UNDP PROJECT DOCUMENT



Governments of Cook Islands, Federated States 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




Title: Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project



To achieve global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of
transboundary oceanic fishery resources in the Pacific Islands region and the protection of the
biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool LME.

---

Table of Contents
LIST OF ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................... 4
ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE ........................................................................................................ 7
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 7
COSTS AND FINANCING........................................................................................................................................ 9
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY CONTACTS:................................................................................................................ 9
RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENTS.................................................................. 10
A. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT......................................................................................................... 11
GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 11
MAJOR AREAS OF CONCERN............................................................................................................................. 13
ANALYSIS OF ROOT CAUSES ............................................................................................................................. 19
LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, POLICY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE ........................................................ 22
Legal........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Policy.......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Institutional ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Socio-Economic and Financial................................................................................................................. 36
THE GEF IW SOUTH PACIFIC SAP PROJECT .................................................................................................. 37
THE PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 38
B. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 40
RATIONALE FOR GEF SUPPORT........................................................................................................................ 40
Baseline Scenario ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Alternative Scenario ................................................................................................................................. 43
PROJECT GOALS .............................................................................................................................................. 44
PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 45
C. PROJECT COMPONENTS, OUTCOMES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES .................................... 46
PROJECT COMPONENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 46
PROJECT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................... 46
COMPONENT 1: SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING ENHANCEMENT........................................... 47
COMPONENT 2: LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT AND STRENGTHENING..... 53
COMPONENT 3: COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES ....................................... 62
INDICATIVE WORKPLAN AND TIMETABLE ........................................................................................................ 66
D. TARGETED BENEFICIARIES ............................................................................................................. 73
E. RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY............................................................................................................ 73

1

---

F. GEF ELIGIBILITY.................................................................................................................................. 76
G.
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION................................................................................................ 78
H.
INCREMENTAL COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING .............................................................. 81
I.
IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION ........................................................................................... 82
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY................................................................................................................................... 82
EXECUTING AGENCY ARRANGEMENTS............................................................................................................ 82
NATIONAL LEVEL PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ................................................................ 83
National Consultative Committee ........................................................................................................... 83
REGIONAL LEVEL PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ................................................................ 84
Project Coordination Unit........................................................................................................................ 84
Regional Steering Committee .................................................................................................................. 84
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMMES, PROJECTS AND ACTION PLANS ................................................. 85
J.
PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION................................................................................ 86
PROGRESS AND ONGOING EVALUATION REPORTS ......................................................................................... 86
Independent Evaluations.......................................................................................................................... 87
UNDP ATLAS BUDGET FOR PROJECT...................................................................................................... 91
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES ...................................................................................................................... 93
RESPONSE TO GEF COUNCIL COMMENTS ........................................................................................... 96


2

---

LIST OF ANNEXES
COMPULSORY ANNEXES
Annex A
Incremental Cost Analysis
Annex B
Logical Framework Analysis
Annex C
STAP Roster Technical Review
Annex C-1
IA Response to STAP Review
Annex D
Endorsements from GEF Operational Focal Points and Other Contributors
Annex E
Summary of the Terminal Evaluation Report of the OFM Component of the IW
SAP Project
OPTIONAL ANNEXES
Annex F
Implementation Arrangements and Project Management
Annex G
Stakeholder and Public Participation Plan
Annex H
Maps of the Project Area
Annex I
Summary of the SAP
Annex J
WCPF Convention
Annex K
National Reports
Annex L
GEF Indicators
Annex M
Reference Documentation


3

---

LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADB
Asian Development Bank
APR
Annual Project Review
BPOA
Barbados Programme of Action
C Centigrade
CIDA
Canadian International Development Agency
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
ENSO
El Niño Southern Oscillation
EU European
Union
FAD
Fish Aggregating Device
FAO
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation
FFA
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
FY Fiscal
Year
GEF
Global Environment Facility
IA Implementing
Agency
ICCAT
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
ICWM
Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management
INGO Industry
Non-Governmental Organisation
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
IUU Illegal,
Unregulated
and Unreported (fishing)
IW International
Waters
(focal area of the GEF)
JPOI
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development)
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
LOA
Letter of Agreement
MCS
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
MEA Multilateral
Environmental
Agreement
MDGs
Millenium Development Goals
MOU Memorandum
of
Understanding
MPA
Marine Protected Area
MSWG
Marine Sector Working Group
NAFO Northwest
Atlantic
Fisheries Organisation
NCC
National Consultative Committee

4

---

NFP
National Focal Point
NGO Non-Governmental
Organisation
OFM Oceanic
Fisheries
Management
OFP
Oceanic Fisheries Programme (of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community)
OP
Operational Program (of the GEF)
PACPOL
Pacific Ocean Pollution Prevention Programme
PacSIDS
Pacific Small Island Developing States
PCU
Project Coordinating Unit
PDF
Project Preparation and Development Facility (of the GEF)
PIR
Project Implementation Review
ppt
parts per thousand
PROCFish
Pacific Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries (EU Project)
RSC
Regional Steering Committee
SAP
Strategic Action Programme
SCG
Scientific Coordinating Group (of the WCPF Preparatory Conference)
SCTB
Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish
SIDS
Small Island Developing States
SOPAC
South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
SPC
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP
Pacific Regional Environment Programme
SPP
South Pacific Programme (of WWF)
STAP
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TSC Train-Sea-Coast
UK United
Kingdom
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
UNFCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNFSA
United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement
US United
States
USP
University of the South Pacific
VMS
Vessel Monitoring System
WCPA
World Commission on Protected Areas

5

---

WCPF
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
WCPO
Western and Central Pacific Ocean
WSSD
World Summit on Sustainable Development
WTP
Western Tropical Pacific
WWF
World Wildlife Fund for Nature


6

---

ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE
Identifiers

PIMS Number:
2992
Project Name:
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project.
Project Duration:
5 years.
Implementing Agency:
United Nations Development Programme.
Executing Agency:
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency.
Requesting Countries:
Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu and
Vanuatu.
Eligibility:
The countries are eligible under para. 9(b) of the GEF
Instrument.
GEF Focal Area:
International Waters.
IW Strategic Priorities:
IW1 - Catalyse financial resource mobilisation for
implementation of reforms and stress reduction measures
agreed through TDA-SAP or equivalent processes for
particular transboundary systems;
IW2 - Expand global coverage of foundational capacity
building addressing the two key programme gaps and
support for targeted learning, specifically the fisheries
programme gap.
GEF PROGRAMMING
OP 9, Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area, SIDS
FRAMEWORK:
Component.
Summary
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 Small Island Developing States and in the World Summit for Sustainable
Development's Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Throughout these instruments, the
importance of coastal and marine resources and the coastal and marine environment to
sustainable development of SIDS is emphasised, with the Plan of Implementation specifically
calling for support for the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (the WCPF
Convention).
The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) identifies 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.

7

---

In addition, the GEF promotes the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach to addressing
environmental problems in Large Marine Ecosystems is through activities under the Large
Marine Ecosystem Component of OP 8, the Waterbody-Based Operational Program.
Consistent with this framework, GEF financing for the International Waters (IW) South Pacific
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) Project from 2000 supported the implementation of an IW
Pacific Islands SAP, including a pilot phase of support for the Oceanic Fisheries Management
(OFM) Component, which underpinned successful efforts to conclude and bring into force the
WCPF Convention. Now, GEF assistance is sought for a new Pacific Islands OFM Project to
support Pacific SIDS efforts as they participate in the setting up and initial period of operation of
the new Commission that is at the centre of the WCPF Convention, and as they reform, realign,
restructure and strengthen their national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to
take up the new opportunities which the WCPF Convention creates and discharge the new
responsibilities which the Convention requires.
The goals of the Project combine the interests of the global community in the conservation of a
marine ecosystem covering a huge area of the surface of the globe, with the interests of some of
the world's smallest nations in the responsible and sustainable management of resources that are
crucial for their sustainable development.
The global environmental goal of the Project is to achieve global environmental benefits by
enhanced conservation and management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources in the
Pacific Islands region and the protection of the biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific
Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem.
The broad development goal of the Project is to assist the Pacific Island States to improve the
contribution to their sustainable development from improved management of transboundary
oceanic fishery resources and from the conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity generally.
The IW Pacific Islands SAP identified the ultimate root cause underlying the concerns about,
and threats to, International Waters in the region as deficiencies in management and grouped the
deficiencies into two linked subsets ­ lack of understanding and weaknesses in governance. In
response, the Project will have two major technical components.
Component 1, the Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement Component, is aimed at
providing improved scientific information and knowledge on the oceanic transboundary fish
stocks and related ecosystem aspects of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine
Ecosystem (WTP LME) and at strengthening the national capacities of Pacific SIDS in these
areas. This work will include a particular focus on the ecology of seamounts in relation to
pelagic fisheries and the fishing impacts upon them.
Component 2, the Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening
Component, is aimed at assisting Pacific Island States as they participate in the earliest stages of
the work of the new WCPF Commission and at the same time reform, realign and strengthen
their national laws, policies, institutions and programmes relating to management of
transboundary oceanic fisheries and protection of marine biodiversity.
Component 3, the Coordination, Participation and Information Services Component, is aimed at
effective project management, complemented by mechanisms to increase participation and raise
awareness of the conservation and management of oceanic resources and the oceanic
environment.

8

---

The design of the Project has involved a substantial consultative process, which has been
warmly supported throughout the region. Reflecting outcomes of this process, the Project seeks
to apply a regional approach in a way that recognises national needs; to strike a balance between
technical and capacity-building outputs by twinning technical and capacity building activities in
every area; and to open participation in all project activities to governmental and non-
governmental stakeholders.
The structure for implementation and execution of the Project builds on a record of successful
collaboration between the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), regional
organisations and Pacific SIDS in past activities in oceanic environmental management and
conservation, strengthened by planned new partnerships with The World Conservation Union
(IUCN), a regional environmental non-governmental organisation (ENGO) and a regional
industry non-governmental organisation (INGO).
COSTS AND FINANCING
GEF:

Project: US$
10,946,220
PDF-B:
US$
698,065
Subtotal GEF:
US$
11,644,285
Co-financing (1):

Confirmed (see endorsements in Annex D)

Participating Governments (in cash and kind):
US$
17,286,580
Regional
Organisations
(in cash and kind):
US$
14,459,777
New Zealand Aid (cash):
US$
400,000
IUCN (in kind):
US$
610,000
NGOs (in cash and kind):
US$
400,000
Other WCPF Commission Members (Commission contributions):
US$
6,485,576
Other Estimated Co-financing

Fishing States (in kind regulation costs):
US$
32,250,000
Surveillance Partners (in kind):
US$
7,200,000
Subtotal Co-financing:
US$
79,091,933
Total Project Cost:
US$
90,736,217
(1) Project only: excludes PDF co-financing

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY CONTACTS:
Andrew Hudson ­ UNDP GEF New York
Tel. and email: 001-212-906-6228. Andrew.Hudson@undp.org

9

---

RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENTS
GEF Operational Points (at November 2004)
Dates
of
Endorsement/
Confirmation
Cook Islands
Endorsed: 13 October 2003
Mr Vaitoti Tupa, Director, Environment Service
Confirmed: 24 December 2004
Federated States of Micronesia
Endorsed: 6 November 2003
Mr John Mooteb, Deputy Assistant Secretary
Confirmed: 29 December 2004
Sustainable Development Unit
Fiji
Endorsed: 1 March 2004
Mr Cama Tuiloma, Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Local Confirmed 1 February 2005
Government, Housing, Squatter Settlement & Environment
Kiribati
Endorsed: 28 November 2003
Mr Tererei Abete-Reema, Deputy Director, Environment and
Conservation Division
Republic of Marshall Islands
Endorsed: 16 September 2003
Ms Yumiko Crisostomo, Director, Office of Environmental Planning Confirmed 4 February 2005
and Policy Coordination
Nauru
Endorsed: 20 October 2003
Mr Joseph Cairn, The Secretary, Department of Industry & Confirmed 14 December 2004
Economic Development
Niue
Endorsed: 9 February 2004
Mr Crossley Tatui, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs Confirmed: 24 December 2004
Office
Palau
Endorsed: 22 October 2003
Ms Youlsau Bells, National Environment Planner, Office of Confirmed: 17 December 2004
Environmental and Response Coordination
Papua New Guinea
Endorsed: 19 February 2004
Mr Wari Iamo, Director, Department of Environment and Confirmed 2 February 2005
Conservation
Samoa
Endorsed: 17 October 2003
Mr Aiono Mose Pouvi Sua
Confirmed: 23 December 2004
Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Solomon Islands
Endorsed: 11 October 2003
Mr Steve Likaveke, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Forests, Confirmed: 20 December 2004
Environment & Conservation
Tonga
Endorsed: 26 January 2004
Mr Uilou Samani, Director, Department of Environment
Confirmed: 3 January 2005
Tokelau
Endorsed: 27 February 2004
Mr Falani Aukuso, Director, Office of the Council of Faipule
Confirmed: 13 December 2004
Tuvalu
Endorsed: 7 November 2003
Mr Nelesone Panapasi, Secretary to Government, Office of the Confirmed 1 February 2005
Prime Minister
Vanuatu
Endorsed: 17 March 2004
Mr Ernest Bani, The Head, Environment Unit


10

---

A. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Importance of the Waters and Their Management
The waters of the Pacific Islands region cover an area of around 40 million square kilometres, or
over 10 per cent of the Earth's surface and equivalent to about one third of the area of the Earth's
land surfaces. As shown in Figure 1, most of this area falls within the national jurisdiction of 15
Pacific SIDS1, so that they are custodians of a significant part of the surface of the Earth and, in
particular, custodians of a large part of one of the Earth's major international waters ecosystems.
These waters at the same time divide Pacific Island communities across huge distances and unite
them by substantial dependence on a shared marine environment and shared marine resources.


Figure 1.
The Pacific Islands region showing Pacific SIDS national waters.

The waters hold the world's largest stocks of tuna and related pelagic species. The waters of the
Pacific Islands region provide around a third of the worlds' catches of tuna and related species ­
and the broader Western and Central Pacific Ocean region, including Indonesia and Philippines,
provides closer to half of the world's tuna catches ­ around 2 million tonnes annually.
The waters of the region also contain globally important stocks of sharks, billfish and other large
pelagic species, whales and other marine mammals and turtles.
The importance of the waters in geographical and environmental terms is enhanced by the
significance of the management aspects of these waters. Driven by the imperatives of their

1 For the purpose of this project, the Pacific SIDS are Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu and
Vanuatu.

11

---

smallness in relation to the size of their marine jurisdictions and the economic importance of the
marine resources to their welfare, the Pacific SIDS have developed a degree of cooperation and
forms of working together which are globally important. As they moved to extend their jurisdiction
over the waters off their islands in the late 1970s, the Pacific SIDS joined with Australia and New
Zealand in agreement on the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency Convention, committing
themselves to cooperation in the management and development of fisheries in the areas within their
newly extended jurisdictions. Then, as the global community was concluding the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, the Pacific SIDS met at a Workshop on
Harmonisation of Fisheries Policy which was sponsored by the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The Workshop provided options and strategies for the
development of institutions, programmes and capacities at a national level and initiated a number of
regional initiatives designed to support Pacific SIDS as they established their national tuna
management regimes. The regional initiatives were directed to science, compliance and
development and have since come to form a unique body of collaboration in international fisheries
management.
Supported by this framework of cooperation, Pacific SIDS have shown considerable leadership in
contributing to the development and application of global instruments for oceanic conservation and
management. They led the process of opposition to large-scale driftnetting as it developed in the
late 1980s, threatening a high level of destruction of seabirds, marine mammals and juvenile
oceanic pelagic fish in areas of high seas beyond national control culminating in UN resolutions
calling for a moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing. They played a full role in the negotiation
of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, providing 7 of the 30 ratifications, which brought the Agreement
into force in 2001. Then they led the development of the WCPF Convention which is the first
major regional application of the provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement in ways described
more fully below, providing 10 of the 12 ratifications (with Australia and New Zealand) which
brought the Convention into force on 19 June 2004.
The Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem
The defining physical feature of the body of international water shared by Pacific Island
communities is the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem (WTP LME)2.
The WTP LME comprises a huge body of water, lying to the west of the strong divergent equatorial
upwelling in the central equatorial Pacific known as the "cold tongue" and between the sub-tropical
gyres in the North and South Pacific3. It provides approximately 90% of the catch of tunas and
other pelagic species in WCPF Convention Area. The key physical and biological characteristics of
the WTP LME are:
· sea-surface temperatures of 28.5 degrees C or greater;
· a relatively deep surface mixed layer, with the Sea Surface Temperature minus 0.5 degree C
isotherm typically 100-150 metres depth;
· relatively low salinity (<34.5 ppt) with a very well defined salinity front on the eastern
boundary with the cold tongue;
· relatively low primary productivity compared to the cold tongue, but with important El Niño
related interannual variability;
· westward-flowing surface currents that infuse primary production from the cold tongue;

2 The WTP LME is not always identified as an LME, but it shares the major characteristics of defined LMEs, differing
specifically in that it is essentially oceanic, whereas the LMEs usually listed essentially fringe land masses ­ and it
was accepted on that basis by the GEF as an appropriate target of the efforts towards ecosystem-based management
that underpin the SAP of the Pacific Islands region.
3 See Annex H for maps of the WTP LME in different climatic / oceanographic conditions.

12

---

· relatively high secondary production characterised by zooplankton and micronekton species
with high turnover and metabolic rates due to the warm-temperature environment; and
· high secondary production that in turn supports a complex pelagic ecosystem ranging from
zooplankton and micronekton to large apex predators such as tunas, billfishes and sharks.
The health of the International Waters of the WTP LME is critical to the communities and
economies of the Pacific Islands. Almost all of the land area of the Pacific SIDS is coastal in
character and almost all of the people of the region live and work in ways that are dependent on
healthy International Waters. A major strength in looking at the WTP LME as an appropriate
management unit is the well-developed political framework of integrated multi-sectoral regional
cooperation across this region that derives largely from the high level of shared dependence on
International Waters.
MAJOR AREAS OF CONCERN
This project is driven by the concern of Pacific SIDS about unsustainable use of the transboundary
oceanic fish stocks of the Pacific Islands region and unsustainable levels and patterns of
exploitation in the fisheries that target those stocks. The origins of the Project, its preparation, its
objectives and its structure all address those concerns. These are transboundary concerns that apply
especially to the impacts of unregulated fishing in the areas of high seas in the region, but also
apply more generally across all waters of the region.
At the centre of these concerns is the transboundary nature of the stocks. The stocks are
dominantly highly migratory, with their range extending through waters under the jurisdiction of
around 20 countries and into large areas of high seas. Each of the countries within whose waters
the stocks occur has responsibilities under international law to adopt measures for the conservation
and management of these stocks. But without a coherent and legally binding framework to
establish and apply measures throughout the range of the stocks, including the high seas, the efforts
made by individual countries in their own waters can be undermined by unregulated fishing on the
high seas and by inconsistencies in measures in different national zones.
These are global concerns. They were important issues in the preparation of the UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) during the 1970s, particularly in the provisions relating to
management of fishing on the high seas and management of fishing for highly migratory species.
Then, in 1992 they found expression in the call from the United Nations Conference on the
Environment and Development (UNCED) within Agenda 21 for a UN intergovernmental
conference on high seas fishing and they are also the key concerns addressed in the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement.
Six major aspects of the global, regional and national concerns about unsustainability in fisheries
for transboundary oceanic fish stocks are discussed below ­ some of them are inter-related. They
are:
· the impact on target transboundary oceanic fish stocks;
· the impact on non-target fish stocks;
· the impact on other species of interest (such as marine mammals, seabirds and turtles);
· the impact of fishing around seamounts;
· the impact on foodwebs; and
· the impact on biodiversity.

13

---

Impact on Target Transboundary Oceanic Fish Stocks
The peoples of the Pacific Islands have always applied practices aimed at conservation of the
marine resources on which their livelihoods depend. Even when the earliest formal stock
assessments in the early 1980s indicated that the tuna stocks of the region were larger than
originally thought, and the largest in the world, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before
markets and technology would drive fishing to levels that would threaten the sustainability of these
resources. When the Pacific SIDS began to establish the framework for collaboration on the
management of these stocks in the late 1970s, they gave priority to establishing databases and
research and monitoring programmes, realising that it was only a matter of time before the
sustainability of these stocks and the livelihoods that depend on them, would be threatened. That
time has come and the results of the programmes will now provide the basis for the scientific work
of the new Commission.
Annual catches of transboundary oceanic fish in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean in recent
years have approached 2 million tonnes4. Catches have continued to increase over a long period of
time (Figure 2) and this trend might be expected to continue in the future unless limits are applied.

2,000,000
1,800,000
SKIPJACK
1,600,000
YELLOW FIN
1,400,000
BIGEYE
t)
m 1,200,000
ALBACORE
(
h 1,000,000
a
tc
800,000
C
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002

Figure 2.
Catches of tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

Assessments of these species are conducted regularly by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC/OFP). The results of these assessments provide
information on the current status of the stocks and the impacts of the fisheries. A convenient means
of summarizing this information is shown in Figure 3, which plots the estimated reduction in stock-
wide population biomass of each species due to fishing as a percentage of the biomass that would
have occurred in the absence of fishing.


4 Secretariat of the Pacific Community Tuna Fishery Yearbook 2001.

14

---

70
Bigeye
60
Yellowfin
i
t
e
d
o
Skipjack
50
Albacore
unexpl
Albacore longline
40
r
om
f 30
i
on
20
e
duct
r
% 10
0
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

Figure 3.
Impact of fisheries on total stock biomass of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna in the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean and albacore in the South Pacific Ocean.
("Albacore longline" refers to the impact of fishing on larger albacore exploited by the
longline fishery)

To put these estimates in context, a reduction of around 60% from the unexploited level would be
equivalent to the biomass at maximum sustainable yield, a commonly used biological reference
point. For skipjack tuna, recent impact levels are about 20%, indicating that this stock is currently
being fished well within its exploitation potential. For yellowfin tuna, recent stock-wide impact
levels are approximately 35%, indicating that this stock is also being fished within its exploitation
potential, but nevertheless beginning to approach a point where increased caution in fisheries
management is appropriate5. For bigeye tuna, recent impacts are approaching 60% or equivalent to
the maximum sustainable. For South Pacific albacore, impacts of fishing on the total stock biomass
are slight, but are much more significant on that portion of the stock that is exploited by the
longline fishery (i.e. larger, older albacore).
Most recently, the report of the August 2004 meeting of the Scientific Coordinating Group (SCG)
of the WCPF Preparatory Conference reported the status of the bigeye and yellowfin stocks as
follows:
· Bigeye: the 2004 assessment indicates that current levels of fishing mortality carry high risks of
overfishing and SCG recommended that, as a minimum measure, there be no further increase in
fishing mortality for bigeye tuna.
· Yellowfin: recent assessments indicate that the stock is likely to be nearing full exploitation and
any further increases in fishing mortality would not result in any long-term increase in yield and
may move the yellowfin stock to an over-fished state. SCG recommended that to reduce the
risk of the yellowfin stock becoming over-fished further increases in fishing mortality
(particularly on juvenile yellowfin) in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) should be
avoided.
The threat to the sustainability of target stocks is due to the increases in fishing effort and catches
that have taken place in the region as shown in Figure 2, which are part of a global pattern of

5 However, the majority of the tuna catch is taken from the area of the WTP LME and impact levels here are
considerably higher - approximately 50% for yellowfin and higher for bigeye tuna.

15

---

expansion by fishing industries. Within the overall pattern of catches in the region however, there
are some specific concerns which include:
· the impact of purse seine fishing on juvenile stocks, generally and on juvenile stocks of bigeye
tuna in particular, including the discarding of juvenile tuna;
· the particular impact of purse seine fishing using artificial fish aggregating devices (commonly
called FADs)/rafts (both anchored and floating) on juvenile tuna stocks;
· the impact of high levels of fishing by longliners on the adult stock of bigeye, particularly in the
high seas;
· the impact on stocks in the Pacific Islands region from fishing in adjacent areas, especially
Indonesia and the Philippines; and
· the impact of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing.
Impact on Non-Target Fish Stocks6
The impact of fishing for tunas on other fish species is a global concern that is also important in the
Pacific Islands region. Much less is known about these stocks and the impact of fishing on them
than the target stocks. The target stocks have been the subject of sustained monitoring and research
programmes, based, in particular, on detailed daily reporting of catch and effort by vessels.
However, the range of data that can be provided from this source is limited and it has not been
possible to generate daily catch and effort data with an adequate level of detail on catches on
species other than the target stocks. Provision of that data depends largely on reporting by on-
board observers, for which coverage levels across the region have been inadequate.
Major elements of the concerns about the impacts of oceanic fisheries targeting transboundary
stocks in the region include:
· Impacts on species that are taken largely as bycatch in the tuna fisheries but are
commercially valuable and generally retained. The major species involved are billfish and
some species of sharks.
Some billfish species (striped marlin, swordfish) may be secondary, or even primary targeted
species in some longline fisheries, but others (black marlin, sailfish) are more often discarded.
Total billfish catches in the WCPO are estimated at over 30,000 tonnes annually. A preliminary
assessment of Pacific blue marlin suggests that the stock may be fished at a level approaching
the maximum sustainable yield. The status of the other billfish stocks is not known.
Sharks are a common bycatch in the oceanic fisheries in the region and in some cases are
targeted. As apex predators, sharks may have an important role in ocean ecosystems in
maintaining the ecological balance, in addition to representing a valuable resource. However,
they are susceptible to overexploitation since they generally mature at a late age, have low
fecundities and long gestation periods and are long lived. Declines in shark populations and the
practice of shark finning are both global and regional concerns. Blue shark is the most
commonly caught species in the region with catches estimated at around 150,000 blue sharks
annually in the longline fishery and it is probably also the widest ranging.
A preliminary assessment of North Pacific blue shark indicated that blue shark is not yet
seriously impacted by pelagic longline fishing, but further work is necessary on this issue.
· Impacts on other fish species. A diverse range of other fish species is taken as bycatch. Some
of these species are of considerable commercial value and recreational fishing interest (e.g.
wahoo, mahi mahi, opah). Others are of little commercial value but are significant components

6 Much of the information in this and subsequent sections is taken from WCPF Working Paper 9: Review of
Ecosystem-Bycatch Issues for the Western and Central Pacific.

16

---

of the ecosystem (e.g. lancet fish, triggerfish). The catch and biology of nearly all these
species, with the exception of a few species such as mahi mahi and wahoo, is virtually
unknown.
Impact on Other Species of Interest (Including Marine Mammals, Seabirds and Turtles)
Non-fish marine species are particularly important culturally and economically to Pacific Islanders.
Images of marine mammals, seabirds and turtles are important cultural symbols - in everyday life,
as traditional symbols and in the flags, crests, stamps and other symbols that convey the modern
identities of Pacific Island nations. These creatures are also prominent in others' views of the
region, whether as fish consumers, tourists or conservationists.
Most species of whale occur in the waters of the region. Endangered species of cetacean that have
been observed in the Western Pacific include the humpback whale, sperm whale, blue whale, fin
whale and sei whale ­ the status of these stocks is highly uncertain, but in most cases, the stocks are
still estimated to be at levels below 10 per cent of pre-exploitation levels7. National Exclusive
Economic Zone Whale Sanctuaries now total more than 10.9 million square kilometres and range
from Melanesia in the west to French Polynesia in the east and have been described as a growing
bridge to a wider South Pacific Whale Sanctuary.
In the Western Pacific, there is not the same issue of marine mammals, particularly dolphins, being
killed in tuna purse seine fishing as there is in the Eastern Pacific, where purse seine vessels set
their gear around schools of dolphins, which are known to be associated with tuna schools. There
are a few records of pilot whales being encircled during purse seine sets in some areas. Sets around
Sei whales and whale sharks are more common in equatorial areas, but these very large animals are
usually released unharmed. Marine mammals may occasionally be entangled in longline gear but
there appear to be few examples of actual hooking by longline gear. False killer whales and pilot
whales, on the other hand, are seen as pests, as they feed from fish caught on longlines, but are
rarely if ever caught.
Catches of seabirds by oceanic fisheries, especially longlining, is an important global concern and
one that has been particularly important in the northern and southern areas of the Western and
Central Pacific Ocean. The available information indicates that seabird fatalities from oceanic
fishing, including longlining, are rare in the tropical Pacific Islands region, largely because the bird
species most commonly caught in longlining in temperate areas (e.g. albatross and petrels) are rare
or absent from tropical areas. However, the quality of the data available is poor. In addition, while
the number of species known to be potentially vulnerable to mortality from longlining is low (11
have been identified), a high proportion of these species are internationally classified as
"Threatened". In this situation, the issue is likely to be much more serious than the number of birds
hooked and seabird mortalities associated with oceanic fisheries remain a significant concern
meriting further attention.8
The Pacific Islands region is a globally significant area for marine turtle breeding and migration.
Marine turtle species feeding in, and migrating through, these waters include the green, the
hawksbill, the leatherback, the loggerhead and the Pacific Ridley.

