palau (May 3-18, 2008)
In Palau, consultations were undertaken with stakeholders from the stipulated countries of
Fiji, Solomon Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Kiribati, as well as
additional countries of Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu, and
Marshall Islands. Representatives from a range of international and regional organisations
and NGOs were also consulted (FAO, UNEP, Greenpeace, FFA, SPC, WCP Commission,
RSC4/WP.7
16
ATTACHMENT A
AusAID). Industry representatives from PNG and the Solomon Islands, and other consultants
were also interviewed.
Solomon Islands (May 19-30)
Detailed discussions were held at FFA with the OFM PCU on the financial management of the
Project, and progress of activities. A teleconference was also undertaken with an IUCN
representative on the re-design of the Seamounts sub-component.
3.2.4. Consultation and questionnaires
Formal and informal consultation was undertaken with the stakeholders. This generally
comprised of initial, informal discussions on the OFM Project and MTE objectives, general
progress and issues, followed by a formal questionnaire where appropriate. Topics and levels
of detail covered varied according to the informants' roles in the Project. For example, Heads
of National Fisheries Departments were interviewed more on the general level of support from
the executing agencies and general outcomes within their Departments, status of national
tuna industries, and wider governance issues. Those in OFM sections were questioned more
on technical details, training needs and effectiveness of Project activities (Questionnaires and
summarises of results are given in Annex 6). The opinions of the private sector (tuna fishing
companies, and professional bodies) on industry needs, Project objectives and outcomes
were particularly sought. Social and other consequences of the tuna industry such as gender
issues, equity and occupational health and safety, were discussed with industry, regional
organizations, Heads of National Fisheries Departments and ENGOs.
Detailed discussions were held with the main executing agencies (FFA, SPC) regarding
Project details, deliverables, management, administration, communications and coordination,
and financial effectiveness and accountability. A questionnaire to assess performance of a
range of mainly GEF-funded activities was provided to OFM Coordinator in a `bottom-up'
evaluation. Informants from organisations responsible for specific components (WWF, IUCN,
USP Marine Studies) were interviewed on progress and outcomes, and issues in their areas
of responsibility. Biodiversity conservation issues were specifically discussed with ENGOs
(Greenpeace, WWF).
3.3. Evaluation Team
The team comprised of a Team Leader (Leon Zann BSc Hons PhD: Fisheries and Marine
Environmental Consultant, and former Professor of Marine Studies at the University of the
South Pacific, Fiji, with expertise in fisheries and marine environmental management in the
Pacific region); and a Regional Resource Specialist (Veikila Vuki BSc MSc PhD: SPC
Women-in-Fisheries Bulletin Editor, Adjunct Research Associate University of Guam, and
former Fisheries Officer in Fiji Fisheries Dept, former Senior Lecturer at the University of the
South Pacific, NOAA/University of Guam Marine Protected Areas Coordinator, with expertise
in PIC marine resources, fisheries management, and gender issues).
RSC4/WP.7
17
ATTACHMENT A
4. Results
The following summarises the major findings of the MTE. It assesses the relevance,
efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of operational activities and results achieved by the
project to-date by examining how the components, processes and outcomes contribute to the
achievement of project goals and objectives.
4.1. Project impact
Overall progress in the OFM Project in the first term is rated as good to very good, and there
have been significant achievements in several key areas. It is evident that the Project is well
managed and executed, and most component activities are on time and effective. There are
already significant impacts, particularly in areas of Scientific Assessment and Monitoring, and
in aspects of Law, Policy and Institutional Reform. Capacities have been increased in most
Pacific SID's in OFM, and in meeting their obligations under the WCPF Convention and
attending the WCPF Commission meetings. However, it is evident that needs of the Pacific
SIDS vary greatly, with the small countries, and those which have experienced breakdowns in
national governance, requiring greater levels of support.
4.1.1. Regional and global objectives
Progress towards the regional objective (Pacific SIDS sustainable development from
improved OFM and conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity) has been significant. The
OFM Project has assisted the Pacific SIDS in OFM and in meeting their responsibilities under
the WCPF Convention to varying degrees, and there has been a marked increase in OFM
capacities in several countries. However, as noted, some require special assistance.
Achievements gained in the regional objective have contributed to meeting the global
objective (enhanced conservation and management of trans-boundary oceanic fishery
resources and protection of the biodiversity of the WTM LME). The design of the OFM Project
largely focused on trans-boundary oceanic fisheries, necessitating a greater focus on the
biodiversity conservation goals in future initiatives.
4.1.2. Sustainable oceanic fisheries management
Sustainable oceanic fisheries require appropriate, knowledge-based, and precautionary
decision-making approaches to fisheries management at regional and country levels. The first
term of the OFM Project has made significant contributions to the knowledge-base of the
fisheries, and strengthened the capacities of national governments and regional fisheries
management organisations in OFM. The initial phase, the GEF IW SAP, assisted in the
conclusion of the WCP Fisheries Convention, and establishment of the Commission. The
Director of the WCP Fisheries Commission rated the OFM Project very highly in effectiveness
in supporting Pacific Island's activities in the Commission, scoring it an arbitrary 80%.
Scientific knowledge on the WCP LME still remains rudimentary as it is vast in scale, variable
in time and space (annually and inter-annually) and remote from major centres of marine
research. As applied scientific research and biodiversity conservation were not prioritised in
the OFM Project because of GEF funding requirements, these will require greater focus in
collaborative future initiatives. It must also be recognised that ecosystem-based management
of fisheries is a relatively recent initiative and not yet well underpinned by scientific knowledge
and management practice. The implementation of large-scale, long-term and integrated
approaches to fisheries/environment/biodiversity conservation are clearly beyond the scope
and duration of this PIOFM Project.
4.1.3. Capacities of Pacific SIDS
The Project has generally had a significant effect on increasing the capacities of most Pacific
SIDS in OFM and the regional decision-making processes. Most of the Heads of Fisheries
and related Departments, and other country representatives interviewed by the consultants
reported significant increases in OFM capacity because of this Project.
This has increased their effectiveness in the WCPF Commission. For example,
representatives of all seven countries examined by Clark (2007) felt their delegations to the
WCP Commission meeting (WCPFC4) in 2007 were much better prepared than for WCPFC2
RSC4/WP.7
18
ATTACHMENT A
in 2005. Four countries considered their national OFM arrangements were better than in
2005, and two others were optimistic about future improvements. Progress towards meeting
WCPF Convention commitments was mixed; three felt progress was satisfactory, and four
others admitted partial success.
While they have been greatly assisted by the OFM Project, it is evident that some countries
still have limited capacity in OFM and are experiencing problems in meeting WCP Convention
Commitments. These include the smallest countries (e.g. Niue, Tokelau, Nauru) and countries
which have experienced recent breakdowns in governance (e.g. Solomon Islands).
Although the OFM Project design attempted to balance support for regional assistance and
specific national needs, and an initial needs assessment during Project development provided
each country with the opportunity to prioritise their requirements in OFM, the Project design
did not adequately consider the varying needs of the Pacific SIDS, and the specific problems
of the smallest countries. It must be recognised that the Pacific SIDS vary greatly in sizes,
development and governance, and in capacities in OFM. Microstates such as Tokelau, Niue,
Nauru and Tuvalu, and some of the States of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), have
very small populations (under 15,000), small landmasses (generally under 30 sq km), and
limited terrestrial resources and economic development. Intermediate countries such as Cook
Islands, Kiribati, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu have larger land areas and populations, and
varying levels of economic development. Larger countries such as Solomon Islands, Fiji and
Papua New Guinea have fast-growing populations (hundreds of thousands to millions), a
range of terrestrial resources and, in some cases, greater economic development.
4.1.4. Governance
Effective governance in OFM is particularly important in smaller countries where oceanic
fisheries are a major economic resource, and where revenues from oceanic fisheries landings
and licences are major contributors to national incomes. A major focus (Component 2) of the
Project is in strengthening national and regional governance in OFM, including legal, policy
and institutional reform.
As noted above, the initial GEF IW SAP and this first term of the OFM Project has had some
notable successes in strengthening of capacities in national OFM and has assisted countries
to meet their obligations, to varying degrees. For example, in Fiji which has experienced
inefficiency in OFM and corruption in licensing procedures in the past decade, OFM has been
greatly enhanced through the restructure of the Fisheries Department by the Interim
Government, and the more recent assistance of the OFM Project.
As noted above, the varying needs of the Pacific SIDS relating to governance of oceanic
fisheries were not well recognised in the original OFM Project design. Some countries are
relatively well resourced, with well managed and effective Fisheries Departments or
Authorities (e.g. PNG). Others are much less so, often because of their small sizes (e.g.
Tokelau, Niue, Nauru, Tuvalu, Kiribati) or unstable national governments ((e.g. Solomon
Islands). While the PIOFM Project has focused more on regional approaches, training and
support, the situations and needs of particular countries will require a more targeted approach
in future OFM initiatives.
It must also be recognised that oceanic fisheries governance in Pacific SIDS is reliant on their
overall national governance. Several Pacific Island SIDS have experienced problems in
national governance since independence, due in part to their premature independence, lack
of capacities (human and financial), cultural diversities (especially in Melanesia), and
geography (small sizes, isolation, lack of terrestrial natural resources etc). Some of the larger
and more diverse countries (e.g. Fiji Islands, Solomon Islands) have suffered serious
breakdowns in governance, and serious declines in the effectiveness and accountabilities of
their Public Services, including Fisheries Departments. Other countries are so scattered, and
communications so poor, that central governments are relatively ineffectual, and some of their
powers have been delegated to provincial or outer island local councils and communities (e.g.
Kiribati, Tuvalu).
Strengthening of Pacific SIDS governance is a broader, underlying issue, and a high priority
in the Pacific Plan and the recent Vavau Declaration (Pacific Forum Secretariat 2005, 2007).
The latter's `Declaration on Pacific Fisheries Resources' recommended (inter alia) a `greater
effort to foster a long-term strategic approach to ensuring these resources are effectively
RSC4/WP.7
19
ATTACHMENT A
managed will provide enduring benefits for all Forum Member countries'.
