MID-TERM PROJECT EVALUATION OF
THE PACIFIC ISLANDS
OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
UNDP's Management Response &
Adaptive Management
Recommendations
Anna Tengberg
UNDP Regional Technical Advisor
GEF
International Waters and Land Degradation

---

Unit of measure
Key actions
Time Frame
Respon
Results
sible
units
Project Impact - Governance:
Mainstreaming efforts in
FFA,
The OFM Project should be more explicitly linked to
agencies are ongoing and will be
the Pacific Plan and a new project be developed to
further strengthened in the second
UNDP
implement the long-term strategic approach to
term of the project.
capacity-building in OFM recommended under the
Vavau Declaration. Discussions should be held
Long-term capacity building needs
between FFA and the Pacific Forum Secretariat in
will also be considered
developing this project.
during the design of Phase III, late
2008 - 2009
Project Results:
Second term of ongoing project.
PCU,
(a) The second term of the OFM Project, and any
Incorporate in the design of
future developments of the Project, specifically
Phase III - Late 2008 - 2009
FFA,
addresses the needs of smaller Pacific SIDS;
SPC
(b) alternative strategies should also be considered to
support smaller Pacific SIDS in OFM (e.g. Sub-
regional groupings, country-specific support from
FFA);
(c) long-term, strategic approaches should be
developed to build capacity in OFM and ensure
sustainability, and should be the focus of a future
OFM Project.
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
2

---

Unit of measure
Key actions
Time Frame
Respon
Project Design
sible
units
The proposed long-term capacity
For consideration during PCU,
building project in OFM be based on the design of Phase III
FFA
systematic assessments of training
(late 2008 ­ 2009)
needs in OFM in each country, and
appropriate Fisheries institutional
models and arrangements.
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
3

---

Unit of measure
Key actions
Time Frame
Respon
Project Management &
sible
Administration
units
FFA:
By second quarter 2009
PCU &
(a) The OFM PCU is better supported in the second term
of the Project.
UNDP
(b) Greater focus is given by the PCU to information
dissemination on the OFM Project amongst
stakeholders, and wider community in the Pacific SIDs.
(See 4.4.4. for details).
(c) GEF should be informed on the need for greater
flexibility in allocations for Project management.
SPC:
Ongoing during current project
(a) Where possible, SPC should assist in the development
and for consideration during the
of
development of a follow-up
oceanic fisheries science within Pacific SIDs in this term
phase, late 2008 ­ 2009
of the Project.(that has practical applications at the
national level in terms of monitoring and assessment)
(b) Development in oceanic fisheries science within Pacific
SIDs is a priority in the proposed new capacity-building
Project.
IUCN:
The Seamounts program is coordinated by the new
Completed - IUCN have
scientist at the IUCN Oceania Office to ensure
Appointed a coordinator (Eric
collaboration within the SPC/IUCN Seamounts
Gilman) early 2008
programme, with other OFM Project activities, and with
other agencies involved in seamount research in the region
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
4

---

Unit of measure
Key actions
Time Frame
Respon
Project Implementation
sible
units
Applicability of LFA tool:
December 2008
PCU &
A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed
within the Logical Framework to better monitor progress
UNDP
in Project Outputs and Activities. (and progress in
achieving outcomes and impacts)
Project reporting:
The OFM Project Coordinator and UNDP Project
December 2008
Management should undertake an informal review of the
reporting processes and their effectiveness with the view
of reducing the number and/or detail, while maintaining
their effectiveness.
Information dissemination:
December 2008, FFA Media Officer
PCU,
(a) the OFM media strategy should be implemented and
recruited and assisting
there should be a greater focus on dissemination of
FFA
information from the OFM Project by the PCU.
(b) the capacity of the OFM/PCU should be increased to
undertake these additional functions. The previously
recommended additional staff member may be charged
with these responsibilities.
.
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
5

---

Unit of measure
Key actions
Time Frame
Respon
Project Implementation
sible
units
Partnership arrangements:
For consideration during the
PCU,
The proposed future Project in capacity-building in OFM
design of Phase III, late 2008 -
involves partnerships with appropriate CROP agencies
2009
FFA,
(including Pacific Forum Secretariat, USP and SPREP),
SPC
regional NGOs, and international assistance agencies.
Cross-cutting issues:
By 3rd quarter 2010 & for
Gender, human rights and equity issues should be better
consideration during the design
promoted in the second term of the OFM Project, and be
of Phase III, late 2008 - 2009
a focus in the proposed future capacity-building project.
(start with identifying gender sensitive indicators in LFA)
Coordination mechanisms:
PCU
The performance of each NCC should be evaluated by
By RSC5 October 2009
the PCU and be reported to the Project Steering
Committee, and assistance in kind be given where
appropriate to assist in their operations. Where this is not
possible, alternative strategies should be considered for
national coordination
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
6