7 SPREP website, www .sprep.org.ws
8 Dick Watling, Environment Consultants, Fiji. Interactions Between Seabirds and Pacific Islands' Fisheries,
Particularly the Tuna Fisheries. Report to the 3rd SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, 2003.

17

---

Turtle populations have declined catastrophically throughout the region in the latter half of the 20th
century, due mainly to habitat degradation and unsustainable harvesting in coastal waters, but the
area still supports the world's largest remaining populations of green, hawksbill and loggerhead
turtles. Turtle mortalities from oceanic fishing in the region mostly result from turtles being
hooked or tangled in longlines. The number of encounters involving turtles caught in longline and
purse seine fishing is roughly estimated at around 2,000 annually. Most of the turtles that are
caught are released alive, but data on the species composition of turtles hurt or killed by fishing is
not reliable. While mortality from oceanic fishing is clearly not a major cause of overall turtle
mortality, any level of turtle mortality from oceanic fishing will continue to be a concern.
Large-scale driftnetting represents a particular threat to seabirds, marine mammals and juvenile
tuna. It is effectively banned in the region but there have been recent cases of illegal high seas
driftnet fishing in the North Pacific and illegal driftnetting remains a potential threat.
Impact of Fishing Around Seamounts
There are a large number of seamounts in the WTP LME. Concern about the impact of fishing
around seamounts is a major current global environmental concern. That concern is centred on the
destructive effects of deep sea bottom trawling on seamount ecosystems that are characterised by a
high degree of endemism and, in particular, the effects of bottom trawling on vulnerable benthic
communities like corals and sponges and on long-lived, slow-growing fish species. There is
currently no known deep sea bottom trawling in the WTP LME but the potential exists.
The concerns about the impacts of pelagic fishing on sea mounts are very much less than the
concerns about trawling because pelagic fishing (using purse seine, longline and pole and line)
takes place high in the water column removed from the seamounts. Seamounts are known to
aggregate pelagic species and are likely to be target areas for some kinds of pelagic fishing. They
are also known to support a mix of pelagic species that differs considerably in species composition
compared to the open ocean. Concerns about the impact of pelagic fishing around seamounts
include the possibility of higher proportions of juvenile fish in catches; likely higher levels of
catches of some bycatch species of special interest such as sharks and billfish, including some
species such as wahoo which are locally important for food security; possibly a higher mortality of
turtles, seabirds and marine mammals; and the possible sharing of prey between pelagic and
demersal species due to vertical migration of some prey species. Despite their importance, the
relationships between seamounts, pelagic fishing and the dynamics of tunas and exploitation
generally of pelagic species in the WTP LME are not well understood. Considerable historical data
exist and their analysis may provide important leads regarding appropriate management strategies
for seamounts. However, additional data are required from targeted fishing experiments and
tagging in order to quantify population parameters that can be used in predictive models to assess
management options in a scientifically rigorous way.
Impact on Foodwebs
The impact of fishing for tunas and related species on pelagic ecosystems through foodweb effects
is not well understood. Adult tunas, billfish and sharks are at the apex of pelagic food webs in the
WTP LME. Much of the concern regarding the effects of fishing on marine food webs stems from
targeting on species lower down in the hierarchy, particularly prey or forage species on which
higher level predators rely, rather than species in the upper levels. Studies in the eastern Pacific for
example, indicate that fisheries impart top-down influence on some apex predators, but the effects
of fishing do not propagate down to the forage species at the middle trophic levels. However, other
work points to a growing body of evidence that changes at the tops of food webs are expressed at
all trophic levels in a wide variety of aquatic ecosystems.
Application of an Ecopath simulation model to the pelagic ecosystem of the Central Pacific showed
that removal of adult yellowfin and skipjack tunas could cause substantial and sustained changes to
the structure of the system. In addition to being important and abundant consumers, these fish are

18

---

among prey items for higher order predators such as billfishes and sharks. More work needs to be
done to better understand how the effects of removal of higher predators propagate through the
food web, but it is clear that improved knowledge and understanding of the status and ecological
significance of the species that are targeted by oceanic fisheries requires improved monitoring of
fisheries and better information on diet composition in the WTP LME.
Other Impacts on Biodiversity
The major concerns about marine biodiversity relate to degradation of habitat and the effect of
marine pollution. Since pelagic oceanic fisheries in the Pacific Islands region take place offshore
and in the upper layers of the water column in waters of generally great depth, there are no
significant concerns about the direct effect of fishing operations on marine habitats in the region. A
possible exception to this is the effects of anchoring of Fish Aggregating Devices, which may have
some local impact. As noted above, there is no deepsea trawling in the region on banks and
seamounts of the kind that is a major global concern in other regions.
There are, however, concerns about the contribution of fishing vessels to marine pollution
generally. Fishing vessels and vessels that supply and support them make up a larger than usual
share of the international shipping in the Pacific Islands region. In addition to the concerns related
to the management of waste and the control of pollution from vessels generally, fishing vessels
have been identified by the Pacific Ocean Pollution Prevention Programme9 (PACPOL) as a
potentially significant source of pollution from the dumping of materials from packaging of bait
and other supplies. Inshore pollution effects from large-scale transhipment, which often takes place
inside lagoons, are a particular concern.
Concerns, Threats, the SAP, the Convention and the Pacific Islands OFM Project
The concerns and threats set out above are global, regional and transboundary. They are the
concerns and threats that have motivated the substantial effort by the global community to
strengthen global arrangements for oceanic fisheries management (OFM) over the last 25 years,
from UNCLOS through to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and most recently to the sustainable
fisheries component of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Plan of
Implementation. They are broadly the same concerns and threats that have motivated the Pacific
SIDS in their efforts to integrate biological, environmental and developmental concerns relating to
oceanic fisheries into a sustainable whole - from the earliest days of their collaboration in the
management of their exclusive economic zones (EEZs); and from the preparation of a joint regional
position to UNCED, which was the precursor for the Pacific Islands Strategic Action Programme
(SAP); through the preparation of the SAP and participation in the preparation of the UN Fish
Stocks Agreement; through ten years of commitment to preparing for, and bringing into force, the
WCPF Convention and most recently through the preparation of a Pacific Islands Regional Ocean
Policy. It is the root causes of these concerns and threats which are the target of the WCPF
Convention and the Pacific Islands OFM Project, as described in the following section.
ANALYSIS OF ROOT CAUSES
The SAP identified the ultimate root cause underlying the concerns about, and threats to,
International Waters in the region as deficiencies in management and grouped the deficiencies
into two linked subsets ­ (i) governance; and (ii) lack of understanding (see below).

9 PACPOL: Improving Ships' Waste Management in Pacific Island Ports.

19

---

Governance
The weaknesses in governance of oceanic fisheries management occur at two levels ­ regional and
national. At the regional level, the critical weakness has been the lack of a legally binding
institutional arrangement governing cooperation in the management of the region's commercial
oceanic fisheries. There has been a high level of voluntary cooperation between Pacific SIDS and,
at a broader level, a degree of voluntary cooperation of mixed quality in the provision of data and
research collaboration by fishing states, however, there has not been a formal collaborative process
covering the range of the major stocks. The most serious result of that outcome is that the high seas
of the region are the only tropical oceanic areas where fishing by the world's highly industrialised
tuna fleets are completely unregulated. Following a cruise by the Rainbow Warrior in the region in
September 2004, Greenpeace reported10 that:
"In just one week, Greenpeace documented 30 foreign vessels engaged in unregulated
fishing of tuna as they migrated through the high seas, south of Micronesia. This
unregulated fishing undermines Pacific attempts......to limit fishing to sustainable
levels."
Unregulated fishing on the high seas undermines Pacific SIDS' efforts to ensure sustainable
fisheries, not only because it allows fishing without limits on the high seas at a time when most
Pacific SIDS are limiting fishing in their national waters, but because it also provides a "safe
haven" from which IUU vessels can operate to fish illegally inside national waters, leaving the high
seas outside 200-mile national zones as an area in which vessels can operate without the normal
checks of international reporting, boarding and inspection.
At the national level, there are three key weaknesses in governance that contribute to the threat of
unsustainable fisheries in the Pacific Islands region. The first is the lack of compatible
management arrangements between zones, leaving the risk that an array of independent and
different measures at national levels is not able to secure effective conservation outcomes. The
second is the risk of a lack of political commitment to taking the necessary decisions to limit
fishing and catches. Most Pacific SIDS governments have not so far been tested on their
commitment to taking hard decisions on limiting fishing and catches in their waters - these
decisions do not come easily to governments in countries where fisheries is the major sector of the
economy and where there are major commercial and external influences on fisheries decisions. Fiji
is the first country to face up to having to limit the level of fishing, not just by foreign fleets but by
vessels under the control of its own nationals. Other Pacific countries will, in time, be in the same
position, especially with the Commission in place, and there is an important role for the Project in
building the necessary political and public commitment to adopt limits. The third weakness, which
is particularly important for Pacific SIDS and for the design of this Project, is the lack of national
capacity. The weaknesses in national capacity need to be seen from a broad point of view. It is
now around 25 years since most Pacific SIDS declared their 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones.
In the early part of this period, Pacific SIDS' major priorities related to controlling and benefiting
from the substantial levels of foreign fishing operations that were being conducted in the waters
that now fell under their jurisdiction; and to developing their own small, medium and large scale
domestic oceanic fishing industries ­ building infrastructure, boat building, marketing and
processing operations and supporting industry development through provision of credit and
training. For most of this period, sustainability has been an issue, but not a major issue. As a
result, few countries place limits on fishing or have any process for determining and applying
limits. Monitoring arrangements have been targeted at monitoring catches by foreign vessels and,
until recently, few countries had any systematic monitoring in place for catches, size and species
compositions of their growing domestic fleets. Consultative processes with other stakeholders are
also relatively weak and certainly not strong enough to provide the forum for dialogue between
stakeholders that will be necessary as Pacific SIDS move to take hard decisions about limiting

10 Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Press release: US$2 billion Pacific tuna fisheries in trouble, Sept. 2004.

20

---

access to oceanic fish resources, not just by foreign vessels, but by their own nationals.
Surveillance and compliance capacities in national waters are relatively well developed in the
region, benefiting from major levels of support from some metropolitan countries through the
provision of air and sea surveillance operations and, in particular, through the Australian Pacific
Patrol Boat Programme, but will continue to need strengthening as limits become more generally
applied and increase the incentive to illegal fishing.
Lack of understanding
The subset of issues related to lack of understanding has two dimensions. The first is awareness.
In general, the level of basic awareness of issues related to oceanic fisheries in the region is very
high. In households and among families, among those whose livelihoods depend on fisheries, at
local government levels and among academics, business people and public servants, there is a very
keen awareness of the regional oceanic fish stocks and the other marine creatures associated with
them, of their environmental, economic and social importance and of the threats to their
sustainability. What needs to be strengthened is the understanding of the kinds of measures that
need to be taken and the legal, policy and institutional reforms that need to be made to ensure
sustainability.
The second dimension of the lack of understanding is related to information gaps. Great progress
has been made in the last five years on improving information and knowledge about the main target
stocks in oceanic fisheries. This has occurred through scientific work conducted mainly by SPC,
supported by the pilot activities of the GEF South Pacific SAP Project and based on very
substantial databases built up over a 20-year period. However, the stock assessment models being
applied are still in an early stage of development and substantial uncertainty remains about some of
the results, which is complicated by the lack of data on fishing in neighbouring countries such as
Indonesia and the Philippines that fish the same stocks. Data available on non-target species is
particularly weak because it usually has to be collected by onboard observers and, in general, the
level of observer coverage has not been adequate to provide reliable information on bycatches and
incidental mortalities.
In addition, the information available is still largely based on a single species approach. Early
stages of work to characterise the WTP LME have been undertaken, but more information and
better knowledge of the processes involved, is required to provide a basis for operationalizing an
ecosystem-based approach to management of fishing.
Other Information Gaps
Other important information gaps identified in the SAP and prominent again in the consultative
process undertaken for design of the Pacific Islands OFM Project are:
· the lack of strategic information presented in an appropriate manner to decision-makers,
broader stakeholders and the public at large to enable understanding of the choices and
decisions that have to be made and the consequences of those choices and decisions; and
· the lack of timely information on the current status of the major physical features of the WTP
LME, something that is particularly important where El Nino phenomena deeply affect not only
fishing, fish and other marine creatures, but bring major changes in weather patterns that touch
the lives of families across the region.
To address these root causes of the transboundary concerns related to oceanic fisheries within the
broader context of the International Waters of the Pacific Islands region, the Pacific Islands SAP
proposed the following approach to oceanic fisheries management:
"Enhancement of regional fishery management in light of developments with regard to
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Implementing Agreement (the UN
Fish Stocks Agreement), innovative ecosystem-based management approaches in the

21

---

context of an LME, research on the status of tuna stocks, examination of by-catch and
other components of the ecosystem and the integration of those aspects of oceanic
fisheries relevant to overall national and regional International Waters resource
management are the principal elements of the OFM approach."11
This approach was used to design the OFM pilot phase in the South Pacific SAP Project. It proved
successful and is the broad approach that has been adopted for the design of the Pacific Islands
OFM Project. That approach has been updated to reflect the entry into force of the WCPF
Convention and other relevant recent developments. The design of the SAP Project also builds on
progress in other aspects, but, with the encouragement of the Terminal Evaluation Report of the
Pacific SAP Project OFM component, refocuses project resources on the root causes of the
transboundary concerns relating to oceanic fish resources and fisheries identified in the SAP.
LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL, POLICY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE
LEGAL
The legal setting for managing transboundary oceanic fish stocks is complex because the stocks are
shared and typically range both through national waters and through high seas, where rights and
responsibilities are far less well defined than they are in national waters. The primary relevant
international legal instrument is the UNCLOS, which concluded in 1982. The UNCLOS placed a
general obligation on coastal and fishing states to cooperate in the management of transboundary
stocks, including through appropriate organisations, but did not elaborate the form of that
cooperation, essentially leaving control of fishing in the high seas to flag states. By the early
1990s, systematic problems had developed in the management of oceanic transboundary fisheries,
particularly overfishing and the use of destructive fishing practices in the high seas and, in
response, the global community made a call in Agenda 21 that:
"States should convene, as soon as possible, an intergovernmental conference under
United Nations auspices, taking into account relevant activities at the subregional,
regional and global levels, with a view to promoting effective implementation of the
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish stocks."
The intergovernmental conference called for in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 began its work in 1993,
concluding in 1995 with the adoption of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which came into force in
December 2001. The Agreement provided several specific responses to the weaknesses in the legal
framework for managing straddling and highly migratory stocks. The responses included a
requirement for regional and international fisheries management organisations to be established
where they did not already exist; and detailed provisions covering the governing principles,
objectives and functions of such organisations and the rights and responsibilities of their members.
The agreement also required that non-Parties apply the measures of such organisations to their
vessels, or else restrain their vessels from fishing within areas covered by the organisations; and the
establishment of compliance programmes that would provide a role for other states in ensuring that
flag states properly control their vessels on the high seas, including at-sea and in-port boarding and
inspection, reporting, satellite-based vessel monitoring and on-board observers.
In the Pacific Islands region, international oceans law dramatically reshaped the Pacific SIDS and
their economic structures when UNCLOS provided for coastal states to extend their jurisdictions
over 200 mile EEZs, providing major new opportunities and imposing major new responsibilities in
the process. Pacific SIDS played a full role in the negotiation of UNCLOS. Fiji was the first state
to ratify UNCLOS and all Pacific SIDS have now ratified it and implemented the requirements of
UNCLOS in their national laws. (The last 2 Pacific SIDS to ratify, Kiribati (2003) and Tuvalu

11 SAP, p. 48.

22

---

(2002), completed their ratification process with GEF assistance during the pilot phase of the South
Pacific SAP Project).
In addition, Pacific SIDS established a formal framework for cooperation in conservation and
management in fisheries among themselves through the 1979 Forum Fisheries Agency Convention
based on UNCLOS. Relevant to implementation of the SAP are:
· adoption of standard forms for data collection and voluntary arrangements to provide these to a
centralised database which underpins the establishment of what is probably the largest
international fisheries database in the world - the database, managed by SPC/OFP, currently
includes historical records of approximately 2.7 million fishing operations by more than 9,000
different fishing vessels and covers most of the fishing conducted in the region over the past 25
years;
· the first compliance-related regional register of fishing vessels (including a regional blacklisting
arrangement for vessels committing serious offences), a mechanism now established through
the UN Fish Stocks Agreement as a cornerstone of all arrangements for managing fishing in
areas including high seas;
· harmonised minimum standards for reporting, vessel identification, boarding and inspection and
other monitoring control and surveillance mechanisms applied to all foreign vessels and now
being applied to all domestic vessels; and
· the first regional satellite-based Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), now tracking around 950
large scale fishing vessels operating over vast areas of ocean ­ a mechanism now also required
by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to be applied to all high seas fisheries for highly migratory
and straddling stocks.
Pacific SIDS also concluded a number of legally binding treaties and high level Agreements
covering cooperation in surveillance and enforcement (the Niue Treaty), control of foreign fishing
vessels, management of fisheries of common interest (the Nauru Agreement), limits on licensed
purse seine fleet capacity (the Palau Arrangement) and included the requirements for these Treaties
and Agreements into their national laws.
A particularly important issue to the Pacific Islands region has been driftnetting. Following the
development of large-scale driftnetting in the late 1980s and evidence of the highly destructive
nature of large-scale driftnetting, the UN called in 1989 for a moratorium on large-scale
driftnetting. The level and impact of driftnetting was greatest in the South Pacific, damaging
marine mammal, seabird, juvenile tuna and billfish stocks. In response, the Pacific Islands Forum
Fisheries Agency (FFA) members agreed to a regional anti-driftnetting convention under which
they agreed to ban the use of driftnets in their waters and transhipment of driftnet catches through
their waters, to empower FFA members to prohibit the landing, processing and import of driftnet
catches and to close ports to driftnet vessels. These provisions are now installed in national laws.
Pacific SIDS also played a full role in the preparation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and,
immediately after its conclusion, moved on to take a leading role in the implementation of the
provisions of the Agreement in the Western and Central Pacific. Pacific Island Leaders, meeting as
the South Pacific Forum in 1994, called for a conference of all states with an interest in the regional
oceanic fisheries to work towards the establishment of new legal and institutional arrangements for
conservation and management. That began a process of several years of collaborative effort
between coastal states and fishing states on a new Convention, one that would also establish a new
regional fisheries management organisation. The text of the Convention was agreed in September
2000 and the Convention entered into force in June 2004. The Convention text is set out in Annex
J.
Key features of the Convention include the following:

23

---

· it is the first major new international fisheries management arrangement established under the
UN Fish Stocks Agreement and follows that Agreement very closely, serving as a major
precedent for the application of the principles of the Agreement;
· it requires Parties to apply the principles of the Fish Stocks Agreement including the
precautionary approach12 and the principles of ecosystem-based management13 both to their
cooperation through the Commission and to the measures they adopt for conservation and
management of oceanic fish stocks in their national waters;
· it establishes a framework for regulating fishing on the high seas;
· it sets up a Commission with decisions that will be legally binding;
· it will be one of the largest international fisheries management organisations so far created
globally in terms of the volume and value of catch from the resources to which it applies;
· it is the first international fisheries management arrangement to explicitly include in its charter
important new principles of responsible fisheries management, recently adopted by the global
community, including the use of reference points and the precautionary approach, adoption of
an ecosystem approach, avoidance of incidental bycatch and protection of biodiversity;
· it includes more comprehensive provisions on monitoring, compliance and enforcement for the
purpose of deterring illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, especially in the high seas,
than any other such arrangement;
· it provides for action against non-Parties to the Convention, whose vessels undermine the
effectiveness of Commission measures;
· it requires Parties to take action to control not just their vessels, but also their nationals,
addressing the issue of use of flag of convenience vessels by nationals of Parties;
· it includes strong arrangements for the provision of high quality scientific advice to the
Commission and for maintaining the integrity of that advice; and
· it includes major elements of a "new deal" for developing countries in this kind of organisation,
including specific provisions for funding of technical assistance within the Commission's
financial arrangements and measures to ensure effective participation by developing countries,
especially SIDS.
The leading role taken by Pacific SIDS in the preparation of the Convention text, and the work of
the Preparatory Conference, is clearly shown in the pattern of ratification of the Convention.
Twenty five states that participated in the preparation of the Convention are entitled to become
Parties ­ others must be invited. The first 14 states to become Parties were Members of the FFA ­
12 Pacific SIDS, plus Australia and New Zealand. In the weeks before the first meeting of the
Commission, three fishing countries (China, Korea and Chinese Taipei) have become Members of
the Commission and the EU has also requested an invitation to become a member.
The only global legally binding fisheries instrument, which has not been supported by Pacific
SIDS, is the FAO Compliance Agreement. No Pacific SIDS have formally accepted the
Agreement, largely because it is seen as being superseded in large part by the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement.
Apart from the fisheries instruments, Pacific SIDS have also participated in the development and
implementation of a range of other multilateral environmental instruments, including:

12 As described in Article 6 of the WCPF Convention which is attached in Annex J.
13 As described in WCPF Working Paper 9, "Review of Ecosystem-Bycatch Issues for the Western and Central Pacific
Region", drawing on the FAO Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem.


24

---

Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the Pacific Islands
Region and Associated Protocols (SPREP Convention) is the founding Convention for the
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. The Convention provides a comprehensive
umbrella agreement for the protection, management and development of the marine and coastal
environment of the Pacific Islands region and addresses pollution from all sources and the need
for environmental impact assessments. Protocols under the Convention address anti-dumping
and marine pollution emergencies. The Convention serves as the regional convention for the
UNEP Regional Seas Programme.;
· United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: All Pacific Islands States are party
to the Convention. Together with SIDS from other ocean regions, they have played a
significant role in international climate change negotiations. This reflects their vulnerability
and concerns relating to coastal erosion, habitat loss, inundation and climate induced impacts on
the distribution of commercial fish stocks;
· Convention on Biological Diversity: The second Conference of the Parties in Indonesia
adopted Decision II/10 on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological
Diversity. The statement, referred to as the Jakarta Mandate, notes the serious threats to marine
and coastal biological diversity caused by factors including physical alteration, destruction and
degradation of habitats, pollution, invasion of alien species, over-exploitation of living marine
and coastal resources and encourages the use of integrated marine and coastal area management
as the most suitable framework for addressing human impacts on marine and coastal biological
diversity and for promoting conservation and sustainable use of this biodiversity. The Mandate
encourages Parties to establish and/or strengthen, where appropriate, institutional,
administrative and legislative arrangements for the development of integrated management of
marine and coastal ecosystems, plans and strategies for marine and coastal areas and their
integration within national development plans. All Pacific Island States are party to the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
Table 1 shows the pattern of participation by Pacific SIDS in the major relevant international legal
instruments.

25

---

Table 1:
Pattern of participation by Pacific SIDS in the major relevant international legal
instruments. A = Acceded; R = Ratified; S = Signed
Instrument
sia
inea
u
ds

of Microne
w G
ll
Islands
a Ne

u

atu
rsha
oa
uru
nga
val
nu
u
Cook
Fed. State
Fiji
Ma
Kiribati
Na
Niue
Palau
Papu
Sam
Solomon Islan
To
T
Va
WCPF
R R R R A R R S R R R R R S
Convention
UNCLOS
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
UN Fish Stocks R R R R R R R R R R R S
Agreement
FFA
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
Convention
Convention on
R A R R R R A A R R R A R R
Biodiversity
SPREP
R R R R R R S R R R R R S
Convention
UNFCC
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
FAO
Compliance














Agreement
Driftnet
R R R S R R R R A A R S S
Convention
Niue Treaty on
MCS
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
Cooperation
Nauru
R R R R R R R R
Agreement
Note: Excludes Tokelau, which does not have the status to become Party to these instruments.
The pace of change of international law relating to oceanic fisheries has imposed a large workload
on Pacific SIDS for the establishment and revision of national laws. This began with putting in
place the basic framework for the extension of jurisdiction over 200-mile zones arising from
UNCLOS, including declarations of maritime boundaries and arrangements for management and
control of activities within EEZs. Through the 1980s, these laws were revised to give effect to the
various regional Treaties and Agreements between FFA members, including the implementation of
the Regional Register, the driftnet Convention and satellite-based vessel monitoring. In the late
1990s, there was a further round of revisions to national laws to provide for implementation of the
UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Now, another round of revisions is under way in response to the
WCPF Convention. This time, however, the changes are more deep-seated, because the
implementation of the Convention is part of a major change in approach to fisheries governance,
including at national level. Indeed, the Convention itself not only requires Parties to adopt certain
specific new measures to control fishing, especially in the high seas - it also requires Parties to
apply principles such as the precautionary approach, the ecosystem-based approach, protection of
biodiversity and preservation of long term stock sustainability to the management of oceanic
fisheries in their national waters.

