SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
THIRD REGULAR SESSION

13­24 August 2006
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA


REPORT ON THE 2007 STOCK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOPS FOR THE
OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT

WCPFC-SC3-2007/GN WP-14





Paper prepared by

Don Bromhead, Brett Molony, Adam Langley and Simon Nicol















Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Ocean Fisheries Programme (OFP),
Noumea, New Caledonia




0

---

Report on the 2007 Stock
Assessment Workshops for the
Oceanic Fisheries Management
Project




25th June - 7th July 2007
SPC Headquarters
Noumea
New Caledonia
















1

---

Contents

Contents









2

1. Background








3

1.1. Introduction







3
1.2. Oceanic Fisheries Management Project



3
1.3. Legal obligations and the importance of stock assessment
5
1.4. A problem relating to scientific and legal capacity


6

2. Review of the 2006 stock assessment workshop


7

3. 2007 Workshop Objectives





10

4. Design and content







11
4.1. Overall design







11
4.2. Basic theory and background





12
4.3. Parameter estimation






12
4.4. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries




12
4.5. Interpretation and implications




13
4.6. Facilities and materials






13

5. Communication strategy






14

6. Participation








17

7. Additional funding







17

8. Final Budget








17

9. Facilitators








18

10. Assessment of workshop






18
10.1 Assessment of participants performance



18
10.2 Assessment by participants





21
10.3 Self assessment by SPC





22

11. Conclusion








25

Appendix I - Participants






27








2

---

1.
Background

1.1
Introduction

The Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) of the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community (SPC) hosted two Stock Assessment Workshops (SAWs) for
fisheries officers from Pacific Island Countries and Territories, at SPC
headquarters in Noumea, New Caledonia, during the period 25th June ­ 7th July
2007. These workshops follow on from the first stock assessment workshop held
in 2006, and have been predominantly funded (to date) by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF), but also assisted by funding from other sources.
These have included the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, SPC,
OCP ProcFish, and the Japanese Government funded "WCPFC Project on
Capacity Building in Fisheries Statistics, Regulation and Enforcement for Small
Island Developing States" as administered by the WCPFC. The workshops were
recognized/endorsed by the WCPFC Scientific Committee as an important
endeavour in 2006.

The following section provides background information to explain the need for
and purpose of these workshops, including a brief review of the 2006 workshop.
Subsequent sections will outline the 2007 workshops design, content and
outcomes.

1.2
The Oceanic Fisheries Management Project

The SAWs were initially instigated as one component of the much larger Oceanic
Fisheries Management Project (OFMP) (*but have since been expanded to
include other developing states who are not participants in that project). That
project is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with the United
Nations Development Fund assuming the role of Implementing Agency. The
project is being executed by the Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA) in partnership
with the SPC and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The OFMP has two overarching objectives:
1.
Information and Knowledge ­ to improve the understanding of the
transboundary oceanic fish resources and related features of the Western
and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) Warm Pool Large Marine Ecosystem;
and
2.
Governance ­ to create regional institutional arrangements, and
reform, realign and strengthen national arrangements for the conservation
and management of transboundary oceanic fishery resources.

The OFMP was instigated through the combined initiative of 15 governments
within the WCPO region (Figure 1a); Cook Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New
Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.


3

---

A.
100E
120E
140E
160E
180
160W
140W
120W
100W
80W




N
0
6

5
0
N

Western and central
N
Pacific Ocean
0

4
3
0

N
N

0
2
1
0

N
Eastern Pacific Ocean
0

0
1
0
S

S
0

2
3
0

S
S

0
4

5
0
S


S
0
6

110E
130E
150E
170E
170W
150W
130W
110W
90W
70W
B.











C.
PURSE SEINE

2,000,000
OTHER

1,800,000
POLE-AND-LINE

LONGLINE
1,600,000

1,400,000
t) 1,200,000
(mh 1,000,000
tca 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 2004

Figure 1 ­ A) The jurisdictional boundaries of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission encompasses the EEZs of many Pacific Island Countries and Territories. B)
The boundaries of the warm pool large marine ecosystem can be defined in part by water
temperature. Here, warm colours indicate the region of the warm pool in the Pacific Ocean
(using an example month and year). C) Annual catches of tuna by gear in the WCP-CA.
(Source: SPC, 2006).


4

---

For a long time, these countries (along with other Pacific Island Countries and
Territories) have recognized that they are collectively the custodians of one of the
largest marine ecosystems in the world (the warm pool large marine ecosystem ­
LME ­ Figure 1b), within which resides the world's largest tuna resource.
Approximately one half of the worlds total tuna catch is taken from this region,
with catches consistently increasing over the past three decades (Figure 1c) and
surpassing 2 million tonnes per annum in recent years.

For some time these countries have had concerns over the sustainability of this
resource which represents one of the only significant natural resources in the
region and which is one of the most economically important resources for these
countries. Most PICTs are characterised as developing countries with limited
resources and for some, tuna fishing access fees constitute as much as 40% of
total government revenue. The long term economic and social aspirations of
many of these countries rely heavily on the long term sustainability of the tuna
resource.

1.3
Legal obligations and the importance of stock assessment

There are a number of legally binding international conventions and agreements
that are designed to ensure that global fish stocks are managed sustainably
through cooperation. These include the United Nations Convention for the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNSFA). In addition,
many Pacific Island countries have negotiated and are party to cooperative
regional agreements (e.g. legally binding treaties including the Niue Treaty,
Nauru Agreement, Palau Arrangement, FSM Arrangement and US Multilateral
Treaty) and are members of institutions (e.g. the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries
Agency - FFA) to ensure cooperation amongst themselves regarding the
sustainable management and development of fisheries in the region. Most
recently, these countries negotiated and became Contracting Parties to the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (hereafter referred to as the
Convention) and as members of the Commission established by the Convention
(hereafter referred to as the Commission), are bound by its mandate.

Within the two key international agreements of UNCLOS and UNSFA, and the
Convention, are specific provisions for the use of stock assessments to assist in
sustainable management of fish stocks.

Article 61 of UNCLOS makes direct reference to maximum sustainable yields
(MSY) as an objective for sustainable fisheries, while the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement states that any nations fishing on the high seas should:
"Adopt measures for long term sustainability, based on best available
scientific advice, applying the precautionary approach".
Both general scientific advice regarding sustainability, and the precautionary
approach, are currently based on the outputs from stock assessments. The
Convention being the first regional fisheries agreement to be adopted since the


5

---

conclusion of UNFSA, similarly provides for the need to base conservation
measures on best available scientific advice, maintaining stocks at MSY and
applying the precautionary approach.

Given that there are both economic and legal imperatives that WCPO tuna
stocks are managed sustainably, and the key role of stock assessment in
providing advice on sustainability, it is clearly critical for the countries and
territories in the region to have the capacity to interpret and use stock
assessments in their domestic and regional decision making processes.

1.4
A problem relating to scientific and legal capacity

In recent years, it has become very apparent to the governments and people of
PICTs that while they have considerable obligations to meet under UNCLOS,
UNSFA and the Convention, few if any of them have the required legal and
scientific capacity to ensure that they can meet these obligations. The OFMP
was specifically designed to increase the capacity of participating countries in the
relevant areas of legal and scientific expertise.

In terms of science capacity, PICTs themselves recognise that they have limited
capacity to interpret and use stock assessments (and associated scientific
analyses) and to incorporate stock assessment outputs into decision making
processes. This lack of capacity represents a significant impediment to the
development and revision of tuna management plans, the ability to participate in
regional fora (e.g. the Scientific Committee of the Commission) and to an
improvement in understanding the potential consequences of different
management options for the sustainable harvesting of tuna resources.