There are also advantages in more explicitly linking the OFM Project, with its strong emphasis
on governance, to the governance-focused Pacific Plan, and the wider UN Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). This would provide a broader political and development context
to the OFM Project, provide greater opportunities for collaboration and continuing funding,
and increase its long-term sustainability.
It is therefore recommended that:
· the OFM Project should be more explicitly linked to the Pacific Plan and a new
project be developed to implement the long-term strategic approach to
capacity-building in OFM recommended under the Vavau Declaration.
Discussions should be held between FFA and the Pacific Forum Secretariat in
developing this project.
4.1.5. Intended beneficiaries
The following briefly evaluates the extent to which OFM Project impacts have reached the
intended beneficiaries identified in the PRODOC. The diversity of beneficiaries targeted
necessitates a summary approach.
Beneficiary
Nature of benefits
Progress at Mid-term
Global
Enhanced stewardship of the
Long-term benefits, marked progress with WCPF
community
oceanic fisheries resources
Convention. An increased OFM capacities in Pac
and ecosystems
SIDs. Limited progress in understanding LME and
GEF
biodiversity conservation.
Pacific
Sustained abundance of
WCPF Commission now operating. Progress in
Islanders
resources through food
OFM assisted to varying extents in Pacific SIDS.
dependent on
security and health, direct
(Some Island countries advanced, others require
oceanic fish
employment in industry
support.)
resources
(fishing, processing, tourism
etc)
Pacific Island
Broader economic gains,
Oceanic fisheries already a major revenue earner
communities
improved food security,
for many countries. Domestic fisheries
employment in service & other
development supported through collaborative
industries through economic
development projects (e.g. DEVFISH).
multipliers, redirection of aid
etc
Other users
Economic gain for foreign
Access, economic sustainability enhanced
(foreign fishing
fishing nations, increased
through WCPF Commission.
nations)
national and global food
security
Government
Enhanced capacity and
Increase in OFM capability in most Pacific SIDS
sectors
improved coordination in OFM
already enhanced by OFM Project. Significant
improvements in coordination, through WCP
Commission.
Technical and
Increased capacity in technical
National staff trained in OFM. Significant
policy personnel
areas, better national and
improvements in most countries. Smaller
regional outcomes
countries require specific support.
Private sector
Economic development,
Longer-term economic benefits not yet
(fishers, support
sustainable resources,
assessable. Opportunities in participatory
industries)
participation in resources
management have been enhanced.
management
National,
Improved OFM, conservation
Longer-term economic benefits not yet
regional and
of ocean fish stocks and ocean
assessable. Opportunities in participatory
global
biodiversity, ecosystem-based
management significantly enhanced.
conservation
management
NGOs
Other SIDS,
Benefit from lessons learnt,
OFM Project successfully developed and
RSC4/WP.7
20
ATTACHMENT A
geographic
and transferable best practices
demonstrated as an appropriate model for
groups
regional collaboration in resources management.
Regional
Enhanced capacities in core
SPC scientific and monitoring programme and
organisations
areas
FFA governance and training activities well
participating in
supported. IUCN activities not yet commenced.
project
(Greater participation/collaboration by SPREP,
USP etc required.)
4.1.6. Lessons learnt and sustainability of results
Although it is too early to assess the results of most activities of the OFM Project, there are
important lessons to be learnt from the first term:
· The success of the OFM Project to date results from good project planning; a strong
regional approach (through FFA, SPC); a high degree of participation/ownership of
Pacific SIDS through consultation and co-funding contributions; and a focus on
specific outcomes (support for Pacific SIDS for WCPF Convention and Commission
obligations).
· The lack of success in the one area, IUCN Seamounts study, results from reliance on
outside resources beyond direct control and an organisation, which had not been
established in the region.
· Because Pacific SIDS greatly vary in sizes, natural resources, development and
effectiveness of governance, they require more country-specific approaches in
capacity-building. Smaller Island countries require a greater level of support.
· Despite specific support in the OFM Project, smaller island countries may never have
full capacity in OFM, necessitating other approaches (e.g. sub-regional groupings,
country-specific support from FFA).
· Long-term capacity-building is required for the sustainability of OFM.
4.1.7. Recommendations from results
It is recommended that:
· the second term of the OFM Project, and any future developments of the
Project, specifically addresses the needs of smaller Pacific SIDS;
· alternative strategies should also be considered to support smaller Pacific
SIDS in OFM (e.g. Sub-regional groupings, country-specific support from FFA);
· long-term, strategic approaches should be developed to build capacity in OFM
and ensure sustainability, and should be the focus of a future OFM Project.
(These recommendations are elaborated upon in 5.2 and 5.3)
4.2 Project Design
The Prodoc design rates very highly. Both FFA and SPC regarded the Prodoc as `very good'.
The Project Coordinator rated it very highly (`9/10'), and reported following it `religiously'.
4.2.1. Relevance of overall design
The Prodoc design is highly relevant to the needs of the Pacific SIDS in OFM as it explicitly
focuses on providing the broad range of capacities for Pacific SIDS required to fulfil their
obligations under the WCPF Convention. The design and objectives flowed from the previous
GEF IW SAP and wide consultation of the Pacific SIDS and regional organisations.
The Prodoc is multidisciplinary in approach and well integrates scientific knowledge and
governance objectives required for sustainable fisheries. It is long (109 pp, with several
hundred extra pages of supporting Annexes) and detailed, and describes in detail some 109
different activities and outputs. It is unusually prescriptive and takes a `construction plan'
approach, ensuring delivery of a broad range of products in sequential and timely manner.
According to one of the Prodoc's main designers, this was one of the lessons learnt from the
GEF IW SAP, which was deficient in detail itself.
RSC4/WP.7
21
ATTACHMENT A
A major strength of the Project design was that it builds on the existing capacities of SPC and
FFA, reducing the need for new personnel and inevitable delays in recruitment and
familiarisation, and reducing risks in Project delivery. Notably, the Sea mounts sub-
component 1.3 which involved an organisation not then established in the region (IUCN), and
reliant on outside resources (a research vessel and submarines) has not been successful,
and had to be re-designed.
While the Prodoc is rated highly, the consultants consider that the Prodoc is deficient in two
areas: (a) long-term capacity building in Pacific SIDS, especially in smaller countries; and (b)
understanding and conservation of oceanic biodiversity insufficient. These could have been
addressed by including in the OFM Project the two CROP agencies responsible for these
areas, USP and SPREP (below).
The Project Coordinator, who was involved in the initial development of the Prodoc, noted in
her comments on a draft of the MTE Report that the above had been initially considered in
project development, but GEF would not consider institutional development with
education/training service providers, and wanted a focus on capacity-building in the
immediate Project objectives. However, involvement of other appropriate donors might have
resolved this problem.
4.2.2. Relevance to capacity development and sustainability
As noted above, the OFM Project focused on shorter-term capacity building required to meet
immediate responsibilities of Pacific SIDs under WCPF Convention. Longer-term capacity
development in OFM was not adequately addressed, affecting the long-term sustainability of
the Project objectives.
Capacity-building in Fisheries governance and institutions in Pacific SIDS is a widely
recognised issue, and countries vary greatly in capacity needs (e.g. AusAID 2007; Hanich et
al. 2008). Despite the importance of inshore and oceanic resources in the region, and the
need for specialised staff in OFM, regional Fisheries Departments are often small in size and
inadequately resourced. In some cases Public Service procedures have declined, resulting in
inefficiencies and poor work practices, and cases of corruption (e.g. in selling foreign fishing
licences). Turn-over of senior and more capable staff is often high (e.g. a quarter of the Island
Fisheries Departments had a change in senior leadership in the previous two years).
Fisheries Departments have traditionally had a fisheries development focus, and capability in
sustainable fisheries and ecosystem-based approaches are generally limited. This is
exacerbated by generally poor relationships between National Fisheries and Environment
Departments, limiting opportunities for collaboration in ecosystem-based management.
At the regional level, there has been limited collaboration, and often duplication of effort and
competition, amongst the CROP agencies. The close collaboration between FFA and SPC in
the OFM Project is a notable exception. However, the lack of involvement of USP and SPEC
in this Project has been noted.
There have been some notable successes in restructuring Fisheries institutions in the region
(e.g. PNG has restructured its Fisheries Department, reduced staffing levels and increased
efficiencies, and created an entrepreneurial National Fisheries Authority which integrates the
public and private sectors).
International assistance has been given to some smaller Pacific SIDs for restructure of
Fisheries institutions through bilateral aid and the OFM Project has assisted in training in
aspects of OFM. For example, AusAID is currently assisting Nauru in its Fisheries
Department restructure, and plans to similarly provide assistance to Kiribati and Tuvalu in the
near future.
It is therefore recommended that:
· the above proposed long-term capacity building project in OFM be based on
systematic assessments of training needs in OFM in each country, and
appropriate Fisheries institutional models and arrangements. (See 5.3 for
details)
RSC4/WP.7
22
ATTACHMENT A
4.2.3. Impacts on root causes
The root causes of threats to sustainability of regional fisheries resources, a lack of
understanding and weaknesses in governance, are the focus of the OFM and have been
generally well addressed in the first half of the Project.
Lack of understanding: Component 1 `Scientific assessment and monitoring enhancement'
addresses this, and focuses on the status of oceanic trans-boundary fish stocks, especially of
the four main tuna species. Progress in the first term has been very good, largely because it
has built on existing tuna stock assessment programmes in SPC and on monitoring
programmes on catch and effort, observer, port sampling programmes supported by SPC and
FFA, and by Pacific Island SIDS in varying degrees. The quality and timely delivery of
information reaching fisheries managers (national, regional and WCPF Commission) on the
main stocks (by species, area and time) is very good.
Progress on increasing understanding on the WTP LME and seamounts is limited. While the
capacity of SPC in this area has been enhanced, and existing information is being analysed,
there was no progress in the IUCN seamount study, although this is considered a minor part
of the OFM Project (discussed above).