26

---

Some Pacific SIDS have amended their legislation to provide for implementation of the more
specific elements of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF Convention as part of the
process of preparation for ratifying the Convention, but most have not completed this process.
Good progress was made in this direction under the South Pacific SAP Project, which made a major
contribution to ratification of the Convention. However, this work has stalled since the completion
of the pilot legal activities of that Project, due to the critical shortage of skills in international
oceans and marine and fisheries law, especially in the smaller countries highlighted in the national
mission reports. However, beyond the specific requirements of the Fish Stocks Agreement and the
Convention, almost all Pacific SIDS also now need to amend their legislation further to provide for
broader changes in principles, policies and institutional arrangements to align their laws more
closely with the Convention, or to review regulations, license conditions and access agreements to
provide the detailed regulatory framework for implementation of the WCPF Convention.
In addition to the changes in national laws, the Convention may have implications for some of the
regional Treaties and agreements which Pacific SIDS have concluded amongst themselves (as
listed above) and these will need review.
POLICY
The global, regional and national policy setting for the Pacific Islands OFM Project, which
underpins and links the legal framework described above and the institutional framework described
below, involves two linked major streams of policy development. These are a policy on sustainable
development broadly and, within that, a policy on sustainable fisheries. Both streams have their
origins in the UNCED and Agenda 21. Since the Rio Conference, both have made sustainable
development a central concept in the public policy process (including the notion of sustainable
fisheries) and draw specific attention to the need for a new initiative to improve regulation of the
high seas, of which the WCPF Convention is one of the outcomes.
Following the UNCED, the policy framework for sustainable development of SIDS at the global
level has been elaborated in the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA) for SIDS, the goals in the
UN Millennium Declaration and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI). These
instruments emphasise the importance of coastal and marine resources and the coastal and marine
environment to sustainable development of SIDS.
In defining the sustainable development of SIDS as a programme area within Chapter 17,
Protection of the Oceans, Agenda 21 included in the basis for action for that area the observations
that:
"Small island developing States and islands supporting small communities are a
special case both for environment and development";
and that:
"For small island developing States the ocean and coastal environment is of strategic
importance and constitutes a valuable development resource".
The SIDS Barbados Conference and its Programme of Action were a response to the call in Chapter
17 of Agenda 21 for "the first global conference on the sustainable development of small island
developing States". The BPOA emphasised the importance of coastal and marine resources and
environment to SIDS, noting in the basis for action in Chapter IV, Coastal and Marine Resources,
that:
"Sustainable development in small island developing States depends largely on coastal
and marine resources, because their small land area means that those States are
effectively coastal entities. Population and economic development - both subsistence
and cash - are concentrated in the coastal zone. The establishment of the 200-mile
exclusive economic zone has vastly extended the fisheries and other marine resources

27

---

available to small island developing States. Their heavy dependence on coastal and
marine resources emphasises the need for appropriate and effective management";
and laid out a programme of national, regional and international actions that reflected the
importance of coastal and marine resources and environment for the sustainable development of
SIDS.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development identified the special needs of SIDS within its
Plan of Implementation. Section VII of the JPOI addressed the issue of sustainable development of
small-island developing states, recommending actions at all levels to:
"Accelerate national and regional implementation of the Programme of Action, with
adequate financial resources, including through GEF focal areas, transfer of
environmentally sound technologies and assistance for capacity-building from the
international community;
Further implement sustainable fisheries management and improve financial returns
from fisheries by supporting and strengthening relevant regional fisheries management
organisations, as appropriate, such as the recently established Caribbean Regional
Fisheries Mechanism and such agreements as the Convention on the Conservation and
Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean;
Assist small island developing States, including through the elaboration of specific
initiatives, in delimiting and managing in a sustainable manner their coastal areas and
exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf..........;
Provide support, including for capacity-building, for the development and further
implementation of:
(i) Small island developing States-specific components within programmes of
work on marine and coastal biological diversity...".
In the lead up to the 10 Year Review of the Implementation of the BPOA, with the support of
SPREP and the United Nations Division of Economic and Social Affairs, Pacific SIDS have met
three times with SIDS from the Caribbean and Indian Ocean regions to harmonise issues for
discussions during the February 2005 review of the BPOA. Pacific SIDS have based their
discussions on individual National Assessment Reports and a subsequent synthesis of issues of
common concern to the Pacific Islands region. Key issues for Pacific SIDS include the need to:
· incorporate the sustainable development priorities of the Pacific region in the BPOA+10
outcomes;
· secure and strengthen political support from the international community for programmes and
initiatives that are essential to sustainable development of this region's people, their
environment and natural resources;
· promote new and existing partnerships beneficial to sustainable development of the region;
· enhance the efficiency of use of existing resources and secure and mobilise resources to build
capacity for sustainable development; and
· agree targets by which to measure implementation of the BPOA and to provide input to other
reporting requirements, including the integration of those from the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) and the JPOI.
At the regional level, the most important policy instrument relating to sustainable development and
marine resources is the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy. The Ocean Policy aims at an
integrated approach to improving understanding of the ocean; sustainable development and
management of ocean resource use; and maintaining the health and promoting the peaceful use of

28

---

the ocean. These aims of the Policy are being pursued through the Pacific Island Regional Ocean
Framework for Integrated Strategic Action.
With respect to fisheries, the concept of responsible and sustainable fisheries has been elaborated in
the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The Code was formulated by FAO to
establish, in a non-mandatory manner, the principles and standards applicable to the conservation,
management and development of all fisheries in a way, which was consistent with the outcomes of
the 1992 International Conference on Responsible Fishing, UNCED and the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement. Important elements of the Code have been further detailed and updated in a number of
policy instruments, among the most important and relevant of which are:
· the FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries;
· the International Plans of Action - for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline
Fisheries; for the Conservation and Management of Sharks; for the Management of Fishing
Capacity; and to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing; and
· the Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem.

Together with the changes in international law relating to fisheries, the policy approaches in these
instruments represent a profound change, which can be characterised as a shift in emphasis from
promoting fisheries development through increasing catches, to seeking sustainable fisheries
development through enhanced conservation and management. The WCPF Convention brings
these approaches to bear in respect of oceanic fisheries throughout the Pacific Islands region. The
Convention obliges Contracting Parties to apply the precautionary approach and to take into
account ecosystem considerations, not just in their cooperation in the Commission or in respect of
the high seas, but also in their national waters. This change involves uncertainty and difficulties for
Pacific SIDS, whose aspirations for economic development are heavily based on gains from
fisheries and who must now seek these gains, not from higher catches in most cases, but from
extracting greater benefits from limited catches. The principles of responsible and sustainable
fisheries are beginning to be included in national laws through the legal reforms described above
and institutions are being realigned towards these principles through the institutional reform
process described below. Operationalizing the new approaches across the 15 Pacific SIDS is a
major task. It includes the adoption and implementation of capacity, catch and effort limits;
measures to limit incidental mortality from fishing; improvement in monitoring and control
capacities and improved scientific knowledge at the national level. These activities will help ensure
that conservation measures are effective and inform the inevitably difficult policy dialogue between
politicians, government agencies, the private sector and other non-governmental interests and the
general public. This task was given impetus under the South Pacific SAP Project, particularly by
the preparation of National Management Plans for oceanic fisheries. The progress in the
preparation of the Plans is summarised in Table 2.

Table 2:
Status of National Tuna Management Plans for oceanic fisheries, current as at
September 2004.
Country
Status of Tuna Management Planning at September 2004
Cook Islands
Plan proposals developed - need to be considered.
Federated States of
Completed in 2001.
Micronesia
Fiji
Completed in 2001; reviewed in 2003, with further review scheduled for early 2005; elements being
implemented slowly; support needed for implementation.
Kiribati
Plan completed in 2002 and elements being implemented; support needed for implementation.

29

---

Marshall Islands
Plan in preparation.
Nauru
Plan in preparation.
Niue
Plan completed in 1998 and implemented; needs revision.
Palau
Plan completed in 1999.
Papua New Guinea
Plan completed in 1998, implemented and reviewed annually.
Samoa
Policy studies and Plan completed and implemented.
Solomon Islands
Plan completed in 1999, not implemented but reviewed in 2004 and implementation expected in
2005.
Tokelau
Draft plan completed with finalisation expected in early 2005.
Tonga
Plan completed in 2000. Being implemented.
Tuvalu
Draft Plan needs some revisions.
Vanuatu
Plan completed in 2001.

The outputs of the previous work on in-country fisheries management planning were more than just
Plan documents because, in most countries, their preparation involved the establishment of the first
broadly consultative processes that had been undertaken on oceanic fisheries management. These
processes aim to improve liaison between the public sector administrations involved in oceanic
fisheries management, including fisheries, environment, commerce, foreign affairs, police and
security and justice; and provide a richer process of consultation between the public sector, the
fisheries private sector and other stakeholders.
However, the Plans themselves still only represent a very early stage of the process of policy
reform that will be needed to operationalise the principles of responsible and sustainable oceanic
fisheries in the Pacific SIDS. Some countries, like Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Fiji, where the
National Management Plan won a Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) award for
excellence in the field of environmental management, have made good progress in implementing
aspects of the Plans, but others have made less progress ­ typically because of a lack of political
and public awareness, a lack of capacity to carry through reforms and a lack of resources to support
the necessary capacity building. The fisheries policy reforms that are needed will take far longer
than the horizon of a 5 year GEF project, but early progress in policy reforms in Pacific SIDS
oceanic fisheries management is fundamental to achieving the WCPF Convention objective of
sustainability of oceanic fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific.
INSTITUTIONAL
The Pacific Islands OFM Project is, at its core, a response to the need for enhanced regional
institutional arrangements for oceanic fisheries conservation and management and for associated
changes at the national level. The major relevant governmental institutions are described below.
Pacific Islands Forum and its Secretariat
The Pacific Islands Forum is an annual meeting of the Heads of Government of all the independent
and self-governing Pacific Island countries, Australia and New Zealand. Since 1971, it has
provided member nations with the opportunity to express their joint political views and to
cooperate in areas of political and economic concern. The Forum established FFA and initiated the
process that led to the conclusion of the WCPF Convention, annually reviewing progress in the
preparation and implementation of that Convention. The current programmes of the Forum
Secretariat, located in Fiji, are aimed at promoting regional cooperation among member states
through trade, investment, economic development and political and international affairs.

30

---

Forum Fisheries Agency
Established in 1979, the FFA's 17 members are the 15 Pacific SIDS, plus Australia and New
Zealand. The FFA was established to assist member countries in the management and development
of the fishery resources of their EEZs. The initial emphasis of the FFA's programmes was on
controlling foreign vessels and maximizing benefits from their operations. Over time, greater
emphasis has been given to assisting member countries to develop their own oceanic fishing
industries. More recently, there has been greater priority on assisting member countries in
conservation and management and FFA has played a leading role in supporting Pacific SIDS in the
preparation and implementation of the WCPF Convention. Its major programmes cover the areas
of:
· economics and marketing, including providing assistance in negotiation of foreign access
agreement, marketing and industry development;
· fisheries management, including the preparation of fisheries management plans and advice on
regional fisheries management issues;
· monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) including the operation of the FFA vessel
monitoring system and vessel register and coordination and strengthening of national
compliance programs; and
· legal and Treaty services, including administering regional access arrangements for US vessels
and for purse seine vessels of member countries and providing advice on national, regional and
legal issues.
The FFA is financed by a mix of donor funds, fees from foreign vessel owners for costs of
compliance programs, charges to members deducted from access fees for Treaty services and
contributions by member countries. The FFA is expected to provide some services for compliance
to the WCPF Commission, including operating the Commission satellite-based vessel monitoring
system and the Commission vessel register under contract to the Commission.
The FFA will be the primary executing agency for the Project.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community ­ Oceanic Fisheries Programme
The SPC is the oldest and largest of the Pacific Islands regional organisations, with membership
including metropolitan countries (France, UK and the US) and their territories. It provides
technical advice, training and research to develop the capabilities of its members focused in the
areas of land and marine resources, health and socio-economics.
The objective of the SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme is to provide member countries with the
scientific information and advice necessary to rationally manage fisheries exploiting the region's
resources of tuna, billfish and related species. The three major programmes of the OFP are:
· Statistics and Monitoring, including the maintenance and development of national and regional
fishery databases and estimation of fishing catches and effort;
· Ecology and Biology, including the study of the biology and behaviour of tuna and related
species, the effect of environmental variability, including climate change on pelagic stocks and
the pelagic ecosystem and ecosystem research; and
· Stock Assessment and Modelling, particularly the use of statistical population dynamics models
to provide assessments of stocks targeted by fishing in the region and scientific advice on the
management of those stocks.
OFP activities are currently funded largely by donors, with some funding from the SPC core budget
financed by contributions of Members. The OFP will be the major provider of scientific services to
the WCPF Commission. The cost of these services will progressively be financed by the

31

---

Commission. The OFP will also be responsible for the bulk of the activities under Component 2 of
the Project.
Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish
The Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish (SCTB) has provided an informal annual forum for
scientists and others with an interest in the tuna stocks of the western and central Pacific region to
meet to discuss scientific issues related to data, research and stock assessment. It is supported by
the SPC/OFP. Its aims are to coordinate fisheries data collection, compilation and dissemination;
review research on the biology, ecology, environment and fisheries for tunas and associated
species; identify research needs and provide a means of coordination to most efficiently and
effectively meet those needs; provide assessments of stock status; and provide opinion on various
scientific issues related to data, research and stock assessment of western and central Pacific Ocean
tuna fisheries. The Standing Committee has provided a venue for scientific collaboration in the
areas listed above in the absence of formal intergovernmental arrangements for this purpose. The
SCTB met for the last time in August 2004. Its functions will be taken over by the Scientific
Committee of the WCPF Commission.
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Based in Apia, Samoa, SPREP's mandate is to promote cooperation and provide assistance in order
to protect and improve the environment and to ensure sustainable development for present and
future generations in the Pacific Islands region. Its major technical programmes are in areas of
terrestrial and coastal and marine ecosystems; species of special interest; monitoring and reporting;
climate change and atmosphere; waste management and pollution control; and environmental
planning. SPREP was originally established as a programme of the United Nations Environmental
Programme's (UNEP) Regional Seas Programme within SPC. The 1986 SPREP Convention, and
the Action Plan that it provides for, has effectively been adopted as the programme of work for
activities under the Regional Seas Programme between Pacific SIDS. It is the GEF's key partner in
the region and is the executing agency for the South Pacific SAP Project. SPREP will be a member
of the Project Regional Steering Committee (RSC) in order to ensure continuing integration of
Project activities with other regional marine environmental activities and with the ongoing coastal
and watershed management activities of the South Pacific SAP Project.
Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific Marine Sector Working Group (CROP MSWG)
The function of the CROP MSWG is to coordinate regional activities in the marine sector. It brings
together the Forum Secretariat, FFA, SPC, SPREP and the South Pacific Applied Geoscience
Commission (SOPAC). It provides a forum for coordination and integration of the Project
activities with other relevant regional activities. Its most recent initiative in this sector was the
preparation of the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy.
WCPF Preparatory Conference
The WCPF Preparatory Conference was established to prepare for the setting up of the new WCPF
Commission in the period before the Convention came into force. The Preparatory Conference has
successfully completed most of the work set for it and its final session will be held in December
2004. At that point, it will have prepared recommendations on:
· the administrative arrangements for the Commission, including the Rules of Procedure,
Financial Regulations, location of the Headquarters (in Pohnpei, Federated States of
Micronesia) and Secretariat staffing structure and conditions;
· the scientific structure of the Commission, including identifying research priorities and
scientific data needs; and
· immediate priorities for the Commission's compliance program.

32

---

The Conference will also have received interim scientific advice on the status of stocks, identified
priority concerns relating to resource sustainability and identified options for the conservation and
management of bigeye and yellowfin tuna.
Pacific SIDS have played a central role in the work of the Preparatory Conference with substantial
support from the South Pacific SAP Project and have successfully secured a number of important
outcomes, including:
· a formula for contributions which will see the major burden for financing the Commission's
budget being met by those who fish ­ with full participation by all potential Parties and
agreement, in principle, to the use of cost recovery charges to fund compliance programs.
Under this structure, Pacific SIDS would pay around 12% of the expected annual budget of
around US$1.8 million, most of that payable by those Pacific SIDS with relatively large fishing
fleets14;
· a cost-effective staffing structure making use of the existing capacities of regional agencies; and
· streamlined technical structures based on a capable independent Secretariat with a limit to the
number of meetings involving Parties and with a line item in the core budget to fund travel
costs of Pacific SIDS and other developing states Parties.
The WCPF Commission
The WCPF Commission was established when the WCPF Convention came into force in June 2004
and will hold its first meeting in December 2004.15 Its functions and structure follow closely the
prescription of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The Commission will meet at least annually; will
be based in a Pacific SIDS (the Federated States of Micronesia); will be advised by the Scientific
Committee (which will have a number of Working Groups, including a proposed Ecosystem and
Bycatch Working Group) and the Technical and Compliance Committee; will have a Secretariat
staff projected at 13 in the early years and will, in addition, purchase scientific and data services
from SPC and certain technical services from FFA. The size of the staff and the level of contracted
effort will make the WCPF Commission one of the largest regional fisheries management
organisations ­ with a personnel and contract technical support effort larger than the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO), or the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The reason for this is that most regional fisheries management
organisations act through coordinating national science and compliance activities, rather than
operating through their own technical staff. Having a strong, independent technical secretariat is
critical for Pacific SIDS which do not have the scientific, legal and technical staff to participate in
the kind of scientific and technical advocacy processes that characterise other fisheries
Commissions that depend on coordinated national technical efforts, rather than having their own
technical staff16.
The likely pace of progress in the Commission is difficult to project. It has taken ten years of effort
by the countries and agencies involved to get the Convention concluded and brought into force and
the Commission established. The work of the Preparatory Conference has been successful in laying
the administrative base for the Commission to start operating and the existing capacities of SPC and
OFP provide a good basis for the early development of the Commission's technical science and
compliance programs. But there is much at stake ­ the value of the catches within the

14 WCPF Working Paper 20, Provisional Budget and Scheme of Contributions for the Commission in its First Years of Operation.
15 The first meeting of the WCPF Commission has subsequently been held. The meeting adopted Rules of Procedure,
Financial Regulations (including a scheme of financial contributions) and a budget for 2005, appointed an
Executive Director, located its headquarters and set up a programme of work designed to enable the Commission to
take its first decisions on management and conservation measures at its 2nd meeting in December 2005.
16 Detailed information on the Convention, the Commission and the Preparatory Conference is available on the website
of the WCPF Interim Secretariat at www.ocean-affairs.com

33

---

Commission's mandate is roughly equal to that of the other four international tuna commissions put
together. The Commission's membership is disparate, involving the world's most powerful states
with large established fleets operating in the region, and some of its smallest, for whom the
resources involved represent their major economic development opportunity. The mandate as set
out in the Convention is ambitious and its implementation will set a number of globally important
precedents. Against this background, and comparing progress in some other international fisheries
commissions, it has to be expected that it will take at least three years to get the Commission and its
programmes functioning effectively and, some additional period after that, for comprehensive
measures to be considered and adopted.
National Fisheries Administrations
Fisheries administrations across the region are going through a process of major reform and
realignment because of the shift in fisheries laws and policies from a focus on promoting fisheries
development, to a focus on fisheries management and conservation, as described above. This is
most clearly represented by the process leading to the conclusion of the WCPF Convention
covering oceanic fisheries, but is also occurring in inshore fisheries. Most Pacific SIDS fisheries
administrations initially went through a long period of focus on promoting increased fish
production, often through donor-supported government-led initiatives. This resulted in fisheries
administrations substantially involved in operating boat-building yards, fishing harbours, fish
markets and government fishing, fish farming and fish processing ventures, as well as extension
and training programs. Over the last ten years, with the shift in emphasis to fisheries conservation
and management, governments have had to find more resources for monitoring, scientific analysis
and consultation with stakeholders. This process has been complicated by the fact that many
Pacific SIDS have also been going through public sector right-sizing/downsizing exercises, which
have resulted in caps, or reductions of up to 50 per cent, in the number of public service posts. To
find the additional resources for oceanic fisheries management in this setting, Pacific SIDS have
been using a mix of these strategies:
· reducing involvement in commercial operations and shifting the emphasis in promoting
fisheries development from government involvement to creating a positive climate for private
sector development;
· reducing budgets for inshore fisheries management, particularly through devolving inshore
fisheries management to local governments and communities; and
· funding oceanic fisheries activities from cost recovery charges, in some cases going as far as
transferring core oceanic fisheries functions to self-financing statutory authorities.
Progress in these directions varies. Some countries such as the Marshall Islands, Papua New
Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia have undergone substantial reform and their
administrations only require refinements, particularly in strengthening monitoring programmes to
respond to the requirements of the WCPF Convention. These experiences provide models for other
Pacific SIDS. In some of these other countries, strategies for institutional reform and realignment
have been laid out in oceanic fisheries management plans prepared with GEF support from the
South Pacific SAP Project and from other donor, however, progress to implement the plans has
been severely constrained by a lack of capacity and resources and is an important priority.
Other major relevant institutions relevant to the Project are:
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
IUCN - The World Conservation Union is an association of government and nongovernmental
organisations and was founded in 1948. Its members, from some 140 countries include 80 States,
114 government agencies and 800-plus NGOs. More than 10,000 internationally-recognised
scientists and experts from more than 180 countries volunteer their services to its six global

34

---

commissions. Its 1,000 staff members in offices around the world are working on some 500
projects.
For more than 50 years this 'Green Web' of partnerships has generated environmental conventions,
global standards, scientific knowledge and innovative leadership. IUCN is the only environmental
organisation accorded the status of Permanent Observer to the United Nations General Assembly,
providing IUCN with access to many meetings closed to non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Its associated commissions, such as the Species Survival Commission, the World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) and the Environmental Law Commission, provide IUCN with access to a
network of over 10,000 experts. IUCN is perceived as a focal point of knowledge and expertise, a
respected and frequently cited source of information and reference.
IUCN's Global Marine Programme has access to global institutions and governments, has the
ability to bring good science to bear on discussions, has a high level of credibility and has policy
and legal expertise to provide governments with the facts and progressive options that have
provided the basis for much of the ongoing discussions on deep sea biodiversity, particularly
seamounts. IUCN is working with leading deep sea scientists from around the world to increase
knowledge on these little-studied ecosystems and to use that knowledge to put in place effective
conservation and management measures as appropriate. The WCPA High Seas Marine Protected
Areas Task Force, with its broad-based membership, has become a recognised source of expertise
on high and deep seas protection.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Greenpeace opened its Fiji office in 1994, which is now operated under Greenpeace Australia
Pacific. Conservation issues in the Western and Central Pacific fisheries are a central element of
Greenpeace Australia Pacific's Oceans campaign. The organisation has reported on these fisheries
and this year conducted a ten-week fisheries tour of the region with its flagship campaign vessels,
the Rainbow Warrior. Greenpeace has participated in meetings of the WCPF Preparatory
Conference, has encouraged Pacific Island countries to ratify the WCPF Convention and to work
within the Commission to determine an ecologically sustainable catch for the region and strict
management controls. The organisation was not able to attend the Project Design Workshop but
stated its support for the Pacific Islands OFM Project.
TRAFFIC Oceania
TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, is a joint programme of WWF and IUCN.
TRAFFIC Oceania was established in 1987. Its main focus is to work with governments and other
stakeholders to build capacity to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) within the region. Fisheries is one of its focal areas. It
has reported on a number of international fisheries including southern bluefin tuna, sharks and
toothfish and has had a long and continuous involvement in the regional meetings that led up to the
WCPF Convention and in the WCPF Convention. TRAFFIC Oceania is planning to expand its
ability to provide assistance at a national level in Pacific island countries, including establishing
national offices in a number of Pacific island countries.
World Wildlife Fund for Nature South Pacific Programme
Established in 1990, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature South Pacific Programme (WFF-SPP)
works with Pacific communities to protect Pacific biodiversity and culture from a regional office in
Fiji and country offices in the Cook Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. Marine
Conservation is a WFF-SPP focal area. The programme is involved in a three-way partnership with
WWF New Zealand and WWF Australia to implement a regional fisheries project to ensure Pacific
fishing communities have healthy and well-managed tuna fisheries for the future. The WWF-SPP
Tuna Officer was a member of the consultant design team that prepared this Project Document and
has participated in the WCPF Preparatory Conference.

35

---

At the global level, WWF and TRAFFIC have launched a Global Tuna Conservation Initiative,
which aims to protect the world's tuna species by addressing both tuna conservation and the tuna
trade.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL
Fish and fishing are, as a recent Asian Development Bank (ADB) report17 said "tremendously
important to the people of the Pacific Islands. Much of the nutrition, culture and welfare,
recreation, government revenue and employment in the region are based on its living marine
resources"; and over 90 per cent of the fish taken is from oceanic fisheries, most of that being tuna.
Looking ahead the same report projected that "tuna will inevitably assume a much larger profile in
the Pacific Islands in the medium and long term future. Tuna is likely to increase in a number of
sectors, two of which are especially critical: (1) as a foundation for future economic growth; and
(2) for food security."
Individually, the socio-economic dependence of Pacific SIDS on oceanic fisheries is high. In some
countries the level of dependence is similar to that of oil-rich countries on oil. In some cases access
fees exceed exports and provide up to 40 per cent of government revenue, in others the value of fish
exports is more than the value of all other exports combined. In most countries, levels of fish
consumption are among the highest in the world. There is scope for benefits to increase within
sustainable limits by increasing the catches of some species that are still under-exploited but, more
importantly, by increasing the value of catches and the share that the Pacific Island communities
receive from that value. The scope for benefits from oceanic fisheries is particularly important in
the poorer Pacific SIDS - most of the Pacific SIDS with the lowest levels of development, as
measured by the UNDP Human Development Index, are also the countries with the rich tuna
resources.
Financially, the annual value of the catch in the waters of Pacific SIDS is estimated at around
US$840 million at ex-vessel prices. The annual value of the catch by Pacific SIDS vessels is
around US$160 million at ex-vessel prices, including a small volume from the high seas18. These
figures do not take into account the value of processing which would substantially increase these
values. In addition, Pacific SIDS earn around US$60 million annually in cash from license fees
and additional economic benefits from servicing foreign fleets.
The cost of managing oceanic fish stocks has been largely financed by Pacific SIDS, either directly
or through the use of donor funds that could have been used for other activities of benefit to Pacific
SIDS. The major cost component is the cost of national monitoring, which is largely financed by
national budgets increasingly recovered from vessel owners, and compliance programs, which are
heavily supported by donor and partner country contributions to sea and air patrol costs. Regional
programmes have been financed by a mix of financial contributions from Pacific SIDS and other
countries that are Members of the organisations, donors and cost recovery from vessel owners for
some FFA compliance programs. The financing arrangements for the WCPF Commission, which
place the major burden on states that fish, especially developed states, represent a major shift in
financing to a "beneficiary-pays" regime. This will include funding by the Commission of research
activities at SPC that have previously been donor-funded. In addition, all states fishing in the high
seas will now be required to finance the management and control of fishing by their vessels in the
high seas, where fishing has previously been unregulated, including financing authorisation,
logsheet, satellite monitoring and observer programs.

17 ADB: Tuna: A Key Economic Resource in the Pacific.
18 FFA: Overview of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery, Sept 2004.

36

---

THE GEF IW SOUTH PACIFIC SAP PROJECT
The Pacific Islands OFM Project follows on from the GEF IW South Pacific SAP Project19. That
Project was designed to address the concerns, threats and root causes identified in the SAP.
Targeted actions within the South Pacific SAP Project are being carried out in two complementary
consultative contexts: An Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM) Component and
an Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Component. The Project is being implemented by
UNDP and executed by SPREP, in collaboration with FFA and SPC.
At the time the SAP and the South Pacific SAP Project were prepared in 1997-1998, there was
substantial uncertainty about the future pattern of management of transboundary oceanic fish stocks
in the region. Negotiations had begun on new arrangements for the conservation and management
of transboundary stocks of highly migratory species in accordance with the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, but there were a wide range of proposals tabled
and it was not clear what the outcome of the negotiations would be. Because of this uncertainty,
the activities of the OFM Programme were funded for only three years as a pilot programme within
the broader five-year programme of the South Pacific SAP Project and are now programmed to
terminate at the end of 2004.
The key pilot activities of the OFM Component of the South Pacific SAP Project have been:
· providing technical assistance, training and support for Pacific SIDS to participate in the
preparation of the WCPF Convention and the WCPF Preparatory Conference, ratify the
Convention and prepare national management plans; and
· supporting the improvement of scientific knowledge and information about regional
transboundary oceanic stocks and the WTP LME, including analysis of stock-specific reference
points; improved flows of information from regional monitoring programmes and databases;
and the first stages of work to characterise the WTP LME, through a programme of biological
and ecological monitoring, research and analysis.
These activities have been financed by a GEF grant of US$3.5 million, with co-financing of these
and other complementary activities from an estimated US$6.3 million from the regional
organisations.
The Terminal Evaluation of the OFM Component, the Executive Summary of which is included as
Annex E, concluded that:
"the Project has been very successful in strengthening the institutional framework, the
knowledge base and the stakeholders' capacity for managing this unique tuna resource
which is of global significance."
The Evaluation recommended GEF and UNDP support for a "follow-up" Project, but also drew
attention to weaknesses in the South Pacific SAP Project that needed to be taken into account in the
design of the follow-up Project. These included a failure to focus the logic and structure of the
Project on root causes; weak stakeholder participation; ineffective monitoring and evaluation and a
lack of awareness of the approach of GEF, including its focus on global environmental benefits. In
recommending support for a follow-up Project, the Terminal Evaluation proposed:
"That the prime benefit that should be targeted from the follow-up project is the
framework, capacity and functioning of the proposed Tuna Commission so that it can
undertake its crucial role of providing the management context for the tuna resource
and its ecosystem in a manner which will provide the greatest benefits to the Pacific
Island countries and their citizens on a sustainable basis.

