UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Terminal Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project GF/3010-04-06
(GFL-2328-2732-4768) Promoting Ecosystem-Based
Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and Large Marine
Ecosystems (LMEs)
Lena Westlund
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
November 2008
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
i.
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the
medium-sized project (MSP) Promoting Ecosystem-based Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and
Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs). The Project had a total budget of US$1,735,000, whereof US$
995,000 constituted support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) trust fund. The duration was
initially planned to be three years, i.e. May 2004 April 2007, but was extended until June 2008. The
Project was implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), executed by the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and co-funded by GEF, IOC/UNESCO and three Project
partners. The LME Programme of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
ensured the technical and scientific coordination of the Project.
ii. The Project intended to support management of LMEs by producing solid scientific approaches for
fisheries/ecosystem management. The Project was also to support capacity building in this field in
developing countries and economies in transition and create a basis for increased collaboration and
information exchange between these countries and developed countries.
The Project consisted of three activity components:
1. Strengthening ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries conservation and sustainability by
building a network, conducting a survey on fisheries management needs and establishing a
database of experts. The Component was to be implemented by the World Council of Fisheries
Societies (WCFS) and the American Fisheries Society (AFS).
2. Gap-filling experience and practice for global fisheries carrying capacity by training
organised by the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Colombia, Canada (FC/UBC) in the
methods based on the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) approach. This Component also included a
workshop on particle size spectra as indicators of pollution by Princeton University, training on
GIS by the University of Rhode Island (URI) and a recalculation of FAO catch statistics for
LMEs.
3. Filling gaps in LME Nitrogen loading forecasts for 64 LME by provision of training and
workshops by Rutgers University on methods and application of a Nitrogen-based model to
forecast eutrophication conditions in the coastal waters of the of the world's 64 LMEs.
iii. The Project Document also included a fourth component for monitoring and evaluation (M&E).
iv. This TE was commissioned by UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit (EOU) in accordance with a
Project Document provision stating that an external evaluation should take place at the end of the
Project. It was carried out during a 25-day consultancy during the period May-July 2008 and the
methods used included a desk study of relevant documents, visits and discussions with the main
Project partners, telephone and email exchanges with persons involved in GEF/LME management
projects, and discussions with UNEP staff.
Main findings
Overall rating
v. The overall rating of the Project is Moderately satisfactory. This reasons for not rating the project
higher are mainly related to the weaknesses of Component 1, the as yet limited application of Project
results in LME fisheries/ecosystem management and the shortcomings with regard to Project M&E.
4

Project Design
vi. The project document and the logic framework (logframe) were found to be lacking in clarity. In
particular, the logframe indicators were poorly formulated and did not appear particularly useful for
progress monitoring purposes.
vii. The Project was clearly research oriented and although the practical application of modelling results
was referred to in Project objectives and outcomes and some of the contents of Component 1 most
likely intended for this purpose, Project activities and resources were not adequately included to
support this ambition. It would appear that the Project was based on an assumption that research
results could be transferred to the management and policy level through training and networking
while, in reality, more focused actions are needed for achieving this bridging between science and
fisheries/ecosystem management.
Project Performance
(i) Major Achievements and Strengths
viii.Overall, the project produced some unprecedented outputs with regard to information and modelling
results at an LME level, i.e. historical catch and landings data, EwE modelling and Nitrogen export
forecasts. This work was performed by first class institutions and the results are of high scientific
quality.
ix. Main Project strengths include the partnerships with academia in the relevant fields of expertise.
Project activities with regard to ecosystem modelling and eutrophication calculations and forecasts
were nested within wider global programmes in these areas. The cost-effectiveness and sustainability
of Project achievements benefited from this approach.
x. Another strength of the Project was the involvement of NOAA as the technical and scientific
coordinator. With this arrangement, the coherence and linking of Project results with other LME-
related initiatives could be ensured, and will continue in the future.
xi. At the time of the TE, the Project was in the process of publishing two high quality documents and
has significantly contributed to another key report. In this important area of outreach and awareness
creation, the Project is likely to create benefits for LME management in the near future when the
publications are disseminated.
(ii) Weaknesses
xii. The objectives and outcomes of the Project Document log frame have largely not yet been attained
with regard to direct application of the scientific approaches developed by the Project in
fisheries/ecosystem management by LME projects. However, the results produced by Components 2
and 3 may contribute to enhanced management decisions and actions in the future.
xiii.While the achievement with regard to Components 2 and 3 were excellent from an output point of
view, the results of Component 1 were disappointing. The network, database and survey results that
were supposed to serve as important inputs into a capacity building process in developing countries
failed to materialise at the expected level. This may have contributed to the low level of attainment of
Project objectives.
xiv.The Project lacked a dedicated management structure and did not have its own staff. Instead it
operated through contractual arrangements with key partner organisations and under the technical
coordination of NOAA. While this arrangement is common practice for this type of UNEP / GEF
project, and could be considered an advantage from a cost-effectiveness and sustainability point of
view, it could be speculated that if a more stringent project management system and a structured
5

M&E plan for the Project had been in place, corrective actions could maybe have been taken and
better results produced from Component 1.
xv. There was virtually no structured M&E system in place for the Project. PSC meetings were held and
NOAA discussed progress regularly with Project partners. However, these processes are poorly
documented; there are some minutes from PSC meetings but not from all and formal progress
reports are incomplete from the first years of the Project's operation.
xvi.With regard to stakeholder involvement and ownership, it would appear that while partner
organisations were directly involved and also influencing the focus of Project activities, individual
countries in LME project regions were generally not engaged and the Project was not country-driven
in this sense. The GEF/LME projects were generally consulted with regard to the selection of
participants for training courses and workshops but it seems that there was still often a disconnection
between the scientists trained and project managers. While the trainees were from the countries of the
relevant LME regions, the individuals were in many cases not involved in the LME projects or only
indirectly so.
xvii.
The role of UNEP in oversight and supervision of Project management and implementation was
generally weak although improved towards the end of the Project with efforts going into redesigning
progress report formats. Considering the design concerns and the lack of an M&E plan, it could have
been expected that UNEP as the implementing agency would have taken action to rectify these
shortcomings. It is however recognised that the change in staff in IOC/UNESCO and UNEP may
have disrupted Project monitoring processes.
Lessons and Recommendations
xviii.
The following lessons learnt are suggested to be taken into consideration in planning any
potential follow-up activities:
There is a need for appropriate project management and systematic M&E. The implementing
agency should ensure that there are clear management responsibilities and a monitoring
mechanism.
Systematic M&E procedures should be applied in the context measuring the success of training
events and workshops in relation to the objectives of such events by evaluating the use and
application of new skills by participants post-training.
When working with partners that are not familiar with international development procedures or
the planning and reporting requirements, the implementing agency has to provide sufficient
information to ensure that all involved understand and are able to adequately participate in
progress monitoring according to prevailing requirements.
There should be close collaboration with project managers and decision-makers at the country
level and in the field to ensure that they address perceived needs and that project results are taken
up and used in management.
Adequate resources and activities need to be included for "bridging the gap" between science and
practical implementation. It may not sufficient to only provide training but specific activities for
supporting local and regional implementation could be needed.
Disseminating results to a wider audience is important to create awareness and solicit support also
from secondary stakeholders and general public. It is also important to publish results in a format
and in a language that are suitable for the intended audience.
6

xix.The TE recommends the following activities for the current wrap-up phase of the Project:
The two technical reports, Models of the world's large marine ecosystems and Filling gaps in
LME Nitrogen Loadings Forecast for 64 LMEs, should be published also in French and possibly
Spanish.
All GEF/LME projects should be provided with detailed information on the Project results,
including lists of the participants in their regions that participated in the workshops and training
events. A workshop could also be organised to discuss the results of the Project and how these
can be taken further in practice.
The outcome of such a meeting that could possibly be held in conjunction with the annual IOC-
UNEP-IUCN-NOAA Consultative Meeting on LMEs could form the basis for a request for a
follow-up project focusing on bridging the science-management gap. It would appear important
to capitalise on the important results achieved at the output level by promoting their wider
application. It would be important that a follow-up project proposal be based on consultations
with GEF/LME projects with regard to their needs and desires in order to maximise the benefits
at the practical LME management level.
7

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFS
American Fisheries Society
GBC
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity
EOU
Evaluation and Oversight Unit (of UNEP)
EwE
Ecopath with Ecosim (food-web computer modelling approach)
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FC/UBC
Fisheries Center, University of British Colombia
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GFEMN
Global Fisheries Ecosystem Management Network
GIS
Geographic Information System
Global NEWS Global Nutrient Export from Water(S)heds
ICES
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
IOC
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (of UNESCO)
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
IW
International Waters
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
LOICZ
Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
Marine and Coastal Management / Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
MCM
(South Africa)
MSP
Medium Sized Project
MTI
Marine Trophic Index
N/A
Not applicable
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (of the USA)
PIR
Project Implementation Reports
PSC
Project Steering Committee
SCOR
Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (of US??)
TE
Terminal Evaluation
TOR
Terms of Reference
UBC
University of British Colombia
UCT
University of Cape Town
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
URI
University of Rhode Island
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
US-NSF
United States National Science Foundation
WCFS
World Council of Fisheries Societies
WFC
World Fish Congress
8

1
INTRODUCTION
This Report
1. This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Terminal Evaluation (TE) carried
out through a 25-day consultancy during the period May-July 20081 of the medium-sized project
(MSP) Promoting Ecosystem-based Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and Large Marine
Ecosystems (LMEs). The Project had a total budget of US$1,735,000, whereof US$ 995,000
constituted support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) trust fund. The Project was
implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), executed by the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and co-funded by GEF, IOC/UNESCO and three
main Project partners. The duration was initially planned to be three years, i.e. May 2004 April
2007, but the Project was extended due to implementation delays in the first year and finished on
30 June 20082.
The Project
Project Background and Rationale
2. The Project intended to support management of LMEs by producing solid scientific approaches
for fisheries/ecosystem management. The Project was also to support capacity building in this
field in developing countries and economies in transition and create a basis for increased
collaboration and information exchange between these countries and developed countries. The
Project aimed at increasing the capacity of and providing support to those involved in the
implementation of other GEF/LME projects; at the time of the approval of the Project, there were
some 70 countries engaged in such activities (see Box 1 for information on the current status of
GEF/LME projects).
Box 1: LMEs and GEF
The LME concept was first introduced by NOAA for American coastal areas and includes a five-
module (productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, socioeconomics and
governance) approach to ecosystem-based management. Since 1995, GEF in partnership with several
United Nations agencies has funded a total of sixteen LME projects in Africa, Asia, Latin America and
Eastern Europe: Agulhas Current LME, Baltic Sea LME, Bay of Bengal LME, Benguela Current
LME, Black Sea LME, Canary Current LME, Caribbean Sea LME, Guinea Current LME, Gulf of
Mexico LME, Gulf of Thailand LME, Humboldt Current LME, Indonesian Sea LME, Mediterranean
Sea LME, Somali Current LME, South China Sea LME and Yellow Sea LME. A total of some 2,500
participants and partners are currently involved and grants and investments funds, including co-
funding by participating countries and partners, amount to US$ 1.8 billion (total of projects ongoing in
2007).
3. The Project was conceived at the time leading up to the 4th World Fisheries Congress (4th WFC)
organised in May 2004 by the American Fisheries Society (AFS) in Vancouver, British Colombia
(Canada). It appears that the final Project concept constituted an amalgamation of several
initiatives including the support to the organisation of fisheries management training workshops to
be conducted in connection with the 4th WFC by AFS and the need to address gaps in information
1 Comments on the draft TE report were received after this period and the TE report was finalised in November
2008.
2 At the time of the TE interviews, a no-cost extension from March 2008 to June 2008 was in the process of
being negotiated.

and scientific approaches for LME fisheries/ecosystem management. NOAA played a key role in
identifying gaps, as well as in contacting partners, and discussing and negotiating the Project with
GEF.
4. While perhaps self-evident, it should be pointed out that the Project rationale is based on the
underlying assumption that the LME concept is the preferred approach to fisheries and marine
ecosystem management (in coastal / continental shelf areas). UNEP (Regional Seas Programme)
and GEF, among others, have adopted the concept and actively promote LMEs as the geographic
unit for collaborative and interdisciplinary management of living marine resources.
Relevance of Project Contents
5. The need for ecosystem-based approaches is reaching a point of general acceptance by those
involved in fisheries and their management, and calls for ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries
management have increased noticeably during the last decade. However, there is a need to develop
scientific approaches that allow for the implementation of sound management. The Project
intended to fill some of these gaps in the context of fisheries/ecosystem LME management.
6. The Project is in line with GEF Operational Program 10 Global Support Component and
International Waters (IW) Strategic Priority Number 2 (Targeted Learning). As mentioned in Box
1, GEF included LMEs, since 1995, as important geographic units for introducing developing
countries to innovative strategies for ecosystem-based assessment and management practices
leading to more sustainable management of fisheries and other marine resources.
7. The project contents are also consistent with the policies and role of UNEP in conservation and
maintenance of biodiversity, and relevant to the UNEP Regional Seas Programme.
Project Objectives, Expected Outcomes and Activities
8. The general objective of the Project as spelled out in the Project Document was to "support
participation in the [4th World Fisheries] Congress [May 2004 in Vancouver, Canada] and its
courses, workshops, and the follow-on networking of fisheries professionals from countries
participating in the development and implementation of GEF/LME projects and other developing
countries and countries with economies in transition.
The project will serve to strengthen
capacity for improving fisheries management at local, provincial and national levels through a
holistic approach by facilitating sharing and applying usable knowledge and successful practices
from the Congress and follow-on workshops and networking".
9. The Project logical framework (log frame)3 also included four subordinate objectives and five
outcomes focusing on improved ecosystem-based fisheries management in GEF/LME project
areas through increased capacity, established collaborative networks, and application of Ecopath
with Ecosim (EwE) ecosystem modelling approach, nutrient forecast and particle-size spectra
models as well as GIS applications (presented in Table 10 and Table 11 in ANNEX 9).
10. The Project activities were organised in four components (see also Table 12 in ANNEX 9):
Component 1: Strengthening Ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries conservation and
sustainability
Within this component the Project was to assemble information on management practices based
on sound science in fisheries management with an emphasis on the ecosystem and disseminate
such practices widely among fisheries scientists, managers, extension professionals, and policy
makers in developing countries. Workshops and seminars on fisheries management were to be
organized by WCFS/AFS in connection with the 4th World Fisheries Congress (Component 1a)
and a database and a network were to be established (Components 1b and 1d). A survey on the
needs of developing countries with regard to scientific approaches to fisheries management was to
be carried out (Component 1c) and it was also planned that WCFS/AFS would be responsible for
3 The `Objectives and activities' section of the Project Document sets out a logical hierarchy of objectives
outcomes, and activities that are referred to in this report as the Project `logframe'.
10

Project management, i.e. the Project Steering Committee (PSC) meetings and Secretariat
(Component 1e) (see alsoANNEX 5 and ANNEX 7).
Component 2: Gap-filling experience and practice for global fisheries carrying capacity
Under this component, scientists from developing countries and economies in transition were to be
trained by the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Colombia (FC/UBC) in the methods
and applications of a multi-trophic level modelling approach to estimate the carrying capacity of
fisheries for the world's 64 LMEs based on the EwE approach (Component 2a) and in particle
size spectra as indicators of pollution (Component 2b) by Princeton University. Training on GIS
by the University of Rhode Island (URI) (Component 2c) and an update of catch data based on
FAO statistics and compilation of time series for LMEs (Component 2d) were also included here
(see alsoANNEX 6 and ANNEX 7.
Component 3: Filling gaps in LME Nitrogen loading forecasts for 64 LME
Under this component, scientists from developing countries and economies in transition were to be
trained by Rutgers University in collaboration with the IOC/UNESCO and the Global NEWS4
task force in the methods and application of a Nitrogen-based model to forecast eutrophication
conditions in the coastal waters of the of the world's 64 LMEs. Two workshops based on a new
and innovative Nitrogen export model, developed within the framework of the Global NEWS
model, as well as the establishment of an eutrophication network, were planned (see also ANNEX
8).
Component 4: M&E
The PSC was to oversee the implementation of the project and regularly meet to review progress.
M&E indicators were to be established and used to guide implementation of the project and
evaluate its success on an ongoing basis.
Executing Arrangements
11. The Project was implemented by UNEP and executed by IOC/UNESCO. NOAA played an
important role in coordinating Project activities and providing scientific and technical support; in
many respects, NOAA assumed the role of Project manager (see also section on Implementation
Approach and ANNEX 7) with strong administrative support from IOC/UNESCO.
12. A total of six additional partners were involved in carrying out Project activities:
Fisheries Centre of the University of British Colombia (FC/UBC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, LME Programme (NOAA)
Princeton University
Rutgers University
University of Rhode Island (URI)
World Council of Fisheries Societies (WCFS)/American Fisheries Society (AFS)
All of these except NOAA had contractual arrangements with the Project through IOC/UNESCO.
FC/UBC, NOAA and WCFS/AFS also contributed co-funding mainly through in kind
contributions to the Project.
13. The Project Document suggested that the PSC consist of representatives from GEF, UNEP,
NOAA, WCFS/AFS and IOC/UNESCO, as well as possibly a sociologist with expertise in
fisheries management in developing countries, someone with knowledge of the developing
country policy context and representatives of the fisheries industry in developing countries (small
and large-scale sectors). The PSC was to approve work plans and budgets, and provide general
oversight of Project implementation. Quarterly progress reports were to be submitted to the PSC,
4 Global Nutrient Export from Water(S)heds (see http://marine.rutgers.edu/globalnews/).
11

and it would meet once a year. In reality, the PSC consisted of GEF, UNEP and the main Project
Partners. Meetings were held somewhat irregularly and some were telephone meetings from which
no minutes were prepared (see the section on Assessment Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
below).
Budget and Project Duration
14. The total project budget, as stipulated in the Project Document, amounted to US$ 1,735,000
including:
GEF funding: US$ 995,000
Co-financing AFS: US$ 300,000
Co-financing IOC/UNESCO: US$ 140,000
Co-financing NOAA: US$ 200,000
Co-financing FC/UBC: US$ 100 000
The initial budget for each Project component was as follows:
Component 1: US$ 650,500 (GEF US$ 350,500; co-financing US$ 300,000)
Component 2: US$ 570,000 (GEF US$ 370,000; co-financing US$ 200,000)
Component 3: US$ 470,000 (GEF US$ 230,000; co-financing US$ 240,000)
Component 4: US$ 44,500 (GEF US$ 44,500)
Some changes in co-funding levels and by components took place during implementation (see the
section on Financial Planning below and ANNEXES 10 and 11).
15. The project duration was initially foreseen to be three years; starting in May 2004 and ending in
April 2007. However, due to delays experienced at the beginning of the project (see paragraph 82),
the Project was extended with a final no-cost extension until June 2008 formally approved at the
time of the TE.
Terms of Reference of the TE
16. This TE was commissioned by UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit (EOU) in accordance with
GEF M&E requirements, noted in the project document, that an external evaluation should take
place at the end of the Project. The terms of reference (TOR) of the TE were based on standard
UNEP and GEF formats.
17. The objective of the TE was to examine the extent and magnitude of any Project impacts to date
and determine the likelihood of future impacts. The TE evaluator was also asked to assess Project
performance and the implementation of planned Project activities and planned outputs against
actual results. In line with standard UNEP GEF evaluation TORs, a number of specific areas to be
rated by the TE with regard to success of Project implementation were listed, i.e.:
A. Attainment of objectives and planned results
B. Sustainability
C. Achievement of outputs and activities
D. Catalytic role
E. Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems
F. Preparation and readiness
G. Country ownership /driveness
H. Stakeholder participation / public awareness
12