Weaknesses in governance: the initial SAP Project GEF input was effective in assisting
Pacific SIDS in negations in the WCPF Convention, and the establishment of the WCPF
Commission. A major focus of the current OFM Project is now the reform, restructure and
strengthening of national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes. All countries
report progress in these areas, and there is already a marked improvement in OFM
governance within some Pacific Islands (e.g. Fiji, Nauru). However, as noted in 4.2.2.certain
countries require specific support.
4.2.4. Overall effectiveness
The OFM Project is rated as generally very effective in its design, methodologies, activities
and outcomes. As it has focused primarily on capacity-building to meet immediate obligations
under WCP Fisheries Convention/Commission, it has been less effective in long-term
capacity-building and sustainability.
4.2.5. Potential for replication
The OFM Project is an excellent model for replication for similar multi-national and trans-
boundary resource management initiatives. Its particular strengths are:
· use of a preliminary project (GEF IW SAP) to identify needs and issues, develop
objectives, required outcomes and appropriate activities to achieve these;
· adoption of `lessons learnt' from that project (e.g. need for high level of detail in
Prodoc);
· a generally tight focus and prescriptive approach (to build capacity in specific areas
required under WCPF Convention within a specified time-frame);
· interdisciplinary nature (integrating science and governance);
· regional, trans-boundary approach and multi-government involvement (involving all
Pacific Island countries in this region);
· high degree of collaboration and ownership (involving stakeholders in funding, Project
ownership and execution);
· co-funding model (core GEF component for key new initiatives, with stakeholder co-
funding in kind and cash ensuring support and collaboration);
· use of existing organisations and structures (FFA, SPC, regional Fisheries
arrangements, bodies) in key tasks to minimise risk;
· high degree of ownership amongst stakeholders (through extensive collaboration and
co-ownership);
· effective coordination (through OFM Project Management Unit in FFA, Regional
Steering Committee, National focal points and consultative committees);
RSC4/WP.7
23
ATTACHMENT A
· effective administration (through UNDP, and FFA and SPC Administrations); and a
· performance monitoring (Project quarterly reports, annual reports and annual
reviews); and
· adaptive management approaches (through monitoring and MTE) to assess progress,
identify issues and develop appropriate responses).
4.3. Project Management and Administration
A large and complex endeavour such as the OFM Project requires effective project
management and administration. Overall, project management and administration has been
very effective, efficient and responsive. The implementing agency (UNDP) and executing
agency (FFA) have delivered very high quality of support, both at the institutional and
personal levels. The roles and responsibilities of all the organisations involved, and the
institutional arrangements have been well defined.
4.3.1. Implementing agency UNDP
UNDP has been effective as the GEF Implementing Agency. Its long international, regional
and national experience and administrative procedures ensured delivery and accountability.
The OFM Project is administered by the UNDP Fiji Office, which has a regional focus and
capability. The Project managers are nationals with professional experience in the region, and
displayed a high degree of personal interest and commitment to the Project.
Feedback from the Executing Agency rated UNDP's administration generally favourably
(`7/10'). However, there were some criticisms about UNDP bureaucracy and the complexity of
administrative procedures, which caused some initial delays in appropriations. The Project
Coordinator considered: `lack of capacity, project knowledge and design in the UNDP
Country office contributed significantly to the long period for the coordination aspects of the
project to `settle down'. The inexperience of dealing with a project of this size and nature
contributed to the inability of the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) to obtain adequate guidance
on UNDP procedures and requirements during project establishment. This situation has
abated over time and for the large part UNDP requirements are at present routine.'
UNDP Fiji attributed the above problems to the transfer of Project management from the
Samoa Office, and problems in the Suva Office at that time because of a new project
management and financial system. Technical problems have been rectified, and relationships
are now good.
4.3.2. Executing agency FFA
FFA has also been very effective in the execution of the OFM Project. FFA's mandate and 30
years of experience in OFM, and its involvement in the development of the Project
development has ensured an effective delivery. FFA established an OFM Project
Coordination Unit (comprising a Coordinator and Administration Officer) to coordinate and
manage the Project.
Personal visits were made by the Coordinator to most countries (2-3 remain to be
undertaken) to confer with country Fisheries Departments, focal points and other
stakeholders. An OFM website was established early in the Project in the FFA site, and is an
important mechanism for coordination and information dissemination.
The countries and organisations involved in the OFM were generally highly satisfied with the
level of support by FFA and coordination by the PCU. However, because of a high turn-over
of Fisheries Department personnel, several of the Heads of Fisheries interviewed were not
well informed on the OFM Project. Others considered that coordination could be improved
through more regular country visits by the Coordinator.
The Consultants consider that the OFM PCU is insufficiently resourced to undertake
additional tasks such as regular country visits, and appropriate media and education outreach
activities. The extent of the terminal reporting in the next term of the project, and additional
tasks recommended in the MTE (e.g. development of a new Project on capacity-building,
below) will greatly increase the pressure on the Coordinator.
As noted in the OFM Annual Review (2007), the PCU is very small, given the complexity of
the OFM Project, and the Coordinator's effectiveness is limited by available resources. The
RSC4/WP.7
24
ATTACHMENT A
Consultants consider that the Prodoc was deficient in its Project coordination/management
arrangements and budget. Two positions (one professional, one junior, comprising around 6-
8% of project funds) are clearly inadequate in such a project. (Normally, 15-20% of budgets in
projects of this complexity are allocated for administration support.)
The low administration allocation in the Prodoc is attributed by UNDP to GEF's cap of 10% on
project management but it must be recognised that there was no contribution in cash from the
other partners towards FFA's project management, greatly increasing pressure on the
Coordinator (and reducing the total allocated to project management to around 1% of the total
cash and kind contributions). Because of a lack of resources for technical assistance in areas
such as information dissemination, the Coordinator also has had to devote much of her time
(as much as 50%) to technical matters such as web design and maintenance.
It is therefore recommended that:
· The OFM PCU is better supported in the second term of the Project. Urgent
discussions should be held between the Project Coordinator and UNDP on Project
management needs in the second term, and ways ahead. For example, an additional
Professional staff member should be recruited as soon as possible to assist in
coordination, reporting and in the development of the recommended new Project.
One or two additional Technical assistants might be established where funds could
be reallocated from other technical activities. The additional staff might be seconded
from regional Fisheries Departments to aid in coordination and national capacity
building.
· Greater focus is given by the PCU to information dissemination on the OFM
Project amongst stakeholders, and wider community in the Pacific SIDs. (See
4.4.4. for details).
· GEF should be informed on the need for greater flexibility in allocations for
Project management. Success of any project depends on the quality of Project
management.
4.3.3. SPC
Management by SPC of the scientific components has also been efficient and their outputs of
high quality. SPC has the mandate in oceanic fisheries research and stock assessment in the
region, and a proven capacity and performance in this area. Information users (FFA, WCPF
Commission, and Pacific SIDS) reported favourably on SPC's performance, and usefulness of
the information supplied. Coordination and collaboration between FFA and SPC was
excellent, despite past problems in overlapping mandates and duplication of effort, and the
uncertainties of a review in 2007 on possible amalgamation of these organisations.
Information dissemination by SPC though regular presentations at regional and country
meetings was rated highly by most countries. The SPC Oceanic Fisheries website is user-
friendly and visually attractive, and background scientific reports and all internal reports and
technical publications required for the MTE were readily accessible on line.
A significant number of interviewees thought that their countries Fisheries institutions should
be given some technical capacity in oceanic fisheries science and modelling. Several
commented that the SPC scientific program was `dominated by Western scientists, and
Pacific Islanders should be engaged in the programme as they are in other aspects of OFM.'
While it is evident that stocks of highly migratory species such as tunas must be studied and
managed holistically, and that oceanic fisheries modelling require specialised skills and is
best undertaken by a central agency such as SPC, it is suggested here that capacity in
oceanic fisheries science is increased within the Pacific SIDs. All national Fisheries
institutions require at least a basic competency in fisheries science in order to understand the
information and advice given by SPC, the uses (and limitations) of predictive models, and
need for country-based fisheries monitoring and reporting. Smaller SIDs may require only
limited in-country expertise, but larger countries with major oceanic fisheries may require
higher levels of capacity.
RSC4/WP.7
25
ATTACHMENT A
It is therefore recommended that:
· Where possible, SPC should assist in the development of oceanic fisheries
science within Pacific SIDs in this term of the Project (e.g. by encouraging
regional researchers and postgraduate students in oceanic fisheries science,
providing short-term attachments for relevant regional Fisheries staff at SPC, and
developing formal linkages with a current USP/UNU/FAO fisheries science and
modelling training programme).
· Development in oceanic fisheries science within Pacific SIDs is a priority in the
proposed new capacity-building Project.
4.3.4. IUCN
IUCN, a global NGO with long experience in global biodiversity conservation, was responsible
for seamount surveys. This sub-component was originally added to the core OFM Project to
take advantage of a no-cost voyage by a private research vessel and submarines through the
region. Unfortunately, the vessel was damaged in Hurricane Kathrina in 2005, and is no
longer available within the timeframe of this Project. This indicates the risks when relying on
outside, non-funded contributions.
The seamounts programme had to be substantially redesigned in 2007/8. Some funds were
diverted to SPC's seamount research group to recruit a spatial analyst/physical
oceanographer to identify and classify seamounts and analyse historical catch and effort data.
After consultations with UNDP, FFA and SPC it was agreed in February 2008 that:
IUCN/Hawaii will undertake a survey of purse seine and longline fishers and hold a technical
workshop to document status of knowledge in the subject; and the new IUCN Oceania office
in Fiji will recruit a scientist to work with stakeholders in the Pacific SIDs on sustainable
seamount fisheries. This post has been advertised and will be filled by July 2008. While
progress in the seamount research has been delayed by 2.5 years, the redesigned
programme will provide at least preliminary information on the subject. The consultants were
satisfied with the re-design, but were concerned about IUCN's lack of knowledge of the
general OFM Project, and current limited coordination both within IUCN and with other OFM
Project partners.