19 Full title: Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for International Waters of the Pacific Islands.

37

---

That an equally important target of the follow-up project is the further building of
capacity and capability of the Pacific Island region, at regional, government, private
sector and community levels so that each sector can participate meaningfully in the
management of the tuna resource and its ecosystem.
That the follow-up project places emphasis on the realignment, restructuring and
strengthening of national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take
up the new opportunities that the Convention has created and discharge the new
responsibilities that it requires.
That fisheries management capacity at country level be enhanced for data collection
and analysis, stock assessment, MCS and enforcement and the development and
application of contemporary fisheries management tools, through a strategy that views
capacity building and training as a continuing activity rather than a one-off exercise to
overcome the problem of capacity retention.
That Pacific Island countries that have adopted Tuna Management Plans and are
having difficulties with implementation, be assisted to identify and address the barriers
that are hindering implementation."
These proposals and the Terminal Evaluation comments on the weaknesses of the OFM Component
of the South Pacific SAP Project provided the basis for the design of the Pacific Islands OFM
Project.
THE PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS
The preparation of this Project Document was financed by a GEF PDF-B grant, co-financed with
resources provided by the regional organisations and supported by in-kind contributions by Pacific
SIDS. The Project design process included the following elements:
· discussions among Pacific SIDS at several meetings of the Forum Fisheries Committee on the
Terminal Evaluation Report, the Concept Paper and PDF-B application. These meetings were
mostly held prior to meetings of the WCPF Preparatory Conference and the discussions
provided substantial guidance on key aspects of design of the Project;
· assembly and preparation of a Consultant design team including experts with substantial
background at a national and regional level, a staff member of WWF, a fisheries business
person supported by staff of the regional organisations and by a national technical assistant in
each country;
· two-person missions to 14 of the Pacific SIDS20. The purposes of the missions were to:
o
make national assessments of the implications of the WCPF Convention;
o
analyse the national incremental costs activities related to the Convention. This was
done by analyzing the budgets and future plans of national agencies involved in oceanic
fisheries management;
o
identify and consult with stakeholders with interests in the regional oceanic fisheries
resources. In each country, there were consultations with primary stakeholders on the
design of the Project and broader public forums on the WCPF Convention;
o
identify, with stakeholders, the assistance needed to support the national implementation
of the WCPF Convention and relevant national consultative mechanisms;

20 A visit could not be made to Tokelau. Consultations with representatives of Tokelau were held in Apia, Samoa.

38

---

o
collect information on indicators of performance in areas related to the WCPF
Convention and on the financial sustainability of national participation in the
Commission; and
o
promote awareness of the WCPF Convention, the South Pacific SAP and Pacific Islands
OFM Projects and the role and approach of the GEF. Media coverage of the national
missions was extensive, including coverage of the stakeholder consultations and public
forums as well as interviews with national officials and consultants and publication of
press releases in national and regional media.
The reports of the national missions are set out in Annex K. Overall, the missions were highly
successful, both in gathering the information necessary for Project design and in increasing
awareness of the Project and the WCPF Convention.
· a Regional Synthesis Meeting to draw together the conclusions of the national missions and
regional analyses and prepare an outline of the Project; and
· a Project Design Workshop with participants from countries, donors and regional stakeholders,
which ensured that key stakeholders fully understood the approach of the Project and the
rationale for the GEF support for it and provided a further opportunity for key stakeholders to
consider the structure of the Project, including its objectives, outputs, incremental cost analysis,
components, activities, budgets, implementation arrangements and the plan for stakeholder
participation.
In addition, Project design team members facilitated a Canadian-funded workshop organised by the
University of the South Pacific on the Implications of the WCPF Convention for the private sector,
which resulted in the establishment of a regional association of private sector interests in oceanic
fisheries (the Pacific Islands Tuna Industries Association) and included discussion on the
participation of private sector stakeholders in the Pacific Islands OFM Project.
In addition to funding these design activities, the PDF-B grant supported the provision of legal and
technical advice to Pacific SIDS, which contributed to speedy ratification of the Convention by
Pacific SIDS and to the effective conclusion of the work of the Preparatory Conference; and
assisted Pacific SIDS to prepare for the first meeting of the Commission, at which the basic
administrative arrangements for the Commission are expected to be adopted.

39

---

B. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
RATIONALE FOR GEF SUPPORT
The global concerns addressed by the GEF in activities in the focal area include:
"Excessive exploitation of living and nonliving resources due to inadequate
management and control measures (for example, overfishing...)"21;
and the overall strategic thrust of GEF-funded IW activities is:
"to meet the agreed incremental costs of (a) assisting groups of countries to better
understand the environmental concerns of their International Waters and work
collaboratively to address them; (b) building the capacity of existing institutions (or, if
appropriate, developing the capacity through new institutional arrangements) to utilise
a more comprehensive approach for addressing transboundary water-related
environmental concerns; and (c) implementing measures that address the priority
transboundary environmental concerns."22
Within the GEF IW focal area:
· sustainable management of regional fish stocks is identified as one of the major environmental
issues that SIDS have in common and a target for activities under the SIDS component of OP 9,
the Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area Operational Program; and
· the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach to addressing environmental problems in Large
Marine Ecosystems is promoted through activities under the Large Marine Ecosystem
Component of OP 8, the Waterbody-Based Operational Program.
Consistent with this framework, GEF financing for the South Pacific SAP Project has been
supporting the implementation of an IW Pacific Islands SAP, including a pilot phase of support for
the OFM Component, which underpinned successful efforts to conclude and bring into force the
WCPF Convention.
Now, GEF assistance is sought for a new Pacific Islands OFM Project to support Pacific SIDS
efforts as they participate in the setting up and initial period of operation of the new Commission
that is at the center of the WCPF Convention and as they reform, realign, restructure and strengthen
their national fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities
which the WCPF Convention creates and discharge the new responsibilities which the Convention
requires.
The rationale for GEF support for the Pacific Islands OFM Project includes the following elements:
· The Project will provide a contribution towards meeting the incremental costs of
implementation by Pacific SIDS of the WCPF Convention, which is the first major regional
application of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.
· The Project will support Pacific SIDS in taking a leading role in the establishment of the new
WCPF Commission. The establishment of the Commission will put an end to the situation
where there is no regulation of fishing in the high seas of the Western and Central Pacific. With
most of the Pacific SIDS' major trade and aid partners involved in the Commission as fishing
states, it is important for the Pacific SIDS to be able to look to an independent multilateral
agency for support in this work.

21 Ch. 4. Operational Strategy of the GEF.
22 as for 21 above.

40

---

· The Project will also support Pacific SIDS in making the necessary national legal, policy and
institutional reforms for the implementation of the SAP and the WCPF Convention. With much
of the catch and fishing in the WTP LME occurring in the waters of the Pacific SIDS, and an
increasing share of the high seas catches being made by vessels of Pacific SIDS, successful
implementation of the oceanic fisheries management component of the SAP and of the WCPF
Convention depends heavily on the commitment and capacity of Pacific SIDS to apply
conservation and management measures in their waters that are compatible with arrangements
for the high seas and to exercise control over their vessels fishing on the high seas. All Pacific
SIDS will have to make substantial efforts to upgrade and realign their oceanic fisheries
management regimes and programmes to meet the responsibilities and standards arising from
the establishment of the new Commission. For many, this will require reforms of institutional
structures to make the necessary incremental resources available at a time of general restraint
on levels of core public service funds and posts. GEF is the most appropriate agency to support
this effort. It has the necessary capacity and mandate to assist these vital reforms and to
provide the necessary support to capacity enhancement and the sustainability of input from the
Pacific SIDS.
· The Project will provide support to give effect to the adoption of the principles of the ecosystem
approach in the new arrangements for transboundary oceanic fish stock management in the
WTP LME. In the pilot phase of the OFM component of the South Pacific SAP Project, GEF
support allowed work to begin in this crucial area. Following the design of an appropriate
approach to biodynamic modelling of the WTP LME, biological sampling of ecosystem
components, food web analysis and trophic level determination have been initiated as a first
step in what will be a long-term effort. This pilot activity was also successful in leveraging
additional complementary funding for collaborative ecosystem research on a Pacific basin scale
over a longer time frame. GEF support for activities related to the operationalisation of an
ecosystem-based approach will ensure that ecosystem analysis is given a high priority from the
earliest stages of the establishment of the Commission. Through collaboration with IUCN, the
ecosystem analysis will be broadened to support the first systematic efforts in the region to look
at seamount-related aspects of an ecosystem-based approach.
· The implementation of the Convention will mobilise a major increase in resources for
conservation and management from those who use the fishery resources of the region.
Implementation of the Convention will see the establishment of substantial technical,
compliance and science programmes under the Commission, also to be financed largely by
those who use the region's fishery resources as well as requiring the commitment of resources
to expanded compliance and science programmes at national level by those involved in fishing,
especially in high seas fishing. In addition to increasing the resources committed for these
purposes, this will reduce the burden on Pacific SIDS who have, until now, carried the major
burden for research and monitoring of oceanic fisheries with funding from donors that could
have been used for other socio-economic purposes.
· The approach of the Project closely matches the GEF approach to IW Projects noted above. It
has its origins in the preparation of a SAP that identified transboundary concerns, the associated
threats and their root causes. The Project itself is aimed at addressing the root causes identified
in the SAP and it will assist Pacific SIDS to utilise the full range of technical, economic,
financial, regulatory and institutional measures needed to operationalise sustainable
development strategies for oceanic fisheries in the international waters of the Pacific Islands
region. It will help them to better understand the transboundary environmental concerns related
to oceanic fisheries and to work collaboratively to address them; to build a new regional
Commission and strengthen the capacity of existing national institutions to utilise a more
comprehensive approach for addressing those transboundary concerns; and to implement at
regional and national level measures that address the priority transboundary environmental
concerns identified in the SAP.

41

---

· The Project will contribute to achievement of IW Strategic Priorities for the period FY04-06
through its support for SAP-based management reforms, its SIDS focus and its LME and
fisheries applications.
· GEF support for the Project will be the first tangible response by the global community to the
call in Section VII of the WSSD JPOI for actions to:
"Further implement sustainable fisheries management and improve financial returns
from fisheries by supporting and strengthening relevant regional fisheries management
organisations, as appropriate, such as the recently established Caribbean Regional
Fisheries Mechanism and such agreements as the Convention on the Conservation and
Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean";
and supports the other relevant parts of the WSSD Plan of Implementation relating to SIDS
noted above.
· There is a good basis for expecting that the Project will be effective. The SAP is in place and
remains appropriate. The WCPF Convention was concluded and has come into force earlier
than expected, assisted by the South Pacific SAP Project advisory and training activities - these
have also led to some Pacific SIDS completing ratification of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement
and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The WCPF Commission has therefore been
established and provides a very clear focus for much of the Project's proposed activities. The
pilot phase of the OFM Component of the South Pacific SAP Project is widely regarded as
successful. There is an excellent collaborative relationship between UNDP, FFA and SPC as
executing agencies and the participating governments arising out of their collaboration in the
South Pacific SAP Project. The team of organisations involved in implementation and
execution of the Project will be further strengthened by the participation of IUCN, regional
environmental and industry NGOs. There is an excellent Terminal Evaluation Report of the
OFM Component of the South Pacific SAP Project, which has been endorsed by the
participating Governments. That Report sets out the strengths and weaknesses of the OFM
Component and provides a very strong basis for the design and implementation of the new
Project. Very substantial attention has been given in the Project Preparation and Development
Facility (PDF) phase of the Project to addressing the key weaknesses identified in the OFM
Component Terminal Evaluation Report ­ the lack of stakeholder involvement and the lack of
understanding of the approach and processes of the GEF. The emphasis given to broad
consultation in the PDF work has paid dividends not only in addressing these two weaknesses,
but has been successful generally in refreshing the constituency for a further phase of
enhancement of oceanic fisheries management ­ helped by the coincidence in timing that saw
the WCPF Convention enter into force while the PDF National Missions were visiting
countries, with the associated widespread media attention adding to awareness of the
Convention and GEF involvement.
The baseline and alternative scenarios summarised below illustrate the changes that the Project
seeks to bring about and provide the basis for the structure of the Project goals, objectives,
outcomes, outputs and activities. The Incremental Cost Analysis set out in Annex A describes how
the GEF-funded and co-financed activities will be integrated to pursue the outcomes described in
the GEF-supported alternative scenario and contribute to the Project goals and objectives.
BASELINE SCENARIO
In the baseline scenario, Pacific SIDS continue to manage the transboundary oceanic fish stocks in
their waters, essentially independently, although within a framework of cooperation between
themselves at the regional level, executed through FFA for economic, legal and compliance aspects
and through SPC for fisheries data collection and management, biological and ecosystem research
and stock assessment. While there is well-developed cooperation between Pacific Island SIDS,

42

---

there is relatively little cooperation, particularly in non-scientific areas, with other states in the
region including Indonesia, the Philippines and the French and US territories.
Pacific SIDS maintain capable national licensing authorities and continue to strengthen their
compliance functions through stronger sea and air patrols and the use of VMS, but national oceanic
fisheries management functions continue to remain relatively poorly resourced. Some Pacific SIDS
begin to apply limits to fishing within their waters but the effectiveness of these efforts is
undermined by the lack of any coherent regional framework for those limits and by the knowledge
that vessels limited from fishing in national waters can operate freely in the high seas without limits
or other controls. Pacific SIDS encourage large fishing states to cooperate on a voluntary basis in
providing information and controlling vessels operating on the high seas, but response to this
approach remains mixed ­ some states respond well, others decline to cooperate with voluntary
measures including data provision on the high seas. High seas fishing remains unregulated and
largely unreported. Vessels operating from the high seas make illegal incursions into national
waters, undermining national efforts at conservation and management. Lacking detailed
comprehensive data especially on catches and effort from the high seas and Indonesia and
Philippines, substantial uncertainty in stock assessment results and about the levels of bycatches
and incidental mortalities weaken the basis for management action as key stocks are threatened by
over-exploitation and harmful impacts on sharks, billfish, turtles, marine mammals and other
associated species increase. Lack of a legally-binding mechanism applying to all participants in the
fisheries also substantially weakens the scope for effective conservation and management
measures. Essential regional science and monitoring programmes remain funded on an ad hoc
basis by donors increasingly uneasy about long-term use of development assistance monies for this
purpose, instead of the programmes being funded by those who are benefiting from fishing on the
stocks. There is no systematic progress in ecosystem analysis.
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
The alternative scenario is based on the implementation of the SAP and the WCPF Convention with
GEF support. Pacific SIDS are joined by key fishing states as Parties to the Convention. The
WCPF Commission begins to operate based on Rules of Procedure and Financial and Staff
Regulations, which are able to be adopted fairly quickly following the work of the Preparatory
Conference. A Secretariat is appointed, headquarter facilities are established and there is a
financing plan to maintain the financial sustainability of the Secretariat.
Within three years of the first Commission meeting, key Commission technical programmes are
established in science and compliance based on an agreed workplan. These programmes include:
arrangements for the establishment of a register of authorised vessels; vessel marking; boarding and
inspection on the high seas; provision of catch and effort data and establishment of databases; and
regional observer, vessel monitoring and port sampling programs. They lead to an end to
unregulated fishing on the high seas and improvement in data and reduction in uncertainty
associated with assessments of key stocks. Advice on the status of key stocks is being provided to
the Commission. The core technical programmes of the Commission are being financed by
financial contributions from Commission Members based on the principle that those who benefit
from fishing should pay the costs of management.
Within three years of its inception, the Commission has identified key management issues and is at
least considering options to address these management issues. The WTP LME has been described
and methodologies for ecosystem monitoring (including by-catch and discards monitoring) devised.
Agreements have been reached as to how ecosystem issues will be considered in management of
the fishery. Limits to fishing are increasingly being applied in national waters and are at least
under consideration for the high seas.
IUU fishing is at low levels and does not threaten conservation and management efforts.

43

---

Arrangements for the Commission include provisions to facilitate effective participation by Pacific
SIDS. Pacific SIDS are having to collaborate with large powerful countries with great economic
interests at stake in the outcomes of the Commission and are developing the necessary capacities to
participate effectively in the Commission.
Member countries of the Commission, including Pacific SIDS, increase the resources committed to
management of the oceanic resources of the WTP LME. Nationally, Pacific SIDS undertake legal
and policy reforms necessary for ratification of the Convention and implementation of measures
applied by the Commission; and realignment and strengthening of the institutions and programmes
responsible for oceanic fisheries management, especially in the areas of statistics, observers, port
sampling, inspection and vessel monitoring. Pacific SIDS are able to finance the increase in
resources required from greater returns from oceanic fish stocks which have been made more
valuable by the enhanced conservation and management regime.
With the alternative scenario structured in this way, the GEF-financed activities of the Project are a
major and essential, but not dominant, component of the overall pattern of activities being
undertaken to implement the WCPF Convention and the SAP. Pacific SIDS are committing
substantial resources from their own sources, including charges on boat owners and from bilateral
development assistance, and continue to direct their regional organisations to commit a substantial
share of their budgets towards implementation of the WCPF Convention and the SAP. Other
donors also support activities directed towards implementation of the WCPF Convention.
Overall, however, the largest contributions to financing the incremental costs of enhancing the
conservation and management of the oceanic resources of the WTP LME through the
implementation of the WCPF Convention are being made by the governments and owners of the
fishing vessels operating in the region, especially developed countries. These include: costs
incurred by governments for financial contributions to the Commission; the costs of expanded
national science and compliance programmes relating to fishing by their vessels; costs incurred by
boatowners to comply with new regulations including direct costs of marking of vessels,
installation and operation of vessel tracking devices; collection and provision of more detailed data;
support for onboard activities by inspectors, port samplers and observers, including provision of
accommodation and food for observers; and the indirect costs from the effects on operations and
catches of measures such as closed seasons, closed areas, size limits, live release of bycatches etc.
PROJECT GOALS
The global environmental goal of the Project is:
to achieve global environmental benefits by enhanced conservation and management of
transboundary oceanic fishery resources in the Pacific Islands region and the protection of
the biodiversity of the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem.
The broad development goal of the Project is:
to assist the Pacific Island States to improve the contribution to their sustainable
development from improved management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources and
from the conservation of oceanic marine biodiversity generally.
The Project pursues these goals through:
i)
implementation of the oceanic fisheries management aspects of the SAP of the Pacific
Islands Region;
ii)
implementation of the WCPF Convention, including the establishment of the WCPF
Commission which is the core element of the Convention;
iii)
application in the Pacific Islands Region of the principles of the relevant provisions of
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible

44

---

Fisheries, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WSSD fisheries targets for 2010 and
2015;
iv)
acceleration of the implementation in Pacific SIDS of the actions to promote sustainable
development for SIDS set out in the Barbados Programme of Action and the WSSD Plan
of Implementation;
v)
the achievement of legal, policy and institutional reforms in Pacific SIDS for the
implementation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF Convention;
vi)
improving information and knowledge about the WTP LME, transboundary oceanic fish
stocks and the impacts of fishing on these stocks, including the relationship between
pelagic fisheries and seamounts;
vii) the building of additional national capacity in relation to fishery monitoring and science
in Pacific SIDS to enable the more effective discharge of responsibilities under the UN
Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF Convention; operationalisation of an ecosystem-
based approach to the conservation and management of the major transboundary
resources and related species of the WTP LME; and
viii) the leveraging of substantially increased resources for conserving and managing
transboundary stocks and related species from the governments and fishing industries of
states involved in using these resources, especially developed states, but also including
Pacific SIDS.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The immediate objectives of the Project address the two root causes of the threats to the
sustainability of use of the region's oceanic fish resources identified in the SAP. Recalling that the
SAP identified the root causes underlying the concerns about, and threats relating to, oceanic
fisheries in the International Waters in the region as lack of understanding and weaknesses in
governance, the two immediate objectives of the Project are:
The Information and Knowledge objective:
to improve understanding of the transboundary oceanic fish resources and related features
of the Western and Central Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem.
The Governance objective:
to create new regional institutional arrangements and reform, realign and strengthen
national arrangements for conservation and management of transboundary oceanic
fishery resources.

45

---

C. PROJECT COMPONENTS, OUTCOMES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES
PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project has two technical components, which are specifically designed to address the two
immediate objectives and the two root causes, as follows:
Component 1. Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement, aimed at the Knowledge and
Information Objective; and
Component 2: Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening, aimed at
the Governance Objective;
and a third component,
Component 3. Coordination, Participation and Information Services, designed to support and
enhance the outcomes of the two technical components.
These components are described below:
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The design of the activities for the Project reflects four important factors:
· integration of national and regional levels of focus: to succeed, the Project has to be effective at
both the national and regional levels and so the activities are generally designed to have both a
national and a regional focus;
· generation of technical and capacity-building outputs: in the short term, important technical
outputs are needed such as proposals and programmes for the Commission, better information
and analytical results, amended laws, management plans. However, in many cases the
effectiveness and sustainability of these technical gains will be limited by human and
institutional capacity constraints, so the Project design consciously seeks to twin technical and
capacity building activities in every area;
· application of a regional approach in a way that recognises national needs: the participating
countries share common opportunities, problems and constraints to sustainable development.
However, they are also very different ­ their populations range from over 3 million to under
2,000; and the areas of their ocean jurisdiction range from over 3.5 million sq. kilometres to
120,000 sq. kilometres. For example, larger countries generally have more fully developed
national capacities and place less priority on direct technical assistance; they give priority to in-
country activities which can reach a larger number of people; they value attachments which
allow them to send staff to work in a learning environment for a sustained period and they
generally have better organised NGOs. Smaller countries place a higher priority on direct
technical assistance; they particularly value regional contacts, but are constrained in how much
time key players can be out of the country; they generally can't make people available for
sustained attachments; they have less capacity to sustain national intersectoral consultative
arrangements and the roles of governments are relatively large, with relatively weak NGOs.
Irrespective of size, the countries are also at different stages in the development of their oceanic
fisheries management capacities. Some have fairly complete and up to date legal frameworks
but little or no monitoring capacity; some have undertaken very rigorous institutional
restructuring, while others have not begun to address that need. The Project activities are
designed to address the common and shared regional needs in a way that reflects national
differences in priorities; and

46

---

· openness to non-governmental stakeholder participation: in general, all activities are open to
public sector and non-governmental participants. The National Consultative Committee will
play the key role in determining national priorities for participation and for in-country activities.
COMPONENT 1: SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING ENHANCEMENT
In the South Pacific SAP Project, GEF grant funds supported stock assessment and scientific
monitoring work that contributed to laying a platform of knowledge about the status of regional
stocks and the impact of fishing which had a profound affect in advancing the conclusion and
bringing into force the WCPF Convention. The Project also supported initial phases of ecosystem
analysis to characterise the WTP LME.
From 2005, the core stock assessment and scientific monitoring work will begin to be funded by the
WCPF Commission. With the Commission now scheduled to fund the core stock assessment and
data management and analysis, the emphasis in the stock assessment and data/monitoring activities
in this Component will be shifted to building national capacities to enable Pacific SIDS to respond
to the requirements of the WCPF Convention.
In the area of ecosystem analysis, Component 1 will advance the operationalisation of an
ecosystem-based approach to management to provide the basis for the application, in time, of an
ecosystem-based approach to oceanic fisheries management by the Commission and the Pacific
SIDS. The ecosystem analysis will include a new focus on seamounts, which will be developed in
association with IUCN. Seamounts have been identified as potential critical habitat for pelagic
species and their role in the overall WTP LME and their potential for targeted management
measures will be investigated. The Sub-Component activities will be closely integrated with the
broader science and monitoring programmes of the SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme, including
those activities funded by the Commission and other donors, particularly the EU; and with the other
Project components.
Component 1 Outcome: Improved quality, compatibility and availability of scientific information
and knowledge on the oceanic transboundary fish stocks and related ecosystem aspects of the WTP
warm pool LME, with a particular focus on the ecology of seamounts in relation to pelagic fisheries
and the impacts of fishing upon them; this information being used by the Commission and Pacific
SIDS to adopt and apply measures for the conservation and management of transboundary oceanic
fishery resources and protection of the WTP LME; national capacities in oceanic fishery
monitoring and assessment strengthened, with Pacific SIDS meeting their national and
Commission-related responsibilities in these areas.
Sub-Component 1.1.
Fishery Monitoring, Coordination and Enhancement
The assessment of needs conducted by the national missions showed that the most important short-
term priority for Pacific SIDS in meeting their obligations as Members of the WCPF Commission
is the enhancement of their capacities to monitor oceanic fisheries activities for which they are
responsible. Under the Convention, national and regional monitoring responsibilities are multi-
faceted - as coastal states, Pacific SIDS are responsible for monitoring fishing in their waters,
generally through the collection of catch and effort data from logsheets and by onboard observers;
as flag states they are responsible for monitoring the fishing and catches by their vessels, including
port sampling ­ it is generally more difficult and expensive to monitor the activities of the larger
number of smaller vessels which make up the local fleets; and as port states they have
responsibilities to monitor landing and transhipment in their ports. Data then needs to be provided
to the Commission for science and compliance purposes in accordance with standards to be adopted
by the Commission. At this point, all Pacific SIDS have monitoring programmes in place which
are designed to meet national needs, but no Pacific SIDS has the capacity to provide data in the
form, and of the quality, that will be required by the Commission. At the regional level, low
quality of some data contributes to levels of uncertainty about stock assessment results that

47

---

undermine the use of those results for decision-making ­ the quality of data from Pacific SIDS
fleets is a particular area of weakness despite improvements during the Pacific SAP project.
Sub-Component 1.1 will develop a template for a national monitoring programme that will
integrate logsheet, observer, port sampling, landing data, provide data in the form to meet
Commission requirements and support the application of that template nationally. The template
will be based on a standardised database and associated software, which can be customised to meet
different national needs and relate to different national capacities and will include a reporting
module for the generation of data and data products to be provided to the Commission. The
template will be made available to other Commission Members, particularly developing state
members.
National monitoring coordinators will oversee the application of the template at a national level,
supported by technical advice and regional and in-country training. This will improve
understanding of changes in the fisheries at a national level and will strengthen national fisheries
compliance programs, improve the quality, compatibility and availability of data for the scientific
and compliance work of the Commission and enable Pacific SIDS to be better informed in adopting
national positions in the work of the Commission.
There will be a link with elements of Component 2 to ensure that laws are reformed and
compliance capacities are strengthened to enforce mandatory fishery monitoring activities.
The intended outcome of the Fishery Monitoring, Coordination and Enhancement Sub-Component
is:
Outcome 1.1.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Fishery Monitoring, Coordination and
Enhancement Sub-Component are:
Output
1.1.1.
A template for national integrated monitoring programmes
including logsheet, observer, port sampling and landing data
collection and management; and provision of national data to the
Commission.
Activity 1.1.1.1.
Develop database and associated software.
Activity 1.1.1.2.
Develop reporting module for Commission data.
Output 1.1.2.
National monitoring systems based on the regional template for
integrated monitoring and customised to meet national needs.
Activity 1.1.2.1.
Support establishment and enhancement of national databases and
software.
Activity 1.1.2.2.
Support establishment and enhancement of national port sampling and
observer programs.
Activity 1.1.2.3.
Support the coordination of national monitoring programs.
Output 1.1.3.
A regional monitoring coordination capacity to develop regional
standards such as data formats and to provide a clearing house for
information on fishery monitoring.