The following OFMP objective relates specifically to the need for increased
understanding of stock assessment:

"........strengthen 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."(OFMP Document, outcomes
1.2, p.49)

The intended outputs associated with this objective are:

1. Training of national technical and scientific staff to understand regional
stock assessment methods, and interpret and apply the results, and to use
oceanographic data; and to

2. Hold regional workshops on stock assessment methods and analyses of
oceanographic impacts on fisheries.



6

---

2.
Review of the 2006 stock assessment workshop.

The original design of the OFMP held SPC responsible for developing and
running two stock assessment workshops, one each to be held in the 2nd and 4th
years of the OFMP. The first of these was held in July 2006 and the following is a
brief review of that workshop with emphasis on recommendations that came out
of the workshop for future workshop design and content. The full report of that
workshop was sent to participating countries and relevant regional organizations
and can be obtained from SPC.

The 2006 workshop ran from the 3rd to the 14th July at SPC headquarters in
Noumea, New Caledonia and involved 17 participants from fisheries departments
from around the Western and Central Pacific region.

The bulk of the funding for the workshop came from the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) with additional funding provided by PROCFish (Oceanic
component) and the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, to allow
non-OFMP project members to attend.

The workshop's objectives were focused on increasing the capacity of
participants to:
1. Understand what the various components of a stock assessment
model are, how these are derived, and why each is important to the
assessment;
2. Understand the key outcomes/recommendations and how they relate
back to the model outputs and data;
3. Identify and question weaknesses in an assessment and understand
statements regarding uncertainty; and
4. Form conclusions regarding the implications of the assessment's
outcome for tuna fishery management at national and regional levels,
including the risk associated with different management options.

The workshop comprised three main components: Basic Theory and
Background, Parameter Estimation, and Interpretation and Management
Implications.

The Basic Theory and Background component provided an understanding of the
basic biological and fisheries information and concepts required to undertake an
assessment. It included sessions on the behaviour of unfished populations,
exploited population dynamics, data requirements for stock assessment and the
different types of assessment that can be undertaken.

The Parameter Estimation component used the background theory to guide
participants in building a stock assessment model step by step, and included
sessions that detailed the logic and methods used to estimate the key
parameters of growth, recruitment, natural mortality, selectivity, catchability,


7

---

fishing mortality, movement and indices of abundance. These sessions were
followed by discussions of biological reference points and a summarisation of
how all the different model components fit together in a length/age-based model,
such as those used for tuna in the WCPO. The final section of this component
looked at the estimation and interpretation of uncertainty and risk within stock
assessments.

Following the Parameter Estimation component there was a half-day of
presentations relating to the ecological approach to fisheries management, in
particular reviewing the types of research currently underway to provide scientific
advice to support that approach in future.

The final Interpretation and Management Implications component provided
exercises to promote the discussion of the previous components in the context of
tuna fisheries and assessments in the WCPO, and the implications of these for
domestic and regional decision-making.

Three main forms of assessment were used to determine the degree to which the
workshop was able to meet its objectives. They were:
1. Assessment of the performance of participants;
2. Assessment of the workshop by participants; and
3. Self-assessment by SPC.

These assessments demonstrated that the level of understanding of stock
assessment for the majority of participants had increased very significantly by the
end of the workshop. Participants judged that the workshop had clear objectives,
was well planned, encouraged participation, had appropriate content and was
well balanced, with good presentations provided by the SPC staff.

Overall, based on observations of the facilitators and from feedback received
from workshop participants, both formally through the surveys and informally, the
workshop was assessed by SPC as being a very significant first step towards
meeting the overall stock assessment related objectives of the OFMP. However,
in recognition that this workshop represented only the first step in a longer
process of building an improved understanding of stock assessment and capacity
to use assessment results appropriately in domestic and regional decision
making processes, SPC spent significant time post-SAW in determining how
future workshops might be further strengthened. Subsequently, the 2006 report
recommendations included the following:

1. Communication and nominations ­ Countries to be encouraged to
be far more proactive and timely in submitting their nominations.
Earlier advertising to assist this cause.
2. Participant eligibility ­ Ensure countries only send participants who
have an appropriate background and are in positions where they can


8

---

apply their improved knowledge of stock assessment into both the
domestic and regional decision making processes and forums.
3. Timing ­ Holding the workshop a few weeks prior to the WCPFC
Scientific Committee meeting is probably ideal, as it facilitates the
participation of member countries in that forum (on the proviso that
participants to the workshop also attend SC).
4. Regularity ­ In order to ensure significant increases in the capacity of
developing states to understand, interpret and use stock assessment
information, such workshops must be held on a more regular basis (at
least annually). In addition, mechanisms need to be put in place that
will ensure maximum possible memory retention by participants in
between workshops. Such strategies could include online/remote
training or revision exercises throughout the year, and opportunistic
revision of key concepts at regional meetings (e.g. SC) often attended
by participants, as well as in-country training/revision when OFP
officers make in-country visits. These endeavours could protect against
the loss of capacity due to memory loss over time, and turnover/loss of
trained staff from departments over time.
5. Length ­ Reduce workshop length and/or contact hours to reduce
meeting fatigue.
6. Split design (Level 1 and Level 2) ­ Hold two workshops, the first
being for fisheries officers who have attended previous workshops and
are ready to go onto more advanced level of learning and the second
"introductory" workshop for fisheries officers who have not attended
any of the previous workshops. This may also allow some countries to
have two officers participate and ensures better tailoring of workshop
materials to the learning level of the participants.
7. Materials ­ Give consideration to the development of a more formal
workshop booklet that participants can use in conjunction with the
copies of the presentations they are provided.
8. Workshops for managers ­ Give consideration in future to
developing a shortened version of the workshop tailored to the needs
of fishery managers specifically (rather than fishery technical officers).
9. Increasing confidence to talk science ­ include exercises aimed to
increase participant confidence to talk in open forums about stock
assessment. Role playing scenarios, regular question/answer
sessions, and group presentations aim to provide participants the
communication skills they will require to actively participate in regional
and Commission meetings.
10. Oceanographic Influences on fish and fish stocks ­ Include a
single session that deals with the multiple impacts of oceanography
and which has an associated practical exercise that helps to explain
the importance of oceanographic variability on fishery yields over time.
11. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management ­ Incorporate
session on the integration of scientific analyses and advice into the
current EAFM approach.


9

---

12. Reviewing - Increases in the level of reviewing that occurred
throughout the workshop would be beneficial in order to reinforce key
concepts of each section of the SAW. Tests of participants
understanding of workshop material and concepts to be used every 2-3
days to pick up on those concepts that are not being clearly
understood by participants, so further explanation can be provided in a
timely manner.
13. Management implications ­ Include participation of FFA Fisheries
Management Advisors to help explain potential implications of stock
assessment for domestic and regional fisheries management and
highlight the links between scientific advice (from stock assessments)
and management.


3.
2007 Workshop Objectives

The 2007 stock assessment training was split into two workshops, the first to
provide training to participants who were mostly new to stock assessment
concepts and/or had not attended the first workshop in 2006. The second
workshop aimed to further build upon the understanding of those participants
who were returning from the 2006 workshop. The broad OFMP objective relating
to stock assessment capacity building was used as a guide to create more
specific functional objectives for both of the workshops. The primary functional
objectives were as follows:

Level 1 Workshop for first time participants

1. Understand fish population dynamics (in both fished and unexploited
populations) and the impacts of oceanography/climate on fish populations
and fisheries.
2. Understand what the various components of a stock assessment model
are, how these are derived, and why each is important to the assessment;
3. Be able to understand the key scientific outcomes and recommendations
of stock assessments and how they relate back to the model outputs and
data;
4. Be able to identify where an assessment might be improved in the future
and to understand statements regarding uncertainty, and
5. Be able to interpret stock assessment outputs and form conclusions
regarding the implications of these for tuna fishery management at both
national and regional levels, including the risk associated with different
management options (at both levels).