It is recommended that:
· the Seamounts program is coordinated by the new scientist at the IUCN
Oceania Office to ensure collaboration within the SPC/IUCN Seamounts
programme, with other OFM Project activities, and with other agencies involved
in seamount research in the region (e.g. France's research vessel Alis which is
based in New Caledonia, and Japan Fisheries University's Koyo Maru which
undertakes research with USP in Fiji).
4.4. Project Implementation
Overall management and implementation of the OFM Project has been effective and efficient.
4.4.1. Efficiency and cost effectiveness
A high level of efficiency and cost effectiveness in most areas has been achieved through use
of existing structures, arrangements and organisations. No new infrastructure was required,
and apart from the PCU, administrative support has been undertaken as an additional task by
the collaborating organisations. As capacity in most technical areas already existed within
FFA and SPC, Project funding has been used most effectively to develop existing activities.
Where new staff was required, these were often recruited internally from the organisations
and island countries, saving greatly on staff recruitment and orientation.
The IUCN seamounts study which required new structures and staff, and outside technical
support has therefore been less effective.
It is not possible to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the contributions in kind by the 15
Pacific SIDS and other organisations, but the marked successes in the OFM project to date,
increases in capacities of many Pacific SIDs, and the high level of commitment to the WCPF
Convention and Commission all indicate increased effectiveness in their support for OFM.
RSC4/WP.7
26
ATTACHMENT A
4.4.2. Applicability of logical framework tool
Logical framework was used as a management tool during OFM Project development and
implementation (Annex 9) but its effectiveness has been limited due to a lack of quantitative
indicators and timelines. There is some uncertainty on the reasons for this. The US
representative in the GEF Council's review of the OFM Project in Feb 2005 noted that it has
few quantitative indicators or milestones by which to judge progress, and gave instructions for
the development of indicators relating to the environmental status of international waters by
the first year of the Project. However, the OFM Project developers argued that their log frame
emphasised `process' indicators (building new institutions (WCPF Commission) and reforming
and realigning existing institutions etc), and that the monitoring plan did identify a range of
environmental status indicators. This justification appeared to have been accepted by the
GEF Council and the Log frame lacks the quantifiable indicators which would have aided this
MTE, and we have evaluated progress in a more qualitative manner. An evaluation of
progress is shown in the logical framework in the 2007 Annual Report (Clark, 2007) and in
Annex 9.
It is therefore recommended that:
· A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed within the Logical
Framework to better monitor progress in Project Outputs and Activities. The
Project Coordinator should develop these in consultation with UNDP and GEF. (Some
possible indicators are suggested in 5.1)
4.4.3. Project reporting
Project reporting has been regular, of a high quality and detail, and provides an effective
Project monitoring and evaluation framework. Reporting comprises: quarterly narrative and
financial reports; annual reports; annual Regional Steering Committee meetings; annual GEF
Performance Results framework; annual reviews; mid-term evaluation (this report); terminal
report; terminal evaluation; and post-project evaluation. Over 140 Technical reports have also
produced on specific activities to date.
The 2007 Annual Review (Clark, 2007), written by one developers of the OFM Prodoc, was
particularly useful to the MTE. It was very comprehensive, assessed progress in the various
Components, identified achievements and issues, and made appropriate recommendations.
The author was interviewed in the MTE to elaborate on background and progress of the OFM
Project. While guided by the 2007 Annual Review's findings and recommendations, this MTE
also takes a wider perspective, as dictated in the TOR.
The above reporting framework is very comprehensive, but takes a major effort from the PCU.
The Coordinator noted that reporting took a very large amount of her effort, and resulted in
little feedback (very few comments have ever been received). The reporting schedule does
appear to be overly detailed and onerous.
It is therefore recommended that:
· The OFM Project Coordinator and UNDP Project Management should undertake
an informal review of the reporting processes and their effectiveness with the
view of reducing the number and/or detail, while maintaining their
effectiveness.
4.4.4. Information dissemination
Effective communications and information dissemination is essential in such a large and
complex Project to keep the key stakeholders informed and committed, and to inform other
interest groups and the wider community. Information on the progress and findings of the
Project has been disseminated amongst stakeholders mainly through the above,
comprehensive reporting framework. A brochure outlining the objectives and outputs of the
Project has also been produced, and an OFM Project Website is maintained within FFA's site.
The Website was an excellent source of information (Project documents, internal reports,
minutes and proceedings of meetings etc) in the MTE. It is user-friendly, although is not
visually `interesting', and does not contain a `popular' description of the OFM for non-technical
browsers.
RSC4/WP.7
27
ATTACHMENT A
Despite the ready availability of information on the OFM Project, many stakeholders
interviewed did not know much about the Project's progress and achievements outside their
own area of interest. Most of those not personally engaged in the Project knew little or nothing
of it. Few interviewees had seen the brochure, or visited the OFM website. This may reflect
the high turnover in regional Fisheries senior staff, but does indicate the need for a more
active communications effort. Surprisingly, some informants said they did not frequently use
the Internet for their information requirements (sometimes because of poor connections),
indicating a wider need to promote its use.
WWF-Pacific and PITA have been engaged in the OFM Project to promote industry
awareness of of OFM and the WCPF Commission. FFA indicated a high degree of
satisfaction with the performance of WWF-Pacific in the OFM Project but it was not possible
to evaluate the performance of PITA, or of the success of these initiatives. Interviews with
fishing industry representatives from PNG and the Solomon Islands at the Palau FFC
meetings did show a high degree of knowledge of OFM and the Commission's activities, but
not of the OFM Project. Note also that this was a biased sample as they were attending the
meetings because of their special interests in OFM.
The lack of an active media program is a serious deficiency in the OFM Project. The OFM
Project is a regionally (and globally) important one, and should be widely reported and
promoted, particularly given its notable achievements in its first term. While a comprehensive
media strategy was developed by outside consultants in 2006, no position or specific funding
was identified in the Prodoc to implement this. As FFA's media position has been unfilled for
two years, the Coordinator has had to undertake this task in addition to her other duties.
The situation is however, being improved. FFA has recently recruited a media expert who will
assist in information dissemination in the OFM and other FFA activities. A newsletter on OFM
Project is currently being prepared.
It is recommended that:
· the OFM media strategy should be implemented and there should be a greater
focus on dissemination of information from the OFM Project by the PCU. This
should include: wider distribution of the OFM brochure; special briefings for newly
appointed Heads of Fisheries and other key stakeholders; formal briefings at relevant
regional meetings; promotion of OFM Project and wider FFA and SPC Websites
amongst stakeholders; popular descriptions on the Project Website for educators and
the wider community; regular newsletters (email, Web and hard copy); and radio and
press news releases distributed amongst regional media; and presentations on the
OFM Project at international fisheries and ocean conservation meetings to promote
the Project and approaches, and aid in continuing funding.
· the capacity of the OFM/PCU should be increased to undertake these additional
functions. The previously recommended additional staff member may be charged
with these responsibilities.
4.4.5. Risk management
The level of risk is potentially great in the OFM Project because of the inherent nature and
complexity of the subject, its huge geographic scale and the large number of national,
regional and international stakeholders. The general success of the OFM Project to date is
attributable to the effective use of risk assessment in its Project design and implementation.
As noted above, these were reduced by using established organisations and institutional
arrangements, wide consultation and ownership amongst stakeholders.
4.4.6. Adaptive management processes
Adaptive management processes are established through monitoring of activities, annual
reviews and this MTE. The 2007 Annual Review and this MTE evaluated progress identified
issues and make recommendations for the remainder of the OFM Project, and possible future
initiatives. It remains to be seen how these are implemented by the Implementing and
Executing agencies. While the MTE is undertaken at mid-point of the Project, the time for
review and final endorsement (October 2008) and responses (earliest at end of 2008) are
further limits to its effectiveness.
RSC4/WP.7
28
ATTACHMENT A
4.4.7. Partnership arrangements
The OFM Project is based on partnerships (GEF, UNDP, FFA, SPC, WWF-Pacific, the 15
Pacific SIDS governments and industry). Arrangements amongst the participating national
and regional organisations have been very effective. Co-funding arrangements with the
Pacific SIDS has ensured their engagement in the Project. The working relationships
between FFA, WWF-Pacific and SPC are effective. The effectiveness of partnerships with
industry were more difficult to assess. Partnerships with international assistance agencies
and donors (e.g. Japan, Australia) are being developed.
As discussed in 4.1.4. Governance, there should be close collaboration between FF/OFM and
the Pacific Forum Secretariat to develop closer linkages with the Pacific Plan, wide capacity-
building in governance, and collaboration in development of a new, strategic, long-term
capacity-building project in OFM.
As also noted earlier, a serious omission in the OFM Project design was the lack of
partnership agreements with relevant CROP agencies including: USP which is responsible for
tertiary capacity building in the region; SPREP which executed the first GEF IW Watersheds
Project, and is responsible for biodiversity conservation in the region; and SOPAC, which has
a developing interest in the physical ocean environment and is about to start implementing
the component of the Pacific SAP on Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management
(ICWM). FSPI, the region's leading community NGO was also not involved in the Project,
despite a capacity in social aspects of OFM.
It is therefore recommended that:
· the proposed future Project in capacity-building in OFM involves partnerships
with appropriate CROP agencies (including Pacific Forum Secretariat, USP and
SPREP), regional NGOs, and international assistance agencies.
4.4.8. Cross-cutting issues: Institutional strengthening, innovation, national
development, gender, human rights, and equity
Although the above cross-cutting issues were not explicitly addressed in the Prodoc, the
Project explicitly focuses on national (and regional) sustainable development through
institutional strengthening. These are rated very highly in the first term as global institutions
(GEF, UNDP) and regional institutions (FFA, SPC, WCPF Commission) and Pacific SIDS
Fisheries institutions have significantly benefited. Institution strengthening in the first term has
assisted most of the Pacific SIDS in OFM, and in meeting their obligations under the WCF
Convention. Institutional strengthening in some countries (e.g. Fiji, Nauru) has been
particularly effective.
The Project also rates very highly in innovation because of its effective integration of science
and management (OFM governance) at an ocean scale, its multi-governmental approach to
management of a trans-boundary fisheries resource, and in its focus on collaboration,
partnerships and co-funding arrangements to ensure ownership and sustainability.