I. Financial planning
J. Implementation approach
K. UNEP supervision and backstopping
Chapter 2, MAIN FINDINGS, of this report is structured according to these assessment areas.
18. The TE terms of reference also specified the following main questions for the TE evaluator to
address:
Did the Project help to improve understanding of [developing] country fisheries scientists,
managers, extension professionals and policy makers in scientific, ecosystem-based
approaches to fisheries management and fishery assessments that include food web and
nutrient effects?
Has the consultative and collaborative network between developed and developing countries
fisheries experts sharing lessons on fisheries management within the context of the ecosystem
approach targeted the relevant key groups and organisations, and has this resulted in the
adoption of new fisheries management measures?
Have the results of the ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling been adopted in at least 10
countries involved in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
Have the nutrient forecast models been successfully adopted in at least 10 countries involved
in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
To what extent did the project outputs produced have the weight of scientific authority and
credibility necessary to influence policy makers and other key audiences?
The full TOR of the TE is attached in ANNEX 1.
Methods
19. The TE was carried out during a total period of 25 days in May-July 2008. The main methods used
included:
Desk study of relevant project documents and reports, including the Project Document,
formal UNEP and GEF progress reports, progress and final reports on the different Project
components, the Project budget and financial reports, and partner contracts.
Brief review of other relevant literature regarding the main scientific and technical
concepts dealt with by the Project.
Visits to and discussions with the main Project partners, i.e. FC/UBC (British Colombia
Canada), IOC/UNESCO (Paris France), NOAA (Rhode Island USA), Rutgers
University (New Jersey USA) and WCFS/AFS (Maryland USA).
Telephone interviews and email exchange with a selected number of LME Project
Managers5 and email correspondence with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) Fisheries Department.
The TE evaluator also met with the UNEP Task Manager (in Athens, Greece) and spoke
to the UNEP Senior Programme Officer for International Waters on the phone (in Nairobi,
Kenya).
A list of persons interviewed is included in ANNEX 2, a list of progress reports in ANNEX 3 and
the TE time line and itinerary in ANNEX 4. Summaries of the findings of the visits to
WCFS/AFS, FC/UBC, NOAA and Rutgers are attached in ANNEXES 5-8. Partner representatives
5 A total of six persons were contacted (representing Baltic Sea LME, Benguela Current LME, Guinea Current
LME, South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand LME and Yellow Sea LME) but interviews/email exchanges could only
be held with three (see ANNEX 2).
13

were given the opportunity to comment on these summaries (by email correspondence) before
being including in this report.
Limitations of the TE and comments on the TOR
20. The TE evaluator found that the Project Document was not as clear and concise as it should have
been; it lacked in consistency and the logical framework (log frame) supposed to explain
objectives, outcomes and activities, and provide performance indicators did not appear to have
been developed according to the logic that generally governs this type of planning tool. There also
seemed to be a certain degree of inconsistency between the Project Document and what had been
decided and agreed among partners that the Project would do. There was no formal and properly
structured monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system in place and several aspects of the Project
implementation were poorly documented. These issues are further discussed in the sections
Project Design and Project Performance below (paragraphs 25-32 and 65-72) with key aspects in
the context of the TE highlighted here.
21. Due to the weakness of the Project Document in general, and of the M&E system and performance
indicators in particular, the evaluation work was made somewhat difficult. Generally, an
evaluation would be clearly guided by a project's performance indicators and documentation
available in the form of regular progress reports, PSC meeting minutes, etc. In this case, the TE
evaluator found that the documentation did not by any means "tell the whole story" and the visits
and interviews proved fundamental for understanding the Project. While it could be argued that
this is normal visits and interviews generally play important roles in evaluations it also
appeared that the design, including the objectives of the Project, differed quite significantly
between the Project Document and the perception transpiring from the interviews.
22. It appears that the Project Document puts more emphasis on capacity building and creating a
direct impact at the level of actual management of LMEs while those involved in the Project have
focused mainly on producing good research results suitable for being used in LME management
but not necessarily during the duration of the Project. The Project Document is also structured and
formulated in a way that gives the impression that Component 1, implemented by AFS, is a central
part of the Project while in reality more emphasis was given to Components 2 and 3 by Project
partners. The apparent importance of Component 1 in the Project Document is illustrated by the
fact that the component is allocated a larger share of the total Project budget than the other two
components and that it includes the establishment of a Project Secretariat. The Project Document
possibly also gives the impression that the coordination and networking activities foreseen under
Component 1 were expected to play a more prominent role in disseminating Project results and
contribute to Project outcomes and objectives but in practice this did not happen; the main focus
of the Project moved to Components 2 and 3, after the 4th World Fisheries Congress had taken
place, at the beginning of the Project.
23. The differences between the Project Document and the `real' Project as perceived by Project
partners gave rise to a dilemma in the context of the TE; if the Project Document was strictly used
as the basis for the evaluation, the results produced by the Project in the form of good research
would, to a certain degree, be overlooked since they had not yet been utilised at a larger and
practical scale. Hence, the TE evaluator attempted to reflect a balanced view both giving credit to
the results de facto achieved but also discussing the shortcomings of the Project, including those
that pertain to the design and contents of the Project Document. A lower relative importance has
also been accorded to Component 1 in the overall assessment of Project performance and results.
At the same time, it should be noted though that the TE evaluator feels the Project could have
benefited if it had been able to pay more attention to the impact related aspects of the Project
Document (outcomes and achievement of objectives) but this may not be a realistic request
considering the time and resources available (see also paragraph 28).
24. Moreover, considering the lack of a clear logical structure in the description of indicators at the
objective and outcome levels, the TE has used the "TE main questions" referred to in paragraph 18
above as the basis for its discussion on Attainment of objectives and planned results in Chapter 2
MAIN FINDINGS, in addition to the objective and outcome indicators. It should also be
14

mentioned that since the Project consisted of a number of relatively independent components, it
proved difficult to provide a generalised summary of achievements for the Project as a whole.
Hence, in Chapter 2, comments are provided by Project component as and when relevant. In
ANNEXES 5-8 more detailed accounts of the activities of the main Project partners have been
included (based on the visits made by the TE evaluator).
15

2
MAIN FINDINGS
Project Design
25. Before embarking on a discussion of the Project implementation success and ratings, the TE
evaluator feels it is necessary to comment on the shortcomings of the Project design and the
Project Document6. The weaknesses include:
Unclear log frame and poorly defined objectives.
Mismatch between the expected achievements and the planned and actual activities.
Differences between the documented Project plan (Project Document) and the apparent verbal
agreements on what the Project would do and achieve.
26. As mentioned in the section on Project Objectives, Expected Outcomes and Activities above, the
log frame contains one general objective, four sub-objectives and five outcomes. There are also
four Project activity components of which one is dedicated to Project management and M&E.
While the project document contains a fairly clear description of the activities to be carried out
according to the components cited in paragraph 10 above the log frame is lacking in clarity, and
the way objectives, outcomes and indicators are defined do not appear helpful as guidance for
Project implementation or for progress monitoring.
27. The way the objectives are worded make them read more like activities than objectives, e.g. to
support..., train... and strengthen...., and an overall development objective or goal is in fact
missing. The outcomes are more clearly formulated but it is not always obvious which outcome is
expected to contribute to the achievement of which objective. At the same time, there appear to be
overlaps and a lack of hierarchy between the objectives and the outcomes.
28. Still, the objective and outcome indicators give the impression that it was expected that the
research results produced by the Project would also be directly applied in LME
fisheries/ecosystem management by the end of the Project7. However, although some of the
contents of Component 1 may have been intended for dissemination of results at output level,
virtually no activities were included for supporting this bridging of science and
policy/management; the Project was largely a research project, aiming at producing good scientific
results. It may have been assumed that the creation of networks and training of local scientists
would ensure that the approaches developed were integrated into LME decision-making processes.
It would appear that this was an overoptimistic assumption, especially since the key network under
Component 1 did not materialise. Moreover, the trainees and workshop participants, selected
based on their scientific suitability and experience, were generally not closely enough involved in
LME management to directly influence the uptake of scientific findings.
29. Having said this, there is no doubt that the Project results could be used in LME management in
the future if the necessary follow-up activities and support are provided. It should also be pointed
out that the Project does not exist in a vacuum; in addition to the GEF/LME projects in different
parts of the world and the ongoing research and work programmes of the Project partners within
which most Project activities were nested, there are also other global, regional and local initiatives
relevant to applying an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. However, from a
Project design point of view, the problem lies in the fact that these aspects were not clearly stated
in the Project Document.
30. As already mentioned, the Project consisted of three activity components (excluding M&E). These
components, as well as some subcomponents, were implemented fairly independently from one
another by different Project partners (see also Stakeholder Participation / Public Awareness
6 This section partly overlaps with the contents under heading K below, Preparation and Readiness. See also the
section Limitations of the TE and comments on the TOR above.
7 For example, objective indicator 3 and outcome indicator 2 (see ANNEX 9) refer to the adoption and
application of new methodologies for "management actions for recovery of depleted fish stocks".
16

below). The NOAA LME Programme acted as the Project scientific and technical coordinator with
administrative support from IOC/UNESCO. However, the Project was not a clear entity as such
but more a cluster of independent although LME management-related research activities. The
important role of NOAA in this regard is not clearly apparent from the Project Document; in fact,
project management (PSC and Secretariat) is mentioned as a sub-component in connection with
WCFS/AFS activities, giving the impression that WCFS/AFS had initially been assigned to play a
coordinator role that did not materialise.
31. It was also noted that the Project Document hinted at the importance of the interdisciplinary
characteristics of the ecosystem approach to fisheries, e.g., in the description of the Project
rationale and when suggesting social scientists/experts as possible members of the PSC. However,
Project activities focused on biological aspects and did not attempt to address socioeconomic or
governance issues.
32. These weaknesses made it difficult to use the log frame and its indicators as the main tool for
evaluating Project implementation and assessing impact. Hence, as also mentioned in paragraph
23, in the following sections Project success is not only assessed against the written word (Project
Document objectives and outcomes) but also reviewed in the light of the apparent perceived
expected achievements, partly reflected in the planned Project activities. Moreover, comments in
this report often refer to particular components rather to the Project as a whole because of the way
activities were structured.
Project Performance
Introduction
33. When Project performance is reviewed against the Project Document objective and outcome
indicators, the success rate of the Project seems relatively low. The objective indicators focus on
adoption and application of Project results in a way that would appear beyond what could possibly
have been achieved, considering the planned activities and time frame of the Project. Also at the
outcome level, only a few of the indicators have been partly achieved; most Project achievements
remain at the output level. However, it is likely that many of the results will only have an impact
after the end of the Project when they have been disseminated. The importance of the outputs vis a
vis their future potential impact should hence not be underestimated. In the following, the terms
Project "achievement" or "result" are used to indicate an output/outcome, i.e. something that has
been produced by the Project and is likely to have a future impact, possibly subject to certain
conditions.
34. As explained in paragraph 23, the assessment of whether the Project attained its objectives and
planned results has also been considered in the context of the TE main questions given in the TE
TOR. Hence, the section on Attainment of Objectives and Planned Results below is structured
according to these questions. More information on performance of Project Components 1-3 is
given in ANNEXES 4-7.
A. Attainment of Objectives and Planned Results
(i) Effectiveness
QUESTION 1:
Did the Project help to improve understanding of [developing] country fisheries scientists, managers,
extension professionals and policy makers in scientific, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries
management and fishery assessments that include food web and nutrient effects?
35. The Component 1 activities of the Project (workshops at 4th World Fisheries Congress, survey of
the needs of developing countries, establishment of database and strengthening of expert network)
were not implemented as planned (see ANNEX 5). The outputs of these activities were intended to
17

contribute to the understanding of ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches on behalf of
developing country professionals but this did not happen to the extent expected.
36. Nevertheless, a total number of some 200 persons of which approximately 170 from developing
countries or economies of transition8 benefited directly from Project activities by participating in
training events and/or workshops9. The vast majority of these beneficiaries were scientists (rather
than managers and policy makers).
37. In this way, the Project contributed to building capacity, in particular with regard to ecosystem
modelling (using EwE Project Component 2a) and eutrophication modelling (Nitrogen export /
Global NEWS model: Component 3). Scientists from countries of eight different LMEs10
participated in the EwE or Nitrogen export modelling exercises, which represented the most
substantial training activities of the Project. It also has to be assumed that the participants in the 4th
World Fisheries Congress, its associated workshops (Component 1), the particle size spectra
workshop (Component 2b) and the GIS training (Component 2c) benefited from these activities.
While FC/UBC conducted evaluations immediately after training events exploring the extent to
which they had been appreciated by participants, giving very encouraging results, no other
systematic and documented review of the usefulness of Project training and workshops appears to
have taken place.
38. Many training participants have continued to work on ecosystem modelling and eutrophication
forecasting using their new skills acquired through the Project. It is however difficult to judge to
what extent the capacity building has had an impact on the understanding of ecosystem approaches
by developing country fisheries professionals at a larger scale. The impact remains generally at the
level of individual scientists although there are some important exceptions, e.g. the Benguela
Current LME project and Commission11 uses EwE as their main ecosystem modelling framework
and the countries of the Guinea Current LME project are also starting to make use of the EwE
model (see also Question 3 below).
39. In this context, it should be mentioned that it is only relatively recently that managers and
decision-makers both in developed and developing countries have recognised that it is
necessary to adopt ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management. In some respects, there
is still debate as to what exactly an ecosystem-based approach means. It should be noted that in
several of the countries targeted by the Project, fisheries management systems may not be well
developed in general and without this framework, the application of scientific ecosystem
approaches is difficult. The GEF/LME projects aim, among other things, at improving this
situation but it would appear clear that considerable effort and time will be needed to achieve a
wider application of the type of scientific approaches promoted by the Project (EwE, Nitrogen
export and particle size spectra) (see also the section on Sustainability below).
40. An important contribution by the Project to the understanding and advancement of ecosystem-
based fisheries management in LMEs is the creation of a number of basic models and information
on all of the world's 64 LMEs, constituting tools that can be used by individual LMEs to build
further work on, or for comparing the situation between, different LMEs across the globe. These
results include EwE models, Nitrogen export models and forecasts, and historical catch statistics
for all LMEs. A complete list of Project outputs is included in section Achievement of Outputs and
Activities below (see Table 1). However, the publications among these outputs are currently in the
process of being published and disseminated and their wider impact is hence still difficult to
judge.
8 Economies in transition here include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
9 See ANNEXES 4-7 and the section on Achievement of Outputs and Activities below for more information on
the various training events and workshops. Lists of participants are included in ANNEX 10.
10 Baltic Sea, Bay of Bengal, Benguela Current, Guinea Current, Gulf of Mexico, Humboldt Current, South
China Sea and Yellow Sea.
11 An Interim Agreement establishing the Benguela Current Commission was signed by South Africa and
Namibia in August 2006 and by Angola in January 2007. The Commission replaces the Benguela Current LME
project that came to an end earlier this year (2008).
18

QUESTION 2:
Has the consultative and collaborative network between developed and developing countries fisheries
experts sharing lessons on fisheries management within the context of the ecosystem approach
targeted the relevant key groups and organisations, and has this resulted in the adoption of new
fisheries management measures?
41. Although a network the Global Fisheries Ecosystem Management Network (GFEMN) was
created as planned in conjunction with the 4th World Fisheries Congress under Component 1, it has
not played the role and functioned as foreseen. At the time of the TE, the GFEMN network of
some 100 individuals from developing countries constituted a subgroup within the AFS general
membership and was used as a mailing list by AFS for disseminating information12. It is possible
that the Project targeted the wrong individuals for the network members are scientists, some
having a particular interest in LMEs, others not and it could also be speculated that the purpose
and focus of the network was not specific enough to be attractive to scientists.
42. Within the context of the EwE activities, (Component 2a), the creation of a network was not
explicitly aimed at. However, FC/UBC estimates that, after a training course13, about of a third of
the trainees remain in contact with them on EwE modelling related issues and there is an informal
network of sorts among EwE users linked through FC/UBC; there are over 5,000 registered users
of EwE in over 160 countries in the world. However, with the exception of the examples
mentioned in paragraph 45 below, this has not yet resulted in the adoption of new fisheries
management measures.
43. With regard to the Nitrogen export modelling (Component 3), a strong network the IOC
Eutrophication Network evolved among the eleven workshops and training participants.
However, while the network and its contacts with the Global NEWS task force constitute
increased effective collaboration between developed and developing country scientists, this has
not led to an adoption of new fisheries management measures. It should also be noted that
Nitrogen export is not a fisheries model or approach as such, and that additional analyses are
needed to understand the potential effect on fish populations (e.g. in the context of ecosystem
modelling). This was outside the scope of the Project.
44. The other two workshop activities the particle size spectra workshop (Component 2b) and the
GIS training (Component 2c) did not lead to any particular further collaboration between
developed and developing countries fisheries experts. The outcome of the particle size spectra
exercise is currently being assessed by NOAA with regard to its potential usefulness in the context
of LME management.
QUESTION 3:
Have the results of the ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling [Project Component 2a] been
adopted in at least 10 countries involved in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
45. EwE is likely to be used by scientists being involved, directly or indirectly, in GEF/LME projects
or working in countries implementing GEF/LME projects, possibly as a preferred framework for
ecosystem modelling, but the impact at management and policy level is still limited. While there
are several examples of good EwE modelling work at the research level, there are fewer examples
of direct application of EwE in decision-making at the fisheries management and policy level. As
mentioned in paragraph 38 above, the countries of the Guinea Current LME project are taking a
12 In comments on the draft TE report, NOAA has indicated that the GFEMN network and is being reactivated
by including FAS and WCFS membership in the LME portal developed by Rhode Island University for NOAA
(see ANNEX 7).
13 FC/UBC conducts EwE training courses and workshops also independently of the Project (see further the
sections on Sustainability and Catalytic Role below).
19

keen interest in the approach and it is also known to be used to varying extents and in different
forms in fisheries management in14:
Thailand (fisheries management in the Gulf of Thailand)
Benguela LME (for management of certain segments, including small-pelagics)
Namibia (impact of proposed fisheries interventions).
It is however not possible to attribute these applications solely to the UNEP/GEF Project; they
represent an outcome that includes the long-term work by FC/UBC (and others) on ecosystem
modelling (see also paragraph 51).
QUESTION 4:
Have the nutrient forecast models [Project Component 3] been successfully adopted in at least 10
countries involved in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
46. Scientists in nine countries are likely to have a good understanding of the issue and the forecast
model but it is not known if this has influenced GEF/LME project implementation. Further
activities and support focusing on linking the scientific results with management decisions are
likely to be needed for this to happen (and such follow-up activities are currently being discussed
by Rutgers and GEF within the context of a new project).
QUESTION 5:
To what extent did the project outputs produced have the weight of scientific authority and credibility
necessary to influence policy makers and other key audiences?
47. The results of the Project research activities in particular from the work on EwE and Nitrogen
export are most certainly of excellent scientific quality and would appear to have a great
potential of influencing policy and management decisions in the future. EwE is included as one of
the models reviewed in FAO's Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries15 on ecosystem
modelling and is also widely cited in peer reviewed literature16. The Global NEWS task force, by
which the Project Nitrogen export model was realised, published its first articles in late 2005 and
early 2006 as a special collection of the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles (GBC).
Subsequently, a number of articles have been published or are in the process of being published by
the task force members17. These successes are however related to a number of factors outside the
scope and control of this Project and it should be recognised that the Project activities and results
formed part of larger already existing research initiatives (see also the section on Sustainability
below as well as ANNEX 6 and ANNEX 8).
(ii) Relevance
48. In the section Relevance of Project Contents above, the importance of the Project in a wider
international context was briefly referred to. Reviewing the results that the Project has achieved, it
appears clear that it has contributed to the scientific knowledge and the development of technical
approaches that will be important for guiding management decisions in the future with regard to
ecosystem-based fisheries management in LMEs. This would be in line with the overall
14 Geographical areas outside the scope of the Project where the approach is also used for various fisheries
management processes include the Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, Great
Barrier Reef (Australia) and Ortobello lagoon (Italy).
15 FAO. Fisheries management. 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. 2.1 Best practices in ecosystem
modelling for informing an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 2, Add. 1. Rome, FAO. 2008. 78p.
16 See footnote 33 and text in ANNEX 6.
17
Five
articles
are
listed
on
the
Global
NEWS
webpage
(see
http://marine.rutgers.edu/globalnews/documents.htm).
20