48

---

Activity 1.1.3.1.
Develop and make available common data formats.
Activity 1.1.3.2.
Hold Regional Workshops on regional and national fishery monitoring.
Activity 1.1.3.3.
Distribute newsletters, webpage and other forms of information
exchange.
Output 1.1.4.
Training of national monitoring staff, particularly monitoring
coordinators, observers and port samplers.
Activity 1.1.4.1.
Organise and hold in-country observer and port sampling courses and
other training activities.
Activity 1.1.4.2.
Regional training courses in integrated fishery monitoring.
Activity 1.1.4.3.
Attach national monitoring personnel to SPC/OFP.
Sub-Component 1.2.
Stock Assessment
The quality of stock assessment on major regional stocks has advanced rapidly in the last five years
and there is an improving understanding of the overall impact of fishing on regional stocks.
However, the national needs assessments showed a gap between the strength of this work at a
regional level and, the level of understanding and use of stock assessment methods and results
nationally. That gap in understanding reduces the effectiveness of dialogue at a national level
about regional conservation measures and of participation by Pacific SIDS in the WCPF process
and reduces the capacity of policy makers to frame appropriate national conservation and
management policies and measures. A particular aspect of the gap in understanding relates to the
impact of oceanographic change. Sub-component 1.2 will develop and apply an approach to stock
assessment, including oceanographic factors, that can be used to assist technical staff, policy
makers and other stakeholders to provide a better basis for national management policies, to enrich
national dialogue about regional conservation and management measures and to enable Pacific
SIDS to participate more effectively in the scientific work of the Commission. The core activity
under this sub-component will be the preparation of National Oceanic Fisheries Status Reports for
6 countries annually. These reports will be prepared collaboratively by national scientific
counterparts and SPC/OFP scientific staff (one of whom will be funded by the Project). The
collaborative nature of report preparation and presentation will generate capacity-building spin-offs
at the national level. The reports will be aimed at providing the best scientific information
available as a basis for national oceanic fisheries management policies and measures. Under the
Sub-Component, assistance will also be given to the Pacific SIDS to ensure a detailed
understanding of the scientific issues so that they can be better prepared to develop positions and
proposals within the Commission on such issues as data needs, research priorities, resources needed
for science, scientific methods, etc.
The intended outcome of the Stock Assessment Sub-Component is:
Outcome 1.2.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Stock Assessment Sub-Component are:
Output 1.2.1.
National oceanic fisheries status reports prepared collaboratively
with national scientific staff.
Activity 1.2.1.1.
Prepare 6 National Oceanic Fisheries Status Reports annually.

49

---

Activity 1.2.1.2.
Hold In-country Stakeholder Workshops for delivery of National Status
Reports.
Output 1.2.2.
Advice to Pacific SIDS on scientific issues in the work of the
Commission.
Activity 1.2.2.1.
Provide contributions to briefs on scientific issues for Pacific SIDS for
meetings of the Commission, the Scientific Committee and Science
Working Groups.
Activity 1.2.2.2.
Present scientific briefs to preparatory meetings of Pacific SIDS for the
Commission.
Output 1.2.3.
Training of national technical and scientific staff to understand
regional stock assessment methods and interpret and apply the
results and to use oceanographic data.
Activity 1.2.3.1.
Hold Regional Workshops on stock assessment methods and analysis of
oceanographic impacts on fisheries.
Activity 1.2.3.2.
Attach national technical staff to SPC/OFP and other institutions to
participate in Commission stock assessment work and preparation of
national status reports.
Activity 1.2.3.3.
Train scientific counterparts in-country.
Sub-Component 1.3.
Ecosystem Analysis
The Convention requires that the impacts of fishing on non-target and associated or dependent
species, and ecosystem impacts in general, be considered when management measures are being
developed for highly migratory fish stocks. Specifically, the Convention requires Parties to:
"assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on
target stocks, non-target species, and species belonging to the same ecosystem or
dependent upon or associated with the target stocks";
"adopt measures to minimise waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear,
pollution originating from fishing vessels, catch of non-target species, both fish and
non-fish species, (hereinafter referred to as non-target species) and impacts on
associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species and promote the
development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear
and techniques"; and
"protect biodiversity in the marine environment".
It is envisaged that the WCPF Commission will require several types of information and advice in
order to consider the ecosystem implications of the fisheries under its jurisdiction, including:
· the effects on the overall pelagic ecosystem of removal of target species, which are generally
higher trophic level predators;
· the effects of environmental variation on target stocks, their ecosystem and the fisheries;
· the effects of fisheries on non-target and dependent or associated species, in particular the levels
of by-catch of non-target species of special interest, such as billfish, sharks and various
protected species of marine mammals and turtles; and
· the effects of fisheries on biodiversity and habitats of special interest.
In time, the Commission requirements for ecosystem analysis will need to be fully incorporated
into the research programme of the Commission and be funded by its Members. However, in the
start-up period of the Commission, the resources are not expected to be available for the basic
investigations needed to begin to operationalise an ecosystem approach to the Commission's

50

---

management and conservation and management functions, and this work will be undertaken with
GEF funds under Sub-Component 1, complemented by funding from the EU.
Pilot research and data collection on ecosystem aspects has been undertaken by SPC/OFP, both
through the Pacific SAP project and the EU-funded PROCFish project.
The focus of the work to date has been on developing an initial description of the trophic
relationships in the WTP LME in order to ultimately assess the impacts of large predator removal
(point 1 above), developing preliminary models of the effects of environmental variability
(particularly ENSO-driven variability) on tuna fisheries and stocks (point 2 above) and initiating
and improving scientific observer coverage of industrial tuna fisheries in order to obtain better
estimates of by-catch (point 3 above). These pilot activities have provided important initial
information and the Sub-Component will build on this work so that ecosystem considerations can
be operationalised for oceanic fisheries management advice at the national and regional levels.
IUCN and SPC/OFP will collaborate to undertake specific activities to obtain information on the
ecology of, and fishery impacts on, seamounts as a habitat of special concern (point 4 above). The
seamount work will involve a review of historical fisheries data to determine historical patterns of
fishing in relation to seamounts; an extensive data collection programme by observers and
dedicated research cruises to determine the ecological characteristics of seamounts; and tagging of
tunas and other pelagic species in the vicinity of seamounts to determine their residence
characteristics. IUCN will arrange a research cruise to undertake underwater survey work at
selected seamounts to determine benthic biodiversity and the Sub-Component will support the
participation of Pacific SIDS technical and scientific personnel in the research cruise. The results
of the research cruise/benthic biodiversity surveys will be included in awareness raising activities to
complement information about fisheries and seamounts.
This information will allow assessments of the need for, and utility of, seamount-specific
management measures. Moreover, it is anticipated that the results of the Project will enable the
scientific assessment of specific proposals regarding the management of ecosystem impacts and the
efficacy of specific classes of management measures such as marine protected areas (MPAs).
Whereas the work of Sub-Components 1.1 and 1.2 are directed largely at the Pacific SIDS in the
first instance, complementing regional-level stock assessment and monitoring work that will be
financed by the Commission and other agencies, the outputs of Sub-Component 1.3 will be more
broadly directed towards raising the awareness of ecosystem considerations by the Commission and
its Members, including Pacific SIDS. Results of ecosystem analysis and proposals for long-term
ecosystem monitoring will be provided to the Commission's Scientific Committee through its
Ecosystems and Bycatch Working Group. Staff of Pacific SIDS fisheries/environment
administrations and NGOs will be involved in the work of the Sub-Component through attachment
training, involvement in fieldwork and workshops.
The intended outcome of the Ecosystem Analysis Sub-Component is:
Outcome 1.3.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Ecosystem Analysis Sub-Component are:
Output 1.3.1.
Observer sampling and analysis of commercial fishery catches to
determine trophic relationships of pelagic species in the WTP LME.
Activity 1.3.1.1.
Collect observer-based sampling data, especially stomach contents and
tissue samples.

51

---

Activity 1.3.1.2.
Lab-based analysis of samples.
Output 1.3.2.
Collection and analysis of information on seamounts in the WTP
warm pool.
Activity 1.3.2.1.
Hold Seamount Activity Planning and Review Workshops.
Activity 1.3.2.2. Describe seamounts and analyse historical fishing patterns around
seamounts.
Activity 1.3.2.3.
Collect data at sea at selected seamounts, including tagging, trophic
sampling and analysis.
Activity 1.3.2.4.
Support national scientist participation in a benthic biodiversity survey.
Output 1.3.3.
Model-based analysis of ecosystem-based management options.
Activity 1.3.3.1.
Incorporate ecosystem data and information into existing ecosystem
models and refinement of those models as necessary.
Activity 1.3.3.2.
Use enhanced models and data to assess ecosystem-based management
options.
Activity 1.3.3.3.
Use enhanced models and data to assess management options targeted
specifically at seamounts.
Output 1.3.4.
Estimates of levels of by-catch in WCPO oceanic fisheries.
Activity 1.3.4.1.
Review historical observer data and methodological development.
Activity 1.3.4.2.
Estimate levels of by-catch.
Output 1.3.5.
Results of ecosystem analysis and proposals for long-term ecosystem
monitoring and operationalisation of the ecosystem-based approach
for use by the Commission's Scientific Committee, especially its
Ecosystems and Bycatch Working Group and by Pacific SIDS.
Activity 1.3.5.1.
Present results of ecosystem analysis to the Commission through the
Ecosystem and Bycatch Working Group.
Activity 1.3.5.2.
Present information on national and regional implications of results of
ecosystem analysis to Pacific SIDS.
Activity 1.3.5.3.
Attach national technical staff to SPC/OFP and other institutions to
participate in ecosystem analysis.

52

---

COMPONENT 2:
LAW, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM, REALIGNMENT
AND STRENGTHENING
In the South Pacific SAP Project, GEF grant funds were primarily used to support participation by
Pacific SIDS in the negotiation of the WCPF Convention; in the work of the Preparatory
Conference for the WCPF Commission; and in the process of ratification of the Convention
following the preparation of a SAP with GEF assistance. With the Convention now in force, the
work of the Preparatory Conference nearly complete and the first meeting of the Commission
scheduled, Component 2 will have two thrusts:
· At the national level, supporting Pacific SIDS' efforts through government agencies and NGOs
to reform, realign, restructure and strengthen their national fisheries laws, policies, institutions
and programmes to take up the new opportunities which the WCPF Convention creates and
discharge the new responsibilities which the Convention requires; and
· At the regional level, supporting Pacific SIDS, and thus the Commission, in the earliest stages
of the Commission's work as its secretariat and technical programmes are established and as it
moves towards the adoption of conservation and management measures.
The inputs financed by GEF under this Component will include technical assistance using national,
as well as international specialists; and a range of regional and national training activities,
particularly national and regional workshops and attachments to regional organisations and to other
countries to observe best practice solutions to oceanic fisheries management problems. The
activities of the Component will be overseen and supported by the FFA Monitoring, Control and
Surveillance Division.
Component 2 Outcome: The WCPF Commission established and beginning to function
effectively; Pacific Island nations taking a lead role in the functioning and management of the
Commission and in the related management of the fisheries and the globally-important LME;
national laws, policies, institutions and programmes relating to management of transboundary
oceanic fisheries reformed, realigned and strengthened to implement the WCPF Convention and
other applicable global and regional instruments, including the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the
FAO Code of Conduct and the WSSD fisheries targets for 2010 and 2015.; national capacities in
oceanic fisheries law, fisheries management and compliance strengthened.
Sub-Component 2.1.
Legal Reform
At the national level, Sub-Component 2.1 will assist Pacific SIDS to undertake legal reforms
associated with the implementation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF Convention
and other relevant international legal and policy instruments. The key new provisions, which are
specifically required for implementation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF
Convention, include the following:
· tighter controls over national flag vessels generally;
· specific new controls over fishing by national flag vessels in the high seas, including an
authorisation process with conditions including vessel marking, satellite monitoring, boarding
of observers, cooperation with inspectors of other Parties, data reporting etc.;
· requirements for flag vessels not to fish without authorisation in the waters of other states and
to comply with the host states' fishing conditions;
· authorisation of inspectors to board and inspect the vessels of other Parties on the high seas;
· control of national vessels and all vessels generally interpreted as requiring measures to
eliminate the use of flag-of-convenience;
· state responsibilities for ports to take action against vessels undermining Commission measures.

53

---

More broadly, the Sub-Component will assist Pacific SIDS in wider legal reforms, including:
· putting the key principles of the Code of Conduct, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the
WCPF Convention into national law, including the precautionary approach, the ecosystem
approach, protection of biodiversity and preservation of long term stock sustainability following
existing model draft legislation from Papua New Guinea, Tonga and Vanuatu;
· providing a statutory base for processes of stakeholder consultation;
· giving statutory force to Management Plans, using existing models from Papua New Guinea
and Cook Islands;
· overhauling decision-making processes, especially for licensing, to increase transparency; and
· creating new institutional arrangements, including consideration of options such as independent
self-financing authorities for fisheries management and cost recovery programs.
In-country training will also be provided, with the legal implications of the Convention generally
and the implications of the new laws for prosecutors identified as priority subjects.
The Sub-Component will be overseen by the FFA Legal Counsel.
The pattern of priorities for national needs are set out in Table 3 and were identified in the national
missions. The priorities for individual national needs as given in Table 3 will form the initial basis
of programming in-country activities under the Sub-Component. A detailed review of the issues
and status of national laws will be undertaken as the first step under the Sub-Component. This will
provide further detail on specific legal needs and capacity issues within each Pacific SIDS.

Table 3:
National priorities for legal reform.
Regional Legal National Legal
In-Country
Country
Workshops
Attachments Other
Reviews
Training
and Advice
Cabinet workshop;
Act, regulations,
Cook Islands
X
Prosecution


licenses
workshop
Fed. States of
X

X
Micronesia
Act, regulations,
licenses;
Fiji X



Harmonise with
Environment laws
New Act,
Kiribati X
regulations, review



access agreements
Prosecution
Marshall lslands
X



workshop
Convention legal
Nauru X
Revise
Act


workshop
Revise Act,
National legal
Niue X
Regulations,


advice
License conditions
Revise Act for
Prosecution
National legal
Palau X
UNFSA and
X
Convention;
workshop
advice
Prosecution

54

---

workshop
Sub-regional
Papua New
Review Act in the
Convention legal
workshops,
X

Guinea
medium term
workshop
especially on
VMS
Samoa X
Review
Act



Harmonise Act and For fisheries legal
Solomon Islands
X


plan
officer
Village
Revise Act and
consultations;
Tokelau X


regulations
National legal
advice
Tonga X
Prosecution
W/shop
X

National advice
Review Access
on IUU and
Tuvalu X
X
Agreements
Access
Agreements
Prosecution
Revise Act and
National legal
Vanuatu X
workshop; Training
X
regulations
advice
for legal staff

At the regional level, the Sub-Component will provide legal advice to Pacific SIDS on the legal
issues involved in the development of the Commission's programs, especially the compliance
programme and its approach towards conservation measures. Key legal issues to be addressed in
the early stages of the Commission's work include:
· the position of non-Contracting Parties;
· the process for admission of new Members to the Commission;
· the procedure for dealing with apparent infringements by the vessels of Parties;
· the process for identifying States as undermining the Commission's measures and sanctions to
be applied;
· the legal rights and obligations of parties involved in boarding and inspection on the high seas;
· the process for adoption of conservation and management measures by the Commission and
review and modification of those measures based on feedback from the fisheries monitoring and
stock assessment activities as well as ecosystem analysis data; and
· the general interpretation of the Convention and the Rules of Procedure, particularly the more
innovative provisions.
Regional legal workshops and consultations are particularly important to national legal personnel
who are often working on their own on international fisheries legal issues within very small legal
administrations.
The intended outcome of the Legal Reform Sub-Component is:
Outcome 2.1.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Legal Reform Sub-Component are:

55

---

Output 2.1.1.
A strategy and workplan for activities on regional and national legal
issues.
Activity 2.1.1.1.
Carry out legal and technical reviews of legal issues and national legal
structures.
Activity 2.1.1.2.
Hold a Regional Legal Consultation on Legal Issues, National Legal
Structures and the Project strategy for legal work.
Output 2.1.
New draft laws, regulations, agreements and license conditions in
line with WCPF Convention prepared and shared with Pacific SIDS.
Activity 2.1.2.1.
Prepare templates of legal provisions to implement the Convention.
Activity 2.1.2.2.
Undertake national legal reviews.
Activity 2.1.2.3.
Provide draft Bills, regulations, license conditions and access agreements
to Pacific SIDS.
Output
2.1.3.
Proposals for the Commission from Pacific SIDS for legal
arrangements to implement the Convention.
Activity 2.1.3.1.
Undertake legal studies on Commission and Convention issues including
non-Contracting Parties and new members.
Activity 2.1.3.2.
Prepare legal briefs for Pacific SIDS for Commission and subsidiary
body meetings.
Activity 2.1.3.3.
Hold Regional Legal Consultations.
Output 2.1.4.
Training of policy makers and legal personnel in oceanic fisheries
management legal issues.
Activity 2.1.4.1.
Hold Regional Legal Workshops.
Activity 2.1.4.2.
Hold National Legal Workshops.
Activity 2.1.4.3.
Attach legal staff to FFA and other institutions to participate in legal
analyses.
Sub-Component 2.2.
Policy Reform
This Sub-Component is the central and most challenging element of the Project. It is the main area
of support in the Project for Pacific SIDS as they work to establish the new Commission and it
seeks to play a major role in effecting deep-seated changes in national policies in the direction of
sustainable and responsible fisheries. On the surface, the resources committed to these outcomes
are modest, but the Sub-Component is closely integrated with substantial baseline and incremental
FFA programmes in economics and fisheries management and by the work of other agencies,
particularly FAO. In large, the Sub-Component seeks to work by levering powerful ideas centered
on sustainability into well-established regional fisheries policy dialogue structures - from national
grass roots level consultation through regional FFA meetings, workshops and consultations, to the
annual meetings of Pacific Leaders. Its key features are the provision of high calibre technical
advice to Pacific SIDS on national and regional management issues, including analysis of economic
factors contributing to over-exploitation and of the principles of allocation of access to resources;
the preparation, implementation and review of national plans and strategies for oceanic fisheries
management; supported by a range of training and capacity building.
Pacific SIDS will be assisted to develop and put forward proposals for the development of the
Commission. This will involve the establishment of the Commission itself and its Secretariat,
including its staffing, budget and work programme and in the consideration and adoption of
conservation and management measures by the Commission. Annual OFM capacity building
workshops will be held prior to the annual Commission meetings to strengthen Pacific SIDS

56

---

capacities to participate in the Commission and to implement the Convention, with planned support
from the New Zealand Agency for International Development.
The Sub-Component will provide analyses of the policy implications of the results of ecosystem
analysis under Sub-Component 1.3, including policies for the regulation of pelagic fishing around
seamounts. This will support proposals for the adoption of ecosystem-based measures by the
Commission at the regional level and by Pacific SIDS in their national waters. Seamount-related
policy studies, including legal and compliance aspects will be undertaken by IUCN.
The Sub-Component will support the call by Pacific Islands Leaders at their 2004 Forum meeting
for greater Ministerial involvement in regional fisheries governance by co-financing appropriate
regional and sub-regional Ministerial meetings. It will also offer a course on the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, developed in cooperation between Train Sea Coast and the
University of the South Pacific.
Table 4 summarises the priorities for national assistance for the implementation of the Convention
identified by the national missions, which will provide the basis for determining initial priorities for
national assistance in oceanic fisheries management policy reform.

Table 4:
National priorities for policy reform and institutional reform.
Country Regional
Fisheries
National Policy and Institutional
National
Attachments
Management
Reviews
Training
Consultations /
Training
X
Plan and institutional review;
X
Cook Islands
Licensing overhaul.
Fed. States of
X

X
Micronesia
X
Plan review and implementation;


Fiji
Institutional Strengthening,
Kiribati X
Plan
implementation

X
X Plan
implementation,
Institutional
X
Marshall lslands
Strengthening,
Nauru X

X
X
Fisheries Management Review and
Study tour for

strengthening; Bycatch Plan;
Fisheries
Niue
Institutional review and
Association
strengthening for Government and
Associations
Palau X

X
X
Management Plan Review
Fish
X
Papua New Guinea
Management
Workshop
Samoa X
Institutional
strengthening

X
X
Management Plan review;
Fish

Solomon Islands
Institutional Strengthening
Management
Workshop
Tokelau
X
Foreign fishing management


Tonga X


X
Management Plan review and


Tuvalu
implementation

57

---

Vanuatu X
Plan
implementation

X

The intended outcome of the Policy Reform Sub-Component is:
Outcome 2.2.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Policy Reform Sub-Component are:
Output 2.2.1.
National oceanic fisheries management Plans, policies and strategies.
Activity 2.2.1.1.
Prepare Plans, policy and strategy documents.
Activity 2.2.1.2.
Support the implementation of Plans, policies and strategies.
Activity 2.2.1.3.
Undertake Plan, policy and strategy reviews.
Output 2.2.2.
Strategies and specific proposals for the overall development of the
Commission, including its Secretariat and technical programs, and
for Commission conservation and management measures.
Activity 2.2.2.1.
Undertake studies on Commission and Convention conservation and
management issues.
Activity 2.2.2.2.
Prepare and present reports on regional oceanic fisheries management
issues to Pacific SIDS, including analysis of proposals for the
Commission and its subsidiary bodies.
Activity 2.2.2.3.
Hold Regional Fisheries Management Workshops and Consultations.
Output 2.2.3.
Identification of possible management options for seamounts,
including compliance options.
Activity 2.2.3.1.
Undertake technical studies on management of oceanic fisheries around
seamounts.
Activity 2.2.3.2.
Hold Workshops on seamount-related management options.
Activity 2.2.3.3.
Prepare proposals on seamount-related conservation and management
measures.
Output 2.2.4.
Training of policy makers, technical personnel and other Pacific
SIDS stakeholders to increase understanding of sustainable and
responsible fisheries.
Activity 2.2.4.1.
Hold Regional Policy Consultations / Workshops.
Activity 2.2.4.2.
Offer a TSC/USP Policy Training Course.
Activity 2.2.4.3.
Present National Fisheries Management Seminars and Workshops.
Activity 2.2.4.4.
Attach Fisheries Management personnel to FFA and arrange study tours
for Pacific SIDS personnel to other Fisheries Commissions.
Activity 2.2.4.5.
Support relevant Ministerial meetings.

58

---

Sub-Component 2.3.
Institutional Reform
Sub-Component 2.3 will provide support to countries to reform and realign their fisheries
administrations and arrangements for inter-departmental liaison relating to oceanic fisheries and to
establish or strengthen consultative processes with stakeholders. Priorities identified by the
national missions for this sub-component included institutional restructuring and strengthening
reviews, typically responding to new policy directions set out in national management plans. The
background description in Section A above described the development of successful models for
institutional change, including the kind of self-financing authority adopted in the Federated States
of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Papua New Guinea.
The sub-component will also provide support for the establishment or strengthening of cooperation
between national non-governmental stakeholders so that they can participate more effectively in
oceanic fisheries management affairs. This is specifically aimed at providing support to the
establishment and strengthening of associations of fishers, both industrial and small scale in ways
that will enable them to have a more effective voice on issues that affect them, especially those
related to the Convention, responding to one of the major concerns raised during the national
missions.
The intended outcome of the Institutional Reform Sub-Component is:
Outcome 2.3.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Institutional Reform Sub-Component are:
Output 2.3.1.
Strategies, plans and proposals for the reform, realignment and
strengthening of national oceanic fisheries management
administrations.
Activity 2.3.1.1.
Prepare a review of experience and best practices in institutional reform.
Activity 2.3.1.2.
Undertake and support implementation of reviews of national oceanic
fisheries management institutions.
Activity 2.3.1.3.
Present National Institutional Reform Workshops.
Output 2.3.2.
Processes for national consultation between stakeholders in oceanic
fisheries management.
Activity 2.3.2.1.
Advise on and support national consultative processes.
Activity 2.3.2.2. Support strengthening of national environmental non-governmental
organisations (ENGOs) and industry non- governmental organisations
(INGOs) to empower them to participate in oceanic fisheries
management.
Activity 2.3.2.3.
Support national workshops for non-state stakeholders.
Activity 2.3.2.4.
Arrange attachments and study tours for non-state stakeholders to learn
from experience elsewhere.
Sub-Component 2.4 Compliance Strengthening
Sub-Component 2.4 is concerned with the monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement
actions necessary to ensure compliance with the national and regional legal frameworks that will be
the focus of the legal reform activities in Sub-Component 2.1.

59

---

The provisions on compliance in the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, mirrored and extended in the
WCPF Convention are, perhaps, the major area of innovation in those instruments. These
provisions spring from the difficulties faced by members of international fisheries organisations
such as NAFO, where NAFO member states were powerless to take action to ensure that measures
adopted by the organisation were being applied by flag states in the high seas. The compliance
package in the WCPF Convention establishes detailed regulation over fishing in the high seas,
including: authorisation, boarding and inspection; vessel monitoring and control of transhipment; a
vessel register, with an operational role for the Commission in these areas; and the establishment of
a region-wide observer program. These provisions were among the most contentious in the
negotiation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the WCPF Convention and progress in this area
has also been slow in the WCPF Preparatory Conference. Broadly, the interests of Pacific SIDS lie
in the fullest possible application of the compliance provisions of the WCPF Convention, but there
are challenges in achieving this within the Commission given the effects of these provisions and the
global precedents that applications in the WCPF Commission will set.
Under the pilot activities of the South Pacific SAP Project, Pacific SIDS developed a draft MCS
scheme for the Commission. This Sub-Component will support Pacific SIDS as they work on
securing adoption of the measures and programmes in the draft Scheme through the Commission's
Technical and Compliance Committee. This will require the formulation and presentation of
detailed proposals for the Commission in the areas of high seas fishing authorisation, Commission
vessel register, marking of vessels and gear, recording and reporting, VMS, at-sea inspection, port
inspection, observers, transhipment controls, reporting and response to infringements, sanctions and
deterring non-Contracting Party IUU vessels. For this work, the Sub-Component will provide
expert advice and funding for a Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Working Group. In
addition to providing a forum for developing proposals for the Commission's compliance
programmes in the areas listed above, the MCS Working Group will also serve as a forum for
strengthening coordination of MCS arrangements between Pacific SIDS and with cooperating
partners and for exchange of information on common MCS issues, including MCS costs and
possible new technologies for MCS.
Table 5 sets out the national priorities for assistance for implementation of the Convention in
compliance. Pacific SIDS maritime surveillance capacities are relatively well developed because of
substantial support from other countries, particularly the Australian Pacific Patrol Boat Programme,
which provides patrol boats and in-country Maritime Surveillance advisers to most Pacific SIDS in
a 30-year program. There is less priority indicated for expert advice than in other sub-components
because the capacities of the national police and surveillance services are relatively well developed
and are well supported by external sources. However, substantial priority is attached to training.
The training needs vary depending on the state of development of the national fleets. Countries
such as the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu whose vessels fish outside their
national waters face the major task of realignment of their MCS programmes to exercise the
substantial new flag state responsibilities that the Convention imposes, especially on high seas
fishing. Most Pacific SIDS also face the need to strengthen their in-zone MCS capacities in
preparation for application of more rigorous conservation measures which apply as a result of the
work of the Commission; to combat the threat of IUU vessels shifting their attention from the high
seas to national zones as the Commission moves to regulate fishing in the high seas; and as part of a
strategy by Pacific SIDS to set a high standard for in-zone MCS performance as a base for the
adoption of compatible standards in the high seas. Training will focus on the operation of satellite-
based vessel monitoring, boarding and inspection.