Social issues rate relatively poorly, and may have been more explicitly addressed in the
Project design though linkages with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). While
gender issues are considered in a study of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) around
fishing ports, the OFM Project does not address wider gender equity issues such as
promotion of equal employment opportunities for women in OFM at all levels. It is noted that
the lack of capacity and efficiency in regional Fisheries Departments (traditionally male
domains) could be greatly assisted by equal employment policies.
Human rights issues are also not well addressed. Fishing is one of the most hazardous
occupations on earth. Crew on OF vessels are low-paid, sometimes indentured for long
periods, have poor living conditions, and have poor medical support. It is therefore
recommended that:
· gender, human rights and equity issues should be better promoted in the
second term of the OFM Project, and be a focus in the proposed future
capacity-building project.
RSC4/WP.7
29
ATTACHMENT A
4.4.9. Coordinating mechanisms
Coordination mechanisms in the Prodoc design are comprehensive and comprise: the Project
Coordination Unit (PCU) with the Project Coordinator to manage the operations; a Project
Steering Committee to oversee this; a National Consultative Committee (NCCs) in each
country to secure broader stakeholder participation in the Project's activities; and a National
Focal Point in each country as a point of contact.
The Project's 109 Activities and outputs have been effectively coordinated by the PCU,
although as noted above, the PCU is not adequately resourced to manage a complex project
of this scale. Coordination between the implementing agency UNDP and executing agency
FFA has been also effective, although there were initial procedural problems. The working
relationships between FFA and SPC, and FFA and WWF-Pacific have been very close.
Coordination between the PCU and IUCN has been less effective, possibly because the latter
agency was not directly involved n the Prodoc development, was not represented in the
region and did not have technical expertise in for the Seamount sub-component. Presumably
this will improve when the IUCN Oceania Office's Project marine programme staff is recruited.
Recommendations are made above (4.3.4.) on mechanisms for coordination of the
Seamounts activities.
The performances of the NCCs have been variable, and some NCCs have not even been
successfully established. The 2007 Annual Review (Clark, 2007) flagged this as a problem,
and attributed this in part to the different capabilities of the Pacific SIDS. For example,
national coordination is less of a problem in PNG which has a National Fisheries Authority
governed by a Board representing the range of stakeholders. Smaller undeveloped countries
with limited Public Service capabilities and many overseas assistance programs to administer
have difficulties in arranging meetings in which all relevant representatives can attend.
Clark (2007) questioned the need for NCCs (a requirement in GEF Projects to ensure national
commitment and collaboration). He noted that most OFM Project activities and training
programmes are regionally (not nationally) executed; that coordination of external assistance
by donors is less a problem now than in the past; that donor coordination arrangements
imposed by donors are a `fatiguing burden' for smaller countries; and that the heavy schedule
of national and regional meetings in fisheries and related areas imposes an impossible load
on senior government personnel in the Pacific SIDS. The last issue is a particularly serious in
the Pacific SIDs as the extended absences of Heads of Fisheries in meetings adversely
affects their performance in their core task of running their national Fisheries institutions.
As a detailed evaluation of the performances of each NCC was not possible within the MTE, it
is therefore recommended that:
· the performance of each NCC should be evaluated by the PCU and be reported
to the Project Steering Committee, and assistance in kind be given where
appropriate to assist in their operations. Where this is not possible, alternative
strategies should be considered for national coordination (e.g. national
circulation of newsletters, email news).
4.5. Project Finances
4.5.1. Budget procedures
Budget procedures and financial accountability have been of a high standard. Monthly,
quarterly and annual financial reports are undertaken. An Annual Audit is undertaken for FFA
by certified external auditors based in Honiara, Solomon Islands. There have been
subsequent adjustments to accommodate audit recommendations and changes have also
been made to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions because of the weak US dollar.
These have been approved by the Regional Steering Committee.
There has been a significant impact of the weak US$ on the budget, especially on the
scientific assessment and monitoring component. As contingency funds were not permitted by
the donors, the rise in staff costs in SPC and FFA are considerable. As noted by Clarke 2007,
staff costs have been at 30-40% over the original budgeted values. The consequent budget
RSC4/WP.7
30
ATTACHMENT A
revisions have been approved by the Regional Steering Committee to compensate for this,
and to prevent any future risk to the project outcomes.
The project implementing agencies have been using disaggregated working budget, while for
reporting purposes to UNDP and Pacific SIDs aggregated budget have been utilised as
required by UNDP.
OFM Project Working Budget
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
Subtotal
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
Subtotal
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
Subtotal
1,915,120
TOTAL
10,946,220
4.5.2. Disbursements and spending
The disbursement process has run smoothly despite the slow start-up of the project. There
was some concern by UNDP regarding the large amount of advances (a quarterly advance of
approx $0.8 million in an annual budget of over $2 million) which caused some problems in
cash flow for SPC and FFA, the two main implementing agencies. But these initial difficulties
were resolved. By the MTE, May 30 2008, 57% of the project budget had been disbursed by
UNDP and the project budget spent was 52%.
RSC4/WP.7
31
ATTACHMENT A
Disbursements in OFM Project to MTE (May 2008)
Initial
Received
Cumulative
Cumulative Cumulative
Approved
from
Spent
% of Total
% of Total % of Project
Budget
UNDP
(US$)
Budget
Budget
Life
(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
996,216
57%
632,011
51.9%
65.0%
2009
1,622,445
2010
1,108,300
10,946,220
4.5.3. Actual spending and budget expectations
A detailed assessment of the actual spending versus budget expectations was undertaken by
the evaluators at FFA and was considered satisfactory. A comparative analysis of the
patterns of disbursements and expenditures with the initial project budget is presented in the
table above. As stated by Clarke 2007, the project was below delivery rate because 56% of
the budget was to be spent by December, 2007. By the MTE only 52% had been spent with
the majority of the shortfall due to the lack of progress by IUCN in implementing its portion of
the project. The IUCN activities have now been redesigned and an assurance has been given
by IUCN that the re-designed programme will be implemented and completed within 2.5
years, the project life.
4.5.4. Co-financing and leverage
The co-financing of the project is outlined in Annex 7. It is not possible to assess the in-kind
contribution of Pacific SIDS and the complex aspect of co-financing in this project at this
stage because there are no specific requirements from UNDP/GEF for accounting of
contributions from co-financing at this stage. However, it the PCU may need to establish a
system for keeping track of co-financing, as actual co-financing received needs to be reported
to the GEF at project closure.
The level of support by donors to fund OFM project related in-country and regional activities
has been very strong. The co-financing aspect of the project has exceeded the level of
financing required to meet the commitments of the co-financing requirements in the Project
document.
4.5.5 Effectiveness
The financial effectiveness of the PCU as a regional approach in support of the Project's
financial management is rated highly. The PCU has shown leadership and a high level of
competency in its approach in supporting the in-country conservation and sustainable oceanic
fisheries management initiatives in the Pacific. The strong and sound financial management
capabilities of FFA and SPC have prevented any difficulties in this area.
The Auditor's Reports are adequate for financial accountability for the project. The procedures
and accountability for financial reporting between FFA, SPC/OFM, UNDP and the Regional
Steering Committee members are of high quality. The Project Finance and Administration
Officer has good rapport with the Coordinator and is highly competent. The strong financial
capabilities of FFA and SPC institutions have supported the OFM Project. The overall
financial management of the Project is considered to be very impressive.
RSC4/WP.7
32
ATTACHMENT A
4.6. Lessons learned
The following highlights lessons learned, and best and worst practices in addressing issues
relating to relevance, performance and success of the OFM Project. Some lesson learned are
applicable only to this Project, while others are of value more broadly, to similar projects in the
UNDP/GEF pipeline and portfolio, and elsewhere.
4.6.1. Country ownership/driveness
Best practice: A high degree of ownership, and consequently `driveness' was achieved
through involvement of the Island countries in all phases of the Project, in the preliminary IW
SAP and in the development and execution of the OFM Project. Real `ownership' has been
achieved through co-funding arrangements and contributions in cash and kind from all the
Pacific SIDS involved.
Poor practice: The varying need of the Pacific SIDS, and special needs of the smaller
countries were not adequately considered in the project design. The continuing need to
maintain `ownership' has not been adequate. A focus is therefore required in the second term
of the Project on implementation of the media strategy and information dissemination.
4.6.2. Regional cooperation and inter-governmental cooperation
Best practice: There is a high degree of regional and intergovernmental cooperation through
the execution by the established regional organisations, FFA and SPC. The establishment of
the PCU within FFA has facilitated coordination in the execution of the Project.
Poor practice: The PCU was not sufficiently resourced in the Prodoc budget to manage such
a large and complex project. Because of the high degree of success in regional cooperation,
some countries feel that their own national interests are inadequately considered.
4.6.3. Stakeholder participation
Best practice: The development of strong degree of ownership established by making the
Pacific SIDS partners in the Project (above) has maximised participation of stakeholders.
Poor practice: Some key stakeholders were not engaged as partners in the Project (e.g.
USP in capacity-building and SPREP in biodiversity conservation). The NCCs have had
limited success for various reasons. Wider public information and media programmes have
not been undertaken to inform and engage other stakeholders such as other Government
Departments, industry, community NGOs, schools and interested members of the public.
4.6.4. Adaptive management processes
Best practice: Regular reports, annual reviews, and the MTE assess progress, identify
weaknesses and recommend remedial measures.
Poor practice: There is a significant time lag between the performance of the MTE and its
acceptance, and (hopefully) remedial actions. Remedial actions may not be possible because
of funding constraints. There may not be budget savings to implement recommended
activities.
4.6.5. Efforts to secure sustainability
Best practice: The emphasis on regional and national engagement, and multiple partnership
arrangements enhance ownership and sustainability. The focus on providing capacity for
Pacific SIDS to meet their longer-term obligations aids the sustainability of the WTCF
Convention and Commission, and hence sustainability of fisheries stocks.