Level 2 Workshop for returning participants

The primary objective was to enhance participants capacity to understand,
interpret (and if necessary, challenge) a stock assessment or analyses of


10

---

management options, so as to be able to incorporate that information into
decision making/advice provision at domestic and regional levels. The secondary
objectives were to promote an understanding of:
1. Fish population dynamics (in both fished and unfished populations)
2. The impacts of oceanography/climate on fish populations and fisheries
3. Parameter estimation and building a model
4. Biological reference points
5. The application of tagging studies to stock assessment
6. Assumptions, uncertainty, risk and projections
7. Management options analyses and implications for decision making
8. Ecological risk assessment


4.
2007 Design and Content

4.1
Overall Design

Taking into account the objectives stated above and the recommendations
flowing from the review of the 2006 stock assessment workshop, the 2007
workshop program delivered two 6-day workshops. The first was predominantly
designed for participants who were mostly new to stock assessment concepts
and/or had not attended the first workshop in 2006. The second workshop aimed
to further build upon the understanding of those participants who were returning
from the 2006 workshop. The workshops were each reduced to 6 days (noting
that the 2006 workshop were 10 days) to reduce meeting fatigue and fit within
funding restraints while still delivering appropriate training to two groups at
different levels of understanding of stock assessment.

Similar to the 2006 workshop, the 2007 workshops comprised three main
components, these being Basic Theory and Background, Parameter Estimation,
and Interpretation and Management Implications (Tables 1 and 2). The Level 1
workshop was essentially a repeat of the 2006 workshop, but with additional
sessions on oceanographic impacts and CPUE standardization. The Level 2
workshop provided 50% of time to revision of 2006 material, and 50% time to
introduction of new material, specifically relating to oceanographic impacts,
CPUE standardization, the use of tagging data in population assessments, the
consideration of risk, uncertainty and projections in stock assessments, and
management options analyses. The ecosystems session in both workshops
focused on providing the participants with an understanding of Ecological Risk
Assessment (ERA) and its relevance to fisheries management in the WCPO.

Both workshops focused on tuna and other pelagic species and the assessments
currently used to assess these species in the Pacific Ocean.





11

---

4.2 Basic Theory and Background

This component of both workshops provided an understanding of the basic
biological and fisheries information and concepts that are necessary before
undertaking an assessment, utilizing both theory and computer laboratory based
exercises to emphasize concepts. It included sessions on:

1. understanding how natural, unfished populations behave ­ if we are going
to interpret how they respond to fishing, we need to be able to compare a
fished population to their normal state and understand the natural
variability of fish stocks;

2. understanding how and why different stocks and species of fish respond
differently to fishing pressure;

3. understanding the types of information needed to measure the response
of a fish stock to fishing (i.e. data needed in order to undertake a stock
assessment) and how that information is used in an assessment; and

4. the types of models available and how to select an appropriate model for a
given assessment.

4.3 Parameter estimation

This component was designed to use the background theory to guide participants
in building a stock assessment model step-by-step, and included theory and
computer practical sessions which detailed the logic and methods used to
estimate the key parameters of growth, recruitment, natural mortality, selectivity,
catchability, fishing mortality, movement and the estimation of indices of
abundance. These sessions were followed by discussions of biological reference
points, and a summarization of how all model components fit together in a
length/age based model, such as those used for tuna in the WCPO. The final
section of this component looked at the estimation and interpretation of
uncertainty and risk within stock assessments.

4.4 Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

In 2006, this session had introduced participants to a broad range of ecosystems
research that will eventually feed into management decision making. In 2007, this
component focused on one particular area, introducing the basic concepts of
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The ERA is a tool for assisting fisheries
managers in identifying the risks to species, communities and habitats that come
from the impact of fishing, and it is intended to help identify research and
assessment priorities with respect to these. Currently, an ERA for the entire
WCPO region has been commissioned by the WCPFC and is being undertaken
by scientists in the OFP and is due to be presented at SC3. Because this


12

---

approach is likely to be applied at national levels in the future, it is important that
developing member states of the Commission are able to interpret and use ERA
outputs in their domestic and regional decision making processes. The main
purpose of the session was to provide particpants with basic background
information required for interpreting risk categorisation. A broad overview was
provided on how risk is calculated, why sources of linguistic and information
uncertainty need to be identified and accounted for in any assessment, and how
the methods of risk assessments can use a mix of qualitative to quantitative
information. A detailed description on how these anlayses are constructed and
should be interpreted was provided.

4.5 Interpretation and Implications

The Level 1 workshop included a final day exercise that required participants to
interpret the potential subregional and national level implications of regional stock
assessments as part of their final group presentations.

In the Level 2 workshop, the final component provided theory session and
practical exercises to promote the discussion and understanding of management
options analyses that typically might follow on from the original stock
assessments. The final day of the workshop provided participants with an excel
based, age structured stock assessment model for a hypothetical one species,
two region, two gear fishery. They were then taksed with, firstly, interpreting and
describing the results of an initial stock assessment, and secondly, through
discussion with "fisheries managers", identifying and running analyses of various
management options for that fishery. They were then required to present these
analyses back to the workshop in a 20 minute presentation to demonstrate their
understanding of stock assessment and management options concepts.

Overall, the three part structure was intended to meet the primary objective of
this workshop, that being to provide participants with the capacity to use and
interpret stock assessment results, to the degree that they can incorporate their
understanding of the assessments into the provision of advice and input into
governmental decision making processes regarding the management of fisheries
at both domestic and regional levels.

4.6 Facilities and materials

Both workshops were held at SPC Headquarters, Noumea, utilizing the small
conference room and the new and enlarged computer laboratory. Both
workshops ran over 6 days, with, in general, each day generally comprised 4
sessions, with the theme of each session outlined in Tables 1 and 2. The
sessions were either theory based or practical sessions. Practical sessions
predominantly involved computing based exercises to give participants a working
understanding of how stock assessment models function, and were designed to
complement and reinforce concepts learnt in the previous theory session. Each


13

---

day started with a review of key points from the previous days session, including
a question/answer session where participants were expected to show their
understanding of the previous days content. The same method was used on the
last day when reviewing the entire week.

Participants were provided with a workshop folder on the first day, which
contained copies of the workshop presentations, structure and design, and more
general information relating to the locations of sessions, local facilities and social
functions. They were also provided with a CD onto which they could burn a copy
of all presentations and practical sessions at the end of the week.


5. Communication strategy

The workshops were first advertised via email to OFMP focal points and heads of
fishery departments in February 2007. Follow up emails to remind potential
participant countries to submit their nominations were sent out once per month
for the following 3 months.

Where email communications were impeded or no response was forthcoming,
countries were contacted via fax, telephone or hand delivered invitations at
regional meetings. The deadline for nominations was extended on a number of
occasions to accommodate those countries who were unable to commit staff to
the workshop at earlier dates.

Following the workshops it is SPC's intention to provide feedback on the
workshops to participating countries, territories, funding bodies and interested
regional organizations. This will be done through the distribution of the workshop
report (including to SC3), communications via email to heads of fishery
departments, and a summary of the workshops posted on the SPC website.


14

---

y
a
r
d
r
r
r
e
e
e
t
u
p
y

5
p
p
a
a
w
k
k
s
s
s
n
n
n
n
a
n
n
n
a
a
e
e
n
n
n

P
i
e
v
e
e

P

P
n
f

D
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
e
t
i
o
n
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
n
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
i
o
r
a
r
a
r
a

W

W
r
a
i
o
r
a
r
a
r
a
i
o
t
a
t
a
t
a
s

O
a
a
a
w
w
a
a
a
a
n
n
n
p
p
p
l

R
p
s
p
p
p
s
e
e
e

-

S
s
w
a
i
e
i
e
s
s
s
s
s
u
i
e
r
e
r
e
r
e
v
v
e
e
r
e
u
r
e
r
e
r
e
u
c
v
P
P
P
i
n
P
P
P
P
r
e
r
e
r
e
R
R
c
c
P
P
P
.