approaches and principles agreed on in international collaboration such as the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD).
(iii) Efficiency
49. The cost-effectiveness with which the Project results were produced varied across components.
Component 1 appears to have been less cost-effective; the currently available database (a list of
names and contact details of some 100 GFEMN members), website and survey results seem in fact
preciously little considering the amount of funds that were used. However, it should be noted that
work may have been carried out that is not longer documented, e.g. originally a more extensive
website and database were available but because of limited interest from GFEMN members and
technical problems, the upkeep was discontinued.
50. The funding of workshops and training including for the participants in the 4th World Fisheries
Congress under Component 1 appears generally to have been money well spent. In several cases,
travel costs were co-funded by participants' projects or institutions. The GIS workshop
(Component 2c) was organised in conjunction with an IW Learn workshop on "Sustainability of
LMEs: Bridging the governance and socioeconomic gap". Such arrangements allowed for more
cost-effective implementation.
51. The development and application of EwE and its associated model components have constituted
an important part of FC/UBC's work programme for almost a decade through the implementation
of the Sea around Us project. The implementation of the Project's EwE activities (Component 2a)
was nested within the structure of the `Sea Around Us' project and contributed additional support
for workshops and model development with particular emphasis on developing countries and
LMEs. The total financial contribution by the Project constituted only a few percent of the total
`Sea Around Us' project during its implementation period but thanks to synergy effects, the results
could be more important than the level of funding may suggest. Component 2a of the Project
would hence appear to have been implemented in a truly cost-effective manner, if accepting the
Project outcomes as described above (see section Attainment of Objectives and Planned Results)
with limited practical application so far.
52. Likewise, the Project activities on eutrophication modelling were closely related to the work of the
Global NEWS task force, the new Nitrogen export model used being part of the overall Global
NEWS model framework. A considerable amount of co-funding in the form of in-kind time
contributions most probably more than that formally accounted for by Rutgers University staff
and other Global NEWS task force members was provided to the Project. As for the EwE work of
Component 2a, if accepting that Project results have not yet been applied to the extent alluded to
in the Project Document, the implementation of Project Component 3 would appear to have been
exceptionally cost-effective.
53. The role NOAA played as the technical and scientific coordinator of the Project is considered
extremely important. The Project as a whole was in many ways integrated into the overall NOAA
LME programme and in this way connected to a number of other activities, globally and in
GEF/LME projects. NOAA played an important role in pulling Project results together and was
instrumental in preparing documents for publication (see also paragraph 40, Table 1 and ANNEX
7). This integration of Project activities into the larger GEF/LME project context is likely to have
created important synergy effects also for the future and hence have contributed to cost-
effectiveness.
B. Sustainability
54. As in the case of cost-effectiveness, discussed above, the level of sustainability of Project results
differ between components. Thanks to the general integration of Project activities into ongoing
work programmes of the Project partners, the results from Components 2a (EwE) and 3 (Nitrogen
21

export) are likely to be good, while the limited outputs generated under Component 1 are probably
less so.
55. The GFEMN, created under Component 1, does not appear to be sustainable. The current GFEMN
members may however continue to be members of AFS, or of one of the national societies of the
WCFS. The Project is also likely to have contributed to making AFS more open to and interested
in developing country members and to making AFS more known in these countries, which could
lead to increased future exchanges between scientists in developing and developed countries (see
also remark in footnote 12).
56. The more important Project results will be disseminated through UNEP and IOC/UNESCO
publications (see also paragraph 60 and Table 1) as well as probably also through other
publications by Project partners and this may lead to an uptake by interested parties, e.g.
GEF/LME projects, contributing to sustainability. However, there will be a need for continued
financial support if Project results are going to become sustainable. Part of this financial support
exists within the main partner organisations and the work on the EwE and Global NEWS models
will also continue after the Project but with less focus on developing countries and LMEs. Since
countries have not been directly involved as stakeholders in the Project (see also the section on
Country ownership / driveness below), funding is likely to have to come from external sources
such as GEF. Activities could partly be sustained from within existing GEF/LME projects but
more concerted efforts could be needed in order to bring the modelling work forward and to
promote the application of the results at the decision making and policy levels. It is the
understanding of the TE evaluator that proposals for follow-up activities are, in some cases,
already being discussed.
57. Socio-political support is a key factor as to whether the approaches developed by the Project will
be adopted and applied. While both the EwE model and the Global NEWS framework are widely
accepted and appreciated within the academic world, there are also other similar approaches
available and the merits of the Project chosen approaches need to be communicated to decision
makers. An assumption underlying this is that ecosystem-based fisheries management within an
LME context continues to gain in acceptance among politicians and fisheries managers.
58. All fisheries management approaches are dependent on adequate institutional frameworks and
good governance for successful outcomes. The existence of the GEF/LME projects as the main
organisational unit for implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management in many coastal areas
is an important advantage with regard to the sustainability of Project results. Some of the LME
projects are in the process of achieving more permanent structures, e.g. the Benguela Current
Commission is replacing the Benguela Current LME project this year and the Guinea Current
LME is about to attain a similar status18. However, referring to the question of financial resources
commented on above, also in these cases continued funding will be essential for building
sustainability and this is likely to be the case in most regions of developing countries. Another
institutional challenge, mentioned above in paragraph 39, is the lack of fisheries management
capacity in many developing countries. The application of scientific approaches to
fisheries/ecosystem management will require human and institutional resources that may not be
available at present and a long-term commitment for supporting capacity building will be required.
C. Achievement of Outputs and Activities
59. As already mentioned above, while the Project may not have generated all the outcomes stated in
the Project Document, it did produce a number of important outputs with potential to generate
sustainable impacts in the future. Reviewing the planned contents of Components 1-3 (see
ANNEX 9), it can be noted that all activities were implemented with the exceptions of the
weaknesses concerning Component 1 already referred to above (see ANNEX 5 for more details)
and in relation to component indicators 2b and 3b regarding the direct application of the EwE and
Nitrogen export modelling approaches in GEF/LME projects.
18 See also brief comments with regard to institutional context in paragraph 114.
22

60. Instead, some additional outputs were produced, not mentioned in the Project Document. The
more important of these include the publication of two technical reports on the EwE modelling in
63 LMEs and on the Nitrogen export modelling, as well as inputs into a publication in the UNEP
Regional Sea Studies and Reports: UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report A perspective on
changing conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas (see Box 2). The Project also provided
inputs, to different degrees, to other publications and articles19. Moreover, work has been carried
out to develop a web portal facilitating access to LME resources and information. Under
Component 1, the introduction of AFS membership for developing country national at a symbolic
fee rate and free access to AFS publications for selected libraries in Senegal and Indonesia are
worth mentioning.
Table 1 gives a summary list of all main Project outputs by partner and component and more
details are available in ANNEXES 5-8. The lists of participants from all the training events and
workshops are included in ANNEX 10.
61. Generally, the Project outputs of Components 2 and 3 were of excellent quality. EwE is widely
known and carries substantial scientific authority and credibility among scientists; it is one of the
major approaches for ecosystem modelling. The Nitrogen export / Global NEWS modelling work
also appears to have an excellent international reputation. Both these could influence policy and
decision makers in the future (see also paragraph 47).
Table 1: Summary list of Project outputs by partner and component
Output
Main
partner(s)
Special developing country membership in AFS established through the Global
AFS/WCFS
Fisheries Ecosystem Management Network (GFEMN) (107 members)
(component 1)
Access to AFS journals to selected libraries in Indonesia and Senegal established
AFS/WCFS
(component 1)
Developing country nationals AFS membership at nominal fee introduced
AFS/WCFS
(component 1)
33 participants to 4th World Fisheries Congress and related workshops supported
AFS/WCFS
(component 1)
Carrying capacity Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) models for 63 LMEs
FC/UBC
developed, and
(component 2a)
Training of 110 scientists in EwE modelling carried out
Web-based database making the EwE LME models available on-line
IOC/UNESCO technical report on the LME models and analyses: Models
of the world's large marine ecosystems to be published
FAO catch statistics updates for 64 LMES, including:
FC/UBC
54 years of catch statistics (reported landings by species) organised by
(component 2d)
19 Work mentioned to the TE evaluator by Project partners included:
Stock, C.AS, Powell, T.M and Levin, S.A. 2008 in press. Bottomup and topdown forcing in a simple size-
structured plankton dynamics model. Journal of Marine Systems.19pp.
Sherman, K. and Duda, A. 2007. A Global Approach for Recovery and Sustainability of Fisheries in Large
Marine Ecosystems. Fisheries Volume 32 No 7, July 2007.
In addition, a second related article published in PICES for the Asia-Pacific Region (January 2008) and
manuscripts being prepared by Rutgers were also referred to. However, it should be noted that the TE evaluator
only had access to the main parts of the draft UNEP report and the Stock et al article and has hence not been in a
position to judge the links between the work and the Project in detail.
23

half-degree lat.-long cells (biomass, volume)
54 years of catch statistics (reported landings by species) organised by
half-degree lat.-long cells (value)
Foot print analysis carried out: primary production required to sustain
fisheries within LMEs
Marine trophic index (MTI) and fishing in balance index (FIB) calculated
Stock-catch status plots by LME produced
Catch graphs for Arctic LMEs not fully reported on in FAO statistical area
No 18 developed
Land-based nutrient loading to LMEs: loadings quantified and main sources
Rutgers
identified by LME, and
(component 3)
11 scientists trained in Global NEWS nitrogen export model
IOC/UNESCO technical report on the LME models and analyses: Filling
gaps in LME Nitrogen Loadings Forecast for 64 LMEs to be published
Particle size spectra model potentially suitable for LME assessments developed
Princeton
(workshop with 34 participants whereof 8 from developing country LMEs)
(component 2b)
GIS training carried out for 18 participants, including 11 from LMEs
URI
(component 2c)
LME web portal developed including future links with AFS and WCFS
URI/NOAA
membership.
(component 2c)
Contributions (including catch statistics update and Nitrogen export calculations)
FC/UBC,
to the UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report A perspective on changing
Rutgers and
conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas (UNEP Regional Seas Studies
NOAA
and Reports No 182) to be published (see Box 2).
(components 2d
and 3)
Box 2: UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs
of the World's Regional Seas
The results of the GEF/LME projects (see Box 1) together with LME research have been reviewed in a
number of regional and global meetings over the years. Fourteen volumes have been published (by
NOAA) on the status of and issues in LMEs across the world. These results have now been
summarised and consolidated together with research outputs from the Project and other activities and
will be published in a UNEP Regional Seas report: UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report A
perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas. The report provides the
following information on LMEs:
-
Chlorophyll and primary production
-
Fish and fisheries, based on a 50 year time series of landings, trophic levels of catch and value
of catches
-
Changing conditions affecting pollution and the general health of LMEs
-
Profiles of socioeconomic conditions related to marine resource variability in abundance and
availability
-
Descriptions of governance and management regimes operating in each of the LMEs
The document provides new insights and information on LMEs adjacent to developing countries and
economics in transition in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. It also contains summary
reports on Fish and Fisheries Diagnoses, the Status of Global Nutrient Over-enrichment and the Effect
of Global Climate Warming on Fisheries Biomass Yield.
Source: NOAA LME Programme
24

D. Catalytic Role
62. The Project was designed to play a catalytic role and for supporting GEF/LME projects in the
development and implementation of scientifically sound approaches to ecosystem-based fisheries
management. Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, the database and network activities of
Component 1 did not produce the results hoped for and the results of the other components have
not yet been brought into wider application. Nevertheless, the catalytic potential of the main
Project outputs remain and would appear likely to be realised in the future. The TE evaluator was
also informed by NOAA that the outputs already contribute positively to the GEF IW portfolio,
the proposed UN Global Marine Assessment, the Assessment of Assessment process and the
Transboundary International Waters Assessment although this information was not substantiated
by written evidence.
63. The Project made use of existing approaches and structures, developing and adapting them to the
needs of GEF/LME projects. The EwE, Nitrogen export and particle size spectra modelling
approaches existed already but had generally not been adapted to developing countries and the
LME management context. The Project worked more closely with some GEF/LME projects
through the participation of individuals from LME regions but also developed basic models and
information for all 64 LMEs in the world. As mentioned in paragraph 40 above, these Project
results constitute tools that can be used for further work by individual LMEs or as a basis for
global analyses and studies.
64. In order to capitalise on the catalytic potential of Project outputs, these in particular the UNEP
and IOC/UNESCO publications (see paragraph 60) need to be disseminated as widely as
possible to the key target audience of policy and decision-makers and managers involved in or
having an influence on ecosystem, fisheries and LME management and be supported by outreach
activities. Follow-up activities, both with regard to replication (additional training and workshops)
and more direct support to their application at the LME level would also be important.
E. Assessment Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
65. The Project Document included some provisions for M&E and Component 4 was defined for this
purpose, stating the following:
"The Steering Committee will oversee the implementation of the project and will regularly meet to
review progress. Monitoring and evaluation indicators will be established and used to guide
implementation of the project and evaluate its success. Quarterly progress reports will be
provided to the Project Steering Committee. Final evaluation of the project carried out
independently and under the oversight of UNEP's Evaluation and Oversight Unit. Final report
will be submitted to GEF."
Page 20 of the Project Document gives further guidance for how to establish an M&E plan
including indicators and procedures for monitoring.
66. While PSC meetings did take place although not always in a regular and systematic manner
and the Project is now subject to a final evaluation, a systematic approach to M&E was lacking;
the detailed M&E plan as specified in the Project Document did not materialise and funds initially
made available for M&E were reallocated to other activities (except for the current TE). During
the first part of the Project, progress reports were not submitted in a systematic manner. The
shortcomings of the Project Document logframe and indicators have already been mentioned (see
the section on Project Design above).
67. At the beginning of the Project, PSC meetings were organised by AFS and several meetings were
held, some of which took place over the phone. Later on in the Project, fewer meetings appear to
have been held; the last one took place in January 2008. Still, the frequency of meetings and
discussions was higher than what had been planned for in the Project Document which suggested
annual meetings. However, meetings were less formal and did not appear to have had a clear role
in reviewing work plans, budgets etc. Minutes from some of the meetings are available but not
from all. The members of the PSC included GEF, UNEP and the main Project partners. The
25

potential additional members with social science and developing country expertise proposed in
the Project Document (see paragraph 13) were not invited.
68. No progress reports are available from the first year of the Project and only partial reports for the
second year. It should however be noted in this context that GEF Minimum M&E Requirements
only came into effect after the Project had been approved. From 2007, UNEP-GEF half-yearly
reports, Project Implementation Reports (PIR) and GEF IW reports were produced and all Project
partners have submitted final reports. Some partners also submitted reports during the earlier
stages of the Project that were sent to and reviewed by UNEP. However, the quarterly reports
referred to in the Project Document that were to be provided to the PSC were not submitted.
Moreover, the reports that did exist failed to draw attention to the lack of progress towards
attaining objectives. The TE evaluator did not either come across any documentation supporting
the change of focus of the Project as spelled out in paragraphs 21-22.
69. The Project was reported on in the annual meetings of the Consultative Committee meetings
organised by IOC, UNEP, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and NOAA in Paris. These
meetings are important in getting GEF/LME project representatives together and exchanging
experiences and ideas. Several Project partners have also participated in recent meetings.
70. The lack of a formalised M&E system may have been symptomatic of the Project design and
structure. The Project consisted of a number of independent Project components implemented
through Project partners working under contract with IOC/UNESCO and it did not have any
Project specific infrastructure, staff or management unit. There was no formal overall work plan;
instead partners worked according the contents of their individual contracts. As explained earlier
(see also ANNEX 6), NOAA filled the role as technical and scientific coordinator and in many
ways also monitored Project implementation, supported by IOC/UNESCO as the Project
executing agency. This monitoring was carried out in a pragmatic way and Project implementation
was adapted as seen necessary, e.g. with regard to the additional deliverables referred to in the
section on Achievement of Outputs and Activities above. However, from a TE point of view, the
problem is that what happened was not always documented.
71. IOC/UNESCO was responsible for the day-to-day administrative and financial management of the
Project. Financial reports appear to have been submitted regularly from the beginning of the
Project. One concern noted by the TE evaluator was that invoices submitted by partners appear to
have contained only minimal information on how funds had been used and no supporting
documentation (receipts, time sheets, etc) was required (see also section on Financial Planning).
Referring to the section on efficiency and cost-effectiveness (see page 21), questions could
possibly be asked with regard to the use of funds under Component 1 (for the survey, and database
and network development), particularly the reported co-funding, but there was insufficient
documentation available for the TE evaluator to make a reliable judgement in this respect.
72. In summary, the M&E was a clearly weak part of Project implementation. This situation seems to
have been related to the issues discussed above with regard to overall Project Design and also the
general structure of the Project. It is also noted that the Project suffered from a lack of continuity
with regard to staff both in IOC/UNESCO and UNEP20 with a disruptive effect on Project
monitoring as a result. It is difficult to judge whether the results of the Project would have been
much different if there had been a formal and more rigid M&E system in place. The difficulties
under Component 1 could possibly have been given attention at an earlier stage.
F. Preparation and readiness
73. Project design and issues related to the Project Document have already been discussed above;
objectives were not realistic and there was a mismatch between expected outcomes and planned
activities. With regard to the selection partner organisations and their capacities and resources, the
choices made would appear to have been excellent for Component 3 (Rutgers) and also mainly for
20 The IOC/UNESCO officer in charge of the Project tragically passed away and the initial UNEP project task
manager resigned.
26

Component 2 (components 2a, 2b and 2c; FC/UBC, Princeton and URI). In particular FC/UBC
and Rutgers, considering their already advanced work programmes on the subject matters at hand,
were particularly well placed to carry out the activities assigned.
74. With regard to Component 1, AFS is a solid organisation with a long history, publishing a number
of highly esteemed academic journals and coordinating the organisation of the World Fisheries
Conferences. The reasons for not achieving the results planned under Component 1 are probably
not attributable to the capacity of WCFS/AFS as such, although their apparent lack of experience
from working with development type of activities may have played a role.
75. The NOAA LME Programme, already the hub of the world's LME projects and activities, must
certainly be considered the right choice for coordinating Project activities. This role should
however have been spelled out more clearly in the Project Document; the document gave the
impression that AFS would play a main role in Project coordination and the change in
responsibilities does not appear to be documented in progress reports of PSC meeting minutes.
IOC/UNESCO also seems to have been highly suitable as the Project executing agency. However,
the Project was in many respects not a conventional project and, for example, lacked as
mentioned above its own staff and a well-defined management structure (see also the section on
Implementation Approach below).
G. Country ownership / driveness
76. The way the Project was designed and structured, ownership was mainly with the Project partners
and also to some extent with the GEF/LME projects that were consulted with regard to selection
of participants for training and workshops. Countries were presumably involved indirectly through
their involvement in other GEF/LME projects. Considering the research-oriented characteristics of
the Project, it cannot be described as driven by country governments. However, when the Project
results are disseminated and in combination with the continuing increasing recognition of the
importance of ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management, it is possible that new
requests for collaboration and work based on the Project achievements will be launched, from
regional projects and national governments.
H. Stakeholder Participation / Public Awareness
77. The Project primary stakeholders and beneficiaries were the participants in training events and
workshops. Participants were generally selected according to professional criteria and with the
help of GEF/LME project managers21. They were mostly scientists from countries participating in
GEF/LME projects but the extent to which they were directly involved in LME project
management seems to have varied. The TE evaluator interviewed three GEF/LME project staff
(Benguela Current LME, Guinea Current LME and South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand) and in two
instances it was felt that a different trainee selection, i.e. more practitioners and managers, would
have benefited the projects better. However, considering the requirements from a scientific and
professional point of view, at least for some of the workshops, it may have been difficult to
include those closely involved in project management.
78. Project partners directly involved in Project implementation were also important Project
stakeholders, as well as the GEF/LME projects that the Project aimed to support. The ultimate
stakeholders in relation to the outcomes and desired future impacts are the populations
dependent on the living marine resources in coastal areas where ecosystem-based fisheries
management approaches and LME approaches are applied. However, for this type of research
project, direct involvement of this larger more general stakeholder group could not be expected.
79. The TE noted that the training courses were given in English and material produced by the Project
was only available in English. This could potentially have limited the Project's relevance to, for
example, French speaking countries in West Africa (Guinea Current LME). This suspicion was
21 The way by which participants in training events were selected is described in ANNEXES 4-7 on the different
Project Components.
27