Poor practice: The longer-term financial support to the Commission is not certain, affecting
its furture sustainability. The OFM Project generally does not take a long-term, strategic
approach to increasing capacity in OFM in the Pacific SIDS, particularly smaller countries.
4.6.6. Role of monitoring and evaluation in project implementation
Best practice: Regular reporting, reviews and the MTE monitor progress and evaluate
implementation.
Poor practice: The Project logical framework lacks quantitative indicators and timeframes,
hindering evaluation of progress.
RSC4/WP.7
33
ATTACHMENT A
4.7. Summary and explanation of findings and interpretations
The OFM Project is unusually large and ambitious in its objectives and geographic scale, and
complex in its design and implementation. Despite these challenges, the MTE concludes that
OFM Project has been very effectively implemented in its first term. There has been a
significant impact on the immediate regional objectives (improved OFM in Pacific SIDS, and
sustainable development of resources), contributing to wider global objectives (management
of oceanic fishery and oceanic biodiversity). There has also been significant progress on
addressing the root cause problems (lack of understanding, and weaknesses in governance),
though these will require continued effort.
The most notable achievement has been to provide capacities to the Pacific SIDs in a
coordinated manner for them to meet their obligations under the WCTF Convention. The
WCPF Commission rated the OFM Project very highly in performance and outcomes in this
regard. However, it is evident that smaller and less developed Islands are struggling, and will
require continued and focused support. While capacity-building has commenced in some of
these countries (e.g. Nauru) and will be undertaken in others (e.g. Tuvalu, Kiribati) Kiribati)
through leverage funding, it is the smaller countries, and those which have suffered problems
in national governance, which will require continuing support.
OFM Project management and administration is rated very highly in effectiveness. The GEF
Implementing Agency, UNDP is efficient and responsive, though its procedures were
considered rather onerous by the Executing Agency (FFA). FFA, a well-established regional
institution with 30 years of experience in OFM, has been very effective in this key role. Project
coordination (through the PCU) has been good, though the PCU is severly under-resourced
for a project of this scale and complexity. The major scientific organisation, SPC, has also
been effective in increasing knowledge of the status of oceanic fisheries. However, some of
the larger Pacific SIDS consider that they have not been significantly involved in oceanic
fisheries science and would like closer involvement.
One sub-component, the IUCN Seamounts study, did not begin in the first term for matters
beyond that organisation's control. This sub-component, developed to take advantage of a
no-cost deep sea expedition, was not considered a core part of the programme and has not
hindered the primary objectives of the Project. This study has now been redesigned and will
commence in the near future. IUCN has assured that the study will be completed within the
life of the OFM Project. However, it is evident that the IUCN activities will have to be better
related to the other Project activities, and closely coordinated in future.
The overall cost/effectiveness of the Project is rated very highly. Risk assessment and
management (in a complex Project with high inherent risk) has been well employed in the
Project design. However, monitoring and assessment of progress has been limited by a lack
of quantifiable indicators in the Project's logical framework. Adaptive management processes
within the Project are good in theory, but time lags may reduce their effectiveness. A lack of
funds would also prevent any new initiatives stemming from recommendations of this MTE.
Partnership agreements, the bases for the Project, and other internal arrangements have
been very effective. A major strength in the Prodoc is its inclusion of all Pacific SIDS and a
number of international and regional institutions as partners. However, regional organisations
with mandates in capacity-building and oceanic biodiversity conservation were not included,
to the detriment of the long-term sustainability of the Project objectives. The cross cutting
issues of institutional strengthening, national development and innovation are cornerstones of
the Project and are well addressed. However, social issues of gender, equity and human
rights were not addressed in the Project design. The latter should be explicitly addressed in
any future capacity-building projects in OFM.
Project coordination has been effective, but requires a continuing effort because of high staff
turnover in the region. However, the effectiveness of the National Coordination Committees
has been variable and some have not yet met. This reflects the range in capabilities within the
Pacific SIDS. Smaller countries with limited Public Services are especially hard pressed to
RSC4/WP.7
34
ATTACHMENT A
provide a full range of national services as well meeting the often demanding obligations of
external donors.
This has not affected delivery of training and other Project activities which are undertaken on
a more regional basis. The issue of national coordination requires further evaluation, and
alternative initiatives (e.g. smaller committees, wider circulation of newsletters, Web material).
The procedures and accountability for financial reporting within and between FFA, SPC/OFM,
UNDP and the Regional Steering Committee members are of high quality. Monthly, quarterly
and annual financial reports are undertaken, and there is an external annual audit. The
decline in the US dollar has had a serious impact on the Project budget and staff costs have
risen 30-40% over the original budgeted values. This has particularly affected SPC which has
several Project funded positions. Reallocations of funds have been made to support staffing
and have been approved by the Regional Steering Committee. A major weakness in budget
procedures is the use of an aggregated budget , which does not specifically identify budgets
for regional and national activities. The details are, however, provided by the disaggregated
working budgets used by FFA and SPC. By the MTE, May 30 2008, 57% of the project
budget had been disbursed by UNDP and the project budget spent was 52%. The levels of
co-financing and leverage by donors to fund OFM project related in-country and regional
activities have been very strong. The co-financing aspect of the project has exceeded the
level of financing required to meet the commitments of the co-financing requirements in the
Prodoc.
The lessons learnt (positive and negative) from the first term are important. Positive lessons
learnt include: importance of large-scale, coordinated and integrated approaches in ocean-
scale conservation and sustainable resources management; importance of engagement of
stakeholders in all stages of Project planning and implementation; importance of a detailed
design to ensure product delivery; reduction of risks in implementation through the utilisation
of existing resources, organizations and arrangements; and maximisation of stakeholder
participation, collaboration and sustainability through formal co-financing and partnership
arrangements. The OFM Project is considered a good model for other large-area, multi-
stakeholder or inter-governmental projects.
Negative lessons learnt include: need to include all relevant stakeholders (in this case, the
regional tertiary training and biodiversity conservation institutions); need for long-term
capacity-building approaches to ensure long-term sustainability; a false assumption that all
Pacific SIDS have similar needs; insufficient consideration of the special needs of small,
isolated countries; need for more flexible budgeting in longer-term projects to allow for new
initiatives and unexpected actors such as varying exchange rates; need for continuing
coordination and for a focused media programme; and the need for donors to minimise and
streamline bureaucratic procedures because of the excessive burden they place on executing
institutions and governments of small Pacific SIDS.
In conclusion, it should be recognised that while there has been significant progress on the
root cause problems (lack of understanding, and weaknesses in governance) the scale of
these necessitates long-term efforts, beyond the duration of this Project. A potentially serious
problem lies in longer-term sustainability of the Project objectives. While capacity-building in
the OFM Project has largely focused on meeting the more immediate needs (obligations
under the WCPF Convention), more strategic, longer-term capacity-building in OFM will be
required in the future, particularly to assist small, isolated Pacific SIDS.
.
RSC4/WP.7
35
ATTACHMENT A
5. Recommendations
Recommendations are made throughout Part 4, above. The following places these into
recommendations for corrective actions in the design, implementation, management and
evaluation of the OFM Project; actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project;
and proposals for future directions underlining main objectives. Those relating to the OFM
Project are designed, where possible, to be financial resource-neutral to minimise impacts on
ongoing activities.
5.1. Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
project
5.1.1. Design
· The revised design for the IUCN Seamount sub-component Output 1.3.2. should
be closely coordinated, integrated with the wider OFM Project objectivities, and
be collaborative with other regional research. The various IUCN Seamount
activities should be coordinated by the Principal Investigator who is to be recruited by
IUCN Oceania Office in Fiji. The activities and outputs of the IUCN Seamount
research should be related to other aspects of the OFM Project such as management
options, law reform, compliance, information strategy etc. Where possible, there
should be collaboration with other seamount research and management initiatives in
the region (e.g. by French research vessel Alise; Japan Fisheries University /USP
seamounts research on Koyo Maru).
5.1.2. Implementation
· The OFM PCU should be better supported in the second term of the Project.
Urgent discussions should be held between the Project Coordinator and UNDP on
Project management needs in the second term, and ways ahead. For example, an
additional Professional staff member might be recruited to assist in coordination,
reporting and in the development of the recommended new Project. One or two
additional Technical assistants might be established where funds could be
reallocated from other technical activities. The additional staff might be seconded
from regional Fisheries Departments to aid in coordination and national capacity
building.
· GEF should be informed on the need for greater flexibility in allocations for
Project management. Success of any Project depends on the quality of Project
management.
·
Pacific SIDs should be assisted where possible in developing their capacities in
oceanic fisheries science. (e.g. through work attachments for Fisheries institution
research staff at SPC; linkages between SPC with USP's School of Marine Studies;
encouragement for students from Pacific SIDS to undertake postgraduate research in
oceanic fisheries). More strategic, long-term assistance in building national capacities
in ocean science should be included in the proposed capacity-building project
(below).
5.1.3. Partnership agreements
· the OFM Project should be more explicitly linked to the Pacific Plan and a new
project be developed to implement the long-term strategic approach to
capacity-building in OFM, as recommended under the Vavau Declaration.
Discussions should held between FFA and the Pacific Forum Secretariat in
developing this project.
· Discussions should be held with USP and SPREP to more actively involve them
in capacity-building and oceanic biodiversity and conservation. As funding is
RSC4/WP.7
36
ATTACHMENT A
fully committed for the second term of the OFM, they may be able to contribute in kind
and through leverage funding arrangements.
· Special efforts should be made to more closely engage with the private sector,
tuna industry and related business communities in the promotion of the OFM
Project objectives.
5.1.4. Monitoring and reporting
· A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed within the Logical
Framework to better monitor progress in Project Outputs and Activities. The
Project Coordinator should develop these in consultation with UNDP and GEF.
Quantitative indicators should be aggregated from (a) a `bottom-up' approach (e.g.
performance of each activity (e.g. planned versus actual performance with respect to
timeliness, budget, outcomes, technical reports, numbers of meetings); and (b) `top
down' indicators reflecting the broad objectives of the OFM Project (e.g. numbers of
Pacific SIDS with appropriate legislation; observer programmes; participation in
CPWCPF Commission meetings).