6
e
F
y
i
s
i
s
i
s
D
R
D
D
e
a
a
m
D
u
o
r

r

y
t
s
t
s
i
n
i
n

f
o
t

f
o
t

N
a
o
o
h
n
h
n

p

4

p
r
c
e
r
c
e

i
n
r
i
d
e
y
e
n
m
m
c
a
c
a
a
i
o
e
e
e
e
C
n
l
n
l
l
s
s
g
s
g
l
l
l
f

D
s
r
y
r
y
a
a
a
u
e
a
r
y
r
y
r
y
e
a
a
a
a
P
r
e
o
o
r
e
c
n
o
o
o
n

-

F
t
i
c
t
i
c
t
i
c
t
i
c
t
i
c
t
i
c
f
e

O
e
e
c
f
e
c
c
i
s

R
a
e
e
e

R
a
c
c
c
w
h
h
s
h
h
h
s
T
T
r
a
r
a
r
a
/
D
T
T
T
r
a
r
a
r
a
t

S

5
l

r
e
P
l

r
e
P
P
c
m

M
m

M
P
P
P
a
i
e
v
a
r
a
r
y
r
y

a
y
t
e
t
e
i
c
e
i
c
P
s
e
s
e
7
a
g
R
g
y
h
y
h
s
i
s
s
i
s
0
D
l
o
l
o
o
F
o
F
0
i
o
i
o
c
c
B
B
E
E


e

2
y
g
g
n
a

-


-

u
d
n
i
l
i
t
y
n
i
l
i
t
y

f
i
t
t
i
n

f
i
t
t
i
n

J
r
s
t
i
o
b

3
t
i
o
b
a
a
y
a
a
n

&

&
n
u
h
a
h
i
o
s
t
a
s
t
a
i
o
t
i
m
t
c
t
i
m
t
c
l
l
s
e
a
e
a
l
l
s
e
l
d
h
s
a
f

D
s
s
r
y
r
y
r
y
s
a
a
a
u
i
c
r
y
r
y
r
y
i
c
a
a
u
o
o
o
t
i
c
t
i
c
c
d

d
o
o
o
d

d
t
i
c
t
i
c
c
/
C

O
e
e
e
/
C
c
c
i
s
E
e
e
e
E
c
c
i
s
,

h
r

E
h
h
h
r

E
r
a
r
a

i
n
U
h
h
h

i
n
U
r
a
r
a
t
e
i
t
y
w
T
T
T
t
e
i
t
y
P
P
/
D
T
T
T
/
D
c
e
P
e
P
P
P
c

p

-

T
e
i
e
t
i
v
v
e
t
i
v
c
c
r
a
n
C
n
C
r
a
5
o

4
m
c
e
m
c
P
a
a
P
l
e
l
e
d
d
1
R
s
h
y
r
a
r
a
a
e
a
e
n
n
k
a
P
S
P
S
u
u
b
b
r
D
A
A
o
y
)
)
a
g
g
i
n
i
n
t

W
d
s

-


-


-

h

-

h
n
n
n
i
s
n
i
s
e
n
e
t
i
o

2
t
i
o
t
i
o

F
t
i
o

F
n
a
t
y
a
t
n
a
a
n
a
d
d
d
n
n
i
o
n
n
i
o
t
i
m
e
t
i
m
e
l
l
s
t
i
m
t
i
m
l
l
s
e
s
s
s
f

D
r
y
r
y
r
y
s
a
a
u
s
l

a
r
y
r
y
r
y
s
l

a
a
a
u
i
t
m
o
o
o
i
t
m
t
i
c
t
i
c
c
r
a
o
o
o
r
a
t
i
c
t
i
c
c
r

E
e
e
e
c
c
e
e
e
c
c
r
u

O
h
h
h
r

E
r
u
i
s
i
s
r
a
r
a
r

E
t
u
h
h
h
r

E
t
u
r
a
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
t
e
c
w
T
T
T
t
e
c
P
P
/
D
t
e
a
T
T
T
t
e
a
P
P
/
D
e
e
i
e
e
c
c
v
e
r
a
e
e
r
a

A

-

W
m
R
e
m
R
P
m

(
N
m

(
N
P

3
r
a
R
r
a
r
a
l
i
t
y
r
a
l
i
t
y
c
k

y
a
a
a
a
P
P
P
r
t
a
P
r
t
a
t
o
a
o
o
M
M

S
D
y


y
t
s
t
s
t
h
n
e
l

1
a
e
n
n
g

-

i
o
d
e
e
n
n
n
n
s
s
e
v
s
o
o
t

-

K

1
p
p
l
t
i
o
r
e
e
y
n

-

l
e
n
a
m
m
e
a
g
e
s
o
o
d
n
i
o
l
l
s
e

L
u
o
i
o
r
o
m
l
e
f

D

c

c
t
i
m
s
d
d
s
r
t
s
r
y
r
y
r
y
t
h
r
y
r
y
r
y
a
a
s
i
p
u
n
n
s
f

m
s
o
o
o
w
o
o
o
l

p
t
i
c
t
i
c
c
s
c

O
o
e
e
e
e
e
e
a
c
c
i
s
e

a

a
h
s
s

o
s
r
e
h
h
h
r

e
r
o
h
h
h
d
f

t
h

-

T
s
r
a
r
a
r
i
n
w
e
g
o
T
T
T
t
e
T
T
T
o
/
D
s
l
e
l
e
c
G
P
P
p
i
e
p
c
v
i
p
i
p
e
c
c
y
r
o
/
M
r
a
t

o

2

a
T
y
k
e
m
P
R
r
i
n
r
i
n
l

P
t
h
a
c
a
r
e
w
t
o

P

P
y
y
d
a
t
e
n
D
S
e
e
o
P
r
o
K
K
n
M
G
t
c


a
t
s
j
e
s
s
s


c
o
n
n
b

d
e
d
i
c
n
s

n
n
y
/
O

t
u
m
e
m
h
r
i
e
l
a
d
d
t
i
o
t
i
o
a
n
n
s
a
e
s

h
s
s
O
s
n

f
i
s
h
l
l

a
d
u
e
y
i
c
r
a
P
r
a
t
i
c
a
a
t

a
O
s
t
r
y
r
o

f
i
s
i
c
i
c
n

d
m
e
C

f
i
s
e
c
n
n
n
s
n

o
t
i
c
t
i
c
g
e
P
m
n
a
n
r
a
c
c
k

a
u
d
m
a
n
i
d

W
t
s
i
d
o
d
C
o

p
n
c
m
k
n
a
n
y
s

o
s
r
a
r
a
/

y
t
i
o
e
c
s
s
u
a
s
c

c
n
n
a
t
s
n
e
s

W

a
l
a

d
n

p

p
e
t
o
i
c
/
B

i
n
s
y

d
u
n
o
f

t
h
p
c
o
s
s
e
s
i
g
r
o
m
e
a
o
s
s

s
d
w
n
e

d
n
p

o
t
i
o
p
m
i
c
i
c
g
s

t
h
e
t
i
o
l
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
o

C
y

i
m
l
a

C
a
n
h
h

-

M
k
r
e
e
i
v

a
l
a
p
p

i
n
s
i
c
h
i
c
u
i
c
r
v

a
t
i
o
y

u
l
a
"

p
u
h
p
h
p

i
m
h
r
a
r
a
e

d
c
k
W
e
c
s
w
l
a
t
i
o
u
d
p
p
o
i
c

d
g
g

1
a
v
t
l
y
p
e
o
p
r
a
p
h
p
n
B
t
o
r
i
e
o
o
o
n
u
l
a
o
h

p
g
r
a
p
n
n
y
e
p
r
a
o
g
r
a
/
O
h
u
t
i
o
s

-

h

p
d
a
a
r
r
e
o
p
h
e
g
n
o
r
a
n
g
g
l
a
e
e
f

t
h
a

-

S
n
n

"
f
i
s
o
a
o
w
f
i
s
u
o
i
s
h
a
o
u
c
c
i
o
c

p
t
i
o
p
d
e
F
n
i
s
n
c
e
n
n
p
O
O
D
i
e
s
h
o
c
s
c
a
u
i
s

a
F
a
a
e
O
e
e
P
e

o
r
v
O
d
e
u
h
c
v
c
F
i
s
c
c
O
t
r
o
O
i
s
F
O
O
D
I
n
t
l
i
n
u
)
)
)
)
0
0
0
0