supported by the fact that French turned out to be the preferred language of communication when
the TE evaluator carried out a telephone interview with a representative of the Interim Guinea
Current Commission (see ANNEX 2).
80. The Project components and activities were implemented almost entirely independently from one
and other. There were few links between Project partners, except for contacts with NOAA as the
coordinator and in PSC meetings. Also, it appears that the different Project activities in
particular the workshops were seen as more or less independent entities under the ownership of
the individual Project partners and/or related to the overall support provided by NOAA; awareness
of the Project as such appeared limited among the GEF/LME project representatives interviewed
by the TE evaluator. This does not necessarily constitute an issue but relates to the structure of the
Project and how it was managed (see also Implementation Approach below).
81. Considerable efforts have been and continue to be made by UNEP and Project partners to publish
the results produced by the Project, in particular through the publications mentioned in paragraph
60. The Project technical reports and the UNEP document have the potential of reaching a large
audience through the IOC/UNESCO and UNEP memberships and networks. At the time of the
TE, the plan was however to only publish these documents in English which could limit the
outreach in French (and Spanish) speaking countries.
I.
Financial Planning
82. A summary of the Project budget was presented in paragraph 14 above and more detailed tables
are included in ANNEX 11 (Project Financial Statement) and ANNEX 12 (Co-funding and
leverage resources). Although there have been a few budget revisions, significant changes in the
planned use of GEF funds have not taken place except for with regard to M&E; funds for
Component 4 were decreased from USD 44,500 to USD 25,500 and the only M&E activity
directly funded by the Project budget is the current TE. This situation would appear to be
commensurate with the noted weaknesses of Project M&E (see above).
83. Component 3 shows the most important funding change with an increase of expenditures over
original budget with 15 percent, mainly used for reports and workshop activities but with less
spent on equipment (computer rental). While a 15 percent overspending could be considered
significant under certain circumstances, the TE evaluator does not see any reason for concern in
this case; the change is likely to be due to an initial misjudgement of certain costs and the
production of the technical outputs.
84. During the first year of the Project, there were delays in the establishment of contracts and in the
transfer of funds to Project partners. The difficulties in establishing contracts due to
(IOC/UNESCO) administrative rules and the need for clarifications on behalf of partner
organisations caused an overall delay in Project implementation but this is not likely to have
significantly affected the end results. Project partners were in a position to advance the necessary
funds in order to complete activities and hence ensure delays did not become detrimental.
85. As mentioned earlier, there have been `no-cost' extensions of the Project to compensate for the
delays, i.e. the overall budget of the Project was not increased but merely reallocated in time.
However, by extending the Project by one year, indirect management costs may have been
incurred by UNEP and Project partners for staff that continued to spend time on the Project but
these costs do appear in Project financial or other reports.
86. Apart from some question marks with regard to cost-effectiveness in particular considering
Component 1 and the reported co-funding (already mentioned above; see paragraphs 49 and 71)
the TE evaluator did not find any particular concerns with regard to the use of funds. However, the
financial reports required by the partner organisations seemed to be somewhat lacking in detail.
According to IOC/UNESCO, receipts or detailed breakdowns of how money had been spent were
not required. Hence, the TE evaluator could not make an assessment with regard to the use of
funds by WCFS/AFS; only one line explanations on invoices supported the expenditures.
IOC/UNESCO did however not express any concerns with respect to the use of funds and the TE
28

evaluator does thus not have any reason to suspect unwise financial decisions with the possible
exception of Component 1; money seems to have been well spent under Components 2 and 3.
87. The co-funding has been provided as planned with the exception of NOAA US$ 40,000 less than
anticipated in the Project Document and WCFS/AFS reporting US$ 110,000 more than
originally foreseen. It was not clear to the TE evaluator why these divergences occurred; in the
case of NOAA, it could be that a final co-funding report had yet to be submitted to IOC/UNESCO.
In the case of WCFS/AFS, the additional expenditure is more puzzling and no explanation was
found.
88. The Project was not audited but included in the overall IOC/UNESCO audits taking place on a
regular basis. A financial statement updated at the time of the TE and a summary of the co-
funding are included in ANNEX 11 and ANNEX 12, respectively.
J.
Implementation Approach
89. As mentioned in paragraph 72, the Project did not have a formal management unit and dedicated
staff. Instead, the Project was implemented by contracting through the executing agency
IOC/UNESCO institutions with specialist competence in the technical and scientific subject
areas. This was in line with Project design and general practice for this type of Project; the Project
Document did not outline any particular project management arrangements in this respect22.
90. It would seem that most Project partners, including NOAA, had relatively limited experience in
implementing development project type of activities. To the knowledge of the TE evaluator,
NOAA acts as an advisor to most if not all GEF funded LME projects but does generally not
get involved in direct project implementation. It is hence likely that Project partners were not
familiar with the progress and impact monitoring principles that are commonly used in donor
funded technical cooperation projects and the importance of the Project Document, logframe and
indicators in this respect. Partners tended to work closely according to their contracts with
IOC/UNESCO and without necessarily viewing their work in the larger context of the Project and
its objectives.
91. The weaknesses of Project M&E and how the PSC functioned have been discussed above in the
section on Assessment Monitoring and Evaluation Systems. In addition, the role of NOAA has
been discussed above (e.g. paragraphs 11 and 30, and ANNEX 7). NOAA coordinated the
technical and scientific aspects of the Project within the context of its wider involvement in
GEF/LME projects and applied adaptive management as seen fit in this context. Considering the
design and structure of the Project, this mainly consisted in ensuring the production of the
additional outputs mentioned in paragraph 60. There was also a change in partner for carrying out
the work under Component 2d (catch statistics update for 2000 and completion of 11-year LME
time series) from FAO to FC/UBC.
92. As discussed in the section on M&E above, formal Project work plans were not established.
Instead Project activities seem to have been outlined in the partner contracts and the activities
specified in the Project Document appear to have been fairly strictly followed for Components 2
and 3, although the outcomes and wider impact at objectives level were not always achieved (see
the section on Attainment of Objectives and Planned Results above). It is not clear what
management actions were taken to improve the implementation performance of Component 1 in
addition to discussing Project progress in PSC meetings and in direct contacts with WCFS/AFS. It
should also be noted that the changes in Project focus and implementation arrangement do not
seem to have been documented.
22 The establishment of a Project Secretariat is mentioned under Component 1 in the Project Document but
without further explanations. With the change in priorities and role of WCFS/AFS mentioned in the sections
on Limitations of the TE and comments on the TOR and Project Design above such a project management unit
was not developed and overall coordination was instead ensured by IOC/UNESCO and NOAA.
29

K. UNEP Supervision and Backstopping
93. The role of UNEP as the implementing agency is one of oversight and supervision. Whilst not
actually undertaking activities, the implementing agency is involved in reviewing the operational
and execution aspects and ensuring that progress is acceptable. UNEP participated in most PSC
meetings; prepared financial reports to GEF based on information from IOC/UNESCO and
consolidated progress reports to GEF during the later part of the Project23.
94. Considering the concerns with regard to Project design, weaknesses in M&E and the lack of an
overall work plan and initial progress reports, it might have been expected that UNEP in its role
as implementing agency with the responsibility to track risks and other issues affecting project
implementation and achievement of project objectives would have paid closer attention to the
Project at an early stage. It would have been opportune to have revised the Project design and
indicators and developed an M&E plan and the initiative for this would presumably have been the
responsibility of the implementing agency. It should be noted that, at the time of the TE, it was
difficult to get a clear picture of what had happened early on in the Project since the UNEP Task
Manager changed in 2007. Additionally, the person responsible for the Project in IOC/UNESCO
had recently changed (see also paragraph 72 and footnote 20).
23 Progress reports are incomplete from the first part of the Project (see paragraph 68).
30

3
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT
Summary of Findings
Overall rating
95. Referring to the criteria against which Project implementation success should be measured,
reviewed in the previous chapter, the overall rating of the Project is Moderately satisfactory. The
reason for not giving the Project a higher rating is related mainly to the weaknesses of Component
1, the, as yet, limited application of Project results in LME fisheries/ecosystem management and
the shortcomings with regard to Project M&E. Table 2 gives the breakdown of this rating and the
sections below includes a summarised narrative of the TE findings.
Project Design
96. The project document and the logframe were found to be lacking in clarity. In particular, the
logframe indicators are poorly formulated and not particularly useful for progress monitoring
purposes. It would have been useful if the Project Document had been revised at an early stage to
better reflect the actual situation.
97. The Project was clearly research-oriented and although the practical application of modelling
results was referred to in Project objectives and outcomes, Project activities and resources were
not adequately included to support this ambition. It would appear that the Project was based on an
assumption that research results could be transferred to the management and policy level through
training and networking while, in reality, more focused and targeted actions are needed to achieve
this bridging between science and LME project implementation.
98. Having said this, the Project did implement most of its planned activities satisfactorily and
produced some impressive outputs in the form of modelling results at the global LME level. It is
likely to have an impact in the future and the Project is part of a much wider process towards more
sustainable and ecosystem-based fisheries and coastal zone management. This type of research-
oriented projects is fairly rare and within the GEF/LME portfolio it is the only example of a
science-based project. Project achievement should hence be seen in this broader context. However,
the Project design failed to accurately reflect this situation.
Project Performance
(i) Major Achievements and Strengths
99. Overall, the project produced some unprecedented outputs with regard to information and
modelling results at an LME level, i.e. historical catch and landings data, EwE modelling and
Nitrogen export forecasts. This work was performed by first class institutions and the results are of
high scientific quality (see also Box 3).
100.
Main Project strengths included the partnerships with academia in the relevant fields of
expertise. Project activities with regard to ecosystem modelling and eutrophication calculations
and forecasts were nested within wider global programmes in these areas. The cost-effectiveness
and sustainability of Project achievements benefited from this approach.
101.
Another strength of the Project was the involvement of NOAA as the technical and scientific
coordinator (although in a somewhat informal manner). With this arrangement, the coherence and
linking of Project results with other LME related initiatives could be ensured, and will continue to
be so in the future.
102.
The Project is in the process of publishing two high quality documents and has significantly
contributed to another key report. In this important area of outreach and awareness creation, the
Project is likely to generate benefits for LME management in the near future when the
publications are disseminated and utilised.
31

Box 3: Importance of Project outputs
"The Project has been instrumental in bringing together key partners to focus on important research
gaps relative to enhancing the utility of the LME approach to the assessment and management of
coastal ocean goods and services, i.e.:
-
The FC/UBC group produced the first value-added product to marine fisheries catch data by
restructuring in a quantitative and reproducible manner 53 years of mean annual marine fisheries
catch, value, trophic indices, and fisheries condition with regard to exploitation level. This was an
enormous challenge that was indeed met on schedule and provided for the first time multi-decadal
profiles of the world's LME fisheries representing 80% of the mean annual global landed product.
-
The FC/UBC team also successfully trained scientists from the participating LME countries in
the application of the forward looking EwE models, providing for the first time estimates of
sustainable marine fisheries carrying capacity for 63 of the 64 LMEs, excluding the ice-covered Arctic
Ocean LME.
-
The team at Rutgers provided for the first time at the LME management scale estimates of the
amount and sources of coastal-LME nutrient over-enrichment (e.g. sewage, fertilizers, atmospheric
deposition, manure, natural fixation, and agricultural fixation). This is an extraordinary result for all
64 LMEs and its importance cannot be overemphasized as these results form the basis of actions to
mitigate the over-enrichment problem for each LME and collectively for the world.
Accordingly, the results must be considered highly significant contributions of first class science that
will serve now and in the immediate future as the basis for mitigating actions to be taken by LME
project managers to reduce over fishing, recover depleted stocks, and reduce over-enrichment through
actions to be implemented by LME management authorities."
Ken Sherman, NOAA LME Programme
(ii) Weaknesses
103.
The objectives and outcomes of the Project Document logframe have largely not been attained
with regard to the practical application of the scientific approaches developed by the Project in
fisheries/ecosystem management by LME projects and developing countries. However, the results
produced by Components 2 and 3 may contribute to enhanced management decisions and actions
in the future.
104.
While the achievement with regard to Components 2 and 3 were excellent from an output
point of view, the results of Component 1 were somewhat disappointing. The network, database
and survey results that were supposed to serve as important inputs into a capacity building process
in developing countries failed to materialise at the expected level. The reasons behind this
situation are not completely clear but are likely to relate to a misjudgement of the level of interest
among developing country scientists to participate in the proposed activities and inexperience, on
behalf of WCFS/AFS as the implementing partner, of working with development cooperation
activities.
105.
The Project lacked a dedicated management structure and did not have its own staff. Instead it
operated through contractual arrangements with key partner organisations, which is a normal
arrangement for this type of project. While the set-up could be considered an advantage from a
cost-effectiveness and sustainability point of view (see paragraph 100), it could be speculated that
if a more explicit and stringent project management system for the Project had been in place,
corrective actions could maybe have been taken and better results produced from Component 1 as
well as with regard to the practical use of Project outputs.
32

106.
There was virtually no structured M&E system in place for the Project. PSC meetings were
held and NOAA discussed progress regularly with Project partners. However, these processes
were poorly documented; there are some minutes from PSC meetings but not from all and
formal progress reports are missing from the first period of operation. Moreover, the progress
reports that do exist fail to identify the shortcomings of Project implementation (e.g. Component
1) and the difficulties in attaining Project objectives. The divergences from the Project Document
and change of focus are not documented and gives the impression of a serious lack of
transparency.
107.
The stakeholders of the Project included the individual scientists participating in and directly
benefiting from the workshops and training events. Other stakeholders included the partner
organisations carrying out the activities and the GEF/LME projects that were intended to benefit
from Project results. However, it would appear that while partner organisations were directly
involved and also influenced the focus of Project activities, individual countries in LME project
regions were generally not engaged and the Project was not country driven in this sense. The
GEF/LME projects were generally consulted with regard to the selection of participants for
training courses and workshops but it seems that there was still often a disconnect between the
scientists trained and project management, i.e. the trainees were not always closely enough
involved in LME management to be able to implement their new skills in practice.
108. The role of UNEP in the oversight and supervision of Project management and implementation
was weak, although more involvement is noted for the later part of the Project. Considering the
design concerns and the lack of an M&E plan, it could have been expected that UNEP as the
implementing agency would have taken action to rectify these shortcomings early on. It is
however recognised that the changes in staff in IOC/UNESCO and UNEP may have had a
disruptive effect on Project monitoring.
33

109. Table 2: Overall ratings table
Evaluator's
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
Rating24
A. Attainment of project
While the Project produced some excellent
MS
objectives and results
outputs, there is little evidence that these are yet
(overall rating)
applied in fisheries/ecosystem management.
Moreover, only limited results were produced
Sub criteria (below)
under Component 1. Nevertheless, the excellent
outputs of Components 2 and 3 and the
likelihood of these to be taken up in the medium
or longer-term justify a positive rating.
A. 1. Effectiveness Although there is good potential for future use
MS
of results from Components 2 and 3, rating
cannot be higher than MS due to weakness of
Component 1.
A. 2. Relevance Project results are generally relevant to global
S
ecosystem-based fisheries management agenda.
A. 3. Efficiency Work under Components 2 and 3 was cost-
MS
effective but not under Component 1.
B. Sustainability of Project
Project results from Components 2 and 3 are
ML
outcomes
generally considered sustainable from all aspects
(overall rating)
(B1, B2 and B3) while Component 1 results are
not.
Sub criteria (below)
B. 1. Financial Financial support is expected to be available to
ML
support sustainability of results from
Components 2 and 3.
B. 2. Socio Political The general acceptance and support for
ML
ecosystem-based fisheries management is
increasing.
B. 3. Institutional framework The existence of a large number of GEF/LME
L
and governance projects and NOAA as a technical coordination
hub supports institutional sustainability. The
way Components 2 and 3 were nested in overall
work programmes of FC/UBC (Sea Around Us
project) and of Rutgers (Global NEWS task
force) are supporting sustainability.
B. 4. Environmental
N/A
C. Achievement of outputs
Outputs were not produced as planned under
S
and activities
Component 1. On the other hand, outputs from
Components 2 and 3 were of high quality and
high strategic relevance to GEF IW and to
ecosystem/fisheries management. Moreover,
additional outputs were generated under
Components 2 and 3.
D. Catalytic Role
The catalytic potential of Project outputs (2 and
MS
3) remain and would appear likely to be realized
in the future.
E. Monitoring and
There was no structured M&E plan for the
MU
Evaluation
Project and Project management and
(overall rating)
implementation decisions were often not
documented leading to a general lack of
24 For explanations of ratings, see Annex 1 of the TE TOR in ANNEX 1.
34

Evaluator's
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
Rating24
Sub criteria (below)
transparency.
D. 1. M&E Design Indicators (only available in Project Document
U
logframe) were poor and not used for effective
progress monitoring.
D. 2. M&E Plan Only incomplete progress reports were
MU
Implementation (use for submitted during first couple of years. PSC
adaptive management) meetings and informal monitoring took place but
were poorly documented. Still, a certain degree
of adaptive management was applied.
D. 3. Budgeting and Funding Budget for M&E only used for TE. Funds
MU
for M&E activities available for PSC meetings (under separate
budget line).
F. Preparation and readiness
While objectives and outcomes were not
MS
realistic overall, the planned activities were
Components 2 and 3 were well planned. The
choice of implementing partners for
Components 2 and 3 was excellent. Project
management arrangements were not clearly
spelled out prior to Project implementation.
G. Country ownership /
Because of the Project's research focus and
MS
driveness
structure, direct country involved was limited
and ownership by GEF/LME projects relatively
weak. However, when Project results
(Component 2 and 3) are disseminated, more
direct involvement can be expected.
H. Stakeholders involvement
Strong involvement by Project partners in
MS
individual Project components but less so by
other stakeholders, e.g. GEF/LME projects.
I. Financial planning
Possible concerns with regard to the use of funds MS
under Component 1 but no evidence of deficient
financial management.
J. Implementation approach
The design of the Project did not include
MS
dedicated project management or staff; the
Project operated subcontracting partners which
appeared to be an adequate approach in
particular for Components 2 and 3 (as well as
coordination by NOAA).
K. UNEP Supervision and
At the beginning of the Project, UNEP appears
MU
backstopping
to have played a minimal role in Project
oversight, failing to note and revise Project
design and indicators and ensure that an M&E
plan was in place. However, some of the
difficulties were due to staff turnover.
35

Recommendations
Lessons Learnt
110.
If and when embarking on a similar Project, i.e. a research-oriented initiative with a view to
develop scientific information and approaches in support of ecosystem-based fisheries
management in LMEs, the following should be kept in mind:
There is a need for appropriate project management and systematic M&E. Even if a project
consists of relatively separate components that can be implemented more or less
independently, it would be important to have an overall project coordinator with clear
management responsibilities and who can exercise adaptive management, prepare workplans
and suggest budget revisions. It is the responsibility of the implementing agency to ensure that
an adequate structure and procedures are in place.
Systematic M&E procedures should be applied in the context measuring the success of
training events and workshops in relation to the objectives of such events. By evaluating the
use and application of new skills by participants post-training, guidance can be obtained as to
how to make capacity building as effective as possible.
When working with partners that are not familiar with international development procedures
or the planning and reporting requirements of UNEP (or other agencies), the implementing
agency has to provide sufficient information or evening training to ensure that all involved
understand and are able to adequately participate in progress monitoring according to
prevailing requirements.
The closer the collaboration with project managers and decision-makers at the country level
and in the field the better the chances that project results are taken up and used in
management. GEF/LME project managers and country representatives should be involved
from the beginning in project design in order for their needs to be reflected in project
activities.
Adequate resources and activities need to be included for "bridging the gap" between science
and practical implementation. It is not sufficient to train only scientists but opportunities have
to given for scientists and politicians, managers and others to interact, the scientific results
need to be promoted and direct support for local implementation of new approaches need to be
ensured.
Disseminating results widely and paying special attention to reaching key target audiences is
important to create awareness and solicit support also from secondary stakeholders and the
general public. This may be particularly important with regard to a subject matter such as
ecosystem-based fisheries management in an LME context that requires interdisciplinary and
cross-sectoral collaboration and that is still a relatively new concept. Publishing reports in
series that are widely distributed is essential in this respect. It is also important to publish
results in a format and in a language that are suitable for the intended audience.
Recommendations
111.
Referring to the last point made above regarding publications and target audiences, it is
recommended that the two technical reports to be published by the Project (Models of the world's
large marine ecosystems and Filling gaps in LME Nitrogen Loadings Forecast for 64 LMEs) be
published also in French and possibly Spanish. In this way, a larger audience in French speaking
West Africa, and in Latin America, would be reached.
112.
All GEF/LME projects should be provided with detailed information on the Project results,
including lists of the participants in their regions that participated in the workshops and training
36

events. A workshop could also be organised to discuss the results of the Project and how these can
be taken further in practice.
113.
The outcome of such a meeting that could possibly be held in conjunction with the annual
IOC-UNEP-IUCN-NOAA Consultative Meeting on LMEs could form the basis for a request for
a follow-up project focusing on bridging the science-management gap. It would appear important
to capitalise on the important results achieved at the output level by promoting their wider
application. It would be important that a follow-up project proposal be based on consultations with
GEF/LME projects with regard to their needs and desires in order to maximise the benefits at the
practical LME management level.
Final Remarks
114.
The Project was obviously based on the assumption that the LME concept is the most suitable
unit for coastal and continental shelf fisheries/ecosystem management. While the validity of this
assumption is not questioned, there may be a need in general to review and consider how the LME
unit fits into the larger institutional picture and how projects like the one currently being evaluated
can also contribute and influence at other levels. In Africa, for example, there are now several
GEF/LME projects among which two have developed into permanent LME commissions
(Benguela Current and Guinea Current). There are also the Abidjan and Nairobi Convention
Secretariats25 and Regional Fisheries Bodies. It would appear important that projects working to
support ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches liaise and collaborate with all relevant
stakeholder organisations.
115.
Changes take a long time and major paradigm shifts even longer. The ecosystem-based
fisheries management concept is still fairly recent and its implementation at a global level is, in
reality, still in its initial stages. In many developing countries, the capacities and capabilities even
for conventional fisheries management remain limited and to implement ecosystem-based fisheries
management approaches entails additional challenges, even more so since these approaches are
still under-developed in industrial countries. This Project made important contributions to
improving the scientific basis for ecosystem-based management in LMEs. It may not have had a
great visible impact yet, but together with other initiatives and efforts, it will help promote more
sustainable fisheries and ecosystems for the benefit of current and future generations.
25 Convention for the Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of
the West and Central African Region and Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the
Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region.
37