· A baseline study of OFM in Pacific SIDS, including a summary of the
achievements and shortfalls of WCPF Convention commitments, should be
prepared. This was recommended in the 2007 Annual Review of the OFM Project. It
will be useful background for future initiatives (see 5.3).
· The monitoring and reporting requirements of the major donor, GEF, and
implementing agency UNDP, should be assessed to reduce unnecessary
bureaucratic procedures. The PCU Coordinator should enter a dialogue with UNDP
Project Management staff to streamline processes in the second term.
5.1.5. Coordination
Increased support for the PCU to undertake additional tasks is recommended above. It is also
recommended that:
· A review of the functions and effectiveness of the Regional Coordination
Committees should be undertaken by the PCU and alternative strategies for in-
country coordination is developed where necessary. Strategies may include
smaller committees, less frequent meetings, delegated responsibilities to existing
national coordination committees and/or wider use of newsletters, Internet and media
releases to keep stakeholders informed.
5.1.6. Information dissemination
· the OFM Knowledge Management Strategy should be fully implemented and
there should be a greater focus on dissemination of information from the OFM
Project by the PCU. Information dissemination should include: wider distribution of
the OFM brochure; special briefings for newly appointed Heads of Fisheries and other
key stakeholders; formal briefings and presentations at relevant regional Fisheries
meetings; promotion of OFM Project and wider FFA and SPC Websites amongst
stakeholders; popular descriptions on the Project Website for educators and the wider
community; regular newsletters (email, Web and hard copy); and radio and press
news releases for distribution to regional media.
5.2. Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
· The specific needs of small Pacific SIDS should be identified, and a strategic
plan developed to provide appropriate support. This may include an assessment
RSC4/WP.7
37
ATTACHMENT A
of needs and assistance in negotiations with bilateral donors for specific in-country
support in OFM.
· The Knowledge Management/Media programme should highlight significant
achievements in the first term. This will assist in the development of leverage
funding and funding for the proposed future project in long-term capacity-
development (see 5.3).
· Discussions should be held as soon as possible with potential donors for a
future project (see 5.3). Continued GEF funding is uncertain. GEF may not commit
to a fourth regional project, but may commit to specific country support through
bilateral funding arrangements. The EU, Japan and Australia have shown a strong
commitment to supporting sustainable oceanic fisheries and biodiversity
conservation.
5.3. Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
5.3.1. New initiatives
· A new project should be developed for strategic, long-term capacity-building in
OFM in Pacific SIDS, and to specifically assist smaller Pacific SIDS and those
with governance problems. The need for continuation and long-term sustainability
of the OFM initiatives, and need for more focused assistance to small Pacific SIDS
has been raised throughout the MTE. The 2007 Pacific Forum Leaders' Vavau
Declaration calls for long-term, strategic capacity-building in OFM in the Pacific SIDS.
Planning should commence as soon as possible on a new project. Although the
details of this are outside the scope of this MTE, some general suggestions on
process are given here.
The TOR of the new Project might be scoped by consultants reporting to the OFM
Steering Committee. Details might be developed by consultants in a workshop of
stakeholders, including OFM experts, Pacific SIDS, regional organisations (e.g. FFA,
SPC, Pacific Forum Secretariat, USP, SPREP), potential donors (e.g. GEF, EU,
Japan, AusAID) and NGOs (e.g. WWF, Greenpeace).
The long-term capacity-building Project should be strategic and inclusive in approach.
It should consider the specific needs of each country in OFM (mid- to long-term);
capacity and training requirements; appropriate training programmes (e.g. at USP,
other regional and International institutions); and funding opportunities (multilateral
and bilateral aid). It will require commitment from the targeted Pacific SIDs through
partnership arrangements, and contributions in kind (e.g. commitment to additional
staff in OFM in Fisheries Departments).
The new project should also focus on closer engagement of the private fisheries
sector in OFM, and build on the OFM Project's partnership arrangements.
The project (or some related, coordinated project) should also focus on better
understanding of the ecology of the WTP Large Marine Ecosystem, and the status
and conservation of its marine biodiversity. This component might be implemented in
collaboration with SPREP and SOPAC.
· Special arrangements should be considered for OFM in small, isolated SIDs.
Given the lack of progress in capacity-building in the smallest Pacific SIDs in the past
30 years, and the reality that those with very small populations (e.g. under 25,000)
will probably always lack the human capacity for specialised OFM, alternative
approaches should be considered to better assist them. These might be scoped in an
open forum or workshop involving country representatives; experts in OFM and
international assistance; donor organisations and `problem solvers'. Preliminary
suggestions by the Consultants include:
RSC4/WP.7
38
ATTACHMENT A
Sub-regional groupings to provide better support for smallest
countries:
Because individual small countries are unable to have the full range of
expertise in OFM, they might collaborate to share OFM expertise sub-
regionally. Groupings might be based on current FFA sub-groupings of
countries with similar challenges and experiences, with shared EEZ borders
and shared tuna stocks. The FFA groupings are:
(a) East Sub-Regional Group: Cook Islands, Tokelau, Niue, Tonga, Samoa
and New Zealand (shared Polynesian culture, political affiliations with New
Zealand etc.)
(b) West Sub-Regional Group: Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands,
Vanuatu (and Australia)
(c) North Sub-Regional Group: FSM (Ponape, Yap, Chuuk), Palau and
Marshall Islands (Micronesian, small countries, former US affiliations), and
Nauru, Kiribati and Tuvalu (Micronesian/Polynesian, atoll countries, former
British affiliations).
Subgroups (a) and (c) largely comprise small, isolated island countries.
There may be benefits in separating the two groups within (c) on geographic
and cultural grounds.
Country attachments or representatives within FFA
As the smallest Pacific SIDs are unable to fully support OFM, mechanisms
to assist them might include: a national Fisheries staff member situated at
FFA to look after their country's interests; a dedicated FFA staff member or
consultant to undertake this task; and/or a pool of technical experts within
FFA to look after the specific interests of the small countries.
RSC4/WP.7
39
ATTACHMENT B
UNDP Management Response Template
[Name of the Evaluation] Date:
Prepared by:
Position:
Unit/Bureau:
Cleared by:
Position:
Unit/Bureau:
Input into and update in ERC:
Position:
Unit/Bureau:
Overall comments:
The MTR concludes that the project well designed and implemented, with significant impact on the immediate regional objectives and global
objectives.
Notably, the capacities of Pac SIDS to meet their WCPFC obligations are enhanced as a result of project intervention but that the smaller countries
of this membership require more support. The review also recognizes that the management and administration of this large project owes to a large
extent the high efficiency and effective rating to the execution through established regional organizations with extensive experience. The review
recommendations range from minor to more strategic long term issues that need to be addressed both within the remainder of the project and in
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 1:
Results (4) 2
Management Response:
Future developments requires more specific attention on the
smaller Pac SIDs capacity to fulfill their conservation &
management responsibilities in the long term. The MTR
identifies a number of issues that will need to be considered for
sustainability.
Continued support to capacity development in SIDS beyond the
project will be provided by UNDP and FFA core programmes
and efforts will be made to mainstream the objectives of the OFM
project into long-term plans and strategies of the executing
agencies that are supporting regional marine governance,
including the Pacific Plan, in order to ensure sustainability.
There is concurrence that any long-term strategic approaches to
develop the capacity of in OFM and ensure sustainability should
be encapsulated in future planning and funding initiatives
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
Status
Comments
Project Impact - Governance (4.1.4.)
Mainstreaming efforts in
FFA & UNDP
It is therefore recommended that the OFM Project should be more agencies are ongoing and will be
2 Bracketed numeral references are the order in which evaluations & recommendations appear in the MTR Report.
RSC4/WP.7
40
ATTACHMENT B
explicitly linked to the Pacific Plan and a new project be
further strengthened in the
developed to implement the long-term strategic approach to
second term of the project.
capacity-building in OFM recommended under the Vavau
Declaration. Discussions should be held between FFA and the
Long-term capacity building
Pacific Forum Secretariat in developing this project.
needs will also be considered
during the design of Phase III,
late 2008 - 2009
Recommendations from results (4.1.7.)
Second term of ongoing project.
PCU, FFA, SPC
It is recommended that:
Incorporate in the design of
(a) the second term of the OFM Project, and any future
Phase III - Late 2008 - 2009
developments of the Project, specifically addresses the
needs of smaller Pacific SIDS;
(b) alternative strategies should also be considered to
support smaller Pacific SIDS in OFM (e.g. Sub-regional
groupings, country-specific support from FFA);
(c) long-term, strategic approaches should be developed to
build capacity in OFM and ensure sustainability, and
should be the focus of a future OFM Project. (These
recommendations are elaborated upon in 5.2 and 5.3)
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 2:
Project Design (4.2)
Management Response:
See comments for issue 1. Long-term capacity building needs
will also be considered during the design of Phase III which
commence in late 2008 - 2009
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
Project Design (4.2.2)
For consideration during the
PCU, FFA
Relevance to capacity development and sustainability
design of Phase III (late 2008
It is therefore recommended that:
2009)
· the above proposed long-term capacity building project
in OFM be based on systematic assessments of training
needs in OFM in each country, and appropriate Fisheries
institutional models and arrangements. (See 5.3 for
details)
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 3:
Project Management & Administration (4.3)
Management Response:
Efforts to address shortfalls during the second half of the project
in terms of management & administration will need to be
elevated, including information dissemination.
There have been some developments at FFA since the review was
RSC4/WP.7
41
ATTACHMENT B
completed that have dramatically changed the work load at the
PCU. FFA has finally recruited a very dynamic Media
Information officer who is providing excellent assistance to the
OFM Project (publications, newsletters, media releases and
website). The need to allocate one more full-time position to the
PCU is therefore not as urgent as when the review was conducted
and funding constraints also makes this difficult.
Opportunities to both continue and add to the development of
oceanic fisheries science capacity within Pac SIDS should be
maintained over the remainder of the project and should be a
central element in the next phase.