60

---

Table 5:
National priorities for compliance strengthening.
Country Regional
MCS
National Compliance Advice
Training
Working Group
In-country inspection; VMS;
Cook Islands
X

regional training on flag state
responsibilities
In-country and regional inspection;
Fed. States of Micronesia
X

VMS; regional training on flag state
responsibilities
Fiji
X
Compliance and the Convention
In-country inspection; VMS;
Kiribati X

regional training on flag state
responsibilities
Marshall lslands
X

MCS staff training
In-country inspection; VMS and
Nauru X

training of additional staff
X, and inter-
Niue
country MCS
Regional and national VMS
Regional and national VMS
coordination
Establish national MCS
Regional and in-country inspection;
Palau X
Committee
VMS
X, and sub-
National training on Compliance
Papua New Guinea
Compliance and the Convention
regional
and the Convention
Establish new Regulation and
Samoa X
MCS staff training
Enforcement Section
X, and sub-
Compliance and the Convention;
Solomon Islands

regional
Restart MCS
Tokelau
X
Compliance Review
MCS staff training
Regional and in-country inspection;
Tonga X

VMS; Regional training on flag
state responsibilities
X, and sub-
Regional and national training on
Tuvalu
Compliance and the Convention
regional
Compliance and the Convention
X, and inter-
Regional and in-country inspection;
Vanuatu
country MCS

VMS; Regional training on flag
coordination
state responsibilities

The intended outcome of the Compliance Strengthening Sub-Component is:
Outcome 2.4.
Realigned and strengthened national compliance programs; improved regional
MCS coordination; strategies for Commission compliance programs; enhanced
national compliance capacities (inspection, observation, patrol, VMS,
investigation).
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Compliance Strengthening Sub-Component
are:
Output 2.4.1.
Strategies, plans and proposals for realigning and strengthening
national oceanic fisheries compliance programs.
Activity 2.4.1.1.
Prepare a review of Convention implications for national compliance.

61

---

Activity 2.4.1.2.
Undertake and support implementation of reviews of needs to strengthen
and realign national compliance programs.
Output 2.4.2.
Arrangements for regional coordination of monitoring, control and
surveillance (MCS) activities.
Activity 2.4.2.1.
Support regional consultations on coordination of air and sea patrols.
Activity 2.4.2.2.
Provide advice on MCS coordination between Pacific SIDS and other
states involved.
Activity 2.4.2.3.
Prepare Niue Treaty subsidiary agreements.
Output 2.4.3.
Strategies and proposals for regional compliance measures and
programs.
Activity 2.4.3.1.
Undertake technical studies on compliance issues under the Convention.
Activity 2.4.3.2.
Hold meetings of a Working Group of Pacific SIDS on MCS issues
related to oceanic fisheries.
Activity 2.4.3.3.
Prepare and present reports on regional compliance issues to Pacific
SIDS, including analysis of proposals for the Commission and its
Technical and Compliance Committee.
Output 2.4.4.
Training of national compliance staff, especially in inspection and
VMS.
Activity 2.4.4.1.
Present courses on National Inspection, VMS and other national MCS
training programs.
Activity 2.4.4.2.
Attach national compliance staff to FFA and other Pacific SIDS.
COMPONENT 3:
COORDINATION, PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION
SERVICES
Component 3 addresses the overall project management and coordination, the provision of
information about the Project and the Convention, the capture and transfer of lessons and best
practices and participation by stakeholders. Overall project decision-making at the policy level will
be the responsibility of the Regional Steering Committee, which will function as the primary policy
body for the participating countries in cooperation with UNDP and organisations involved in
project execution. Day-to-day project issues and requirements will be managed by the Project
Coordination Unit (PCU). National Consultative Committees will coordinate activities and issues
related to the Project at the national level, operating through a National Focal Point (NFP). The
process is designed to be inclusive, with stakeholder participation promoted nationally and
regionally.
The Component will promote non-governmental stakeholder in Project activities through the
execution by regional environmental and industry NGOs of a range of co-financed activities,
emphasizing participation, awareness raising and information exchange.
Component 3 Outcome: 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 and ecosystem
management; project evaluations reflecting successful and sustainable project objectives.

62

---

Sub-Component 3.1.
Information Strategy
Sub-Component 3.1 will be one of the Project mechanisms for promoting awareness and
understanding of the Project and the Convention, focusing on the dissemination of information
generated by, and related to, the Project and including a knowledge management element to
disseminate information on best practices and lessens learned, which will draw on the experience,
capacities and guidelines of IW:LEARN. This Sub-Component will be coordinated with Sub-
component 3.3 involving NGOs targeting raising awareness among a broader range of stakeholders.
The intended outcome of the Information Strategy Sub-Component is:
Outcome 3.1.
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
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Information Strategy Sub-Component are:
Output 3.1.1.
Project Information System for capture, storage and dissemination
of project data, lessons and best practices and provision of
information products using experience and guidelines from
IW:LEARN.
Activity 3.1.1.1.
Design logos and other Project identifiers, Project Website/page and
Project Document Cataloguing System.
Activity 3.1.1.2.
Operate the Website/page.
Activity 3.1.1.3.
Project information materials including CDs, papers, videos, pamphlets,
newsletters, interviews, press releases etc.
Output 3.1.2.
Knowledge management process identifying innovative, best
practice and replicable ideas within the Project and relevant to the
Project and active involvement with IW:LEARN.
Activity 3.1.2.1.
Prepare Knowledge Management Strategy.
Activity 3.1.2.2.
Generate Knowledge Management Components for Website/page,
newsletters, and progress reports.
Sub-Component 3.2.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The approach to monitoring and evaluation set out in Section J will be applied in accordance with
GEF and UNDP requirements. In addition, the Sub-Component will include a post-evaluation in
the third year after the completion of the Project and annual external reviews. The results of
monitoring and evaluation of achievement of project objectives and activities will be channelled
back through the PCU to the Steering Committee and to UNDP so as to provide a feedback
mechanism for fine-tuning, improvement of delivery and response to regional and national needs.
The intended outcome of the Information Strategy Sub-Component is:
Outcome 3.2.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Monitoring and Evaluation Sub-Component
are:

63

---

Output 3.2.1.
Measures of, and reports on, overall project performance and
delivery, including independent evaluations of the Project.
Activity 3.2.1.1.
Mid-term evaluation.
Activity 3.2.1.2.
Terminal evaluation.
Activity 3.2.1.3.
Post evaluation (Year 8).
Activity 3.2.1.4.
Annual reviews.
Activity 3.2.1.5.
Annual audit.
Output 3.2.2.
Analysis of process, stress-reduction and environmental status
indicators as per the GEF International Waters Operational
Strategy.
Activity 3.2.2.1.
Carry out baseline studies to measure IW indicators.
Activity 3.2.2.2.
Include indicator measures in progress reports.
Sub-Component 3.3.
Stakeholder Participation and Awareness Raising
A regional environmental NGO and an industry NGO will be enrolled into Project implementation
in order to promote non-governmental stakeholder and public awareness of oceanic fisheries
management issues and strengthen NGO participation in oceanic fisheries management as
described in Section G.
The intended outcome of the Stakeholder Participation and Awareness Raising Sub-Component is:
Outcome 3.3.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Stakeholder Participation and Awareness
Raising Sub-Component are:
Output 3.3.1.
ENGO participation and awareness raising in Convention-related
processes.
Activity 3.3.1.1.
Conclude co-financing arrangement with a Pacific ENGO.
Activity 3.3.1.2.
Support Pacific ENGO participation in the Commission.
Activity 3.3.1.3.
Provide information on the Convention and oceanic fisheries
management issues to Pacific ENGOs.
Activity 3.3.1.4.
Hold national and regional Workshops for ENGOs.
Activity 3.3.1.5.
Produce information materials to raise public awareness on oceanic
fisheries management issues.
Activity 3.3.1.6.
Organise regional and national fora on the Convention and oceanic
fisheries management issues for civil society participation.
Output
3.3.2.
Support industry participation and awareness raising in
Convention-related processes.
Activity 3.3.2.1.
Conclude co-financing arrangement with Pacific INGO.
Activity 3.3.2.2.
Support Pacific INGO participation in the Commission.

64

---

Activity 3.3.2.3.
Provide information flow on the Convention and oceanic fisheries
management issues to Pacific INGOs and businesses.
Activity 3.3.2.4.
Support Pacific INGO consultations on the Convention and oceanic
fisheries management issues.
Sub-Component 3.4.
Project Management and Coordination.
Implementation, execution and coordination of the Project will be carried out as described in
Section F.
The intended outcome of the Project Management and Coordination Sub-Component is:
Outcome 3.4.
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.
The intended outputs and indicative activities of the Project Management and Coordination Sub-
Component are:
Output 3.4.1.
Project Coordination Unit staffing and office.
Activity 3.4.1.1.
Appoint the Project Coordinator.
Activity 3.4.1.2.
Appoint other PCU staff.
Activity 3.4.1.3.
Procure equipment and other requirements to establish the PCU.
Output 3.4.2.
Arrangements for coordination between Implementing and
Executing Agencies.
Activity 3.4.2.1.
Preliminary UNDP/FFA/SPC/IUCN Consultations.
Activity 3.4.2.2.
Conclude FFA/SPC and FFA/IUCN Letters of Agreement (LOAs).
Activity 3.4.2.3.
UNDP/FFA Consultations.
Output 3.4.3.
Regional Steering Committee meetings and reports.
Activity 3.4.3.1.
Hold Inception Workshop.
Activity 3.4.3.2.
Hold Regional Steering Committee meetings.
Output 3.4.4.
National Consultative Committee meetings and reports.
Activity 3.4.4.1.
Secure National Focal Point nominations.
Activity 3.4.4.2.
Support National Consultative Committee meetings.
Output 3.4.5.
Reports on Project implementation, workplan and finances.
Activity 3.4.5.1.
Prepare periodic financial and narrative reports.
Activity 3.4.5.2.
: Prepare Annual Workplans
Activity 3.4.5.3: Prepare Annual Project Reports

65

---

INDICATIVE WORKPLAN AND TIMETABLE
An indicative workplan and timetable is set out in Tables 6a-c.
Table 6a:
Project workplan and timetable for Component one.
OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES
YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5
Quarterly
1 2
3
4

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

1
Component 1.
Scientific Assessment and Monitoring Enhancement
Sub-Component 1.1.
Fishery Monitoring Coordination and Enhancement

Output 1.1.1.
A template for national integrated monitoring programmes including logsheet, observer, port sampling and landing data collection and management and provision of national data to the Commission

Activity 1.1.1.1. Develop database and associated software
X X X X





















Activity 1.1.1.2. Develop reporting module for Commission data
X X X X





















Output 1.1.2.
National monitoring systems based on the regional template for integrated monitoring and customised to meet national needs

Activity 1.1.2.1. Support establishment and enhancement of national databases and software
X X X X

X

X

X
X X X X X










Activity 1.1.2.2. Support establishment and enhancement of national port sampling and observer programs
X X X X

X

X

X
X















Activity 1.1.2.3. Support the coordination of national monitoring programs
X X X X

X

X

X
X X X X X X X X X
X

X

X

X

Output 1.1.3.
A regional monitoring coordination capacity, to develop regional standards such as data formats and to provide a clearing house for information on fishery monitoring

Activity 1.1.3.1. Develop and make available common data formats
X X X X





















Activity 1.1.3.2 Hold Regional Workshops on regional and national fishery monitoring





X






X






Activity 1.1.3.3. Distribute newsletters, webpage and other forms of information exchange

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

X

X
Output 1.1.4.
Training of national monitoring staff, particularly monitoring coordinators, observers and port samplers
Activity
1.1.4.1.
Organise
and hold in-country observer and port sampling courses and other training activities
X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

X

X

Activity 1.1.4.2. Regional training courses in integrated fishery monitoring





X






X






Activity 1.1.4.3. Attach national monitoring personnel to SPC/OFP
X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

X

X
Sub-Component
1.2. Stock
Assessment
Output 1.2.1.
National oceanic fisheries status reports prepared collaboratively with national scientific staff

Activity 1.2.1.1. Prepare 6 National Oceanic Fisheries Status Reports annually
X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

X

X

Activity 1.2.1.2. Hold In-country Stakeholder Workshops for delivery of National Status Reports
X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

X

X
Output 1.2.2.
Advice to Pacific SIDS on scientific issues in the work of the Commission

Activity 1.2.2.1. Provide reports on scientific issues for Pacific SIDS for meetings of the Commission, the
X
X
X
X
X


X
X


X
X
X
Scientific Committee and Science Working Groups

Activity 1.2.2.2. Present scientific briefs to preparatory meetings of Pacific SIDS for the Commission


X X
X
X
X


X
X


X
X
X
Output 1.2.3.
Training of national technical and scientific staff to understand regional stock assessment methods, interpret and apply the results and to use oceanographic data
66

---

OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES
YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5
Quarterly
1 2
3
4

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

1

Activity 1.2.3.1. Hold Regional Workshops on stock assessment methods and analysis of oceanographic impacts on




X






X





fisheries

Activity 1.2.3.2. Attach national technical staff to SPC/OFP and other institutions to participate in Commission

X

X

X

X

X

X
X


X
X


X

stock assessment work and preparation of national status reports

Activity 1.2.3.3. Train scientific counterparts in-country
X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

X

X
Sub-Component
1.3. Ecosystem
Analysis
Output 1.3.1.
Observer sampling and analysis of commercial fishery catches to determine trophic relationships of pelagic species in the WTP LME

Activity 1.3.1.1. Collect observer-based sampling data, especially stomach contents and tissue samples
X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X






Activity 1.3.1.2. Lab-based analysis of samples
X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

Output 1.3.2.
Collection and analysis of information on seamounts in the WTP LME

Activity 1.3.2.1. Hold Seamount Activity Planning and Review Workshops

X













X






Activity 1.3.2.2. Describe seamounts and analyse historical fishing patterns around seamounts
X X X X





















Activity 1.3.2.3. Collect data at sea at selected seamounts, including tagging, trophic sampling and analysis,





X

X

X

X











Activity 1.3.2.4. Support national scientist participation in a benthic biodiversity survey





X

X















Output 1.3.3.
Model-based analysis of ecosystem-based management options

Activity 1.3.3.1. Incorporate ecosystem data and information into existing ecosystem models and refinement of





X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

those models as necessary

Activity 1.3.3.2. Use enhanced models and data to assess ecosystem-based management options










X

X

X

X

X
X X
X

X

X

X

X

Activity 1.3.3.3. Use enhanced models and data to assess management options targeted specifically at seamounts















X
X X
X

X

X

X

X
Output 1.3.4.
Estimates of levels of by-catch in WCPO oceanic fisheries

Activity 1.3.4.1. Review historical observer data and methodological development
X X























Activity 1.3.4.2. Estimate levels of by-catch


X X
X
X
X


X
X


X
X
X
Output 1.3.5.
Results of ecosystem analysis and proposals for long-term ecosystem monitoring and operationalisation of the ecosystem-based approach for use by the Commission's Scientific Committee, especially
its Ecosystems and Bycatch Working Group and by Pacific SIDS

Activity 1.3.5.1. Present results of ecosystem analysis to the Commission through the Ecosystem and Bycatch
X
X
X
X
X


X
X


X
X
X
Working Group

Activity 1.3.5.2. Present information on national and regional implications of results of ecosystem analysis to
X
X
X
X
X


X
X


X
X
X
Pacific SIDS

Activity 1.3.5.3. Attach national technical staff to SPC/OFP and other institutions to participate in ecosystem





X

X

X

X

analysis
67

---

Table 6b:
Project workplan and timetable for Component two.
OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES
YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5
Quarterly
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Component 2.
Law, Policy and Institutional Reform, Realignment and Strengthening
Sub-Component 2.1.
Legal Reform
Output 2.1.1.
A strategy and workplan for activities on regional and national legal issues

Activity 2.1.1.1. Carry out legal and technical reviews of legal issues and national legal structures
X
























Activity 2.1.1.2. Hold a Regional Legal Consultation on Legal Issues, National Legal Structures and the Project

X




















strategy for legal work

Output 2.1.2.
New draft laws, regulations, agreements and license conditions in line with WCPF Convention prepared and shared with Pacific SIDS

Activity 2.1.2.1. Prepare templates of legal provisions to implement the Convention

X X






















Activity 2.1.2.2. Undertake national legal reviews

X X X

X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X





Activity 2.1.2.3. Provide draft Bills, regulations, license conditions and access agreements to Pacific SIDS

X X X

X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X X
Output 2.1.3.
Proposals for the Commission from Pacific SIDS for legal arrangements to implement the Convention

Activity 2.1.3.1. Undertake legal studies on Commission and Convention issues including non-Contracting Parties
X

X
X


X

X

X
X


X
X


X

and new members

Activity 2.1.3.2. Prepare legal briefs for Pacific SIDS for Commission and subsidiary body meetings


X X
X


X
X


X
X


X
X


X

Activity 2.1.3.3. Hold Regional Legal Consultations

X








X






X

Output 2.1.3.
Training of policy makers and legal personnel in oceanic fisheries management legal issues

Activity 2.1.4.1. Hold Regional Legal Workshops

X








X






X


Activity 2.1.4.2. Hold National Legal Workshops

X X X

X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X


Activity 2.1.4.3. Attach legal staff to FFA and other institutions to participate in legal analyses

X X


X
X X X
X


X
X
X


X

X
X X
Sub-Component 2.2.
Policy Reform
Output 2.2.1.
National oceanic fisheries management Plans, policies and strategies

Activity 2.2.1.1. Prepare Plans, policy and strategy documents

X X X

X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X


Activity 2.2.1.2. Support the implementation of Plans, policies and strategies

X X X

X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X X

Activity 2.2.1.3. Undertake Plan, policy and strategy reviews



X

X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X X
Output 2.2.2.
Strategies and specific proposals for the overall development of the Commission, including its Secretariat and technical programmes and for Commission conservation and management measures

Activity 2.2.2.1. Undertake studies on Commission and Convention conservation and management issues

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
Activity
2.2.2.2.
Prepare
and present reports on regional oceanic fisheries management issues to Pacific SIDS,
X


X
X


X
X


X
X


X
X


X
including analysis of proposals for the Commission and its subsidiary bodies

Activity 2.2.2.3. Hold Regional Fisheries Management Workshops and Consultations


X X
X


X
X


X
X


X
X


X
Output 2.2.3.
Identification of possible management options for seamounts, including compliance options

Activity 2.2.3.1. Undertake technical studies on management of oceanic fisheries around seamounts
X X X X

X

X
X X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X




68

---

OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES
YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5
Quarterly
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Activity 2.2.3.2. Hold Workshops on seamount-related
management
options

X




X







X


Activity 2.2.3.3. Prepare proposals on seamount-related conservation and management measures














X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X X
Output 2.2.4.
Training of policy makers, technical personnel and other stakeholders to increase understanding of sustainable and responsible fisheries

Activity 2.2.4.1. Hold Regional Policy Consultations /Workshops


X X
X


X
X


X
X


X
X


X

Activity 2.2.4.2. Offer a TSC/USP Policy Training Course




X


X
















Activity 2.2.4.3 Present National Fisheries Management Seminars and Workshops

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Activity 2.2.4.4. Attach Fisheries Management personnel to FFA and arrange study tours for Pacific SIDS

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
personnel to other Fisheries Commissions

Activity 2.2.4.5. Support relevant Ministerial meetings

X



X

X

X

X

Sub-Component 2.3.
Institutional Reform
Output 2.3.1.
Strategies, plans and proposals for the reform, realignment and strengthening of national oceanic fisheries management administrations

Activity 2.3.1.1. Prepare a review of experience and best practices in institutional reform

X























Activity 2.3.1.2. Undertake and support implementation of reviews of national oceanic fisheries management

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
institutions

Activity 2.3.1.3. Present National Institutional
Reform
Workshops
X X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
Output 2.3.2.
Processes for national consultation between stakeholders in oceanic fisheries management

Activity 2.3.2.1. Advise on and support national consultative processes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Activity 2.3.2.2. Support strengthening of national ENGOs and INGOs to empower them to participate in oceanic
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
fisheries management

Activity 2.3.2.3. Support national workshops for non-state stakeholders

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Activity 2.3.2.4. Arrange attachments and study tours for non-state stakeholders to learn from experience

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
elsewhere
Sub-Component 2.4.
Compliance Strengthening
Output 2.4.1.
Strategies, plans and proposals for realigning and strengthening national oceanic fisheries compliance programs

Activity 2.4.1.1. Prepare a review of Convention implications for national compliance

X X






















Activity 2.4.1.2. Undertake and support implementation of reviews of needs to strengthen and realign national

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
compliance programmes
Output 2.4.2.
Arrangements for regional coordination of monitoring, control and surveillance activities

Activity 2.4.2.1. Support regional consultations on coordination of air and sea patrols





X

X

X

X


Activity 2.4.2.2. Provide advice on MCS coordination between Pacific SIDS and other states involved

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Activity 2.4.2.3. Prepare Niue Treaty subsidiary agreements

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
Output 2.4.3.
Strategies and proposals for regional compliance measures and programs

Activity 2.4.3.1. Undertake technical studies on compliance issues under the Convention
























69

---

OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES
YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5
Quarterly
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Activity 2.4.3.2. Hold meetings of a Working Group of Pacific SIDS on MCS issues related to oceanic fisheries





X

X

X

X


Activity 2.4.3.3. Prepare and present reports on regional compliance issues to Pacific SIDS, including analysis of
X


X
X


X
X


X
X


X
X


X
proposals for the Commission and its Technical and Compliance Committee
Output 2.4.4.
Training of national compliance staff, especially in inspection and VMS

Activity 2.4.4.1. Present courses on National Inspection, VMS and other national MCS training programs

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Activity 2.4.4.2. Attach national compliance staff to FFA and other Pacific SIDS

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
70

---

Table 6c:
Project workplan and timetable for Component three.
OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES
YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5
Quarterly
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
Component 3.
Coordination, Participation and Information Services
Sub-Component 3.1.
Information Strategy
Output 3.1.1.
Project Information System for capture, storage and dissemination of project data, lessons and best practices and provision of information products

Activity 3.1.1.1. Design logos and other Project identifiers, Project Webpage and Project Document
X X




















Cataloguing System

Activity 3.1.1.2. Webpage Operations

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Activity 3.1.1.3. Project information materials, including CDs, papers, videos, pamphlets, newsletters,
X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
interviews, press releases
Output 3.1.2.
Knowledge management process identifying innovative, best practice and replicable ideas within the Project and relevant to the Project

Activity 3.1.2.1. Prepare Knowledge Management Strategy
X
X






















Activity
3.1.2.2.
Generate
Knowledge Management Components for Webpage, newsletters, progress reports

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
Sub-Component 3.2.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Output 3.2.1.
Measures of, and reports on, overall project performance and delivery, including independent valuations of the Project

Activity 3.2.1.1. Mid-term evaluation












X












Activity 3.2.1.2. Terminal evaluation




















X


Activity 3.2.1.3. Post evaluation (Year 8)























X


Activity 3.2.1.4. Annual reviews





X




X




X









Activity 3.2.1.5. Annual audit





X




X




X




X

X
Output 3.2.2.
Analysis of process, stress-reduction and environmental status indicators as per the GEF International Waters Operational Strategy

Activity 3.2.2.1. Carry out baseline studies to measure IW indicators


X
X





















Activity 3.2.2.2. Include indicator measures in progress reports


X


X

X


X

X


X

X


X

X

Sub-Component 3.3.
Stakeholder Participation and Awareness Raising
Output 3.3.1.
ENGO participation and awareness raising in Convention-related processes

Activity 3.3.1.1. Conclude co-financing arrangement with Pacific ENGO


X






















Activity 3.3.1.2. Support Pacific ENGO participation in the Commission



X




X




X




X





X

Activity 3.3.1.3. Provide information on the Convention and oceanic fisheries management issues to Pacific

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
ENGOs

Activity 3.3.1.4. Hold national and regional Workshops for ENGOs



X




X




X




X





X

Activity 3.3.1.5. Produce information materials to raise pubic awareness on oceanic fisheries management

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
issues

Activity 3.3.1.6. Organise regional and national fora on the Convention and oceanic fisheries management

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
issues for civil society participation
71

---

OUTPUTS & ACTIVITIES
YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5
Quarterly
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
Output 3.3.2.
Support industry participation and awareness raising in Convention-related processes

Activity 3.3.2.1. Conclude co-financing arrangement with Pacific INGO


X






















Activity 3.3.2.2. Support Pacific INGO participation in the Commission



X




X




X




X





X

Activity 3.3.2.3. Provide information flow on the Convention and oceanic fisheries management issues to

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
Pacific INGOs and businesses

Activity 3.3.2.4. Support Pacific INGO consultations on the Convention and oceanic fisheries management

X




X




X




X





X
issues
Sub-Component 3.4.
Project Management and Coordination
Output 3.4.1.
Project Coordination Unit staffing and office

Activity 3.4.1.1. Appoint the Project Coordinator
X
























Activity 3.4.1.2. Appoint other PCU staff
X
X X






















Activity 3.4.1.3. Procure equipment and other requirements to establish the PCU
X
X X





















Output 3.4.2.
Arrangements for coordination between Implementing and Executing Agencies

Activity 3.4.2.1. Preliminary UNDP/FFA/SPC/IUCN Consultations
X
X























Activity 3.4.2.2. Conclude FFA/SPC and FFA/IUCN LOAs
X
X























Activity 3.4.2.3. UNDP/FFA Consultations



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
Output 3.4.3.
Regional Steering Committee Meetings and Reports

Activity 3.4.3.1. Hold Inception Workshop
X
























Activity 3.4.3.2. Hold Regional Steering Committee Meetings


X


X




X


X




X

Output 3.4.4.
National Consultative Committee meetings and reports

Activity 3.4.4.1. Secure National Focal Point nominations
X
























Activity 3.4.4.2. Support National Consultative Committee meetings

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
Output 3.4.5.
Reports on Project implementation, workplan and finances

Activity 3.4.5.1. Prepare periodic financial and narrative reports


X


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


Activity 3.4.5.2. Prepare annual workplans
X




X

X

X

X


Activity 3.4.5.3. Prepare annual project reports





X

X

X

X


72

---

D. TARGETED BENEFICIARIES
Targeted beneficiaries of the Project include:
· The Global Community: who will benefit from the enhanced stewardship of the oceanic fishery
resources and environment of one of the worlds major marine ecosystems that will improve
knowledge about major oceanic fisheries, contribute to the sustainability of oceanic fisheries and to
maintaining oceanic biological diversity, including the abundance of sharks, turtles, marine
mammals and other species of special interest affected by oceanic fisheries; and address some of the
most important special needs of SIDS in their pursuit of sustainable development. As visitors, their
enjoyment of the region will be enhanced by a richer marine environment, especially those who dive
and watch, catch and consume fish and they will also benefit from the impact in other regions of
precedents set in oceanic fisheries management in the Western and Central Pacific.
· Pacific Islanders dependent on oceanic fish resources: who will benefit from the sustained
abundance of the resources on which their livelihoods depend, whether through fishing, fish
processing and marketing, tourism or other sectors related to fisheries.
· Pacific Island communities: who will benefit from the broader economic gains from healthy
oceanic resources and a healthy oceanic environment, including improved food security; and by the
freeing up for other uses of some of the development assistance funds now committed to oceanic
fisheries management.
· Other users of the oceanic fish resources of the region: particularly those involved in foreign
fishing in the Pacific Islands region or in fishing for oceanic species in other areas of the Western
and Central Pacific; and global consumers of oceanic fish products from the Western and Central
Pacific.
· Government sectors: who will benefit from enhanced capacity and improved coordination in
oceanic fisheries management and from increased net revenues.
· Technical and policy personnel in government agencies: directly involved in the capacity
building activities of the Project.
· The private sector: especially those involved in fisheries or related economic areas who will
benefit from sustainable fisheries, from direct involvement in the OFM Project and from new
opportunities to ensure their interests are articulated through consultative processes and reflected in
national and regional decision-making.
· National, regional and global NGOs concerned with conservation of oceanic fish resources and
protection of the marine environment: who will appreciate the gains made though the Project in
improved oceanic fisheries management and who will have improved opportunities for their
interests to be represented in national and regional consultative and decision-making processes,
including the WCPF Commission, as well as in the Project.
· Other island communities and other SIDS geographical groups: who will benefit from lessons
learned and the development of transferable best practices.
· The regional organisations participating in the Project and those whom they serve: who will
benefit from the enhanced capacities in the organisations that will be created by participation in the
Project.
E. RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY
The proposed project is a relatively low risk initiative for several reasons:

73

---

· there is a great deal of momentum and commitment at all levels within Pacific SIDS and strong
continuing interest from other states involved to establish an effective WCPF Commission;
· the national and regional agencies involved in the execution of the Project have a good track record
of collaboration and delivery, including in the Pacific SAP Project, and work well with UNDP;
· the resources involved have a high commercial value and if appropriate management arrangements,
including binding cost-sharing arrangements at a national and regional level can be established,
funding should be available to ensure the sustainability of the technical programmes and activities
supported under the Project.
There are, however, some important concerns about the sustainability of the activities and impacts of
the Project which have required attention in the Project design process and there are some risks which
could affect the effectiveness of the Project.
Financial sustainability of the institutional arrangements that the Project will support is a fundamental
issue. Will the Pacific SIDS individually and collectively be able to afford to pay their contributions to
the Commission and incur the other costs of participation in the Commission? Beyond the direct costs
of participation, will Pacific SIDS be able to sustainably finance the enhanced compliance, monitoring
and science activities that are necessary? and will other partners be prepared to pay their contributions
to the Commission?
As part of the national missions, information was collected to address these issues and is summarised in
Table 7 below.
Table 7:
Annual catch values, costs and earnings.
Annual Catch Values23
Annual Costs and Earnings
Catch in Pacific SIDS Zones
US$ 840 million
Commission Contributions
US$ 189,00024
Catches by Pacific SIDS Vessels
US$ 187 million
National Incremental Costs
US$ 3.5 million25

Access Fees
US$ 59 million

In terms of the sustainability of financial contributions to the Commission to be paid by Pacific SIDS,
the aggregate level of annual contributions to be paid by Pacific SIDS is estimated at US$189,000 in the
initial years of the Commission's operations, and US$250,000 annually over the 5 year life of the
Project. This depends on the level of the budget and which States become Commission Members and,
in particular, would be higher if some major fishing states do not join. Over time, the level of Pacific
SIDS' contributions could increase substantially as their fleets take a larger share of the catch attracting
a higher share of the Commission's costs. However, for any reasonable expectation of these increases,
it seems clear that the level of Pacific SIDS' contributions will be relatively small in relation to the
value of catches and, on this basis, seems sustainable;
More important to the sustainability of Pacific SIDS participation in the Commission than paying their
contributions is the cost of participating in Commission work, especially meetings. Against the
background that the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Tuna Commissions typically schedule 10-12 weeks
annually of meetings and few, if any, of the Pacific SIDS would have the capacity to participate at this
level, the WCPF Commission has been designed by FFA members to operate with a more independent
secretariat involving far less meetings, supported by a provision in the rules of the Commission
generally limiting meetings to 2 sessions annually. Uniquely for such organisations, travel costs for

23 FFA: Overview of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery, Sept 2004.
24 WCPF Interim Secretariat WP.20: Provisional Budget and Scheme of Contributions for the Commission in its First Years
of Operation.
25 See Table A.2 in Annex A.