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE TERMINAL EVALUATION
Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF project GF/3010-04-06 (GFL-2328-2732-4768)
"Promoting Ecosystem-based Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and Large Marine
Ecosystems (LMEs)"
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Project rationale
The project was to support capacity building in developing countries and countries with economies in
transition through the transfer of advanced methods, practices and tools for eco-system based
fisheries management. This was to be accomplished by participation in the 4th World Fisheries
Congress which was to be held in May 2004, interaction with world fisheries experts, interaction
and expertise sharing through participation in training courses, workshops, and follow-on in-
country workshops and transfer of information via electronic networking. At the time of approval
of the project, more than 70 countries were involved in the implementation of the GEF/LMEs
projects. The project was to strengthen the capacities of the participating countries by providing
necessary training and building scientific capacity in ecosystem-based fisheries assessment and
management, by encouraging information sharing and networking amongst the participants to the
Fisheries congress and though active involvement in the follow-on electronic networking and in-
country workshops.
The objective was stated as:
"To support participation in the Congress and its courses, workshops, and the follow-on networking of
fisheries professionals from countries participating in the development and implementation of
GEF/LME projects and other developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The
project will serve to strengthen capacity for improving fisheries management at local, provincial
and national levels through a holistic approach by facilitating sharing and applying usable
knowledge and successful practices from the Congress and follow-on workshops and networking.'
The indicators given in the project document for the objectives were:
Increased dissemination of lessons learned through the establishment of a collaborative
network of trained developing country fisheries scientists, managers, extension
professionals and policy makers to promote sound, scientific approaches to fisheries
sustainability and management with an emphasis on the large marine ecosystems of
developing countries. Application by developing countries of advanced fishery
assessments that include food web and nutrient effects considerations in management
decision making;
Consultative and collaborative network between developed and developing country
fisheries experts sharing lessons on fisheries management within the context of the
ecosystem approach;
38

ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling results adopted in at least 10 countries
involved in the implementation of the GEF/LMEs projects for management actions
supporting recovery of depleted fish stocks.
Nutrient forecast models adopted in at least 10 countries involved in the implementation
of the GEF/LME's projects for management actions to reduce coastal eutrophication.
Relevance to GEF Programmes
The project is in line with GEF Operational Program 10 Global Support Component and IW Strategic
Priority Number 2 (Targeted Learning).
Since 1995 the Council of the Global Environment
Facility included Large Marine Ecosystems as important geographic units for introducing
developing countries to innovative strategies for ecosystem-based assessment and management
practices leading to more sustainable management of fisheries and other marine resources.
Executing Arrangements
Component one (strengthening ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries conservation and
sustainability) will be executed by the World Council of Fisheries Societies in collaboration with
the American Fisheries Society. The WCSF was to provide a database of the selected scientists to
facilitate the sharing of information, and was to provide advice and support as they developed
their projects and formed their own society of fisheries professionals within their own country.
Components two, three and four of the project were to be executed by the IOC of UNESCO. The IOC
has been active in assisting developing countries in moving forward toward the coastal and ocean
resources sustainability targets of UNCED and WSSD.
Project Activities
The project comprised of activities grouped in four components.
Component 1: Strengthening Ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries conservation and
sustainability
Within this component the project was to assemble information on management practices
based on sound science to fisheries management with an emphasis on the ecosystem and
disseminating then widely among fisheries scientists, managers, extension professionals,
and policy makers in developing countries. Workshops and seminars on fisheries
management were to be organized.
Component 2: Gap-filling experience and practice for global fisheries carrying capacity
Under this component, scientists from developing countries were to be trained by the
Fisheries Center of the UBC and Princeton University in the methods and applications of
a multi-trophic level modelling approach to estimate the carrying capacity of fisheries for
the world's 64 LMEs based on the ECOPATH/ECOSIM approach.
Component 3: Filling gaps in LME Nitrogen loading forecasts for 64 LME
Under this component, scientists from developing countries were to be trained through the
IOC Eutrophication Network in the methods and application of a Nitrogen-based model
used to forecast eutrophication conditions in the coastal waters of the of the world's 64
LMEs based on the use of a new and innovative Nitrogen Export Model.
39

Component 4: Monitoring and Evaluation
The steering committee was to oversee the implementation of the project and regularly
meet to review progress. Monitoring and Evaluation indicators were to be established and
used to guide implementation of the project and evaluate its success.
Budget
The project had a total budget of US$1,735,000 of which US$995,000 was GEF funding and
US$ 740,000 was co-financing.
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION
1. Objective and Scope of the Evaluation
The objective of this terminal evaluation is to examine the extent and magnitude of any
project impacts to date and determine the likelihood of future impacts. The evaluation will
also assess project performance and the implementation of planned project activities and
planned outputs against actual results. The evaluation will focus on the following main
questions:
1. Did the project help to improve understanding of country fisheries scientists,
managers, extension professionals and policy makers in scientific, ecosystem-
based approaches to fisheries management and fishery assessments that include
food web and nutrient effects?
2. Has the consultative and collaborative network between developed and
developing countries fisheries experts sharing lessons on fisheries management
within the context of the ecosystem approach targeted the relevant key groups and
organisations, and has this resulted in the adoption of new fisheries management
measures?
3. Have the results of the ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling been adopted in
at least 10 countries involved in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
4. Have the nutrient forecast models been successfully adopted in at least 10
countries involved in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
5. To what extent did the project outputs produced have the weight of scientific
authority and credibility necessary to influence policy makers and other key
audiences?
2. Methods
This terminal evaluation will be conducted as an in-depth evaluation using a participatory
approach whereby the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives of the executing
agencies and other relevant staff are kept informed and consulted throughout the evaluation.
The consultant will liaise with the UNEP/EOU and the UNEP/DGEF on any logistic and/or
methodological issues to properly conduct the review in as independent a way as possible,
given the circumstances and resources offered. The draft report will be circulated to
UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives of the executing agencies and the
UNEP/EOU. Any comments or responses to the draft report will be sent to UNEP / EOU for
collation and the consultant will be advised of any necessary or suggested revisions.
The findings of the evaluation will be based on the following:
40

1. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to:
(a) The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and
financial reports to UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review
reports) and relevant correspondence.
(b) Notes from the Steering Group meetings.
(c) Other project-related material produced by the project staff or partners.
(d) Relevant material published on the project web-site:
2. Interviews with project management and technical support including Rutgers
University, American Fisheries Society, University of British Colombia, NOAA and
executing agency IOC UNESCO.
3. Interviews and Telephone interviews with intended users for the project outputs and
other stakeholders involved with this project, including in the participating countries
and international bodies. The Consultant shall determine whether to seek additional
information and opinions from representatives of donor agencies and other
organisations. As appropriate, these interviews could be combined with an email
questionnaire.
4. Interviews with the UNEP/DGEF project task manager and Fund Management Officer,
and other relevant staff in UNEP dealing with International Waters-related activities as
necessary. The Consultant shall also gain broader perspectives from discussions with
relevant GEF Secretariat staff.
5. Field visits26 to project staff. The evaluator will make field visits to the project partners
in the US and Canada as well as IOC, UNESCO in Paris.
Key Evaluation principles
In attempting to evaluate any outcomes and impacts that the project may have achieved,
evaluators should remember that the project's performance should be assessed by considering
the difference between the answers to two simple questions "what happened?" and "what
would have happened anyway?". These questions imply that there should be consideration of
the baseline conditions and trends in relation to the intended project outcomes and impacts. In
addition it implies that there should be plausible evidence to attribute such outcomes and
impacts to the actions of the project.
Sometimes, adequate information on baseline conditions and trends is lacking. In such cases
this should be clearly highlighted by the evaluator, along with any simplifying assumptions
that were taken to enable the evaluator to make informed judgements about project
performance.
3. Project Ratings
The success of project implementation will be rated on a scale from `highly unsatisfactory' to
`highly satisfactory'. In particular the evaluation shall assess and rate the project with respect
to the eleven categories defined below:27
26 Evaluators should make a brief courtesy call to GEF Country Focal points during field visits if at all possible.
27 However, the views and comments expressed by the evaluator need not be restricted to these items.
41

A. Attainment of objectives and planned results:
The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project's major relevant
objectives were effectively and efficiently achieved or are expected to be
achieved and their relevance.
Effectiveness: Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project
objectives have been met, taking into account the "achievement
indicators". The analysis of outcomes achieved should include, inter alia,
an assessment of the extent to which the project has directly or indirectly
assisted policy- and decision-makers to apply information supplied by
fisheries management tools in their national planning and decision-
making. In particular:
Evaluate the immediate impact of the project on the use of fisheries
management tools in national planning and decision-making and
international
understanding
and
use
of
ecosystem-based
approaches to Fisheries Conservation and LMEs.
As far as possible, also assess the potential longer-term impacts
considering that the evaluation is taking place upon completion of
the project and that longer term impact is expected to be seen in a
few years time. Frame recommendations to enhance future project
impact in this context. Which will be the major `channels' for
longer term impact from the project at the national and
international scales?
Relevance: In retrospect, were the project's outcomes consistent with the
focal areas/operational program strategies? Ascertain the nature and
significance of the contribution of the project outcomes to the CBD and
the UNFCCC and the wider portfolio of the GEF.
Efficiency: Was the project cost effective? Was the project the least cost
option? Was the project implementation delayed and if it was, then did
that affect cost-effectiveness? Assess the contribution of cash and in-kind
co-financing to project implementation and to what extent the project
leveraged additional resources. Did the project build on earlier initiatives,
did it make effective use of available scientific and / or technical
information. Wherever possible, the evaluator should also compare the
cost-time vs. outcomes relationship of the project with that of other similar
projects.
B. Sustainability:
Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-
derived outcomes and impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The
evaluation will identify and assess the key conditions or factors that are likely
to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after the project ends.
Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, e.g. stronger
institutional capacities or better informed decision-making. Other factors will
include contextual circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the
project but that are relevant to the sustainability of outcomes. The evaluation
should ascertain to what extent follow-up work has been initiated and how
project outcomes will be sustained and enhanced over time.
42

Five aspects of sustainability should be addressed: financial, socio-political,
institutional frameworks and governance, environmental (if applicable). The
following questions provide guidance on the assessment of these aspects:
Financial resources. Are there any financial risks that may jeopardize
sustenance of project outcomes? What is the likelihood that financial
and economic resources will not be available once the GEF assistance
ends (resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and
private sectors, income generating activities, and trends that may
indicate that it is likely that in future there will be adequate financial
resources for sustaining project's outcomes)? To what extent are the
outcomes of the project dependent on continued financial support?
Socio-political: Are there any social or political risks that may
jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes? What is the risk that the
level of stakeholder ownership will be insufficient to allow for the
project outcomes to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see
that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is
there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long
term objectives of the project?
Institutional framework and governance. To what extent is the
sustenance of the outcomes of the project dependent on issues relating
to institutional frameworks and governance? What is the likelihood that
institutional and technical achievements, legal frameworks, policies and
governance structures and processes will allow for, the project
outcomes/benefits to be sustained? While responding to these questions
consider if the required systems for accountability and transparency and
the required technical know-how are in place.
Environmental. Are there any environmental risks that can undermine
the future flow of project environmental benefits? The TE should
assess whether certain activities in the project area will pose a threat to
the sustainability of the project outcomes. For example; construction of
dam in a protected area could inundate a sizable area and thereby
neutralize the biodiversity-related gains made by the project; or, a
newly established pulp mill might jeopardise the viability of nearby
protected forest areas by increasing logging pressures; or a vector
control intervention may be made less effective by changes in climate
and consequent alterations to the incidence and distribution of malarial
mosquitoes.
C. Achievement of outputs and activities:
Delivered outputs: Assessment of the project's success in producing
each of the programmed outputs, both in quantity and quality as well as
usefulness and timeliness.
Assess the soundness and effectiveness of the methodologies used for
developing the technical documents and related management options in
the participating countries
Assess to what extent the project outputs produced have the weight of
scientific authority / credibility, necessary to influence policy and
decision-makers, particularly at the national level.
43

D. Catalytic Role
Replication and catalysis. What examples are there of replication and catalytic
outcomes? Replication approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as
lessons and experiences coming out of the project that are replicated or scaled
up in the design and implementation of other projects. Replication can have
two aspects, replication proper (lessons and experiences are replicated in
different geographic area) or scaling up (lessons and experiences are replicated
within the same geographic area but funded by other sources). Specifically:
How can the fisheries management tools be further disseminated and
adopted within current and future LME projects, national planning and
decision-making?
If no effects are identified, the evaluation will describe the catalytic or
replication actions that the project carried out.
E. Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems.
The evaluation shall include an assessment of the quality, application and
effectiveness of project monitoring and evaluation plans and tools, including
an assessment of risk management based on the assumptions and risks
identified in the project document. The Terminal Evaluation will assess
whether the project met the minimum requirements for `project design of
M&E' and `the application of the Project M&E plan' (see minimum
requirements 1&2 in Annex 4). GEF projects must budget adequately for
execution of the M&E plan, and provide adequate resources during
implementation of the M&E plan. Project managers are also expected to use
the information generated by the M&E system during project implementation
to adapt and improve the project.
M&E during project implementation
M&E design. Projects should have sound M&E plans to monitor results
and track progress towards achieving project objectives. An M&E plan
should include a baseline (including data, methodology, etc.), SMART
indicators (see Annex 4) and data analysis systems, and evaluation
studies at specific times to assess results. The time frame for various
M&E activities and standards for outputs should have been specified.
M&E plan implementation. A Terminal Evaluation should verify that:
an M&E system was in place and facilitated timely tracking of results
and progress towards projects objectives throughout the project
implementation period (perhaps through use of a log frame or similar);
annual project reports and Progress Implementation Review (PIR)
reports were complete, accurate and with well justified ratings; that the
information provided by the M&E system was used during the project
to improve project performance and to adapt to changing needs; and
that projects had an M&E system in place with proper training for
parties responsible for M&E activities.
Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. The terminal evaluation
should determine whether support for M&E was budgeted adequately
and was funded in a timely fashion during implementation.
44

F. Preparation and Readiness
Were the project's objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible
within its timeframe? Were the capacities of executing institution and
counterparts properly considered when the project was designed?
Were
lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated in the project
design? Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and the roles
and responsibilities negotiated prior to project implementation? Were
counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation, and
adequate project management arrangements in place?
G. Country ownership / driveness:
This is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental
agendas, recipient country commitment, and regional and international
agreements. The evaluation will:
Assess the level of country ownership. Specifically, the evaluator
should assess whether the project was effective in providing and
communicating biodiversity information that catalyzed action in
participating countries to improve decisions relating to the conservation
and management of the focal ecosystem in each country.
Assess the level of country commitment to the generation and use of
biodiversity indicators for decision-making during and after the project,
including in regional and international fora.
H. Stakeholder participation / public awareness:
This consists of three related and often overlapping processes: information
dissemination, consultation, and "stakeholder" participation. Stakeholders are
the individuals, groups, institutions, or other bodies that have an interest or
stake in the outcome of the GEF- financed project. The term also applies to
those potentially adversely affected by a project. The evaluation will
specifically:
Assess the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification and
engagement of stakeholders in each participating country and establish,
in consultation with the stakeholders, whether this mechanism was
successful, and identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Assess the degree and effectiveness of collaboration/interactions
between the various project partners and institutions during the course
of implementation of the project.
Assess the degree and effectiveness of any various public awareness
activities that were undertaken during the course of implementation of
the project.
I. Financial Planning
Evaluation of financial planning requires assessment of the quality and
effectiveness of financial planning and control of financial resources
throughout the project's lifetime. Evaluation includes actual project costs by
activities compared to budget (variances), financial management (including
disbursement issues), and co- financing. The evaluation should:
Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including reporting,
and planning to allow the project management to make informed
decisions regarding the budget and allow for a proper and timely flow
of funds for the payment of satisfactory project deliverables.
45

Present the major findings from the financial audit if one has been
conducted.
Identify and verify the sources of co- financing as well as leveraged
and associated financing (in co-operation with the IA and EA).
Assess whether the project has applied appropriate standards of due
diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.
The evaluation should also include a breakdown of final actual costs
and co-financing for the project prepared in consultation with the
relevant UNON/DGEF Fund Management Officer of the project (table
attached in Annex 1 Co-financing and leveraged resources).
J. Implementation approach:
This includes an analysis of the project's management framework, adaptation
to changing conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation
arrangements, changes in project design, and overall project management. The
evaluation will:
Ascertain to what extent the project implementation mechanisms
outlined in the project document have been closely followed. In
particular, assess the role of the various committees established and
whether the project document was clear and realistic to enable effective
and efficient implementation, whether the project was executed
according to the plan and how well the management was able to adapt
to changes during the life of the project to enable the implementation of
the project.
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project
management and the supervision of project activities / project execution
arrangements at all levels (1) policy decisions: Steering Group; (2) day
to day project management in each of the country executing agencies
and World Council of Fisheries Societies and IOC-UNESCO.
K. UNEP Supervision and Backstopping
Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial
support provided by UNEP/DGEF.
Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and
constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project.
The ratings will be presented in the form of a table. Each of the eleven categories should be
rated separately with brief justifications based on the findings of the main analysis. An
overall rating for the project should also be given. The following rating system is to be
applied:
HS
= Highly Satisfactory
S
= Satisfactory
MS
= Moderately Satisfactory
MU
= Moderately Unsatisfactory
U
= Unsatisfactory
HU
= Highly Unsatisfactory
46

4. Evaluation report format and review procedures
The report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain; the purpose of
the evaluation, exactly what was evaluated and the methods used. The report must highlight
any methodological limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based findings,
consequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons. The report should be presented in a
way that makes the information accessible and comprehensible and include an executive
summary that encapsulates the essence of the information contained in the report to facilitate
dissemination and distillation of lessons.
The evaluation will rate the overall implementation success of the project and provide individual
ratings of the eleven implementation aspects as described in Section 1 of this TOR. The ratings
will be presented in the format of a table with brief justifications based on the findings of the main
analysis.
Evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a complete and
balanced manner. Any dissident views in response to evaluation findings will be appended in
an annex. The evaluation report shall be written in English, be of no more than 50 pages
(excluding annexes), use numbered paragraphs and include:
i)
An executive summary (no more than 3 pages) providing a brief overview of
the main conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation;
ii)
Introduction and background giving a brief overview of the evaluated
project, for example, the objective and status of activities; The GEF
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006, requires that a TE report will provide
summary information on when the evaluation took place; places visited; who
was involved; the key questions; and, the methodology.
iii)
Scope, objective and methods presenting the evaluation's purpose, the
evaluation criteria used and questions to be addressed;
iv)
Project Performance and Impact providing factual evidence relevant to the
questions asked by the evaluator and interpretations of such evidence. This is
the main substantive section of the report. The evaluator should provide a
commentary and analysis on all eleven evaluation aspects (A - K above).
v)
Conclusions and rating of project implementation success giving the
evaluator's concluding assessments and ratings of the project against given
evaluation criteria and standards of performance. The conclusions should
provide answers to questions about whether the project is considered good or
bad, and whether the results are considered positive or negative. The ratings
should be provided with a brief narrative comment in a table (see Annex 1);
vi)
Lessons (to be) learned presenting general conclusions from the standpoint of
the design and implementation of the project, based on good practices and
successes or problems and mistakes. Lessons should have the potential for
wider application and use. All lessons should `stand alone' and should:
Briefly describe the context from which they are derived
State or imply some prescriptive action;
Specify the contexts in which they may be applied (if possible, who
when and where)
vii)
Recommendations suggesting actionable proposals for improvement of the
current project. In general, Terminal Evaluations are likely to have very few
(perhaps two or three) actionable recommendations.
47