O
)
0
)
0
0
3
3

­
0
0
0
3
2
4
5
6
m
0
)
0

-

1
l
e

1
a

-

1
0
0

-

1

-

1
3

-

1
3

-

1
b
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
a
e
.
1
0
e

-

1
e
e
3
3
0

(
1
0
T
y
0
a
m
8

(
1
m
0
0
m
3
A
m
5
e

8
A
e
2
e
E
e
D
h
w
E

(
0
h

(
1

(
1
h

T

(
1
h

(
1
T
i
e

T
T
H
T
N
T
v
G

1

2
C
O

3

4
O
e
n
I
N
N
n
n
n
N
U
N
R
i
o
R
i
o
L
i
o
R
i
o
s
O
E
s
s
s
T
s
M
s
s
F
s
e
e
e
A
e
S
S
S
S

---

y
a
r
d
r
r
r
e
e
e
t
u
p
y

5
p
p
a
a
w
k
k
s
s
s
n
n
n
n
a
n
n
n
a
a
e
e
n
n
n

P
i
e
v
e
e

P

P
n
f

D
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
e
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o

W

W
n
n
i
o
r
a
r
a
r
a
r
a
i
o
r
a
r
a
r
a
i
o
t
a
t
a
t
a
n
n
n
s

O
a
a
a
w
w
a
a
a
a
p
p
p
p
s
p
p
p
s
e
e
e

-

S
l

R
s
w
a
i
e
i
e
s
s
s
s
s
u
i
e
r
e
r
e
r
e
v
v
e
e
r
e
u
r
e
r
e
r
e
u
r
e
r
e
r
e
c
v
P
P
P
i
n
P
P
P
P
R
R
c
c
P
P
P
.


6
e
F
y
i
s
i
s
i
s
D
R
D
D
e
a
a
m
D
u
o

N
y
t
s
i
n
s
s
s
a
o
n
n
n

i
n

p

4
n
n
n
e
y
t
i
o
t
i
o
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
d
c
a
p
p
i
o
i
o
i
o
s
s
s
p
i
o
n
s
s
s
s
P
u
u
u
s
r
e
f

D
r
y
r
y
r
y
t

O
r
y
r
y
r
y
t

O
c
c
c
t

O
u
o
o
o
n
o
o
o
n
n
c
c
c
f
e

O
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
i
s
i
s
i
s
e
r
a
r
a
i
s
t

S

-

F
w
h
h
h
h
h
h
/
D
/
D
/
D
P
P
T
T
T
m
T
T
T
m
r
y
r
y
r
y
m
/
D
c

a

5
l

r
e
e
e
e
a
i
e
v
g
g
o
o
o
e
e
e
g
r
a
7
y
i
c
e
a
a
h
h
h
a
P
0
a
g
R
n
n
T
T
T
n
a
a
a
0
D
l
o
i
o
M
M
M

2
B
l
y
u
y
r

r


J
a

-

d
n

f
o
t

f
o
t
i
l
i
t
y
h
n
n
e
h
e
e
l
d
r
s
t
i
o
b

3
r
c
r
c
a
a
y
n
m
m
n
h
a
a
a
i
o
e
e
e
e
i
o
,

h
u
s
s
h
t
i
m
t
c
g
s
g
s
g
s
a
f

D
s
s
r
y
r
y
r
y
i
n
a
a
c
c
u
e
r
y
r
y
r
y
e
c
c
u

p
o
o
o
c
n
o
o
o
n
c
/
C

O
e
e
e
g
g
r
a
r
a
i
s

R
a
e
e
e

R
a
r
a
r
a
i
s
6
o
r

E
h
h
h
P
P
s
h
h
h
s
P
P
t
e
i
t
y
w
T
T
T
a
/
D
T
T
T
/
D
c
m

M
m

M
c
1
s
h

-

T
e
i
e
T
t
i
v
v
r
a
r
y
r
y
r
a
k

4
t
e
t
e
m
c
e
P
e
e
P
r
y
h
h
r
a
l
e
R
y
s
y
s
s
s
o
a
a
e
i
s
i
s
o
o
P
S
c
F
c
F
D
E
E
t

W
y
e
n
a
d
t
s
t
s
s

-

i
n
i
n
n
o
o
e
t
i
o
t
a
n
n
n

p

p
n
a
t
y

2
a
i
o
i
o
i
o
e
e
n
n
a
s
s
s
c
c
e

d
s
s
s
n
n
i
o
s
s
s
e
s
s
m
d
t
i
m
E
u
u
u
e
s
f

D
s
r
y
r
y
r
y
c
c
c
r
e
r
y
r
y
r
y
r
e
u
i
t
m
o
o
o
U
i
s
i
s
i
s
o
o
o
c
c
c

A
P
f
e
f
e
r

E
e
e
e
e
e
e
r
a
r
a
r
u

O
h
h
h
l
/
D
l
/
D
l
/
D
e
h
h
h
e
i
s
P
P
t
e
c
w
T
T
T

C
a
a
a
T
T
T
/
D
c
c
k
g

-

W
e
e
i
e
v
t
i
c
t
i
c
t
i
c
l

R
l

R
c
c
c
r
a
m
R
e
a
a
r
a
r
a
r
a
P
t
o

3
i
t
t
i
n
i
c
i
c
r
a
R
F
P
P
P
g
g

S
y
a
l
o
l
o
a
P
i
o
i
o
B
B
e
l

2
D
e
v
y

a
y
e
i
l
i
t
y
e

L
d
s
t

-

K

1
b
e
n
y
n
t
n
n
a
n
e
s
a
c
i
o
n
i
o
i
o
h
i
o
s
e
c
s
c
s
c
s
f

t
h
u
t
c
m
l
e
f

D
r
a
s
r
a
s
r
a
s
r
a
s
r
y
r
y
l
i
t
y
r
y
a
r
y
s
i
p
u
u
u
u
o
/
P
c
o
/
P
c
o
/
P
c
o
/
P
c
s
c

O
e
i
t
m
r
y
i
s
e
r
y
i
s
r
t
a
e
r
y
i
s
/
C
e
r
y
i
s
t

o

-

T
e
h
o
r
u
h
o
o
h
o
h
o
s
w
T
e
/
D
c
T
e
/
D
T
e
/
D
i
t
y
T
e
/
D
s
r
i
n
p
i
e
h
c
h
c
M
h
c
h
c
v
T
e
r
a
T
r
a
T
r
a
t
i
v
T
r
a
t
e
n

2

a
R
k
e
P
P
P
c
P
n
y
R
l
e
a
c
t
o
e
S
D
S


c
o
d
n

s

a
y
d

y

e
h
r
i
e
c
e
t
s
t
s
n
a
h
e
n
n
s
O
i
s

f
i
s
h
r
a
e
e
d
P
i
c

p
n
n
s

C
n

f
i
s

s
c
c
o
o
n
m
/

F
t

-

K
s
i
c
i
c
s

o
n
i
c
s
i
c
r
a
r
a
p
p
d
a
h
n

W
t
s
h
n
n
l
e
e
s
i
g
o
i
c
m
m
n
e
n
m

o
m

p

p
e
y
a
p
e
c
s
p
s
s
s
o
o
d
u
m
t
i
o
a
t
s
t
i
o
a
o
m
w

d
a
n
n
m
y
r
a
f

t
h
p
c
r
a
n
y
i
c
i
c
s
l
e

c

c
r
o
o
i
e
n
n
a
h
h
d
d
y
g
r
a
t
i
o
p
g
r
a
p
p
s
n
n
e

d

o
i
p
f

m
g
r
v

d

d
t
i
o
n
o
e
y

i
m
l
a
o
e
n
e
c

-

M
k
l
c
e

d
h
i
c
u
r
a
r
a
s

a

a

o
c
e
v
l
a
n
n
i
d

i
m
n
i
d
g
g
s
s
s
u
t
i
o
s
p
h
p
s
t
i
o
o
o
s
e
a
a
i
c
a
r
i
n
W
O
p
t
i
o
l
a
e
n
r
a
p
o
l
e
l
e
p
h
e
n
l
a
n
n
p
i
p
i
p
p
f

t
h

1
o
l
a
u
c
o
g
r
a
p
c
o
u
a
a

a
c
c
y
y
B

p
u
p
o
g
p
e
e
k
T
h
p
o
C
n
o
r
a
C
o
c
c
c
p
O
a
n
g
O
r
i
n
r
i
n
i
s
o
e
a
o

p
O
O
t
o
e

o
a
F

p
c
e
n
h

P

P
y
y
D
h
c
a
i
s
e
e
i
s
O
O
e
F
.