IUCN have appointed the coordinator who has responsibility for
ensuring collaboration within the SPC/IUCN Seamounts
programme, with other OFM Project activities, and with other
agencies involved in seamount research in the region.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
Project Management & Administration (4.3)
By second quarter 2009.
PCU & UNDP (c)
Executing agency FFA (4.3.2.)
It is therefore recommended that:
(a) The OFM PCU is better supported in the second term of
the Project.
(b) Greater focus is given by the PCU to information
dissemination on the OFM Project amongst
stakeholders, and wider community in the Pacific SIDs.
(See 4.4.4. for details).
(c) GEF should be informed on the need for greater
flexibility in allocations for Project management.
SPC (4.3.3.)
Ongoing during current project
SPC & for
It is therefore recommended that:
and for consideration during the
consideration during the
(a) Where possible, SPC should assist in the development of
development of a follow-up
design of phase III.
oceanic fisheries science within Pacific SIDs in this term
phase, late 2008 - 2009
of the Project.
(b) Development in oceanic fisheries science within Pacific
SIDs is a priority in the proposed new capacity-building
Project.
IUCN (4.3.4.)
Completed - IUCN have
IUCN
It is recommended that:
appointed a coordinator (Eric
· the Seamounts program is coordinated by the new
Gilman) early 2008
scientist at the IUCN Oceania Office to ensure
collaboration within the SPC/IUCN Seamounts
programme, with other OFM Project activities, and with
other agencies involved in seamount research in the
RSC4/WP.7
42
ATTACHMENT B
region
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 4:
Project Implementation (4.4)
Management Response:
The GEF Council adopted new focal area strategies at its June
2007 meeting. The IW strategy was thus updated and
environmental process, stress and status indicators for the
Strategic Programme on Fisheries were strengthened and
updated. UNDP/GEF will provide further guidance on adjustment
to the LFA & the appropriate indicators with which to monitor
progress of Outputs & Activities and how they link to
measurement of project outcomes/results and impacts. To date
financial records and budgets have monitored output and activity
progress. Reporting processes and their effectiveness could
usefully be reviewed with UNDP/GEF taking the lead. Other
project implementation recommendations should be implemented
in the remainder of the project or are considerations for the next
phase.
The Baseline study for the project will investigate the issues that
have arisen in relating to reporting against indicators and will
make recommendations for changes to indicators. The outcomes
of the Baseline study will also be the basis for discussions
between the PCU & UNDP to review reporting processes and
their effectiveness.
After considerable time lapse the FFA has managed to fill the
position of Media Information officer who is now providing
some increased assistance to the OFM Project (publications,
newsletters, media releases and website). She is also working
with WWF on some joint initiatives.
A number of issues require clarification in advance of developing
further assistance focused on capacity building. This includes the
need to understand GEF and UNDP policies on issues such as
support for formal academic training, gender, human rights and
equity in terms of resource projects of this nature.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
Project Implementation (4.4.)
December 2008
PCU & UNDP
Applicability of logical framework tool (4.4.2)
It is therefore recommended that:
· A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed
within the Logical Framework to better monitor progress
in Project Outputs and Activities.
Project reporting (4.4.3.)
December 2008
PCU & UNDP
RSC4/WP.7
43
ATTACHMENT B
It is therefore recommended that:
· The OFM Project Coordinator and UNDP Project
Management should undertake an informal review of the
reporting processes and their effectiveness with the view
of reducing the number and/or detail, while maintaining
their effectiveness.
Information dissemination (4.4.4.)
December 2008
PCU & FFA
It is recommended that:
(a) the OFM media strategy should be implemented and
FFA media officer now recruited
there should be a greater focus on dissemination of
and assisting
information from the OFM Project by the PCU.
(b) the capacity of the OFM/PCU should be increased to
undertake these additional functions. The previously
recommended additional staff member may be charged
with these responsibilities.
Partnership arrangements (4.4.7.)
For consideration during the
PCU & FFA
It is therefore recommended that:
design of Phase III, late 2008 -
· the proposed future Project in capacity-building in OFM 2009
involves partnerships with appropriate CROP agencies
(including Pacific Forum Secretariat, USP and SPREP),
regional NGOs, and international assistance agencies.
Cross-cutting issues: Institutional strengthening, innovation,
By 3rd quarter 2010 & for
PCU, FFA, SPC
national development, gender, human rights, and equity (4.4.8.)
consideration during the design
It is therefore recommended that:
of Phase III, late 2008 - 2009
· gender, human rights and equity issues should be better
promoted in the second term of the OFM Project, and be
a focus in the proposed future capacity-building project.
Coordinating mechanisms (4.4.9.)
By RSC5 October 2009
PCU
it is therefore recommended that:
· the performance of each NCC should be evaluated by
the PCU and be reported to the Project Steering
Committee, and assistance in kind be given where
appropriate to assist in their operations. Where this is not
possible, alternative strategies should be considered for
national coordination
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 5:
Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of the project (5.1.)
Management Response:
See earlier comments on issues for corrective actions for design,
RSC4/WP.7
44
ATTACHMENT B
implementation and evaluation of the project.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking
Status
Comments
Design (5.1.1.), Implementation (5.1.2)
(a) Completed & ongoing
PCU (a,b & d)
(a) The revised design for the IUCN Seamount sub-
(b) Ongoing
UNDP Fiji b & c
component Output 1.3.2. should be closely coordinated,
(c) December 2008
integrated with the wider OFM Project objectivities, and
(d) 3rd quarter 2010
be collaborative with other regional research. 5.1.2.
Implementation
(b) The OFM PCU should be better supported in the second
term of the Project.
(c) GEF should be informed on the need for greater
flexibility in allocations for Project management.
(d) (d) Pacific SIDs should be assisted where possible in
developing their capacities in oceanic fisheries science.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 6:
Partnership agreements (5.1.3.)
Management Response:
Earlier comments apply to (a). Some engagement with USP (TSC
Training) & SPREP (Turtle conservation and project oversight)
occurs but the recommendation to increase the dialogue with
these organization with the view to collaborate on capacity and
oceanic biodiversity and conservation is well founded. Whilst the
project has fulfilled the designed activities to engage Pacific tuna
industry through stakeholder participation in the Commission and
awareness raising, there is room to strengthen communication
between the PCU & PITIA.
The OFM Project is explicitly linked to the Pacific Plan and
regular reports against the Vavau Declaration and the Plan are
submitted to the Pacific Plan Action Committee3. Presently, the
reports do not profile the activities as OFMP & GEF funded and
this needs to be rectified immediately.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
(a) the OFM Project should be more explicitly linked to the
(a) For consideration
PCU
Pacific Plan and a new project be developed to
during the design of
implement the long-term strategic approach to capacity-
Phase III, late 2008
building in OFM, as recommended under the Vavau
2009
Declaration. Discussions should held between FFA and
(b) Before 3rd quarter 2010
3 Please refer to the Jan April and July reports of the Pacific Plan Action Committee and the 2007 Pacific Forum Leaders Communiqué (Vavau Declaration)
and the 2008 Forum Leaders Communiqué (Annex A)
RSC4/WP.7
45
ATTACHMENT B
the Pacific Forum Secretariat in developing this project.
(c) By February 2009
(b) Discussions should be held with USP and SPREP to
more actively involve them in capacity-building and
oceanic biodiversity and conservation.
(c) Special efforts should be made to more closely engage
with the private sector, tuna industry and related
business communities in the promotion of the OFM
Project objectives.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 7:
Monitoring and reporting (5.1.4.)
Management Response:
See earlier responses. At the time of writing, the baseline study
for the project has commenced.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
(a) A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed
(a) By December 2008
PCU & UNDP
within the Logical Framework to better monitor progress
(b) September 2008
in Project Outputs and Activities.
(c) December 2008
(b) A baseline study of OFM in Pacific SIDS, including a
summary of the achievements and shortfalls of WCPF
Convention commitments, should be prepared.
(c) The monitoring and reporting requirements of the major
donor, GEF, and implementing agency UNDP, should
be assessed to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic
procedures.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 8:
Coordination (5.1.5.)
Management Response:
To be commenced after the projects 4th meeting in Apia in Oct
2008.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
· A review of the functions and effectiveness of the
December 2008
PCU
Regional Coordination Committees should be undertaken
by the PCU and alternative strategies for in-country
coordination is developed where necessary.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 9:
Information dissemination (5.1.6.)
Management Response:
To be implemented subject to available resources.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking*
· the OFM Knowledge Management Strategy should be
December 2008
PCU
fully implemented and there should be a greater focus on
RSC4/WP.7
46
ATTACHMENT B
dissemination of information from the OFM Project by the
PCU.
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 10:
Actions to follow up or reinforce initial
benefits from the project (5.2.)
Management Response:
See Issue 11
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking
Status
Comments
(a) The specific needs of small Pacific SIDS should be
(a) By 3rd quarter 2010
PCU, FFA, UNDP
identified, and a strategic plan developed to provide
(b) For consideration
appropriate support.
during the design of
(b) The Knowledge Management/Media programme should
Phase III, late 2008
highlight significant achievements in the first term. (see
2009
5.3).
(c) RSC4 to consider
(c) Discussions should be held as soon as possible with
potential donors for a future project (see 5.3).
Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 11:
Proposals for future directions underlining (5.3.)
Management Response:
The MTR has highlighted a number of issues that will bear closer
inspection in the development of a future phase of the project.
Many of the recommendations relate to the gaps identified or a
range of activities that simply could not be undertaken in the
current project. A preliminary report will be prepared for the next
RSC to draw to the attention of the stakeholders the need to
consider a further project and taking into consideration the
recommendations made by the MTR.
Key Action(s)
Time Frame
Responsible Unit(s)
Tracking
Status
Comments
New initiatives (5.3.1.)
For consideration during the
PCU, FFA & SPC
· A new project should be developed for strategic, long-
design of Phase III, late
term capacity-building in OFM in Pacific SIDS, and to
2008 2009
specifically assist smaller Pacific SIDS and those with
governance problems.
* The implementation status is tracked in the ERC.
RSC4/WP.7
47