Prior to each recommendation, the issue(s) or problem(s) to be addressed by
the recommendation should be clearly stated.
A high quality recommendation is an actionable proposal that is:
1. Feasible to implement within the timeframe and resources available
2. Commensurate with the available capacities of project team and
partners
3. Specific in terms of who would do what and when
4. Contains results-based language (i.e. a measurable performance
target)
5. Includes a trade-off analysis, when its implementation may require
utilizing significant resources that would otherwise be used for other
project purposes.
viii)
Annexes may include additional material deemed relevant by the evaluator but
must include:
1. The Evaluation Terms of Reference,
2. A list of interviewees, and evaluation timeline
3. A list of documents reviewed / consulted
4. Summary co-finance information and a statement of project
expenditure by activity
5. The expertise of the evaluation team. (brief CV).
TE reports will also include any response / comments from the project
management team and/or the country focal point regarding the evaluation
findings or conclusions as an annex to the report, however, such will be
appended to the report by UNEP EOU.
Examples of UNEP GEF Terminal Evaluation Reports are available at www.unep.org/eou
Review of the Draft Evaluation Report
Draft reports submitted to by the evaluator to UNEP EOU. EOU then shares draft report with
the corresponding Programme or Project Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review
and consultation. The DGEF staff and senior Executing Agency staff are allowed to comment
on the draft evaluation report. They may provide feedback on any errors of fact and may
highlight the significance of such errors in any conclusions. The consultation also seeks
feedback on the proposed recommendations. UNEP EOU collates all review comments and
provides them to the evaluator(s) for their consideration in preparing the final version of the
report.
5. Submission of Final Terminal Evaluation Reports.
The final report shall be submitted in electronic form in MS Word format and should be sent
to:
Segbedzi Norgbey, Chief,
UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel.: (254-20) 7624181
Fax: (254-20) 7623158
Email: segbedzi.norgbey@unep.org
EOU will then copy the report with a formal `evaluation commentary' to:
48

Maryam Niamir-Fuller, Director
UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: + 254-20-7624165
Fax: + 254-20-624041/4042
Email: Maryam.Niamir-Fuller@unep.org
Virginie Hart
Task Manager, International Waters
UNEP Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. BOX 30552
00100, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 762 4527
Fax:+254 20 762 4041 / 762 4042
E-mail: virginie.hart@unep.org
Takehiro Nakamura,
SPO International Waters
UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: + 254-20-7623886
Fax: + 254-20-624041/4042
Email: Takehiro.Nakamura@unep.org
The Final evaluation will also be copied to the following Project Steering Committee
Members:
Dr. Gus Rassam, AFS/WCFS
Executive Director
American Fisheries Society: World Council of Fisheries Societies
5410 Grosvenor Lane
Bethesda, MD
20814
USA
E-mail: grassam@fisheries.org
Tel: 1.301.897.8616
Fax: 1.301.897.8096
Dr. Ken Sherman, NOAA/LME
CMER Program Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett, RI 02882
Tel: 401.782.3211
Email: Kenneth.Sherman@noaa.gov
49

Ms. Jessica Geubtner
Research Associate and Special Projects Coordinator
Ocean.US
1100 Wayne Ave, Suite 1210
Silver Spring, MD 20910
USA
Email: j.geubtner@ocean.us
Tel: 301-427-2485
Mr. Alfred Duda
Senior Advisor International Waters
1818 H Street , NW, MSN G6-602
Washington, DC 20433
U.S.A.
Email: aduda@thegef.org
Tel: +1 202 473 1077
The final evaluation report will be published on the Evaluation and Oversight Unit's web-site
www.unep.org/eou and may be printed in hard copy. Subsequently, the report will be sent to
the GEF Office of Evaluation for their review, appraisal and inclusion on the GEF website.
6. Resources and schedule of the evaluation
This final evaluation will be undertaken by an international evaluator contracted by the
Evaluation and Oversight Unit, UNEP. The contract for the evaluator will begin on 28th April
2008 and end on 28th July 2008. The contract will cover 25 days of consulting time spread
over 12 weeks (11 days of travel, to US, Canada and France and 14 days desk study). The
evaluator will submit a draft report on 7th July 2008 to UNEP/EOU, the UNEP/DGEF Task
Manager, and key representatives of the executing agencies. Any comments or responses to
the draft report will be sent to UNEP / EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of
any necessary revisions. Comments to the final draft report will be sent to the consultant by
18th July 2008 after which, the consultant will submit the final report no later than 28th July
2008.
The evaluator will after an initial telephone briefing with EOU and UNEP/GEF conduct initial
desk review work. The evaluator will travel to meet with project staff at the beginning of the
evaluation at IOC-UNESCO and later travel to the American Fisheries Society, NOAA,
University of British Columbia Fisheries Center in the US and Canada.
In accordance with UNEP/GEF policy, all GEF projects are evaluated by independent
evaluators contracted as consultants by the EOU. The evaluator should have the following
qualifications:
The evaluator should not have been associated with the design and implementation of the
project in a paid capacity. The evaluator will work under the overall supervision of the Chief,
Evaluation and Oversight Unit, UNEP. The evaluator should be an international expert in
biodiversity management or conservation with a sound understanding of ecosystem-based
approaches to fisheries conservation. The consultant should have the following minimum
qualifications: (i) experience in international ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries
conservation issues; (ii) experience with management and implementation of research projects
and in particular with research targeted at policy-influence and decision-making; (iii)
50

experience with project evaluation. Knowledge of UNEP programmes and GEF activities is
desirable. Fluency in oral and written English is a must.
7. Schedule Of Payment
Fee-only Option
The evaluator will receive an initial payment of 40% of the total amount due upon signature
of the contract. Final payment of 60% will be made upon satisfactory completion of work.
The fee is payable under the individual SSAs of the evaluator and is NOT inclusive of all
expenses such as travel, accommodation and incidental expenses. Ticket and DSA will be
paid separately.
In case, the evaluator cannot provide the products in accordance with the TORs, the
timeframe agreed, or his products are substandard, the payment to the evaluator could be
withheld, until such a time the products are modified to meet UNEP's standard. In case the
evaluator fails to submit a satisfactory final product to UNEP, the product prepared by the
evaluator may not constitute the evaluation report.
51

Annex 1. OVERALL RATINGS TABLE
Evaluator's
Summary
Evaluator's
Criterion
Comments
Rating
A. Attainment of project
objectives and results (overall
rating)
Sub criteria (below)
A. 1. Effectiveness
A. 2. Relevance
A. 3. Efficiency
B. Sustainability of Project
outcomes
(overall rating)
Sub criteria (below)
B. 1. Financial
B. 2. Socio Political
B. 3. Institutional framework
and governance
B. 4. Ecological
C. Achievement of outputs and
activities
D. Monitoring and Evaluation
(overall rating)
Sub criteria (below)
D. 1. M&E Design
D. 2. M&E Plan
Implementation (use for
adaptive management)
D. 3. Budgeting and Funding
for M&E activities
E. Catalytic Role
F. Preparation and readiness
G. Country ownership /
drivenness
H. Stakeholders involvement
I. Financial planning
J. Implementation approach
K. UNEP Supervision and
backstopping
RATING OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS
Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project had no shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Satisfactory (S): The project had minor shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project had moderate shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The project had significant shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Unsatisfactory (U) The project had major shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project had severe shortcomings in the achievement
of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Please note: Relevance and effectiveness will be considered as critical criteria. The overall
rating of the project for achievement of objectives and results may not be higher than the
lowest rating on either of these two criteria. Thus, to have an overall satisfactory rating for
outcomes a project must have at least satisfactory ratings on both relevance and effectiveness.
RATINGS ON SUSTAINABILITY
A. Sustainability will be understood as the probability of continued long-term outcomes and
impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The Terminal evaluation will identify and
assess the key conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the
persistence of benefits after the project ends. Some of these factors might be outcomes of
the project, i.e. stronger institutional capacities, legal frameworks, socio-economic
incentives /or public awareness. Other factors will include contextual circumstances or
developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are relevant to the sustainability
of outcomes..
Rating system for sustainability sub-criteria
On each of the dimensions of sustainability of the project outcomes will be rated as follows.
Likely (L): There are no risks affecting this dimension of sustainability.
Moderately Likely (ML). There are moderate risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability.
Moderately Unlikely (MU): There are significant risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability
Unlikely (U): There are severe risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.
According to the GEF Office of Evaluation, all the risk dimensions of sustainability are
deemed critical. Therefore, overall rating for sustainability will not be higher than the rating
of the dimension with lowest ratings. For example, if a project has an Unlikely rating in any
of the dimensions then its overall rating cannot be higher than Unlikely, regardless of whether
higher ratings in other dimensions of sustainability produce a higher average.
RATINGS OF PROJECT M&E
Monitoring is a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified
indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing project with
indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of
allocated funds. Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or
completed project, its design, implementation and results. Project evaluation may involve the
definition of appropriate standards, the examination of performance against those standards,
and an assessment of actual and expected results.

The Project monitoring and evaluation system will be rated on `M&E Design', `M&E Plan
Implementation' and `Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities' as follows:
Highly Satisfactory (HS): There were no shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Satisfactory(S): There were minor shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS): There were moderate shortcomings in the project M&E
system.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): There were significant shortcomings in the project
M&E system.
Unsatisfactory (U): There were major shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The Project had no M&E system.
"M&E plan implementation" will be considered a critical parameter for the overall
assessment of the M&E system. The overall rating for the M&E systems will not be higher
than the rating on "M&E plan implementation."
All other ratings will be on the GEF six point scale.
GEF Performance Description
Alternative description on
the same scale
HS
= Highly Satisfactory
Excellent
S
= Satisfactory
Well above average
MS
= Moderately Satisfactory
Average
MU
= Moderately Unsatisfactory
Below Average
U
= Unsatisfactory
Poor
HU
= Highly Unsatisfactory
Very poor (Appalling)

Annex 2. Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
Co-financing (basic data to be supplied to the consultant for verification)
IA own
Government
Other*
Total
Total
Financing
Disbursement
Co financing
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(Type/Source)
Planne
Actual
Planne
Actual
Plann
Actual
Plann
Actual
Planned
Actual
d
d
ed
ed

Grants

Loans/Concessio
nal (compared to
market rate)

Credits

Equity
investments

In-kind support

Other (*)
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation
agencies, NGOs, the private sector and beneficiaries.

Leveraged Resources
Leveraged resources are additional resources--beyond those committed to the project itself at the time of approval--that are mobilized
later as a direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO's,
foundations, governments, communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since
inception and indicate how these resources are contributing to the project's ultimate objective.
Table showing final actual project expenditure by activity to be supplied by the UNEP Fund management Officer. (insert here)

Annex 3
Review of the Draft Report
Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or Project
Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff and senior
Executing Agency staff provide comments on the draft evaluation report. They may provide
feedback on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such errors in any
conclusions. The consultation also seeks agreement on the findings and recommendations.
UNEP EOU collates the review comments and provides them to the evaluators for their
consideration in preparing the final version of the report. General comments on the draft report
with respect to compliance with these TOR are shared with the reviewer.
Quality Assessment of the Evaluation Report
All UNEP GEF Mid Term Reports are subject to quality assessments by UNEP EOU. These
apply GEF Office of Evaluation quality assessment and are used as a tool for providing structured
feedback to the evaluator.
The quality of the draft evaluation report is assessed and rated against the following criteria:
GEF Report Quality Criteria
UNEP
Rating
EOU
Assessme
nt
A. Did the report present an assessment of relevant outcomes and
achievement of project objectives in the context of the focal area program
indicators if applicable?
B. Was the report consistent and the evidence complete and convincing and
were the ratings substantiated when used?
C. Did the report present a sound assessment of sustainability of outcomes?
D. Were the lessons and recommendations supported by the evidence
presented?
E. Did the report include the actual project costs (total and per activity) and
actual co-financing used?
F. Did the report include an assessment of the quality of the project M&E
system and its use for project management?
UNEP EOU additional Report Quality Criteria
UNEP
Rating
EOU
Assessme
nt
G. Quality of the lessons: Were lessons readily applicable in other contexts?
Did they suggest prescriptive action?
H. Quality of the recommendations: Did recommendations specify the
actions necessary to correct existing conditions or improve operations
(`who?' `what?' `where?' `when?)'. Can they be implemented? Did the
recommendations specify a goal and an associated performance indicator?
I.
Was
the
report
well
written?
(clear English language and grammar)
J. Did the report structure follow EOU guidelines, were all requested

Annexes included?
K. Were all evaluation aspects specified in the TORs adequately addressed?
L. Was the report delivered in a timely manner
GEF Quality of the MTE report = 0.3*(A + B) +
0.1*(C+D+E+F)
EOU assessment of
MTE report = 0.3*(G + H) +
0.1*(I+J+K+L)
Combined quality Rating = (2* `GEF EO' rating + EOU
rating)/3
The Totals are rounded and converted to the scale of HS to HU
Rating system for quality of terminal evaluation reports
A number rating 1-6 is used for each criterion: Highly Satisfactory = 6, Satisfactory = 5, Moderately
Satisfactory = 4, Moderately Unsatisfactory = 3, Unsatisfactory = 2, Highly Unsatisfactory = 1, and
unable to assess = 0.

Annex 4 GEF Minimum requirements for M&E
Minimum Requirement 1: Project Design of M&E28
All projects must include a concrete and fully budgeted monitoring and evaluation plan by the
time of Work Program entry (full-sized projects) or CEO approval (medium-sized projects). This
plan must contain at a minimum:
SMART (see below) indicators for project implementation, or, if no indicators are identified,
an alternative plan for monitoring that will deliver reliable and valid information to
management
SMART indicators for results (outcomes and, if applicable, impacts), and, where appropriate,
corporate-level indicators
A project baseline, with:
a description of the problem to address
indicator data
or, if major baseline indicators are not identified, an alternative plan for addressing this
within one year of implementation
An M&E Plan with identification of reviews and evaluations which will be undertaken, such
as mid-term reviews or evaluations of activities
An organizational setup and budgets for monitoring and evaluation.
28 http://gefweb.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEPoliciesProcedures/MEPTools/meptstandards.html

Minimum Requirement 2: Application of Project M&E
Project monitoring and supervision will include implementation of the M&E plan,
comprising:
Use of SMART indicators for implementation (or provision of a reasonable explanation if not
used)
Use of SMART indicators for results (or provision of a reasonable explanation if not used)
Fully established baseline for the project and data compiled to review progress
Evaluations are undertaken as planned
Operational organizational setup for M&E and budgets spent as planned.
SMART INDICATORS GEF projects and programs should monitor using relevant performance
indicators. The monitoring system should be "SMART":
1. Specific: The system captures the essence of the desired result by clearly and directly
relating to achieving an objective, and only that objective.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Annex 5 List of intended additional recipients for the Terminal Evaluation (to be completed by the
IA Task Manager)
Name
Affiliation
Email
Government Officials
GEF Focal Point(s)
Executing Agency
Implementing Agency
Carmen Tavera
UNEP
DGEF
Portfolio
Manager

ANNEX 2: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
Project partners
FC/UBC (Vancouver, BC, Canada):
Villy Christensen
Daniel Pauly
IOC/UNESCO (Paris, France):
Bernardo Aliaga, Programme Specialist
NOAA LME Programme (Naragansett, RI, USA):
Ken Sherman
Marie-Christine Aquarone
Rutgers University (New Brunswick, NJ, USA):
Sybil Seitzinger
Emilio Mayorga
UNEP Division of GEF Coordination:
Virginie Hart (Athens, Greece)
Takehiro Nakamura (telephone interview Nairobi, Kenya)
WCFS/AFS (Bethseda, MD, USA):
Gus Rassam
Elden Hawkes
GEF/LME representatives
Interim Guinea Current Commission (Accra, Ghana):
Jacques Abe (telephone interview)
Benguela Current LME Programme
Michael O'Toole (telephone interview)
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand (UNEP/GEF
project)
Christopher Paterson (email exchange)
Others
FAO Fisheries Department (Rome, Italy):
Kevern Cochrane (email exchange)
Marcelo Vasconcellos (email exchange)

ANNEX 3: LIST OF PROGRESS REPORTS REVIEWD BY TE EVALUATOR
REPORT TYPE
PERIOD COVERED
COMMENT
Biennium report
4 May 2004 31 December 2006 Report established in 2007 to
compensate for lacking half
yearly reports during the first part
of the project.
Half-yearly report
January June 2007
Half-yearly report
July - December 2007
UNEP GEF PIR
July 2005 June 2006
Some sections only partly filled
in.
UNEP GEF PIR
July 2006 June 2007
Some sections only partly filled
in.
GEF-IW
Annual
project 2006
performance results
GEF-IW
Annual
project 2007
performance results
Annex 4: Format for half-yearly January June 2006
Incomplete
progress report
Annex 4: Format for half-yearly July December 2006
Incomplete
progress report
Annex 4: Format for half-yearly January- June 2007
Incomplete
progress report
In addition, a number of reports from Project partners on their activities some prepared in direct relation
to their invoicing under contracts with IOC/UNESCO were made available to the evaluator.

ANNEX 4: TERMINAL EVALUATION TIMELINE AND ITINERARY OF VISITS
EVALUATION TIME LINE:
26
5-
12-
19-
30
Ma
9-
16-
23-
7-
14-
21-
11
18
25
2-8
Jun
Activity
y
15
22
29
13
20
28
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Ma
Ma
Ma
Jun
6
1
Jun
Jun
Jun
Jul
Jul
Jul
y
y
y
Jul
Jun
Signature
contract
5 May
Desk study
Travel
preparations
Travel
(itinerary
below)
Preparation of
visit reports
and feed back
Telephone
interviews
Drafting of
report
Submission of
draft report
7 July
Comments to
received by 5
November
Revision of
report
Submission of
final draft
report 14
November

ITINERARY:
Arrival
Departure
Visit to
Halifax, Canada
11 May 2008
Vancouver, BC, Canada
11 May 2008
13 May 2008
FC/UBC
Halifax, Canada
13 May 2008
18 May 2008
Bethesda, MD, USA
18 May 2008
19 May 2008
WCFS/AFS
Narragansett, RD, USA
19 May 2008
21 May 2008
NOAA
New Brunswick, NJ, USA
21 May 2008
23 May 2008
Rutgers
Athens, Greece
24 May 2008
26 May 2008
UNEP
Paris, France
26 May 2008
28 May 2008
IOC/UNESCO
Halifax, Canada
28 May 2008

ANNEX 5: COMPONENT 1
WORLD COUNCIL OF FISHERIES SOCIEITES (WCFS) / AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
(AFS) BETHESDA, MARYLAND USA
Role of WCFS/AFS in the Project (and role of Project in WCFS/AFS29)
WCFS/AFS implemented Component 1 of the UNEP/GEF Project: Strengthening eco-system based
approaches to fisheries conservation and sustainability. The Component consisted of 5 sub-components:
(a) Workshops and seminars on fisheries management, i.e. 13 workshops and seminars organised during
the 4th World Fisheries Congress in May 2004, (b) Development of extensive database of ecosystem
oriented fisheries management practices and experts, hosted by WCFS and AFS, (c) Survey of the needs of
each developing country in sound, responsible scientific approaches to fisheries management, (d)
Strengthening of the GEF-LME projects network and other marine fisheries networks and partnerships,
and (e) Project management. The work under the component intended to contribute to increased
dissemination of information and networking between fisheries experts in developed and developing
countries (objectives 10.1 and 10.2, outcomes 11.1 and 11.3) and the applications of newly acquired
database of ecosystem-based fisheries management practices in developing countries (outcome 11.1).
WCFS/AFS was initially (according to the Project Document) designated executing agency for
Component 1. However, before the 4th World Fisheries Congress, this was changed. IOC/UNESCO was
asked (by AFS) to help with the travel arrangements for participants and also assumed executing
responsibility for all other parts of the project (see further below).
From the point of view of WCFS/AFS, the Project was originally conceived as a project with WCFS/AFS
as sole implementer/partner. The overall purpose of the initial proposal was to train fisheries experts in
developing countries in various fisheries management issues. The merge of this proposal with the other
components appears to have taken place on the initiative of UNEP/GEF and/or the NOAA LME
Programme.
The main role of WCFS/AFS as foreseen in the design of the broader consolidated Project was to become
the hub for the networking activities. An extensive and active network ("for receiving and exchanging
information on ecosystem based fisheries assessment tools and management methods and tools",
Component 1a indicator) was to be established together with a database containing information on
fisheries management practices and needs for capacity building in participating LME (developing)
countries. The already extensive network of members in AFS (mainly North American) and in other
national organisations that are members of or affiliated with WCFS (e.g. Australia, India, Japan, Mexico,
Pakistan, UK) were to form the basis for the Project's new LME fisheries management network. However,
although attempts were made to establish these outcomes, the results do not appear to live up to the
initially defined ambitions. This is further discussed below under Table 3.
The Project played a role in AFS in linking the organisation with fisheries scientists in developing
countries. Although AFS has members also outside North America, it has remained a national (or bi-
national with many members from Canada) organisation. The Global Fisheries Ecosystem Management
Network (GFEMN), which was the network created through the Project, now largely represents AFS'
developing country membership. Its members are more widely distributed than the national fisheries
29 WCFS does not have a physical secretariat but acts though its steering committee and the Executive Director of
AFS is also the chairperson of the WCFS. In practice, the Project activities have been carried out by AFS.

societies that are members of WCFS; 107 GFEMN members represent some 40 countries while the
developing country fisheries societies of WCFS only include India, Mexico, and Pakistan30.
AFS has used these contacts for selecting which libraries/universities in developing countries should be
given free access to AFS publications (currently provided to selected institutions in Indonesia and Senegal
but AFS is considering the expansion of this activity) and on one occasion to distribute donated text
books. It is felt that this direct contact with "practicing scientists" is essential for this type of activity in
order to target the right beneficiaries for the services AFS can provide. AFS also offers membership at a
nominal annual fee (US$ 5) to developing country nationals.
The Project also contributed to the establishment of closer contact between AFS and the NOAA LME
Programme. It is foreseen that the expanded LME website portal will also include links to the AFS
website and its members (see also Appendix on NOAA).
Overview of activities, results and beneficiaries
Activities and results
Although activities were carried out more or less in accordance with the plan for Component 1, the results
as mentioned above did generally not meet the targets stated in the Project Document.
The GFEMN network was established during the 4th World Fisheries Congress and the list of members
continues to be used for distributing information on training opportunities etc through a list-serve / mailing
list managed by AFS. GFEMN members are also given free membership in AFS for a period of five years
and free access to AFS publications. There is a "database" consisting of an Excel-sheet with contact
details for the 107 members, posted on the website (http://www.fisheries.org/afs/international.html)
Originally more information was collected and the website contained news and postings but due to an
apparent lack of interest on behalf of members to actively participate in the network, the website has
become static and now only contains limited background information on the Project and the list of
GFEMN members. It is not clear why the network did not succeed in engaging the targeted beneficiaries
to a larger extent, but it could be speculated that its purpose and focus was not sufficiently specialised to
be attractive to scientists.
The survey on needs in developing countries that was carried out did not yield the results hoped for; out of
90 questionnaires distributed, only six were received back. A brief survey report was produced by AFS (as
part of their Final report to the Project) but the low number of questionnaires returned does not allow for
proper analysis or for sound conclusions to be drawn. An explanation for the low response rate could be
that the questions asked focused on national policy issues that the GFEMN member scientists were not
directly involved in and would hence find difficult to answer.
The activities carried out by WCFS/AFS are further discussed in Table 3. An overview of how the results
of the WCFS/AFS implemented activities contributed to Project outcomes and objectives is given in Table
4, using the "TE main questions" as the framework31.
30 There are also associated members and applications in process, e.g. China and Somalia.
31 As discussed in the beginning of the section on Project Performance in the main text of this report, the "TE main
questions: (page 3 of TE TOR in ANNEX 1) are being used as a consolidated summary of the objective and outcome
indicators stated in the Project Document.