S
F
c
4
K
K
O
t
l
i
n
u
)
)
)
)

O
0
0
0
)
0
0

­
0
)
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
2
4
5
6
m
0
)
l
e

2
a
0

-

1

-

1
0
0

-

1

-

1

-

1

-

1
b
5
0
3
3
a
e
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
e

-

1
e
e
3
3
0
0
T
y
.
1
0

(
1
a
m
8

(
1
m
0
0
m
3
A
m
5
e

8
A
e
2
e
E
e
D
h
w
E

(
0
h

(
1

(
1
h

T

(
1
h

(
1
T
i
e

T
T
H
T
N
T
v
G

1

2
C
O

3

4
O
e
n
I
N
N
n
n
n
N
U
N
R
i
o
R
i
o
L
i
o
R
i
o
s
O
E
s
s
s
T
s
M
s
s
F
s
e
e
e
A
e
S
S
S
S

---

6. Participation

SPC received 22 nominations for the workshops. Two of these were
subsequently withdrawn, and one participant was unable to attend due to a ferry
breakdown. Two fisheries management officers from FFA were also invited to
attend, one to each workshop. The 10 participants that attended the Level 1
workshop and 11 that attended the Level 2 workshop, along with a description of
their current roles, are listed in Appendix I.

7. Additional Funding

The majority of the funding for the workshop came from the GEF OFMP project.
However, for participants from non-GEF project countries and territories, other
funding sources were identified and used. Participation was funded as follows:
1. GEF funds (for OFMP beneficiary countries)
2. Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council funds for US territories
(Guam)
3. SPC small projects funding (French Territories)
4. Japanese Government funded "WCPFC Project on Capacity Building in
Fisheries Statistics, Regulation and Enforcement for Small Island
Developing States" as administered by the WCPFC (Philippines, FSM,
Fiji)

The attendance of non-GEF member countries and territories at the workshop
was very important, given that these participating members of the WCPF
Commission have similar needs (e.g. stemming from obligations under the
Convention and international agreements (UNCLOS, UNSFA)). Note also that
Japanese/WCPFC funding for FSM and Fiji was sought by SPC to ensure that
their 2006 participants were able to continue their training, after those countries
nominated different officers in the first instance.


8. Final Budget

Table 3 - summary of workshop costs (in US dollars)
Cost item
USD
Airfares
29 179
Shuttle transfers
693
Per diems
28 047
Stationary
164
T-shirts
335
Catering
1 000*
Total
59418
* estimate for catering based on initial quote



17

---

9. Contributing Facilitators (SPC staff)

The workshop facilitators were Don Bromhead, Brett Molony, Adam Langley,
John Hampton, Simon Nicol, Helene Ixeko and Kay Parry. Additionally, two FFA
fisheries management staff, Steve Shanks and Samasoni Sauni, also kindly
assisted in facilitation/presentation of some sessions relating stock assessment
to fisheries management. Numerous other SPC staff kindly provided logistical
support to the workshop.


10. Assessment of Workshop

Three main forms of assessment were used to determine the degree to which the
workshops were able to meet their objectives. These were:
1. Assessment of participant's performance;
2. Assessment of the workshop by participants; and
3. Self assessment by SPC, including:
a. Implementation of changes recommended from 2006.
b. Additional improvements to be made for 2008

10.1 Assessment of participant's performance

Given the workshop style nature of this endeavour, participant performance was
not formally assessed on an individual basis by written or oral examination.
However, informal assessment methods were used, including the following.

10.1.1 Testing of memory retention ­ A questionnaire was provided to Level 2
workshop participants on the first morning of the first day to try and gain some
idea of the degree to which they had retained knowledge of stock assessment
from the 2006 workshop. The questionnaire comprised 12 questions testing their
understanding of basic principles of stock assessment as well as their memory of
key outputs from current assessments. Answers were marked by facilitators on a
scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicating no answer or a completely wrong answer, 2
indicating limited understanding, 3 indicating significant understanding and 4
indicating comprehensive understanding. A comparison of the survey results with
those from the end of the 2006 workshop suggest significant loss of memory of
what was learnt in 2006 for many of the participants.

This is a key issue and under the current structure will impede progress towards
achieving the ultimate objectives of the workshops. It highlights the requirement
for mechanisms to be put in place to ensure participants are able to retain and
build upon and use their understanding of stock assessment over the long term,
not just in the few months proceeding a workshop.

SPC recognized that this was an issue during the review of the 2006 workshop
but had no funding or staff resources to follow through and address this. It had


18

---

7
t
s
n
a 6
i
p
r
t
i
c
5
a

p
g 4
i
n
r
n
3
t
u
f

r
e
2
r

o
e
b 1
m
u
N 0
Low
Medium
High
Retention Rate

Figure 2 ­ Number of returning participants to Level 2 workshop who scored either low, medium
or high on their questionnaires aimed at testing the retention of knowledge learnt in the 2006
stock assessment workshop. "Low" indicates a mean question score of between 1-2, suggesting
little or no retention of knowledge. "Medium" indicates a mean score of 2-3, suggesting partial
retention of knowledge, and "High" indicates a mean score of 3-4, suggesting very significant
retention of knowledge.

not been recognized as an issue in the original OFMP plan, which only
suggested a requirement for 2 workshops over 5 years. However, SPC has
recently applied for funding to the WCPFC administered and Japanese
Government funded "WCPFC Project on Capacity Building in Fisheries Statistics,
Regulation and Enforcement for Small Island Developing States". SPC is
hopeful of not only being able to run annual stock assessment workshops but
also develop web based training/revision tools for participants that will facilitate
memory retention in between workshops. Discussion of this issue with workshop
participants in 2007 indicated a great willingness to participate in remote/online
revision exercises, potentially on a once monthly basis. If instigated, SPC may
discuss with participating countries the possibility of making participation in online
revision exercises a prerequisite for individuals future participation in subsequent
workshops. This concept will need to be discussed with and signed off by
participating countries and territories.

10.1.2 Laboratory Exercises ­ Workshop facilitators were able to judge
participant understanding of concepts throughout the workshop by assessing
answers and progress during the laboratory exercises. Where participants
showed a lack of understanding of key concepts, short interludes in the
laboratory sessions were held to go over those concepts again and ensure
uptake of key principles. The laboratory exercises were particularly useful in
highlighting those participants who might not yet have the required technical
skills and background to benefit from workshops such as this (see section 10.3.2
for further discussion of this issue).


19

---

10.1.3 Daily revision ­ Each day of the workshops started with a 15-30 minute
review of the preceding days material, presented as a informal verbal exam to
the group. This was aimed at encouraging them to revise material overnight, to
ensure they understood the key concepts, and to provide a non-threatening
opportunity to build confidence in speaking about stock assessment in front of
their peers. Workshop facilitators were impressed with the ability of participants
to answer most of the questions posed to them regarding the previous days
material, indicating good short term uptake. A similar exercise was run on the last
day of the workshop but revising key concepts from the entire week. Again,
participants ability to respond to questioning was judged to be very good.