74

---

Pacific SIDS and other developing states will be met from the Commission's core budget. These
arrangements remove the risk that Pacific SIDS will not be able to afford to participate in the
Commission.
This leaves the question of the sustainability of financial contributions by other states, especially fishing
states. While there have been points at which some fishing states have pointed to the difficulty that the
Commission would face if the Convention was drawn up or implemented in a way that they would not
support, current indications are that most and probably all, of the major fishing states will become
Parties. Experience with the other regional tropical oceanic fisheries commissions indicates that while
there are problems with non-payment by Members, this has not threatened the sustainability of the
organisations ­ the Eastern Pacific Commission has been operating since 1946 and the Atlantic
Commission since 1969.
In terms of the sustainability of elements of co-financing other than the financial contributiomns to the
Commission:
· the estimate of US$3.5 million for the annual incremental costs that Pacific SIDS will incur at
national level related to implementation of the WCPF Convention is very largely the cost of the
additional monitoring and compliance programmes and legal and technical posts that Pacific SIDS
will establish to be able to meet their commitments under the Convention and their financial
contributions to the Commission. Given the scope for recovering much of this increment from
vessel owners, this level of incremental costs seems reasonably sustainable, though there may be
some countries for which the sustainability of their funding for these activities is less certain. The
Project will address this issue by assisting Pacific SIDS to develop cost recovery programmes for
fisheries management programs.
· Fishing states are estimated to provide $32.3 million for the costs of additional requirements for
research and compliance programmes over the 5 year life of the Project. The states involved
currently finance these costs in different ways, with some recovering the costs from levies on
fishing businesses while others fund the costs of these programmes from general government
revenue. To the extent that these states are developed countries such as Japan and the United States
with a good track record over time of financing such programmes, there is no real risk to the
financial sustainability of these programmes. However, a small share of the these costs will fall on
developing states such as Indonesia and the Philippines which might have more difficulty in
sustaining funding for these programmes; and
· the co-financing by FFA and SPC will be financed from a range of sources, including
donors,(notably Australia, the EU and New Zealand), Pacific SIDS through their contributions as
Members of the organisations; for FFA from levies on fishing vessels and Members for some
services; and for SPC from contractual arrangements with the Commission for data and scientific
services. Both organisations have a long record of being supported financially by donors and their
Members, and with the high priority currently attached to enhancing oceanic fisheries management
in the light of the conclusion of the WCPF Convention, the co-financing from the organisations is
regarded as secure for the life of the Project. In the longer term, the organisations and donors expect
that the responsibility for financing core scientific, data and compliance programmes relating to
commercial fisheries will be increasingly shifted to those who benefit from the fishing, and both
organisations are already making substantial progress in this direction.
Beyond financial sustainability, the two major potential risks to the achievement of the Project
objectives are human resource limits in the Pacific SIDS and the risk of gridlock in the Commission.
Lack of human resources is a core problem in SIDS sustainable development. It is inherent in smallness
and accentuated by weaknesses in education and training and loss of skills to migration. Although there
is a lack of money to finance future activities, the key constraint is the lack of skilled people in all
aspects of oceanic fisheries management to undertake those activities. The Project addresses this
constraint, in that GEF funding will not provide hardware, or fund capital items or recurrent budget

75

---

items, however, it will invest in knowledge, ideas, training and institutional change and it will assist in
developing financing processes that will enable more people to work on oceanic fisheries management
issues and programs. Still, the greatest constraint to the effectiveness of the Project is likely to be that
of the availability of human resources. This constraint is pervasive as it will affect the Project not only
in the small number of policy, scientific and technical personnel from government and NGOs that are
available to participate in the Project activities, but in difficulties of organizing regional meetings (of
the Steering Committee or technical workshops) within an already crowded regional programme and of
securing the attention of key participants for in-country activities. The national missions found a
developing fatigue among key actors relating to stakeholder participation and consultation activities. In
government, technical personnel already have high travel demands and diffuse workloads. Businesses
are usually small and there is a limited capacity for private sector people to be away from their
businesses and NGO personnel are similarly stretched. The risk from this source is not so much of
project failure, but a limit on what can be achieved within a 5-year project term.
With activities spread over 15 countries, the Project represents a fairly low level of intervention. This
aspect of project design has been deliberate in order to be consistent with the limits in absorptive
capacity of the people and institutions involved and achieving significant and measurable results will
take time especially in the area of policy and institutional reform and realignment.
The other major area of risk to the Project achieving its broader objectives is the risk of gridlock in the
Commission. Progress to date has been encouraging ­ the Convention was negotiated in a reasonable
period and it has been brought into force and the Commission established relatively quickly. In that
process, all participating States and entities have had to make the kinds of accommodation that will
continue to be essential if agreements are to be reached on effective conservation and management
measures. Therefore, there is a basis for confidence in the achievement of progress as measured by
process indicators, however, there will be a great diversity of interests and capacities around the
Commission table and there will be substantial challenges for all the participating states in fashioning
and implementing measures that will secure gains that can be measured by environmental status
indicators. There is an inevitable degree of risk in this endeavour.
F. GEF ELIGIBILITY
All 15 participating Pacific SIDS are eligible for GEF assistance under paragraph 9b of the Instrument
for the Restructured GEF.
The proposed project fits exactly with the objectives, approach, scope and strategic thrust of the GEF in
the IW focal area. In addressing the conservation and management of shared oceanic fishery resources
in a SIDS region, the Project can contribute substantially to the objectives of the SIDS component of
GEF OP9, the Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area Operational Program, also providing
benefits under the Large Marine Ecosystem Component of OP 8, the Waterbody-Based Operational
Program.
The proposal is also consistent with the GEF Business Plan for the fiscal period 2004-2006, addressing
all 2 IW Strategic Priorities and contributing to both Additional IW Internal Targets as follows:
· IW SP1: Catalyze financial resource mobilization for implementation of reforms and stress
reduction measures agreed through TDA-SAP or equivalent processes for particular transboundary
systems, particularly Target a) - to double the number of representative transboundary waterbodies
for which the GEF has catalyzed financial mobilization for implementation of stress reduction
measures and reforms in agreed management programs as a contribution toward the WSSD POI.
· IW SP2: Expand global coverage of foundational capacity building addressing the two key program
gaps and support for targeted learning, particularly to cover the "fisheries programme gap"
identified in Target C - by 2006, almost one-half of the 27 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
located near developing countries will have country-driven, ecosystem-based management

76

---

programs developed with GEF assistance that contribute to the WSSD POI "sustainable fisheries"
target with a view to those programs being under implementation by 2010."
· Additional Internal Target (a) - "By 2006, 90% of all LDCs and 90% of all SIDS will have received
assistance from GEF in addressing at least one transboundary water concern consistent with the
GEF Operational Programs." And
· Additional Internal Target (b) - "By 2006, GEF will have contributed to and increased by one-third
the establishment/strengthened capacity of management institutions for representative
transboundary waterbodies to focus on the WSSD POI."

77

---

G. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
The extent of stakeholder and public participation has been a major feature of the design process for this
project and this is reflected in the plan for systematic stakeholder involvement in the Project itself. This
investment in stakeholder consultation has already borne significant dividends as discussed below and is
regarded as having set a new standard in the region for development assistance project design.
In the region generally, public sector stakeholder participation in oceanic fisheries management
processes has been strong but non-government stakeholder participation has been weak.
At the national level, oceanic fisheries is such an important sector that a wide range of government
agencies is prominently involved in oceanic fisheries management, though there are weaknesses in
interagency coordination in some countries, especially in coordination of monitoring, control and
surveillance activities. At the regional level, fisheries issues are prominent at the level of the Pacific
Island Leaders' Forum, and the FFA and SPC have well developed stakeholder relationships with
Governments, formed and maintained through regular regional fisheries meetings which determine
priorities and work plans for the organisations and work closely to coordinate biological, fisheries
management and commercial aspects of tuna fisheries management and development.
On the other hand, there have been generally low levels of non-government stakeholder involvement at
all levels, as follows:
· at the national level, formal consultative processes providing for participation by non-government
stakeholders in oceanic fisheries management have been generally poorly developed. The situation
has improved in many countries following the preparation of National Management Plans for
oceanic fisheries and although most countries now have consultative arrangements in place, their
performance is uneven;
· within the process of preparation and implementation of the WCPF Convention, a recent report
prepared for the Pacific SAP Project26 concluded that NGO participation across all Pacific Island
SIDS delegations had been very low in contrast to the extent of NGO participation in fishing state
delegations. For example, at the session of the WCPF preparatory Conference in Bali in April 2004,
the estimated pattern of participation was as set out in Table 8.

Table 8:
Estimated pattern of participation as determined at the WCPF preparatory Conference in
Bali in April 2004.
GOVERNMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDUSTRY
TOTAL
NGO
NGO
Pacific SIDS
54
1
10
65
Other Participating
104 4 62
170
Countries and Organisations
Total 158
5
72
235

The Thalassa report concluded that there was little doubt the relatively low level of INGO participation
in Pacific SIDS delegations reduced the appreciation of how issues raised during the negotiations would
impact the commercial fishing sector, thereby reducing the ability of Island delegations to take positions

26 Thalassa Consulting: Report on Regional NGO Participation in Regional Arrangements for the Management and
Conservation of Oceanic Fish Stocks.


78

---

on key issues. The report also noted that there was almost a total absence of ENGO representation on
SIDS delegations.
· Within the Pacific SAP Project OFM Component, the Terminal Evaluation concluded that:
"Stakeholder involvement in the OFM Project has been fairly weak in most aspects of the
Project".
Following the feedback from the Terminal Review, Stakeholder involvement has been given high
priority in the Pacific Islands OFM Project. This involvement commenced with the national missions to
countries. The six consultants involved in the national missions (in 3 teams of two) included a staff
member of WWF and a fisheries business-person. The missions prepared inventories of stakeholders
and existing relevant consultative processes for the 15 participating SIDS, which are set out in the
national reports in Annex K. The missions identified the range of primary stakeholders (who should be
involved in Project decision-making) and secondary stakeholders (who should be involved in exchange
of information) as follows:
· Public Administrations, particularly agencies responsible for fisheries, environment, education and
training, foreign affairs, commerce, finance, police, security, law and justice;
· Academic and Training Institutions are often the only independent professional voice in smaller
SIDS; and
· Civil Society, including in particular private sector interests (national and regional organisations
representing fishing industry interests, individual fishers, fish processors and exporters),
environmental NGOs and community-based organisations including churches.
The national missions also held Primary Stakeholder Consultations to discuss the design of the Pacific
Islands OFM project and Public Forums on the WCPF Convention. A total of 217 participants attended
the Primary Stakeholder Consultations and 335 attended the Public Forums. A high level of
participation from non-governmental stakeholders was a prominent feature of these meetings, as
evidenced in the records of the Consultations and Forums in Annex K.
Following the heightening of interest in the Convention among private sector stakeholders arising from
the national missions, the University of the South Pacific held a workshop on implications of the WCPF
Convention for the private sector in Fiji in September 2004. This workshop was aimed at providing a
forum for the private sector to discuss the optimum means of defining their role and gaining input into
oceanic fisheries management in the region, including future Commission meetings. A major output
was an agreement to establish a regional industry association, which will considerably enhance private
sector participation under the Pacific Islands OFM Project.
A plan for stakeholder and public participation in the Project was drawn up with stakeholders in the
Project Design Workshop and the outcome is set out in Annex G. The principles on which the
stakeholder and participation plan are based are as follows:
· delivering the Project through UNDP with its country offices and the regional organisations and, in
that way, buying into the existing, well-developed framework for national government participation
and intergovernmental cooperation and consultation in regional fisheries affairs;
· establishing national consultative committees involving public sector and non-governmental
primary stakeholders for national project management and coordination, in most cases associating
these committees with national fisheries management advisory committees established as part of the
process of preparation of national oceanic fishery management plans and seeking to give a statutory
to the advisory committees;
· investing in the strengthening of national and regional NGO capacities through a range of Project
activities in order to make them stronger participants in national and regional discussions about
oceanic fisheries management;

79

---

· in particular, supporting Pacific environmental and industry NGO participation in the WCPF
Commission to enrich participation by Pacific SIDS in the Commission and create processes for
clearing information on the Commission to a broader range of stakeholders;
· harnessing the energies and skills of a regional ENGO and the newly formed regional fishing
industry association for project purposes by enrolling them in the execution of co-financed Project
activities, particularly for awareness raising activities;
· collaborating with IUCN with its strong relationship with the global ENGO community; and
· creating systems for dissemination of information to Pacific governments, civil society and the
public about the Project, the Convention and the public.
The barriers to effective participation by the private sector, environmental NGOs and community
groups in the WCPF negotiations are documented in the Pacific SAP project report referenced above.
Many of these barriers are the same for all groups, although the extent to which each group is impacted
may differ. The barriers can also be broadly classified as being either external (e.g. governments refusal
to have NGOs on delegation) or internal (e.g. lack of expertise by non-government participants to
engage) and both forms of barrier will be addressed.
National inter-agency engagement and cooperation will be achieved by promoting improved
information exchange between fisheries administrations and other government sectors. This will
include strengthened compliance cooperation by relevant national government agencies though in-
country MCS working groups.
Access to information has been a major constraint to stakeholder involvement in multilateral fisheries
management. The WCPF Interim Secretariat has maintained a website with relevant papers and notices
of meetings posted in advance of meetings. While these have been helpful, there is no interpretive
aspect provided, so their usefulness to non-fisheries stakeholders that lack certain technical capacity is
limited. The Project will ensure plain English summaries of the issues to be discussed at the
Commission or working group meetings, outcomes of previous meetings and other relevant documents
available at national and regional levels are made available.
The cost of engagement at the Commission and associated technical meetings has contributed to the
very limited past participation by private sector and other non-government stakeholders. In both cases,
the Project will promote the use of key selected representatives to attend meetings and then disseminate
information to others in a timely and effective manner. This will be achieved through national and
regional fishing associations and a multinational ENGO which will act as a two-way clearing house for
national ENGOs and community groups whose fisheries expertise and funding is limited.
The capacities of the private sector and most national NGOs and community groups to participate in,
and contribute to, technical fisheries management issues are limited. This constrains effective input and
will be addressed by the Project, primarily though national workshops and information networks.
A priority will be attached to working with the newly established regional fishing industry association.
Project activities in this direction will be coordinated with those of the EU DEVFISH Project, which is
due to commence in early 2005. One of the aims of DEVFISH is to:
"strengthen national consultative processes and national representation of private sector
interests involved in oceanic fisheries, including supporting the establishment or
strengthening bodies such as associations of fishers or fishing/processing businesses to
represent private sector interests".
The GEF Project will focus on supporting such bodies in activities related to the WCPF Convention.

80

---

H. INCREMENTAL COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING
The table below presents the summarised results of the Incremental Cost Analysis by Project
Component. The global, regional and national benefits, baselines and incremental alternatives are
discussed in Annex A: Incremental Cost Analysis. Direct global environmental benefits will be attained
through the effective sustainable management of pelagic fisheries, through a better understanding of
how those fisheries relate to the overall oceanic ecosystem and through the development of an initial
understanding of the requirements for large ecosystem management and conservation within the Project
system boundary (effectively the Western Tropical Pacific Warm Pool LME). As one of GEF's first
large-scale regional fisheries management support initiatives, this project will provide a model for
development of regional treaties and associated national and regional reforms within the fisheries sector
as best practice for other global fisheries areas.
The activity supported by the Project is estimated to leverage approximately US$79 million from the
participating SIDS governments, from other stakeholder governments within the Convention and from
various regional bodies as co-financing for the sustainable management and protection of this important
global fishery and associated ecosystem, primarily through assistance to support the Convention and the
work of the Commission. Much of this co-financing has been leveraged either through the initial OFM
activities (as part of the initial GEF Project in the region entitled `Implementation of the Strategic
Action Programme of the Pacific Islands') or through the Project Development Facility used to evolve
this Project. This co-funding support will help to develop a sustainable set of actions required to make
the Convention effective (e.g. monitoring, surveillance, stock assessments, administrative requirements,
training, etc).
The GEF contribution to the Project will be US$10.9 million. This contribution will address the two
major causal links to ineffective fisheries management and to lack of protection and conservation to the
globally-significant LME. These two root causes are inadequacies in understanding and ineffective, or
absent, governance. The GEF funding will work to build up the information database and to develop a
picture of what is happening within the fisheries and what needs to be done to protect the welfare of the
fish stocks and to sustain them as a renewable and harvestable resource. This information will then be
used to develop and implement reforms at the national level that will amend and improve policy,
legislation and institutional capacity in order that the countries can meet their commitments to the
Convention in the long-term management and protection of the fishery. Further efforts will focus on
understanding the overall ecosystem and how it relates to the welfare of the pelagic fishery (and vice
versa).
Of the estimated co-funding of US$79 million, US$39.6 million is to be confirmed by Pacific SIDS and
the organisations participating in the Project (see Annex D for endorsements). The major component of
the $39.6 million is coming directly from the Pacific SIDS themselves as part of their commitment and
effort to the Project objectives and to the Convention requirements, including the financial contributions
and other costs that they will pay as Members of the WCPF Commission and the costs of new and
expanded oceanic fisheries management programmes. Substantial in-kind and actual co-funding will be
provided by the regional organisations, which are already engaged in support of the Pacific SIDS in
their efforts to protect their environment, ecosystems and economies. In reality, much of this represents
contributions by the member states (primarily the Pacific SIDS, but also other developed country
stakeholders) to those regional organisations. These include FFA and SPC, both of whom will be
directly involved in the execution of the major Project components. IUCN will contribute to co-funding
for the work related to seamount ecosystem analysis and management.
The major part of the balance of the co-funding is estimated as the Convention-related costs incurred by
fishing states, including the cost of financial contributions to the Commission, as well as general
contributions to the management of the regional fishery. This reflects the need for those countries,
which are benefiting most from the harvesting and exploitation of the resource, to transfer that benefit
back into better sustainable management and conservation of the resource. The estimation of

81

---

Convention-related costs has been reviewed and confirmed as accurate and representative by the
relevant regional agencies dealing with fisheries issues, which have been and continue to be directly
involved in the development of the Convention and the Commission.
There is also a significant contribution to co-funding of the Project activities from surveillance partners
of the Pacific SIDS reflecting the costs of restructuring current air patrol assistance to give greater
priority to surveillance of fishing operations in the high seas.
Table 9:
Incremental cost analysis and Project financing by Component
Component Title
Baseline
Co-Funding
GEF
Increment
1. Scientific Assessment and
US$ 8,977,384
$23,755,033
US$ 5,147,250
US$28,902,283
Monitoring
2. Policy, Legislation and
US$ 60,488,145
$50,991,233
US$ 3,883,850
US$54,875,083
Compliance
3. Information, Coordination US$ 3,964,616
$4,345,667
US$ 1,915,120
US$6,260,787
and Participation
TOTALS US$ 73,430,146
$79,091,932
US$ 10,946,220 (1) US$90,038,152 (1)
Note: (1) Does not include GEF PDF funding
I.
IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
The Project will be implemented by UNDP, which will provide staff for monitoring and supervision of
the Project. UNDP will also provide implementation support services from its Bangkok-based Regional
Coordination Unit and from the relevant country offices.
EXECUTING AGENCY ARRANGEMENTS
The Project will be executed by FFA in collaboration with SPC for the pelagic fishery monitoring and
stock assessment and pelagic ecosystem analysis and with IUCN for some of the seamount-related
aspects. As the Executing Agency, FFA will seek to ensure that the 15 Project countries work at the
same time with the region's other GEF projects, as well as other bilateral and multilateral donor
agencies in the region to define and address transboundary priority issues within the framework of their
existing responsibilities under the WCPF Convention. The Executing Agency will act as a regional
platform for exchange of information and the syntheses of experiences and lessons, as well as providing
the overall administrative support at the regional level. In order to fulfill these responsibilities, the
Executing Agency will establish a PCU. FFA and SPC will agree on an MOU governing SPC
execution of relevant scientific activities in the Project. FFA and IUCN will agree on an MOU
governing IUCN execution of relevant seamount-related activities in the Project.
FFA, in consultation with UNDP, will competitively recruit a full-time Project Coordinator and other
Senior Project Staff consistent with standard UNDP procedures. The Project Coordinator will facilitate
the successful execution of project activities - he/she will be responsible for the coordination of the day-
to-day project activities and will assist governments of participating countries to provide, expeditiously,
their respective inputs to the Project. The Coordinator will oversee all project staff based at the PCU
and will be responsible for timely reporting on staff activities and project delivery.
The Executing Agency working in coordination with the Implementing Agency will plan a project
Inception Workshop within 3 months of signature of the Project Document. The purpose of this

82

---

workshop would be to fine-tune the Project's first year activities and expenditures and to approve the
Annual Work Plan in accordance with UNDP requirements. During this workshop, the schedule of
subsequent financial disbursements would be approved. Key Project staff and counterpart officials
would be introduced to each other and familiarised with UNDP rules and procedures. All project staff
would be made aware of their responsibilities and of the Project's monitoring and evaluation
requirements. A Steering Committee meeting would be held at the end of the Inception Workshop to
approve any changes, amendments or additions to activities, workplan or budget arising from, and
recommended by, the workshop. The Steering Committee would also approve its own Terms of
Reference, a draft of which would be circulated to the Steering Committee members prior to the
Inception Workshop. The PCU would provide all stakeholders with a copy of an Inception Report after
approval by the Steering Committee attendees, UNDP and GEF.
NATIONAL LEVEL PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
At the national level, each participating country will designate a National Focal Point (NFP) for the
Project. The Project National Focal Point will effect the establishment of a National Consultative
Committee (NCC). Where there is already an appropriate national body that functions at the
intersectoral level, this could be mandated to take on the role of the NCC (in order to avoid creating
unnecessary bureaucracy). The function of this Committee will be to capture the Project concepts and
objectives at the national level, to expedite national activities related to the Project components and
outputs and to ensure complementary activities between national strategies and policies and project
objectives. The National Focal Point will sit on this NCC and, where appropriate (at the discretion of
each country), should act as the country's representative to the overall regional Project Steering
Committee. This will firmly establish the National Focal Point as the key focal point for interactions
with the Project Coordination Unit. Furthermore, this will help to maintain a focus of action at the
national level.
NATIONAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Attendance: The NCC should consist of senior (policy level) representatives from relevant government
agencies/sectors (e.g. Fisheries, Environment, Police, Foreign Affairs, Attorney-General's office, etc.),
NGO representatives as appropriate (environmental and industry), relevant funding agencies and
community representation.
Frequency: The NCC should meet at least once annually and prior to the Regional Steering Committee
(so national concerns can be carried forward to regional level in a timely manner).
Function: To endorse requests for in-country Project activities, monitor the effectiveness of in-country
activities; prepare workplans for in-country Project activities (based on the needs identified in the
national missions); discuss project progress and implications at a national level.