---

Unit of measure
Key actions
Time Frame
Respon
Future Directions
sible
units
New initiatives:
For consideration during the
PCU,
A new project should be developed for strategic,
design of Phase III, late
FFA,
long-term capacity-building in OFM in Pacific SIDS,
2008 ­ 2009
and to specifically assist smaller Pacific SIDS and
SPC
those with governance problems.
Other opportunities:
UNDP, FFA, ...
Strengthened linkages to MDG targets and Pacific
Plan for mainstreaming of project priorities into
international, regional and national development
frameworks to ensure sustainability
Link to GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability (GPAS)
and Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) for more leverage
and impact (e.g. Western Pacific and East Asia
Fisheries Management Project (WPEA))
Private sector engagement ­ supply-chain analysis,
certification schemes, etc. (e.g. collaboration with
WalMart exists in the Eastern Pacific)
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
7

---

Unit of measure
Adaptive Management
GEF and UNDP support an approach to project
management whereby specific project components
can be adapted or modified in response to new or
changing circumstances. (e.g. Seamount Research)
Understanding the linkages and feed-back
mechanisms between the Logframe, the Results
Measurement Framework, the Risk Management
Strategy and Reporting facilitates project
implementation.
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
8

---

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Unit of measure
Results Measure Framework
Risk Management Strategy
Impact
Progress
Current
Risk
Indicators
Indicators
Situation
Ratings
Monitoring Activities
Risk Mitigation Activities
Project
Planning
Matrix
(Logframe)
Annual Work plans
& Budgets
Revisions
QORs
TPR
Mid-term Evaluation
PIR
Steering
Committee
Final Evaluation
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
9

---

Unit of measure
Adaptive Management
Management responses vary according to the project
and type of challenge faced and can include:
·
strengthened supervision,
·
adjustment to project strategy,
·
changes to implementation/execution arrangements,
·
changes in budget allocations,
·
temporary interruption,
·
termination.
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
10

---

Unit of measure
Adaptive Management
·
Adaptive Management focuses on "results":
- Progress towards impact indicators
- Achieving sustainable change
·
The "process" should change to take account of:
- New risks or change in the level of risk
- Monitoring results (current strategy not working)
- Changes in circumstances/situation
- New opportunities
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
11

---

Unit of measure
Adaptive Management ­ SMART INDICATORS
Specific: the system captures the essence of the desired result by clearly and
directly relating to achieving an objective, and only that objective.
Measurable: the monitoring system and its indicators are unambiguously
specified so that all parties agree on what the system covers and there
are practical ways to measure the indicators and results.
Achievable and Attributable: the system identifies what changes are
anticipated as a result of the intervention and whether the result(s) are
realistic. Attribution requires that changes in the targeted developmental
issue can be linked to the intervention.
Relevant and Realistic: the system establishes levels of performance that
are likely to be achieved in a practical manner, and that reflect the
expectations of stakeholders.
Time-bound, Timely, Trackable, and Targeted: the system allows progress
to be tracked in a cost-effective manner at desired frequency for a set
period, with clear identification of the particular stakeholder group to be
impacted by the project or program
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
12

---

Unit of measure
Adaptive Management
·
GEF projects tend to be overdesigned
·
Adaptive Management softens the common
criticism that Pro Doc are too rigid
·
Important to be aware of changes allowed and
levels of authority required for approval
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
13

---

Unit of measure
Adaptive Management
Modifications proposed requires different levels of approval
Modifications to the
Proposed by
Approved by
May lead to
FSP allowed
Goals, Objective
Project Management,
GEF SEC, GEF Council Revision of Pro Doc
Executing Agency
Outcomes
Project Management,
Steering Committee,
Revision of Pro Doc
Executing Agency
UNDP-GEF, reported to
GEF SEC
Outputs, Activities,
Project Management
UNDP CO, PCU
Revision of work plan,
Inputs
Budget revision without
increase in funds
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
14

---

Unit of measure
Adaptive Management
Thank you
*
Footnote
Source:
Source
15

---