10.1.4 End presentation ­ Participants understanding of stock assessment was
also assessed informally on the last day of the workshop through the participants
creating and presenting seminars on either the relevance and implications of
regional stock assessments to fisheries management in participating countries
(Level 1 workshop) or using a stock assessment model to run management
options analyses based on a hypothetical fishery situation, and present these
back to the group (Level 2 Workshop). The presentations were not formally
graded (as this was not intended to be a university style course but rather an
interactive workshop), but those participants who perhaps found some of the
concepts difficult to understand or articulate were noted to allow extra attention to
be provided on those specific issues at the next workshop.

10.1.5 Post workshop evaluation ­ Throughout both workshops the facilitators
spent significant time with each of the participants (mostly during the laboratory
sessions) and, in combination with assessment of final presentations, were able
to gain a good understanding of the relative ability and understanding levels of
each of the participants. After the workshop finished, both the main facilitators
ranked each participant according to their demonstrated technical ability and
theoretical understanding of the concepts. The final score for each participant
was the average of the two facilitators separate scores.

The results of this exercise suggested that 16 of the participants had sufficient to
very good overall technical ability and theoretical grasp of concepts, while 4 were
"barely sufficient" and 6 participants clearly struggled with both technical and
theoretical components. Whether some countries might in future wish to
nominate participants with more appropriate technical skills and theoretical
background will be discussed further with the countries involved. SPC recognizes
and appreciates that in some cases, a country simply will not have staff with the
required starting skill levels, and will in those instances try to adapt course
content to ensure those participants can still participate and gain from the
training. This strategy may also include SPC undertaking some opportunistic one
on one training when in country or at regional meetings.





20

---

10.2 Assessment by participants

The second workshop assessment tool took the form of a generalized feedback
questionnaire (Table 3) in which participants were asked a range of questions
relating to the design, contents, presentation, structure and other aspects of the
workshop. This assessment was undertaken by the Level 1 workshop only. The
Level 2 workshop did not complete the questionnaire due to the workshop
running very late on the last day. SPC has since sent out this questionnaire to
Level 2 participants but had not received all feedback in time for this report.

The results from the assessment by Level 1 participants is summarized in Table
3 and indicate that the majority of participants felt that the workshop had clear
objectives, was well planned, encouraged participation, had appropriate content
and was well balanced, with practical sessions that complemented the theory
sessions. In addition, most participants felt that they had a better understanding
of stock assessment processes and would be able to apply what they had learnt
in their daily work, as well as contribute to and discuss stock assessments at
regional meetings (e.g. SC, WCPFC, HoF etc). One participant expressed
uncertainty as to whether the workshop would assist them at regional meetings
or in their daily work. It should be noted that in some cases, the participants may
not be in positions whereby they would be likely to attend regional meetings in
the short term, although this likelihood may increase with training such as this.

The final part of the questionnaire departed from the ranking based answer
system and asked participants the following:


Table 3 ­ Frequency of responses of Level 1 workshop participants to end survery
regarding the stock assessment workshop.

The material and its presentation
Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree
1 The aims of the workshop were clear
8
1
2 Sessions were well planned and organized
6
3
3 The objectives for each session were clear
7
1
1
4 The explanations of the concepts and topics were clear
8
1
5 The presentations stimulated interest
6
3
6 There were enough opportunities to ask questions
6
2
1
7 The examples used in the theory and practical sessions improved my understanding
7
1
8 There was a good balance between theory and practical work
6
2
1
9 The practical and review material reinforced what was discussed in the theory sessions
6
3
10 The review exercises of previous stock assessments reinforced the theory and practical work
7
1
11 The review exercise of the new stock assessments reinforced the theory and practical work
7
1
12 I will able to apply what I have learnt from the workshop in my daily work
5
3
1
13 After participating in this workshop, I have a better understanding of the processes
involved in undertaking a stock assessment
7
After participating in this workshop, I will be better able to contribute and discuss stock
14 assessments domestically and at regional meetings (e.g. SC, WCPFC, HoF meetings)
5
3
1
How would you rate the Workshop overall ?
Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree
15 This Workshop challenged me to think critically about stock assessments
5
3
16 I would recommend this workshop to other staff members
7
1
17 I would consider attending further Workshops on stock assessments in the future
8
18 Overall, I think this workshop was useful
8
General Comments
19 Which part(s) of the Workshop did you like the most? Why?
20 Which part(s) of the Workshop did you like the least? Why?
21 Can you suggest how future Workshops could be improved to make the outcomes more useful to participants?
22 What were the strengths and weaknesses of the OFP staff who contributed to the Workshop?
23 Any other comments or suggestions?



21

---

Which part(s) of the workshop did you like the most? Why? Many
participants indicated that the practical sessions were the most useful, due to
these enabling them to "visualize" the assessments and the links between
different components, and to consolidate their understanding of the theory
sessions. Some preferred the theory sessions, finding the practical component
technically challenging.




Which part(s) of the workshop did you like the least? Why? With three
French territory participants in this workshop, difficulties in understanding
materials was the most common issue raised. Unfortunately, significantly greater
funding would be required to ensure translation services were available during
sessions and all documents were translated into French. However, this issue will
be considered further in future.

Can you suggest how future workshops could be improved to make the
outcomes more useful to participants? Again, the issue of language was
raised and will be looked at in 2008. There was significant interest in being able
to undertake exercises that involve the use of MULTIFAN-CL, and the possibility
of setting up a simplified age structured assessment using MULTIFAN will be
investigated for 2008. Some requests for the workshop to be longer were made,
however this will depend on funding and OFP capacity/workload. Requests were
also made for regular remote revision exercises to be undertaken and this is one
key area that OFP will definitely look to develop over the next 12 months to
ensure memory retention of what was learnt at the 2007 workshops.

What were the strengths and weaknesses of the OFP staff who contributed
to the workshop? Those participants who provided comment were very
complimentary of the staff member's enthusiasm, presentation skills, clarity,
positive attitude and availability.

Any other comments or suggestions? Requests were made for: follow-up
SAWs prior to SC meetings each year; pooling participants on a subregional
basis, increased use of materials/examples from outside the Pacific (e.g. other
RFMO assessments).

10.3 Self Assessment by SPC

Overall, based on observations of the facilitators and from feedback received
from workshop participants, both formally through the surveys and informally, the
workshop was assessed by SPC as being another very significant step towards
meeting the overall stock assessment related objectives of the OFMP.

However, SPC is also very aware that such capacity building exercises do not
achieve their goals overnight and are a long term and ongoing endeavor. SPC
has spent significant time post-SAW in determining how future workshops might


22

---

be further strengthened. The following represents a self appraisal of some key
elements of the workshop.

10.3.1 Communication and nominations

The communication strategy employed to advertise the stock assessment
workshop in the months leading up to it was considered to be far more
successful than in 2006. There was a much better response to the request for
countries to be far more proactive and timely in submitting their nominations
(relative to 2006), which made logistical organization of the workshop much
easier.

10.3.2 Participant eligibility

It is very important that countries send participants who, firstly, have sufficient
technical skills and ability to work with programs such as Microsoft Excel, and
secondly, are in positions where they can contribute their improved knowledge of
stock assessment into both the domestic and regional decision making
processes and forums. Ideally they are officers who are actively involved in
development and review of domestic tuna management plans, and who will
participate in Commission processes, in particular the Scientific Committee and
the Commission meetings each year.

A number of the assessment and review mechanisms employed during the
workshop were able to identify those participants who might not yet have the
required technical skills and background to benefit from workshops such as this.
This particular issue will be raised in an appropriate manner with the heads of
department in the countries that nominated these officers. It is important to note
that capacity building will most likely be achieved if countries nominate their most
qualified officers in the first instance and then continue to nominate those same
officers in subsequent years to reinforce and build upon their understanding.
Some countries look to alternate nominated officers to spread training
opportunities across staff, however it should be noted that this strategy will
ultimately result in a very low level of capacity within departments, because staff
quickly lose skills and knowledge if not involved in these endeavors over a long
time period.