83

---

To identify national concerns regarding project activities and delivery; ensure integrated coordination of
actions and Project concepts within those Government Departments that have
responsibility/accountability for fisheries-related and Convention-related issues; provide a voice for
national, non-governmental stakeholders; provide government representatives with an opportunity to
update and inform each other and non-government participants; ensure transparency of process and
multisectoral participation.
Reporting: The National Focal Point should provide the PCU with a summary report of its discussions
as they relate to project issues and should highlight specific issues that need to be brought to the
attention of the Regional Steering Committee.
REGIONAL LEVEL PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
Regional coordination and collaboration will be facilitated through a Regional PCU, consisting of
appropriate professional and support staff. The PCU will be established and operated out of the
Executing Agency's (FFA) headquarters in Honiara, Solomon Islands. National input to regional
management and coordination as well as to overall project monitoring will be through the Regional
Steering Committee. Regional stakeholder participation will also be facilitated through attendance at
this Steering Committee. In order to reduce bureaucracy and limit the added burden to country
representatives, the Steering Committee will be held as a contiguous meeting to other regional
meetings.
PROJECT COORDINATION UNIT
The PCU will undertake all day-to-day project management through the overall responsibility of the
Project Coordinator. As part of its commitment to the Project and in support of the PCU, the Executing
Agency will provide appropriate office space to house the PCU staff and equipment. The PCU will act
as the Secretariat to the Project and will provide technical advice to all project participants, as well as
organizing facilities and administrative requirements for regional workshops and meetings related to the
Project. In particular, the PCU will administer disbursements of equipment and finance and undertake
recruitment procedures for staff and consultants as appropriate (through the procedures laid down by
UN Rules and Regulations and the advice and endorsement of the UNDP as the Implementing Agency).
The PCU will be directly accountable to the Implementing Agency and to the Steering Committee of
the Project.
REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE
Attendance: The Regional Steering Committee should consist of the National Focal Points from each
country, Implementing Agency (UNDP), Executing Agency (FFA) and co executing partners (SPC and
IUCN), any co-funding partners contributing actual cash assistance to the Project aims and SPREP, as
the key partner organisation for GEF in the region.
Observers, who may be invited to attend by the Steering Committee, may include regional stakeholder
representation (including fisheries industry), environmental NGOs (regional and international), other
donor agencies, etc. Observer attendance will be agreed by consensus within the Committee
membership. The Committee will be jointly chaired by a national representative (on a rotational basis)
and by the Implementing Agency representative (UNDP).
Frequency: The Regional Steering Committee should meet annually, and in conjunction with, an
existing regional fisheries meeting (e.g. SPC Heads of Fisheries meeting) wherever possible.
Function: To monitor progress in project execution; to coordinate between, and discuss implications of,
respective project objectives and activities and the functions and progress of the Commission; to
provide strategic and policy guidance and to review and approve annual work plans and budgets; to
review and endorse all formal monitoring and evaluation reports and findings; to provide a regional
forum for reviewing and resolving national concerns; to provide a regional forum for stakeholder

84

---

participation; to provide a platform from which to launch new initiatives related to the Project but
requiring separate donor support; to ensure all interested parties are kept informed and have an
opportunity to make comment. The Project Steering Committee will also serve as the forum for the
Project's Multipartite Review.
A schematic interpretation of the Project Management and Coordination Arrangements is included as
Annex F.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMMES, PROJECTS AND ACTION PLANS
The major relevant ongoing GEF-funded project in the region is the GEF IW South Pacific SAP Project
described above. Coordination with the SAP Project and with any projects or activities that might flow
from it will be maintained by the participation on the Regional Steering Committee of SPREP, the
Executing Agency for the SAP Project and GEF's key partner in the region. More broadly, SPREP's
participation in the Steering Committee will provide a focus for coordination and integration of the
Project with other relevant activities in the marine environmental area.
Participants in the Project will be assisted to share experiences and collaborate with participants in other
relevant GEF Projects, especially IW projects, though participation in IW:LEARN and in events such as
the Biennial IW Conferences.
The Project will be integrated with other regional activities through the CROP MSWG and through FFA
and SPC/OFP. Because few donors or technical agencies have the capacity to interact bilaterally with
the large number of Pacific SIDS, most relevant donor assistance programmes related to oceanic
fisheries management are implemented regionally through FFA or SPC/OFP and Project activities will
be well integrated with these programmes. At this level, the major donors are the EU, Australia and
New Zealand, with support for some specific programmes from Canada, France and the United States.
At the national level, external assistance for fisheries has generally focused on fisheries development
activities aimed at increasing the volume or value of catches through investment in infrastructure,
marketing and fisher's skills, rather than at conservation and management. However, the development
of the WCPF Convention has focused more attention on fisheries conservation and management and
this area is being given greater priority in national development assistance programmes. Australia, New
Zealand and the Asian Development Bank have been active in this work. An important result of this
work is the strengthening of national consultative arrangements.
FAO is the major global agency active in oceanic fisheries management in the region, most recently in
promoting the FAO Code of Conduct and International Plans of Action, especially in the areas of
fisheries law and combating IUU fishing. Pacific SIDS attend the biennial meetings of the FAO
Committee on Fisheries and various FAO specialist technical gatherings. FAO activities in the region
are regularly reported to, or coordinated with, countries through FFA and SPC processes, especially the
SPC Heads of Fisheries meetings.
The establishment of the WCPF Commission will create a new mechanism for coordination between
projects and programmes in which the Project will be involved. Article 30 of the WCPF Convention
addresses the Special Requirements of Developing States. In response, the Commission has established
a Special Requirements Fund and agreed that the Special Requirements of Developing States will be a
standing item on the Commission agenda. Pacific SIDS have outlined initial proposals to be supported
by the Fund, drawing on the results of the PDF-funded national missions and designed to complement
the GEF-funded activities of the Pacific Islands OFM Project.

85

---

The annual discussion in the Commission on the Special Requirements Fund will provide a new
opportunity for focusing on the needs of developing States in relation to the Convention and a forum for
Project activities to be reported and coordinated with other relevant activities, plans and programmes.
J. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF
procedures and will be provided by the Project team (the PCU supported by the National Focal Points)
and the relevant UNDP Country Office(s) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework
Matrix given in Annex B provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along
with their corresponding means of verification.
Under activities 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2, the Project will support the development of a fuller and more
detailed set of indicators than is possible to include in the Logical Framework applying the structure of
GEF IW indicators, based on process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators. These will
be designed not only for use within the Project but more broadly for use by stakeholders including the
Pacific SIDS and other WCPF Commission members to measure progress over the longer term towards
sustainable use of the oceanic fishery resources of the region and protection of biodiversity in the WTP
LME.
An outline plan of the structure of these indicators is set out in Annex L Key features of this plan are:
· Process indicators: since the Project is fundamentally concerned with building new institutions
and reforming and realigning existing institutions and programmes, the most discernible progress
during the life of the Project and more broadly in the early years of the Commission will be in
process indicators. The outline plan in Annex L identifies a comprehensive array of process
indicators. For the Commission, these include the establishment of the subsidiary bodies of the
Commission and its Secretariat, and the adoption of key instruments such as the Rules ad
Regulations and an agreed work programme ­ these indicators should be easily identified and
measured. At the national level, the process indicators in the Plan focus on the achievement of a
range of legal, institutional and programmatic reforms. Some baseline study will be required to
define and measures these indicators, but this work will be able to draw on comprehensive
measurements of progress in these areas under the IW SAP Project.
· Stress Reduction Indicators: the key elements in the measurement of stress reduction indicators
will be the adoption of conservation and management measures by the Commission and its
Members. Progress in this direction will depend on progress in the establishment of the basic
processes of the Commission and national legal, policy and institutional reforms, but the timing
attached to stress reduction indicators in the Logical Framework anticipates that the Commission
will begin to adopt conservation and management measures in the final years of the Project. It is
possible that some specific measures, particularly measures to deter IUU fishing , may be able to be
adopted more quickly.
· Environmental Status Indicators: within the 5 year life of the Project's technical activities, the
Plan anticipates that progress in measuring environmental status indicators will be focused on
defining these indicators including work to develop agreed reference points for target stocks, and
measures of the status of non-target stocks using outputs from component 1. However, the life of
the Project M & E sub-component has been extended to 8 years in order to allow some scope for
measuring discernible longer term impacts in environmental status indicators.
PROGRESS AND ONGOING EVALUATION REPORTS
Project objectives, outputs and emerging issues will be regularly reviewed and evaluated annually by
the Steering Committee. Reporting (annual and quarterly) will be undertaken by the PCU in accordance

86

---

with UNDP and GEF rules and regulations. The primary review document required by UNDP is the
Annual Project Review (APR), which is designed to obtain the independent views of the main
stakeholders of a project on its relevance, performance and the likelihood of its success. GEF also
requires each project to undertake a Project Implementation Review (PIR) on an annual basis, which
focuses on GEF's project criteria. The APR and the PIR are the principal annual review documents
considered by the Steering Committee.
The APR will be prepared by the Project Manager and the PCU after consultation with the relevant
Stakeholders and will be submitted to UNDP for approval. Quarterly progress reports will be prepared
using the same procedures. The Stakeholder review will focus on the logical framework matrix and the
performance indicators and stakeholders will be encouraged to submit any views and concerns to the
PCU. The APR will be reviewed and discussed by the Steering Committee. In the past, Such APRs
were the subject of review by a formal Tripartite or Multipartite Review Board. The Regional Steering
Committee (which effectively carries the same level of representation) will act, effectively, as the
Multipartite Review body. UNDP also requires a Project Terminal Report to be submitted to expedite
the formal closure of the Project.
The Project will participate in the annual PIR of the GEF. The PIR is mandatory for all GEF projects
that have been under implementation for at least a year at the time that the exercise is conducted.
Particular emphasis will be given to the GEF IW project indicator requirements (Process Indicators,
Stress Reduction Indicators and Environmental Status Indicators), which will serve to inform the
monitoring and evaluation process as well as being adopted by the participating countries as tools for
long-term monitoring of project objectives. Details regarding the content of each of the above-
mentioned reports are contained in the Monitoring and Evaluation information kit available through
UNDP/GEF.
The Regional Steering Committee will be the primary policy-making body for the Project. The Project
Manager will schedule and report on the Steering Committee Meetings. Meetings can also be organised
ad hoc at the request of a majority of the participating countries. The Steering Committee will approve
the final results of such meetings. One specific function of the Steering Committee will be to review
budget allocations for each Project Component and to rationalise these allocations where it can be
demonstrated that priorities or other circumstances have changed. Every Steering Committee meeting
will be minuted and reported by the PCU.
UNDP, as the Implementing Agency, shall also be responsible for monitoring Project performance to
ensure conformity with Project objectives and advising the Executing Agency on implementation
issues.
A post-project evaluation will be undertaken in the third year after the completion of the technical
activities of the Project. In order to accommodate the budgeting for such post-project evaluation, the
Project lifetime will be extended by up to 3 years beyond the expected completion of all other project
activities and deliverables.
INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS
In addition to the ongoing internal monitoring and evaluation process described above, a full package of
independent monitoring of the Project will be undertaken through contract using a balanced group of
independent experts selected by UNDP in consultation with FFA. The extensive experience of UNDP
in monitoring large regional projects will be drawn upon to ensure that the Project activities are
carefully documented.
The elements of the independent evaluation package will be:
· a baseline study which will provide initial measures of the GEF indicators outlined in Annex ;.

87

---

· 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;
· a final evaluation that will focus on similar issues as the mid-term evaluation but will also look at
early signs of potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity
development and the achievement of global environmental goals. Recommendations on follow-up
activities will also be provided;
· annual evaluations that will be undertaken in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th years, designed to enable GEF to
assess the value and delivery of the Project and overall progress by countries in meeting their
commitments as Parties to the requirements of the Convention; being able to interact effectively
with the Commission; and improvements to national capacities to engage in effective and
sustainable fisheries resource management, monitoring and compliance; and
· a post-project evaluation that will be undertaken in the third year after the completion of the
technical activities of the Project. In order to accommodate the budgeting for such post-project
evaluation, the Project lifetime will be extended by up to 3 years beyond the expected completion of
all other project activities and deliverables.
The evaluations will also seek to identify best lessons and practices for GEF projects, which are
transferable and replicable.
The overall monitoring and evaluation process is summarised in Table 10.

Table 10:
Indicative monitoring and evaluation workplan.
Type of monitoring and
Responsible Parties
Time frame
evaluation activity
Inception Workshop
· Project Coordinator
Within first four months of project
· UNDP Country Office
start up
· UNDP GEF
Inception Report
· Project Team
Immediately following the Inception
· UNDP Country Office
Workshop
Baseline Studies to define and
· Project Coordinator
3rd quarter of the Project
measure GEF IW Indicators
· Consultants as needed
Measurement of Means of
· Project Coordinator will oversee the
Start, mid and end of project
Verification for Project Purpose
hiring of specific studies and institutions
Indicators
and delegate responsibilities to relevant
team members.
Measurement of Means of
· Oversight by Project GEF Technical
Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the
Verification for Project Progress
Advisor and Project Coordinator
definition of annual work plans
and Performance (measured on
· Measurements by regional field officers
an annual basis)
and local IAs
APR and PIR
· Project Team
Annually
· UNDP Country Office
· UNDP-GEF
Steering Committee Meetings
· Project Coordinator
Following Project Inception
· UNDP Country Office
Workshop and subsequently at least
once a year
Periodic status reports
· Project team
To be determined by Project team and
UNDP Country Officer
Technical reports
· Project team
To be determined by Project Team
· Hired consultants as needed
and UNDP Country Officer
Annual Evaluations
· Project team
Early in 2nd, 3rd and 4th years
· External Consultants

88

---

Mid-term External Evaluation
· Project team
At the mid-point of project
· UNDP Country Office
implementation
· UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit
· External Consultants (i.e. evaluation
team)
Final External Evaluation
· Project team
At the end of project implementation
· UNDP Country Office
· UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit
· External Consultants (i.e. evaluation
team)
Terminal Report
· Project team
At least one month before the end of
· UNDP Country Office
the Project
· External Consultant


89

---

---

UNDP ATLAS BUDGET FOR PROJECT
Award: tbd
Award Title: PIMS 2992 IW: FSP Pacific Islands Ocean Fisheries Management Project
Project ID: tbd
Project Title: Pacific Islands Ocean Fisheries Management Project
GEF Outcome/Activity
Responsible Source of ERP/ATLAS Budget Description
Amount
Amount
Amount Amount Amount
Total
Party
Funds
(USD)
(USD
(USD
(USD (USD
(USD)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5










Outcome 1: Improved quality, FFA, SPC, GEF 71200 International
Consultants
59,200
79,200
79,200
79,200
59,200
356,000
compatibility and availability of
IUCN

71300 Local Consultants
60,000
140,000
140,000
80,000
80,000
500,000
scientific information and
knowledge on
the oceanic

71400 Service Contract-Company
440,000
490,000
490,000
440,000
350,000
2,210,000
transboundary fish stocks and
related ecosystem aspects of the

71600 Travel
69,000
91,000
91,000
75,000
48,000
374,000
WTP warm pool LME, with a

72100 Service Contract-Company
50,000
315,000
315,000
0 0
680,000
particular focus on the ecology of
seamounts in relation to pelagic

72200 Equipment &Furniture
120,000
80,000
50,000
0 0
250,000
fisheries; national capacities in

72400 Expendable Equipment
4,000
6,000
6,000
2,000
2,000
20,000
oceanic fishery monitoring and
assessment strengthened

72800 Information
Technology
14,000 0
4,000
0
6,000
24,000
Equipment

74500 Miscellaneous
28,000
43,000
43,000
37,000
31,000
182,000

75100 Facilities & Administration
73,270
176,935
87,335
134,540
79,170
551,250


TOTAL
119,270
225,935
140,335
173,540
118,170
5,147,250











Outcome 2: The WCPF FFA
GEF
71200 International Consultants
288,800
332,800
332,800
332,800
288,800 1,576,000
Commission established and
71400 Service
Contract
108,00
0
108,00
0
108,000 108,00
0
108,00
0
540,000
beginning to function effectively;
Pacific Island nations taking a
71600 Travel 28,000



38,000
38,000
38,000
28,000
170,000
91

---

lead role in the functioning and

72200 Equipment
&Furniture
5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000
management of the Commission
72400 Communications & AV
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
10,000
and in the related management of
the fisheries and the globally-
72800 Information Technology
5,000




5,000
important LME; national laws,
Equipment
policies, institutions and
programmes relating to
73200 Premises Alterations
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
management of transboundary
74500 Miscellaneous
22,000 103,00
0
33,000 33,000 22,000 213,000
oceanic fisheries reformed,
realigned and strengthened
75100 Facilities & Administration
294,940
220,540
320,540
215,640
243,190 1,294,850

TOTAL
763,740
819,340
849,340
744,440
706,990 3,883,850











Outcome 3: Effective project
FFA and
GEF
71200 International Consultants
13,000
13,000
63,000
13,000
103,000
205,000
management at the national and Project
71300 Local Consultants
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
100,000
regional level; major
Coordination
governmental and non- Unit
71400 Service
Contract
228,00
0
218,00
0
218,000
218,0
00
218,00
0
1,100,000
governmental stakeholders
71600 Travel 20,000



30,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
130,000
participating in Project activities
and consultative mechanisms at
72200 Equipment &Furniture
15,000
3,000
3,000

21,000
national and regional levels;
information on the Project and the
72300 Materials
and
Goods
4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 20,000
WCPF
74500 Miscellaneous
7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 2,500 32,500
75100 Facilities & Administration
88,150
44,510
80,110
44,300
46,050
306,620

TOTAL
395,650
340,010
425,610
336,800
413,550 1,915,120
GRAND TOTAL




1,278,660
1,385,285 1,415,285 1,254,780 1,238,710 10,946,220
92

---

LIST OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES
Tunas

Skipjack tuna
Katsuwonus pelamis
Yellowfin tuna
Thunnus albacares
Bigeye tuna
Thunnus obesus
Albacore tuna
Thunnus alalunga
Pacific bluefin tuna
Thunnus orientalis
Southern bluefin tuna
Thunnus maccoyii


Billfish

Black marlin
Makaira indica
Blue marlin
Makaira nigricans
Striped marlin
Tetrapturus audax
Sailfish
Istiophorus platypterus
Swordfish
Xiphius gladius


Sharks (offshore species)

Blue shark
Prionace glauca
White shark
Carcharodon carcharias
Shortfin mako shark
Isurus oxyrinchus
Silky shark
Carcharhinus falciformis
Thresher shark
Alopias vulpinus
Oceanic whitetip shark
Carcharhinus longimanus
Whale shark
Rhincodon typus


Other fish

Wahoo
Acanthocybium solandri
Mahi mahi
Coryphaena hippurus
Opah
Lampris regius
Lancetfish
Alepisaurus spp.
Triggerfish Family
Balistidae


Whales

Sei whale
Balaenoptera borealis
False killer whale
Pseudorca crassidens
Pilot whales
Glopicephala macrorhynchus

93

---

Seabirds

Albatross
Thalassarche spp., Diomedea spp., Phoebastria spp.
Petrel
Family Hydrobatidae, Procellariidae


Marine turtles

Hawksbill turtle
Eretmochelys imbricata
Leatherback turtle
Dermochelys coriacea
Loggerhead turtle
Caretta caretta
Olive Ridley turtle
Lepidochelys olivacea
Green turtle
Chelonia mydas


94

---

SIGNATURE PAGE
Countries: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua
New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vanuatu
UNDAF
Outcome(s)/Indicator(s):





(Link to UNDAF outcome. If no UNDAF, leave blank)
Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s):
GOAL 3. Energy and environment for sustainable
(linked to the SRF/MYFF goal and
development
service line)
Service Line 3.5 ­ Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s):
1. Improved quality, compatibility and availability of scientific
(linked to the SRF/MYFF goal and service information and knowledge on the oceanic transboundary fish
stocks
line)
and related ecosystem aspects of the WTP warm pool LME, with a
particular focus on the ecology of seamounts in relation to pelagic
fisheries; national capacities in oceanic fishery monitoring and
assessment strengthened.

2: The WCPF Commission established and beginning to function
effectively; Pacific Island nations taking a lead role in the
functioning and management of the Commission and in the related
management of the fisheries and the globally-important LME;
national laws, policies, institutions and programmes relating to
management of transboundary oceanic fisheries reformed,
realigned and strengthened.
Implementing Partner:
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)
Other Partners:
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)
The World Conservation Union (IUCN)



Programme Period:
Total
budget:
US$90,73

6,217
Allocated resources:

Programme Component: OP9

GEF:
Project Title: Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries

Project
US$10,946,220
Management Project.
PDF-B
US$




698,065

Subtotal GEF


US$11,644,285
Project ID: PIMS 2992

Endorsed co-financing
Project Duration: 5 Years
Governments (in cash & kind)
US$17,286,580
Management Arrangement: NEX
New Zealand Aid (in cash)

US$ 400,000
Regional Organisations (FFA & SPC) (in cash & kind)

US$14,459,777

IUCN (in kind)


US$ 610,000
NGOs (in cash and kind)

US$ 400,000

Other WCPF Commission Members
US$ 6,485,576

Other Estimated co-financing:
Fishing States (in kind regulation costs) US$32,250,000

Surveillance Partners (in kind)
US$ 7,200,000

Subtotal co-financing

US$79,091,933

Agreed
by:
Signature
Date
Name/Title

FFA:

____________________ ____________ __________________________

UNDP:

____________________ ____________ _________________________

95

---

Responses to Comments from the Members of the GEF Council
February 2005 Inter-sessional

RESPONSE TO GEF COUNCIL COMMENTS

LOCATION OF
COUNCIL COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CHANGES IN PRODOC
COMMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES
The project seems to have relatively high In exactly the way the comment identifies, the
No change in the ProDoc. See
risks involved in coordinating the Project design recognises the difficulty of Section E for a discussion of the
policies, laws and regulations of 15 securing institutional and policy gains across 15
risks identified to Project
separate countries, but these risks appear widely dispersed and mostly small success, including the risk
to be addressed in the project and the size administrations. The difficulty is addressed by
identified in the United States
may be a prerequisite for having the addressing Project investments towards Comment, and approaches to
desired impact across such a large area.
capacity building; by tapping into the addressing those risks.
momentum and commitment associated with

the coming into force of the new Convention;
and by embedding Project delivery within a
strong and successful network of existing
regional arrangements.
The log frame has process indicators but The log frame and the monitoring plan emphasise No change in the ProDoc.
few data points that we would have process indicators as the comment notes because See Section J of the ProDoc for
preferred to see supported by quantitative as the Project Document puts it ­ "since the a discussion of GEF process,
milestones of progress. The project will, Project is fundamentally concerned with building environmental stress and
by the first year, develop indicators new institutions and reforming and realigning environmental status indicators,
related to environmental status of existing institutions and programmes, the most and Annex L for a more detailed
international waters. The project would discernible progress during the life of the Project outline of the structure of GEF
monitor these indicators and evaluate and more broadly in the early years of the indicators to be used in the
progress in the third year of the project. Commission will be in process indicators." Project.
Based on the indicators to be developed, However, the monitoring plan set out in Annex L
can staff provide an indicative baseline also identifies a range of environmental status
with projected and quantitative
indicators including "measures of target stock
milestones of progress?
status in relation to agreed management reference
points; and measures of status of ecosystem

including trophic status and status of key non-

target species." This approach is focused on the

adoption by the Commission of stock specific

reference points as the basis for application of the

precautionary approach in accordance with the

Convention.


Is it the position of staff that sufficient The availability of data for environmental stress No change in the ProDoc.
data is simply not available upon which and status indicators is variable. In general, the See Section A, pages 16-17 for
to identify quantifiable measure of available data on the status of non-target stocks discussion of the status of stocks
environmental stress and targets for and ecosystem status is not adequate to provide
sustainability?
quantitative measures or targets. With respect to

the main target stocks, the quality of the available
data is better, in part as a result of work funded
under the previous South Pacific SAP Project.
Some of this data is presented and summarized in
the introductory section of the Project Document.
It broadly indicates that current target stock sizes
are at or above levels which can produce
maximum sustainable yields, and therefore consistent
with WSSD targets, but for 2 species there are risks that
the stocks will become overfished if measures are not
taken to curb the impact of fishing. This analysis will

96

---

LOCATION OF
COUNCIL COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CHANGES IN PRODOC
be the basis for the development of reference points by
the Commission and the development of environmental
stress and status indicators
Could staff clarify the role of the private The Project design encourages private sector
No change in the ProDoc.

sector? How will the private sector be participation in oceanic fisheries management
Section G sets out the approach
consulted in the identification of
policy making at regional and national levels,
of the Project to ensuring
financing mechanisms and eventual including decision-making on financing and
stakeholder participation
regulations?
regulations, in these ways:
including participation by the
fishing industry. Section I

i) it works at national level through National
describes the implementation
Consultative Committees which will arrangements, including
include private sector participation;
arrangements for industry
ii) it includes fishing industry representation in
participation. The discussion of
the Regional Steering committee;
Output 3.3.2 in Section C
iii) it provides opportunities for private sector
describes co-financed activities
participation in the full range of Project-
to be implemented with an
financed activities; and
industry organisation.
iv) it specifically provides for a stream of
Project activities to be co-financed and
executed with a Pacific private industry
organisation aimed at "Supporting industry
participation and awareness raising in
Convention-related processes." under
Output 3.2.2.
An important step in the direction of enhancing
industry participation in oceanic fisheries
management processes was taken with the
establishment of the Pacific Islands Tuna
Industry Association as a result of the PDF
phase of the Project.
COMMENTS FROM SWITZERLAND
Given the size of the project,
Sustainability is certainly a key issue in this
No change in the ProDoc.
sustainability after project end will project, and high on the agenda for all three
See Section A, sub-section
certainly be a challenging issue. It might components of the Project. As explained in the
Institutional, for discussion of
therefore be appropriate to place this ProDoc, financial sustainability should be less
the financing of the Commission
issue high on the agenda in all three of an issue than might normally be expected for
in the description of the WCPF
components from the outset.
such a major initiative because the fisheries at
Preparatory Conference, and for
the core of the Project are commercial fisheries
discussion of the application of
that should be capable of generating revenues
cost recovery for national
sufficient to support sustainable financing of
fisheries management
both the Commission and national programmes
programme financing; the sub-
required to implement the Convention. The
section on Socio-Economic and
agreed financing structure for the Commission
Financial aspects for
reflects this concern with provision for the
information on the economic
commission's activities to be largely financed
value of the fishery and further
by those who fish. The Project will support
information on the financing of
efforts to see this formula applied in a way that
the Commission; the description
supports an appropriate level of commission-
of sub-Component 2.1 in
funded programmes, especially in the areas of
Section C for reference to
science and fishery monitoring. At the national
assistance to provide a legal

97

---

LOCATION OF
COUNCIL COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CHANGES IN PRODOC
level, the Project addresses as part of the work
basis for cost recovery
on policy reform the need to put in place within
programmes; and Section E for a
Pacific Island Countries cost recovery broad discussion on
programmes on both foreign fisheries and sustainability, including the
domestic fleets to finance increased fishery
issues raised in the Swiss
management costs. The key to sustainability
comment.
therefore appears to lie not so much in financial
aspects as in the sustainability of the policy,
programme and institutional changes targeted
by the Project within the limits of the human
resources of small Island countries. The
Project design team appreciate the support in
the Swiss comment for "the project's focus on
knowledge, ideas, training and institutional
change in these countries" as a strategy for
achieving sustainable change.
The sustainability of the project will also This comment goes to the core of the Project -
No changes in the ProDoc.
depend on whether the project activities the new WCPF Commission can not be See Section A, sub-section
will help the Pacific Small Island successful without effective participation by
Institutional Landscape, for
Developing States to actively participate Pacific Island Countries. That conclusion was
information on financing of
in the implementation and dialogue on one of the key elements in the approach by
Pacific SIDS travel costs and the
the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Pacific SIDS to the drawing up the Convention
streamlining of the
Convention.
that was supported by the GEF. It is reflected
Commission's work to facilitate
in provisions in the rules of the Commission
effective participation by Pacific

that limit the sessions of meetings of the SIDS.

Commission and its subsidiary bodies, and that

finance the travel costs for developing country


participants to meetings of the Commission and


its subsidiary bodies from the Commission's


general budget. It remains a central element of


the Pacific SIDS approach to the

implementation of the Convention and seems to


be broadly shared by major fishing states.



To steer the project activities during The process of development of the WCPF
No change in the ProDoc
implementation, it might therefore be Convention has itself been a process of direct
worthwhile to test applicability of project dialogue between the Pacific SIDS, fishing

results by promoting a direct dialogue states and other coastal states. The process
with Distant Water Fishing Nations from was initiated by an invitation from Pacific
an early project phase on.
Island leaders for other states to meet with
Island delegates to discuss enhanced

arrangements for managing the impact of
fishing in the Western and Central Pacific.
Concluding the Convention text and making
arrangements for the new Convention has
involved another 13 meetings over a seven year
period, with all Pacific SIDS participating in all
the sessions. In addition, the Pacific SIDS have
annual consultations with the US on fisheries
and have had a series of ad hoc dialogues with
other fishing states, with proposals now being
considered for a formal annual consultative
process with the EU and other fishing states.
The Project will support Pacific Island
participation in the dialogue with fishing states
through the Commission and in the relevant
aspects of the bilateral consultative
arrangements.

98

---

LOCATION OF
COUNCIL COMMENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CHANGES IN PRODOC
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
The programme will be engaged in No response called for.
No change in the ProDoc.
research and management of regional fish
stocks in the Western and Central Pacific

and is therefore implementing activities

in a sector which is crucial for the
economy of the Pacific Small Island

Developing States concerned.


The project will be implemented by No response called for.
No change in the ProDoc.
UNDP and hosted by the well established
and donor supported Pacific Islands

Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)-a set up

which is well chosen as it avoids creation

of parallel structures.




The funding-set up with the huge amount The volume of co-financing is large, but the
No change in the ProDoc.
of intended co-financing (79,000.000 responsibility for managing co-financed
US$) seems complicated and will activities is distributed among a number of
comprise a challenge to the programme agencies, so that substantial capacity is being
managers.
directed towards managing these activities.




99

---

Document Outline

• þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
      • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
    • þÿ
    • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
      • þÿ
    • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
    • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
    • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
    • þÿ
  • þÿ
  • þÿ
• þÿ

---