Beneficiaries
The beneficiaries of the WCFS/AFS Component 1 activities are the members of the GFEMN network
(with the benefits included as described above) and participants in the 4th World Fisheries Congress whose
travel was financed by the Project. The free access to AFS material by selected libraries in Indonesia and
Senegal are also likely to have benefited scientists in these countries.
Table 3: Project activities carried out by WCFS/AFS (by component indicator)
Date
Indicator
Activity
Remarks
completed
1a: Each workshop is attended by at
Project funded 33 participants to the 4th
May 2004
Workshops were
least 40 people. Of these 40 attendees,
World Fisheries Congress (participants
held in connection
up to 30 will consist of professionals
were selected by AFS and NOAA LME
with 4th World
engaged in GEF-LME projects. The
Programme and travel arrangements
Fisheries Congress
Project Steering Committee will
carried out by IOC/UNESCO).
and a list of
undertake the process of determining
participants exist
One training workshop in collaboration
attendees. Fisheries scientists,
but their
with UBC (24 participants)
managers, extension professionals, and
professional
policy makers are trained at 13
affiliation is not
Congress courses and workshops in
clear, i.e. it is not
successful approaches to responsible
possible to assess
fisheries management with an integrated
whether 75% were
approach. Workshop attendees take
engaged in
their training back to developing
GEF/LME
countries and share their skills with
management.
others. They will also serve as the post
3 additional workshops held but not
May 2004
Originally 13
Congress E-Network for receiving and
funded by the Project (although
workshops were
exchanging information on ecosystem
participants may have had travel funded to
planned but due to
based fisheries assessment and
the Congress by the Project).
low enrolment most
management methods and tools.
were cancelled.
Workshops carried
out included:
Microcomputer
applications in
fisheries science
(11 participants)
Stock assessment
for data poor
fisheries (20)
Decision analysis,
risk assessment and
risk management
(20)

Date
Indicator
Activity
Remarks
completed
1b: Database fully accessible by end of
Detailed information requested from
?
Efforts were made
year 1. Regular updates of the database.
original GFEMN members. Currently
to make the website
Project web site established by the
(May 2008) the website only includes
interactive early on
WCFS and AFS.
contact details of 107 members from 40
in the Project but
countries. It is however no longer an LME
little interest was
network; membership focus has shifted
shown on behalf of
over the years and GFENMN had become
GFEMN members.
a more general fisheries scientist network.
Now contact list is
maintained and a
Members in GFEMN are given free
"listserve" is
membership in AFS and subscriptions to
distributed by AFS
AFS publications. NOAA plans to link
weekly with
GFEMN members together with the
information on
WCFS and AFS membership to the new
training
LME portal (see ANNEX 7).
opportunities etc.
1c: Survey of the needs of developing
Questionnaire sent to 90 members; only 6
Feb 2008
No conclusions can
countries is completed and results
responses were received.
be drawn.
assessed. Fisheries scientists,
managers, extension professionals, and
policy makers in developing countries
are successfully trained in sound
fisheries management approaches, and
they use these approaches in their future
plans.
1d: Project network is strengthened
2 meetings of 33 members were held
See also remark
through Congress workshops and
during 4th World Fisheries Congress and
under 1b.
activities. Post-Congress network
GFEMN was established. GFEMN
continues to grow based on the existing
currently has 107 members.
GEF-LME projects network.
1e: Project Steering Committee and
2 first PSC organised by AFS but later
It would appear that
Project Secretariat established
IOC took over this responsibility.
PSC meetings have
been held more
often than
stipulated in the
Project Document
but they have not
always been
documented.

Table 4: Results of AFS/WCFS Project activities answers to TE questions
1.
Did the project help to improve understanding of country fisheries scientists, managers, extension professionals
and policy makers in scientific, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management and fishery assessments
that include food web and nutrient effects?
It has to be assumed that the participants in the 4th World Fisheries Congress and in associated the training courses
benefited from these activities. However, there is no evidence showing that this had any impact on the understanding
of ecosystem approaches by developing country fisheries professionals in general.
2.
Has the consultative and collaborative network between developed and developing countries fisheries experts
sharing lessons on fisheries management within the context of the ecosystem approach targeted the relevant key
groups and organisations, and has this resulted in the adoption of new fisheries management measures?
Although the GFEMN was created, it does not appear to have the network features that were foreseen by the Project;
currently it functions as a mailing list.
3.
Have the results of the ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling been adopted in at least 10 countries involved
in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
N/A please refer to table 6 below.
4.
Have the nutrient forecast models been successfully adopted in at least 10 countries involved in the
implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
N/A please refer to table 9 below.
5.
To what extent did the project outputs produced have the weight of scientific authority and credibility necessary
to influence policy makers and other key audiences?
N/A please refer to table 6 below.

Sustainability and catalytic role
Considering its weaknesses mentioned above, the GFEMN does not appear to be sustainable. The current
members may however continue to be members of AFS, or of one of the national societies of the WCFS.
The Project is also likely to have contributed to making AFS more open to and interested in developing
country members and to making AFS more known in these countries, which could lead to increased future
exchanges between scientists in developing and developed countries.
Stakeholder participation and ownership
While there would appear to have been a certain level of stakeholder participation and ownership evident
in the initial meetings of the GFEMN during the 4th World Fisheries Congress, there is now little active
involvement on behalf of members; they are mainly receivers of information from AFS (through the
weekly emails). The low response rate for the survey would also appear to indicate that the sense of
ownership by members is low.
Operational and administrative issues
M&E
Reports have been submitted to IOC/UNESCO as and when requested. A final report, also including the
results from the survey (see above), was submitted in February 2008.
WCFS/AFS was not aware of any further reporting requirements. Hence, the quarterly progress reports
mentioned in the Project Document (indicator 11.3 c) were never submitted.
Financial planning
As mentioned in the beginning of the Appendix, it had originally been planned that WCFS/AFS would be
the executing agency for Component 1 (and IOC/UNESCO for the other 3) but eventually IOC/UNESCO
was given administrative responsibility for the whole Project. Instead, WCFS/AFS became a Project
partner and had two contracts with IOC/UNESCO.
The first contract covered the workshops given at the 4th World Fisheries Congress. However, the travel
arrangements for the participants were made and paid for directly by IOC/UNESCO. The IOC/UNESCO-
WCFS/AFS contract was officially only established in 2005 and AFS was hence reimbursed the costs,
incurred and advanced by them, for the Project sponsored workshops retroactively.
The Project had been approved shortly before the 4th World Fisheries Congress and it would appear that
the funds were made available fairly late, which prevented some participants to participate or arrive on
time for all workshops. Still, 33 participants are reported to have been funded and participated in the
GFEMN meetings during the 4th World Fisheries Congress.
The first contract intended to also cover the survey and establishment of the database. However, these
activities were not completed under the first contract and their continuation was included under the 2nd
contract. The total amount for the two contracts was US$ 209,048 (US$ 111,048, and 98,000).
It would appear that the financial reporting requirements in particular for the second contract were
minimal; the four invoices only stated a main output or activity (e.g. "Development of database: US$
35,000" and "Survey needs & capabilities dev countries: US$ 25,000").
The planned co-funding, as stated in the Project Document, amounted to US$ 300,000. However, in a
report dated October 2007, AFS estimates their co-funding contribution to US$ 410,000.

ANNEX 6: COMPONENTS 2a AND 2d
FISHERIES CENTRE / UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLOMBIA (FC/UBC), CANADA
Role of FC/UBC in the Project (and role of Project in FC/UBC)
FC/UBC implemented Component 2a of the UNEP/GEF Project: Pauly-Christensen UBC Workshops
and Seminars on carrying capacity based on ECOSIM and ECOPATH model training and application for
64 LMEs under the overall heading of Component 1: Filling the gaps in LME fisheries carrying capacity.
The component has contributed to the outcomes and objectives regarding enhancing the capacity of
experts and scientists in ecosystem approaches to fisheries management (objective 10.1, outcome 11.2),
strengthening collaborative networks (objective 10.2, outcome 11.3) and filling gaps in the knowledge on
ecosystem carrying capacities (objective 10.3).
FC/UBC has also carried out the activity under Component 2d FAO catch statistics updates for the year
2000 for the world's 64 LMEs, completing an 11-year time-series. This activity was initially planned to be
implemented by FAO but due to staff limitations of the organization, there was a change of partners for
the task. The activity built on work carried out through activities carried out under the Sea Around Us
project and the output fed into the development of basic LME ecosystem models (see below). It also
contributed to the write-up of a chapter in the UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report A perspective on
changing conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas (UNEP Regional Seas Studies and Reports No
182. This is further discussed in ANNEX 7 on NOAA.
Except for contacts with the NOAA LME Programme, at the conception of the Project and also
throughout its implementation, the work by FC/UBC has been carried out almost entirely independently
from the other components, activities and partners of the Project. FC/UBC participated in Project Steering
Committee (PSC) meetings and the outputs of the UBC work as also the work of the other partners has
been pulled together by the NOAA LME Programme in its Project coordinator role (e.g. for the UNEP
report mentioned above).
Some collaboration with AFS took place in relation to the first workshop held in connection with the 4th
World Fisheries Congress (Component 1). There are also links between the work carried out by Rutgers
University on nitrogen flows / eutrophication analysis and forecasting (Component 3) and the Ecopath
with Ecosim (EwE) modelling but no explicit link has yet been established. The results of the nitrogen
loading forecasts are potentially of significance to the ecosystem models and UBC has followed with
interest the work carried out by Rutgers. Moreover, regular contacts with IOC/UNESCO have been
maintained during the Project but this has been for administrative purposes rather than technical,
IOC/UNESCO being the executing agency of the Project.
The development and application of EwE and its associated model components have constituted an
important part of FC/UBC's work programme for almost a decade through the implementation of the Sea
Around Us project. The implementation of the UNEP/GEF Project was nested within the structure of the
Sea Around Us project and contributed additional support for workshops and model development. Due to
the high degree of integration between the UNEP/GEF Project and other activities of the Sea Around Us
project, it is somewhat difficult to clearly separate the outputs and outcomes generated by one project
from those of the other. The total financial contribution by the UNEP/GEF Project constituted only a few
percent of the total Sea Around Us project during its implementation period but thanks to synergy effects,
the results could be more important that the level of funding may suggest. The UNEP/GEF Project also
allowed for specific activities to be implemented than would maybe not have taken place otherwise. The
activities of the UNEP/GEF Project are described below.

Overview of activities, results and beneficiaries
Project activities
All the activities planned in the Project Document have been implemented and the results achieved meet
the indicators defined for Components 2a and 2d. In fact, more activities were carried out than foreseen in
the Project Document, i.e. one additional workshop32 and ecosystem modelling of all existing LMEs.
These activities were specified in the contracts between IOC/UNESCO and FC/UBC. Moreover, a
publication on the modelling results by LME will be published as an IOC/UNESCO Technical Report (in
accordance with a decision in the PSC meeting in January 2008 and along with a similar report on the
work by Rutgers). At the time of the TE, a couple of these activities were still ongoing but were scheduled
to be completed before the end of the Project, i.e. by June 2008 (see Table 5).
The workshop activities also included the preparation of extensive study material for the trainees
consisting of, among other things, an EwE User Manual that had been adapted to the training course in
question. When releasing the new version of EwE 6.0 the manual was revised in a more substantial way.
This work was partly financed by the Project and the new user manual version was distributed to the
participants of the workshop in the Philippines.
In addition to the activities listed in Table 5, the Project also contributed indirectly to the following:
LME ecosystem modeling session at the 2005 Annual Science Conference of the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
Ecosystem modelling workshop for Gulf of Guinea, Accra (Ghana) 2006
The Project did not provide funding for these events but they could be considered spin-offs of preceding
Project activities.
Results
With regard to the quality of the EwE models produced and the concepts and methodologies taught at the
training workshops, the TE Consultant believes these to be of very high standard. The TE Consultant is
not in a position to assess EwE from a technical point of view, nor does the scope of the TE allow for an
assessment of EwE as such. However, considering the popularity of EwE and its general renown among
researchers around the world33 in combination with the reputation of FC/UBC's capacities, it would
appear safe to assume that the results in this respect are of top quality (see also description of EwE in Box
434. The same assessment is valid for the work on updating and reorganising the catch statistics to allow
for aggregates at an LME level.
32 The reason for including an additional workshop was the relatively low number of participants that the Project paid
for at the first workshop organised in connection with the 4th World Fisheries Congress. Project funds hence
remained available for this additional activity.
33 According to a citation index analysis carried out by FC/UBC using Web of Science for the years 1992-2004, EwE
is the dominant modelling framework for ecosystem modelling currently in use (Christensen, V. & C.J. Walters.
2005. Using ecosystem modelling for fisheries management: Where are we? Paper presented at ICES Annual
Science Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, 20-24 September 2005. CM 2005/M:19 (updated). 17pp).
34 The original model of ECOPATH was developed by NOAA scientists and the approach has been selected one of
NOAA's top ten breakthroughs
(see http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/ecopath/welcome.html#modeling).

Table 5: Project activities carried out by FC/UBC (by component indicator)
Date
Indicator
Activity
Remarks
completed
2a: ECOPATH/ECOSIM training
Training workshop UBC (24
May 2004
In collaboration
module completed and
participants)
with AFS during 4th
successfully utilized by scientists
World Fisheries
from developing countries during
Congress.
2 in-country workshops and 1
Training workshop Latvia (19
Oct 2004
In collaboration
UBC workshop.
participants)
with Baltic Sea
Project.
Training workshop South Africa (28
Dec 2005
In collaboration
participants)
with UCT and
MCM.
Training workshop Philippines (31
Feb 2008
In collaboration
participants)
with WorldFish
Center.
2d: Completion and
Catch data updated and LME time
Dec 200735
The database to be
dissemination of 64 LME 11-year
series completed.
available on
time-series, 1990 through 2000,
www.seaaroundus.o
depicting decadal trends in fish
rg
biomass levels. Report produced
and disseminated by FAO on
updated time-series data. Present
FAO system for reporting global
fish catches is limited to large
geographic areas of the world's
ocean.
Activities and outputs not
Ecosystem models based on EwE
Basic first
explicitly mentioned in Project
developed for 63 of the world's 6636
models
Document but included under the
defined LMEs.
available (final
contractual arrangements
versions Jun
between IOC and UBC.
2008)
Web-based database making the LME
Jun 2008
models available
Technical report on the LME models
Draft available
To be published by
and analyses: Models of the world's
(final version
UNESCO and
large marine ecosystems
Jun 2008)
UBC37.
Chapter in UNEP The UNEP Large
See further
Marine Ecosystems Report (No 182)
Appendix on
NOAA.
35 The activity has in fact been completed but was not yet covered by a contract from IOC (see further under
Operational and administrative issues below).
36 A decision to formally increase the number of LMEs from 64 to 66 (by a redefinition of the LMEs in the Arctic
region) is likely to be taken in July this year at the meeting of the LME Consultative Committee (IOC-IUCN-
NOAA).
37 IOC/UNESCO Technical Report Series and Fisheries Centre Report, 2008, Volume 16, Issue 7.

However, when looking at the use of EwE models in fisheries management processes and by decision
makers, it is more difficult to see clear results although the approach is used in some parts of the world
(see Table 6 below). The reasons for this are likely to be of a more general nature and not related to the
quality of EwE. An overview of how the results of the FC/UBC implemented activities contributed to
Project outcomes and objectives is given in Table 6, using the "TE main questions" as the framework38.
Beneficiaries
The direct beneficiaries of the FC/UBC activities were primarily fisheries and ecology scientists (and
students) in developing countries (Africa and Southeast Asia) and in countries that at the time were
considered "economies in transition", e.g. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the Baltic region. The total
number of trainees is 110 (including the workshop in Ghana). The participants in the workshop in Latvia
were selected by the Baltic Sea LME project, which also paid for travelling costs. For the workshop in
South Africa, the two co-partners UCT and MCM helped with the selection in coordination with the
Benguela Current LME project. The latter also paid for travel costs. The workshop in the Philippines was
posted on a commercial "event coordinator" website (www.brite.com). With the assistance of NOAA
LME Programme, all LME projects in the region were also contacted. However, the turnout was lower
than expected and most participants were from the Philippines. All workshops required a certain
educational and professional background and specified criteria were used in the selection process.
Sustainability and catalytic role
Thanks to the fact that the UNEP/GEF Project was fully incorporated into the existing Sea Around Us
project and built on and contributed to an already ongoing process the development, enhancement and
application of EwE the results achieved with regard to modelling are likely to be sustainable. The Sea
Around Us project is expected to continue for the foreseeable future and the work of the UNEP/GEF
Project constitutes an integral part of the whole EwE project. It will be further built upon and replicated as
appropriate. FC/UBC gives training courses on a continuous basis through the Sea Around Us project and
it is possible that further support in addition to the fairly common contacts on an individual basis
between FC/UBC and former trainees will be extended to some of the same countries, regions, LMEs or
participants that have already received training39.
The sustainability of the enhanced capacity of scientists acquired through the Project training workshops
is more difficult to judge. As mentioned in other parts of this Appendix, the application of Project results
at the level of fisheries policy and management are rare. If former trainees do not have opportunity and
authority to inform decision making, the degree of sustainability of Project results will be low.
Stakeholder participation and ownership
The stakeholders of the Project included the trainees, LME and fisheries managers, the different Project
partners involved in the organisation of training workshops and ultimately the local populations dependent
on effective management of fisheries and LMEs. The Project activities were directed to trainees and
stakeholder involvement was limited to this group and Project partners.
As mentioned above, the trainees for the various workshops were selected in somewhat different ways.
The level of stakeholder ownership has probably been low at the start of activities (i.e. before training
workshops) but could have increased over time for trainees who developed models for their local areas
with support from FC/UBC.
38 See footnote 31.
39 For example, a second training course for the Gulf of Guinea will be held in December 2008.