However, SPC does recognize that not all countries and territories would be able
to send such an officer, due to resource limitations, logistical and other issues,
and in 2007 SPC did accept nominations for officers who do not fulfill those
criteria fully. We will however continue to encourage appropriate nominations in
the future. SPC will also try, whenever funding and resources allow, to
accommodate countries who wish to send a second "untrained" officer to start
their training at these workshops, recognizing this strategy protects departmental
capacity against staff turnover.



23

---

10.3.3 Workshop timing, structure and design

SPC responded to and met nearly all recommendations coming out of the review
of the 2006 stock assessment workshop. In particular, as recommended, the
workshop was held a month prior to SC, is likely to be run on an annual basis,
was split into two components to separately accommodate the differing
knowledge levels of returning participants and new participants, and shortened to
reduce meeting fatigue,

SPC did not instigate an online training mechanism for participants as had been
hoped due to a lack of funds and staff resources but this significant endeavour
will hopefully be addressed in 2007/08 if sufficient funding and staff resources
can be acquired (See previous discussion).

10.3.4 Workshop contents

Responding to recommendations from the review of the 2006 workshops, the
OFP:
1. Increased the number of opportunities where participants were actively
encouraged to ask questions and speak to the group on the topic of
stock assessment. This element of the workshop probably still needs
to be strengthened further, but is a little constrained between time
needed to teach the materials and time available for group discussion.
This will be looked at further in 2008.
2. Included specific sessions on oceanographic impacts and science for
the ecosystems approach to fishery management
3. Substantially increased the amount of reviewing of key concepts
throughout the workshop.
4. Undertook testing of participant understanding throughout the
workshop in order to identify concepts which required further
explanation.

Feedback from participants indicates that the contents of the workshop were
pitched at an appropriate level. However, a number of exercises are being
considered as additions to future stock assessment workshops. These include:

1. Expansion of sections involving tagging data: regional tagging
programmes are underway and likely to be expanded in the near future.
These programmes are critical in providing estimates of a range of
parameters that will be incorporated into future stock assessments for the
WCP-CA (e.g. movement, growth, mortality, biomass). It is essential that
participants at all SAW levels are made aware of the utility of tagging
programmes to stock assessments, and how and where parameter
estimates from tagging programmes can be incorporated in assessment
models. This will involve an expansion of theory and practical sessions in
2008


24

---

2. Extension of CPUE standardization: this is an important issue where
increased emphasis and understanding of the issues and methods would
be important to participants. While CPUE standardizations theory and
practical session were presented to both levels at 2007 workshops, it is
likely to be expanded in 2008.

3. Emphasis on the most recent stocks assessments for the main tuna
species and other species that interact within tuna fisheries in the WCP-
CA as they become available. This may be undertaken by the participants
during the workshop or throughout the year but will emphasize the
assessments and concepts raised in the Workshops, including
interpretations and uncertainties.

10.3.5 Other issues

Two final points require mention here. Both revolve around the future of stock
assessment workshops as a capacity building endeavour.

Firstly, SPC will also look to develop some indicators that will help determine if
the stock assessment workshops actually result, over the long term, in increased
participation by countries in the SC, and if participants are actually using their
training/knowledge of stock assessment in domestic and regional decision
making processes.

Secondly, in the original planning of the stock assessment workshops for the
OFMP project, it was intended that after an initial period of development of
material and running workshops, that the materials and concept would be
handed over to the University of the South Pacific, who might then incorporate
these into a more formal education/training framework, although with continued
collaboration and participation by SPC. This possibility is still under discussion
between SPC and USP and will be reported on again at the next SC.

11. Conclusion

Based on the above assessments, SPC considers that the 2007 Stock
Assessment Workshops will contribute significantly towards meeting the longterm
overall stock assessment related objectives of the OFMP, particularly in terms of
building national capacity to meet Convention obligations and to participate
effectively in the WCPF Commission. However, it will be important that the
participants get the opportunity to build upon what they have learnt through
further workshops, attachments and participation at scientific meetings, as well
as the development of online/remote training and revision facility that will ensure
memory retention of key concepts in between the workshops. SPC aims to
improve the workshop further in future years based on participant's assessments
and feedback. This report has highlighted where improvements are required in
the stock assessment workshop program, however, the degree to which these


25

---

improvements will be made will very much depend on securing the required
funding and staff resources.

The workshop concept was endorsed by the Scientific Committee of the Western
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission in 2006 and the outcomes of the
workshop, as described in this report, will be presented at the SC3 and at the 4th
OFMP Regional Steering Committee meeting to be held in the Cook Islands, in
October 2007.



Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks to John Hampton for logistical advice and funding sourcing. We
also wish to sincerely thank all the staff from SPC who kindly provided their time
and assistance in the running of the workshop, in particular Helene Ixeko, Kay
Parry, Denise Touyada, Patrick Rehman, Lodovico Albanese and Phill Hardstaff


26

---

Appendix I - Participants

Cook Islands
Marshall Islands
Pamela Maru
Berry Muller
Director of Offshore Fisheries
Chief Fisheries Officer - Oceanic and Industrial
Ministry of Marine Resources
Affairs Division
P.O. Box 85
Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority
Rarotonga
P.O. Box 860, 96960 Majuro

Marshall Islands
Federated States of Micronesia

Steven Retalmai
Nauru
Data Coordinator
Karlick Agir
NORMA Office
Data Coordinator
PP Box PS 122
Nauru Fisheries and Marines Resources
Plaikir, PNI
Authority
FSM 96941
P.O. Box 449

Aiwo District
Alfred Lebehn Jr.
Nauru
Licensing officer

NORMA Office
New Caledonia
PP Box PS 122
Christophe Fonfreyde
Plaikir, PNI
Fisheries Officer
FSM 96941
Service Territorial de la Marine Marchande et des

Pêches Maritimes
FFA
B.P. 36
Samasoni Sauni
98845 Nouméa Cedex
Steve Shanks
Nouvelle-Calédonie
Fisheries Management Officers

PO Box 629
Julie Mounier
Honiara
Fisheries Officer
Solomon Islands
Service Territorial de la Marine Marchande et des

Pêches Maritimes
Fiji
B.P. 36
Jone Amoe
98845 Nouméa Cedex
Fisheries Officer, Management Services
Nouvelle-Calédonie
Ministry of Fisheries and Forests

PO Box 2218
Niue
Suva
James Tafatu
Fiji
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery

P.O. Box 74
French Polynesia
Alofi
Marie Yonger
Niue
Fisheries Department

B.P. 20 Papeete
Palau
98713 Tahiti
Kathy Sissior
Polynésie Française
Bureau of Marine Resources, Ministry of

Resources & Development
Guam
PO Box 359
Thomas Flores
Koror PW 96940
Offshore Fisheries Coordinator/Acting Supervisor
Palau
Department of Agriculture

Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources
Papua New Guinea
Dairy Road, 96913 Mangilao
Ludwig Kumoru
Guam
Manager - Tuna fisheries

National Fisheries Authority
Kiribati
P.O. Box 2016
Mbwenea Teioki
Port Moresby, NCD
Oceanic Department
Papua New Guinea
P.O. Box 64

Bikenibeu - Tarawa

Kiribati



27

---

Philippines
Elaine Garvilles
Assistant National Tuna Coordinator
Marine Fisheries Research Division
National Fisheries Research and
Development Institute
Kayumanggi Press Bldg. I
940 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
Philippines

Samoa
Ueta Fa'asili Jr.
Senior Fisheries Officer (Offshore Fisheries)
Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries and
Meteorology
Fisheries Division
P.O. Box 1874, Apia
Samoa

Solomon Islands
Hudson Wakio
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
PO Box G13
Honiara
Solomon Islands

Tonga
Ulunga Fa'anunu
Deputy Secretary for Fisheries
Ministry of Fisheries
P.O. Box 871
Nuku'alofa
Tonga

Vanuatu
William Naviti
Senior Resource Manager
Department of Fisheries
Private Mail Bag 9045
Port Vila, Vanuatu

Wallis and Futuna
Bruno Mugneret
Service de Peche
Mata'Utu, Uvea
Wallis and Futuna






28

---