Table 6: Results of FC/UBC Project activities answers to TE questions
1.
Did the project help to improve understanding of country fisheries scientists, managers, extension
professionals and policy makers in scientific, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management and
fishery assessments that include food web and nutrient effects?
The Project contributed to building capacity with regard to ecosystem modelling (using EwE) among scientists from
the participating regions (in particular the Baltic Sea, Benguela Current and South China Sea). Many of these
scientists have continued to work with EwE for their local, national and regional areas. FC/UBC estimates that, after
a training course, about of a third of the trainees remain in contact with them on EwE modelling related issues. An
example of application and follow-up to be noted is the decision by the local participants in the training workshop in
Ghana to publish a book on "Fisheries of the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem". This publication is
currently under preparation with organisational and editorial support from FC/UBC.
However, while there are several examples of good EwE modelling work at the research level, there are fewer
examples of direct application of EwE in decision making at the fisheries management and policy level. The
countries of the Guinea Current LME project are starting to make use of the approach and it is also known to be used
to varying extents and in different forms in fisheries management in40:
-
Thailand (fisheries management in the Gulf of Thailand)
-
Benguela LME (for management of certain segments, including small-pelagics)
-
Namibia (impact of proposed fisheries interventions)
It is however not possible to attribute these applications solely to the UNEP/GEF Project; they represent an outcome
of the long-term work by FC/UBC (and others) on ecosystem modelling.
2.
Has the consultative and collaborative network between developed and developing countries fisheries
experts sharing lessons on fisheries management within the context of the ecosystem approach targeted the
relevant key groups and organisations, and has this resulted in the adoption of new fisheries management
measures?
There are over 5,000 registered users of EwE in over 160 countries in the world. While there is no formalised
network structure in place, there are many contacts between users and the training workshop have contributed to
establishing these relationships (see also (1) above).
3.
Have the results of the ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling been adopted in at least 10 countries
involved in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
EwE is likely to be used by scientists being involved, directly or indirectly, in GEF/LME projects or working in
countries implementing GEF/LME projects but apart from what has been mentioned under (1) above the
evidence of influence at management and policy levels is still limited.
4.
Have the nutrient forecast models been successfully adopted in at least 10 countries involved in the
implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
N/A
5.
To what extent did the project outputs produced have the weight of scientific authority and credibility
necessary to influence policy makers and other key audiences?
EwE is widely known and carries substantial scientific authority and credibility among scientists; it is one of the
major approaches for ecosystem modelling. The reason for it not being incorporated into fisheries management
processes to a larger extent as mentioned above (see (1) is unlikely to be related to any doubt regarding its
scientific quality of the work as such but rather to the way fisheries management is structured in general and the
relatively recent recognition by managers and decision makers that it is necessary to adopt an ecosystem approach.
Likewise, ecosystem models such as the EwE are in many respects still in a development phase and in the
process of being tested empirically.
40 Geographical areas outside the scope of the Project where the approach is also used for various fisheries
management processes include the Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, Great Barrier
Reef (Australia) and Ortobello lagoon (Italy).

Box 4: The Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) approach
"EwE is an ecological software suite for personal computers that has been under development for more than a
decade. The development is centered at the University of British Columbia's Fishery Centre, while applications
are widespread throughout the world. [...] EwE has three main components: Ecopath a static, mass-balanced
snapshot of the system; Ecosim a time dynamic simulation module for policy exploration; and Ecospace a
spatial and temporal dynamic module primarily designed for exploring impact and placement of protected areas.
The Ecopath software package can be used to

Address ecological questions;

Evaluate ecosystem effects of fishing;

Explore management policy options;

Evaluate impact and placement of marine protected areas;

Evaluate effect of environmental changes.
The foundation of the EwE suite is an Ecopath model [...], which creates a static mass-balanced snapshot of the
resources in an ecosystem and their interactions, represented by trophically linked biomass `pools'. The biomass
pools consist of a single species, or species groups representing ecological guilds. Pools may be further split into
ontogenetic (juvenile/adult) groups that can then be linked together in Ecosim. Ecopath data requirements are
relatively simple, and generally already available from stock assessment, ecological studies, or the literature:
biomass estimates, total mortality estimates, consumption estimates, diet compositions, and fishery catches.
[...]
Ecosim provides a dynamic simulation capability at the ecosystem level, with key initial parameters inherited
from the base Ecopath model. The key computational aspects are in summary form:

Use of mass-balance results (from Ecopath) for parameter estimation;

Variable speed splitting enables efficient modeling of the dynamics of both `fast' (phytoplankton) and
`slow' groups (whales);

Effects of micro-scale behaviors on macro-scale rates: top-down vs. bottom-up control incorporated
explicitly.

Includes biomass and size structure dynamics for key ecosystem groups, using a mix of differential and
difference equations. As part of this EwE incorporates:
o
Juvenile size/age structure by monthly cohorts, density- and risk-dependent growth;
o
Adult numbers, biomass, mean size accounting via delay-difference equations;
o
Stock-recruitment relationship as `emergent' property of competition/predation interactions of
juveniles.
Ecosim uses a system of differential equations that express biomass flux rates among pools as a function of time
varying biomass and harvest rates, [...]. Predator prey interactions are moderated by prey behavior to limit
exposure to predation, such that biomass flux patterns can show either bottom-up or top down (trophic cascade)
control [...]. By doing repeated simulations Ecosim allows for the fitting of predicted biomasses to time series
data. [...] Ecosim can thus incorporate (and indeed benefits from) time series data on:

relative abundance indices, (e.g., survey data, catch per unit effort [CPUE] data);

absolute abundance estimates;

catches;

fleet effort;

fishing rates; and

total mortality estimates.
For many of the groups to be incorporated in the model the time series data will be available from single species
stock assessments. EwE thus builds on the more traditional stock assessment, using much of the information
available from these, while integrating to the ecosystem level."
(About EwE, webpage, available at www.ecopath.org).

Operational and administrative issues
M&E
Reports have been submitted to IOC/UNESCO as and when requested. The main documents in this
respect are the two final reports, one for each of the two contracts FC/UBC had with IOC/UNESCO.
Contacts have also been maintained with NOAA and progress discussed and reported to the agency
although not always in documented and systematic way.
Financial planning
FC/UBC has had two contracts with IOC/UNESCO and is expecting to sign a third one for Component
2d.
The establishment of both two contracts that FC/UBC had with IOC/UNESCO took longer than expected.
The first contract was delayed about one year due to legal and administrative procedures. The second
contract was about six months late due to, at least partly, the sudden passing away of the UNEP Task
Manager. The third contract is delayed because of UNESCO rules that do not allow the total of
simultaneous contracts to exceed a certain amount.
These delays did however not affect the implementation of the Project. Other funding sources available
under the Sea Around Us project could support Project activities while waiting for the contractual
arrangements. The organisation of the workshop organised in connection with the 4th World Fisheries
Congress started late, with effects on the participants that were able to attend (see also footnote 32).
The total amount of the two established contracts is US$ 205,000. The third contract is expected to be for
some US$ 40,000 50,000. FC/UBC has officially provided co-funding of US$ 100,000. Considering the
way the UNEP/GEF Project was integrated with FC/UBC's other EwE activities, it is however difficult to
assess how much co-funding in the form of staff time that has been provided in practice.

ANNEX 7: COMPONENTS 2b AND 2c AND TECHNICAL COORDINATION
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. LME PROGRAMME
(NOAA), NARAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND USA
and work by
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, NEW JERSEY USA and
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND (URI), USA
Role of NOAA in the Project (and role of the Project in NOAA)
The NOAA LME Programme was not directly responsible for the implementation of any particular
component of the Project but acted as the main technical coordinator of all Project activities. Princeton
University and University of Rhode Island (URI) carried out the workshops on particle size spectra and
GIS included under Component 2, Filling gaps in LME fisheries carrying capacity, i.e. Training of GEF-
LME project network in the application of particle size spectra as indicators of pollution in LMEs
(Princeton) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) training in assessment and management of LMEs
(URI). These sub-components contributed to the outcomes and objectives regarding enhancing the
capacity of experts and scientists in ecosystem approaches to fisheries management (objective 10.1,
outcome 11.2) and filling gaps in the knowledge on ecosystem carrying capacities (objective 10.3).
NOAA was closely involved in the design of the Project, the coordination of activities during its
implementation and is currently playing an important role in pulling together the outputs generated, e.g. as
co-editor41 of the UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs
of the World's Regional Seas (UNEP Regional Seas Studies and Reports No 182) drawing on, among
other things, results produced by FC/UBC and Rutgers.
The LME concept was pioneered by NOAA and introduced as the main approach to ecosystem
management in US coastal areas in 1984; the Northeast US shelf is the prototype of the LME concept.
NOAA is also involved in LME projects internationally and works closely with all sixteen LME projects
funded by GEF since 1995, providing technical support and coordination. A total of some 2,500
participants and partners are involved, and grants and investments funds amount to US$ 1.8 billion (total
of projects ongoing in 2007). The present Project is providing important scientific support and is the only
GEF funded project focused on research; other LME projects are generally addressing management and
implementation issues more directly.
The important role of NOAA as the main technical coordinator was not spelt out clearly in the Project
Document although mentioned in the context of cofunding (e.g. under the heading Incremental Cost
Assessment page 13: "US-NOAA will provide scientific and technical support at the level of $200,000 to
assist the implementation of the project"). Nevertheless, there appears to have been an evident
understanding and appreciation of this role of NOAA among partners and the donor since the very
beginning of Project.
Overview of activities, results and beneficiaries
Activities and results
NOAA was the main contact point among Project partners (along with IOC/UNESCO for administrative
matters) and supported the work under the different components. In addition to support to the activities
carried out by WCFS/AFS, FC/UBC and Rutgers explained in ANNEXES 4, 5 and 7 NOAA also
41 The report is edited by Kenneth Sherman of the NOAA LME Programme and Gotthilf Hempel.

coordinated the work by Princeton and URI mentioned above. Moreover, NOAA continues to support the
further development of the LME portal, designed by URI (see http://www.lme.noaa.gov/Portal/ and
http://www.edc.uri.edu/lme/intro.htm). When completed, the portal will allow users to access all Project
outputs as well as other information on LMEs around the world through one web access point.
Table 7 gives an overview of the activities by Princeton and URI. Since NOAA's involvement largely
consisted of general support and overall Project coordination, component specific activities referred to in
the Appendices on AFS/WCFS, FC/UBC and Rutgers are not discussed further in this Annex.
Table 7: Project activities carried out by Princeton and URI (by component indicator)
Date
Indicator
Activity
Remarks
completed
2b: At least 3 GEF-LME projects
Workshop carried out on Climate
Mar 2006
Article published on
successfully using the methodology
Change, Upwelling, Fisheries and
size-structured
[particle size spectra] (Baltic, Guinea,
Coastal Communities with 34
plankton dynamics
Benguela LMEs).
participants whereof 6 from Benguela
model by participants
Current LME countries, 1 from Chile and
Stock, Powell and
1 from Nigeria (all others from
Levin 42as follow-up
developed countries, including Baltic Sea
on workshop. The
LME). The workshop was a joint
usefulness of the
undertaking by Princeton
approach for LME
University/University of California-
management is
Berkely, ICTP, IIASA and NOAA and
currently being
took place in Trieste, Italy.
assessed by NOAA.
2.c.
At
least
25
experts
from
13
Training session on GIS carried out by
Mar 2006
developing countries trained [in GIS
URI in cooperation with a GEF IWLearn
assessment and management of LMEs].
workshop on Sustainability of LMEs:
Bridging the Governance and
Socioeconomic Gap.11 participants from
6 LMEs (Agulhas/Somali Current, Baltic
Sea, Benguela Current, Caribbean Sea,
Guinea Current and Yellow Sea)
attended.
Activities and outputs not explicitly
Development of an information portal for Ongoing
NOAA is funding
mentioned in Project Document but
LMEs by URI.
further development
included
under
the
contractual
required before portal
arrangements between IOC and UBC.
can be made
operational.
One major output related to the Project and largely attributable to NOAA although based also on inputs
from other partners, i.e. FC/UBC and Rutgers is the UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report mentioned
above. The report consists of 64 LME condition briefs summarising information on each LME with regard
to:
-
Chlorophyll and primary production;
42 Stock, C.AS, Powell, T.M and Levin, S.A. 2008in press. Bottomup and topdown forcing in a simple size-
structured plankton dynamics model. Journal of Marine Systems.19pp.

-
Fish and fisheries based on a 50-year time series of landings, trophic levels of catch and value of
catch;
-
Changing conditions effecting pollution and the general health of LMEs;
-
Profiles of socioeconomic conditions related to marine resource variability in abundance and
availability; and
-
Descriptions of governance and management regimes operating in each of the LMEs.
In addition, the report includes summary chapters addressing Fish and Fisheries Diagnoses, the Status of
Global Nutrient Over-enrichment and the Effect of Global Climate Warming on Fisheries Biomass Yield.
The two first of these are based essentially on outputs produced by the Project. The Fish and Fisheries
Diagnoses present several innovative concepts and indicators for describing fisheries at the stock level and
is based on work by FC/UBC. The Status of Global Nutrient Over-enrichment is based on Rutgers' work
on nitrogen export. At the time of the TE, the document was subject to a peer review process and expected
to be published later in the year.
An overview of all Project results across components is given in the main text of the TE report (see Table
1).
Beneficiaries
The direct beneficiaries of the activities carried out by Princeton and URI were the participants attending
the workshops. Referring to Table 7 above, the number of beneficiaries from developing countries that
attended the two events may be considered somewhat low compared to the indicators and in the light of
the overall objective as spelled out in the Project Document. In particular with regard to the particle size
spectra training, it would also appear that few participants were directly involved in LME management.
On the other hand, the subject matter of the workshop required a certain educational and professional
background and the combination of participants may have been appropriate for producing the results
achieved.
The beneficiaries, in addition to Project partners, of NOAA's support and coordination constitute a much
wider and diverse group that will be defined largely by follow-up communication and outreach activities.
The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report is likely to reach a broad audience but its influence will also
depend on a variety of factors, including political commitment and whether support will be available for
bringing the approaches promoted into the arena of practical implementation.
Sustainability and catalytic role
As already mentioned above, the NOAA LME Programme is playing an important supportive and
coordinative role for the GEF funded LME projects. With NOAA as the central hub of the present Project,
sustainability is likely to be ensured since results and the need for follow-up activities will be considered
within the larger picture of LME projects. It should also be noted that the outputs of the Project are in this
context considered substantial and important, filling a gap in basic scientific information on LMEs that is
essential for improving fisheries/ecosystem management.
However, reviewing the Project results in the light of the objective and outcome indicators given in the
Project Document, it would appear that the Project has not quite achieved what it was set out to do with
respect influencing fisheries/ecosystem management of LMEs. This may be a Project design issue since it
appears that it was clear from the beginning to all partners involved that the Project was research focused
and that the scope would not allow for taking the next step, i.e. promoting the application of the scientific
results generated and the approaches developed at the level of actual LME management. It would appear
that substantial further efforts will be needed to achieve this and it would seem logical that NOAA should
be a key partner in any such initiative. In this respect, it should be noted that NOAA through its general

involvement in LME projects is in regular contact with GEF and other partners discussing potential
future activities with regard to LME management.
With regard to the activities and results relating to the involvement of Princeton and URI, the development
of the LME portal would appear of particular importance. NOAA's ongoing and continued support both
financially, administratively and technically to this output will be essential for its sustainability and
future usefulness.
Stakeholder participation and ownership
The stakeholders of the Project include the trainees, LME and fisheries managers, the different Project
partners involved in the organisation of training workshops and other Project activities. The ultimate
beneficiaries and stakeholders are the local populations dependent on effective fisheries/ecosystem
management in LMEs.
Maybe due to its research focus, it would appear that while the partners in particular NOAA, FC/UBC
and Rutgers were closely involved and had ownership of their respective parts of the Project, there was
relative little direct involvement of LME managers and relevant national decision-makers. Trainees and
participants in the various Project workshops were selected in somewhat different ways and generally in
consultation with GEF/LME project managers but overall the level of country-level and LME project
ownership in this respect has probably been low, including in the two events organised by Princeton and
URI. Some training courses required specialised scientific skills and were not necessarily designed for
LME project management. Participants tended to be qualified scientists who were not always closely
involved in practical ecosystem/fisheries management.
Operational and administrative issues
M&E
Reports have been submitted to IOC/UNESCO as and when requested. NOAA was not aware of any
further reporting requirements. Hence, the quarterly progress reports mentioned in the Project Document
(indicator 11.3 a) were never submitted.
Financial planning
NOAA did not receive any funding from the GEF budget. Instead, NOAA contributed US$ 200,000 of
cofounding consisting of staff time of NOAA LME Programme and travel costs for coordination and
general support as well as participation in workshops and meetings. The NOAA in-kind contribution also
covers time spent on the Project by Rutgers (Sybil Seitzinger is a NOAA employee).

ANNEX 8: COMPONENT 3
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY USA
Role of Rutgers in the Project (and role of Project in Rutgers)
Rutgers University implemented Component 3 of the UNEP/GEF Project: Filling gaps in LME Nitrogen
loadings forecasts for 64 LMEs. It consisted of three sub-components: (a) Organize initial IOC-UNESCO
workshop on modeling Nitrogen Flux and eutrophication. The workshop will be convened at
IOC/UNESCO in Paris, (b) Establish continuing training through electronic IOC Eutrophication Network
on the methods and application of a Nitrogen-based model used to forecast eutrophication conditions in
the 64 LMEs of the world, and (c) Follow-on final workshop on modeling of N flux and eutrophication to
be convened at IOC/UNESCO, Paris. The component contributed to the outcomes and objectives
regarding the enhancement of capacity of experts and scientists in ecosystem approaches to fisheries
management (objective 10.1, outcome 11.2), strengthening of collaborative networks (objective 10.2,
outcome 11.3) and forecasting nitrogen induced eutrophication (objective 10.4).
The work of Rutgers University has been fairly independent from the other Project components and the
work of other partners although the two workshops in Paris were implemented in collaboration with
IOC/UNESCO. Regular contacts with IOC/UNESCO were also maintained throughout the Project for
administrative purposes since IOC/UNESCO was the executing agency.
Moreover, Rutgers participated in Project Steering Committee (PSC) meetings and the outputs generated
under the Component have been pulled together with outputs of other Project components by the
NOAA LME Programme in its Project coordinator role. In this way, Rutgers has contributed to a UNEP
publication: The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystems Report A perspective on changing conditions in
LMEs of the World's Regional Seas (UNEP Regional Seas Studies and Reports No 182. This is further
discussed in the ANNEX 7 on NOAA.
There are some potential future links between the work carried out by Rutgers and the Ecopath with
Ecosim (EwE) modelling done by FC/UBC under Component 2a; the results of the nitrogen loading
forecasts are potentially of significance to the ecosystem models. However, this was not part of the Project
and no collaboration on this has yet taken place.
The Project activities carried out by Rutgers took place within the overall framework of the scientific task
force Global NEWS43, using the Global NEWS model (see Box 5). The Project contributed to the work of
the task force by providing a link to developing countries and allowing for validation of data for a number
of geographic (LME) areas. The fact that the Project activities were embedded in the wider context of
Global NEWS is likely to have created synergy effects increasing the `value for money' of the Project
investment. Close contacts have been maintained with several of the Project workshop participants thanks
to common professional interests and collaborative links are likely to continue beyond the Project.
43 Global Nutrient Export from Water(S)heds.

Box 5: Global NEWS
"Global NEWS is an international, interdisciplinary scientific taskforce, focused on understanding the
relationship between human activity and coastal nutrient enrichment. It was formed in the spring of 2002
as a workgroup of UNESCO's Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), with co-sponsorship
by UNEP, US-NSF44, and US-NOAA. Global NEWS is a LOICZ45 affiliated project. The primary aim of
Global NEWS is to construct and apply the next generation of spatially explicit, global nutrient export
models, linking the resulting river loads to quantitative assessments of coastal ecosystem health. The first
set of global river export models was published in late 2005 in a special collection of the journal Global
Biogeochemical Cycles."
The possible application areas of Global NEWS include:
-
"Identification of areas prone to nutrient over-enrichment
-
Explanation of regional patterns in coastal nutrient enrichment
-
Prediction and mitigation of environmental impacts of nutrient over-enrichment (e.g. occurrence
of harmful algal blooms)
-
Identification of nutrient sources to the coastal zone and their relative importance
-
Evaluation of potential environmental impacts due to economic and policy decisions at the
national, regional, and global level"
Source: Global NEWS webpage (http://marine.rutgers.edu/globalnews/index.htm)
Overview of activities, results and beneficiaries
Project activities
All the activities planned in the Project Document have been implemented and the results achieved meet
the indicators defined for Component 3, except possibly for indicator 3b referring to the application of
model results in GEF LME projects (see also Table 8). In addition to the activities specified in the Project
Document, an IOC/UNESCO technical report is being prepared for publication later this year (in
accordance with a decision in the PSC meeting in January 2008 and along with a similar report on the
work by FC/UBC). Moreover, a manuscript has been prepared for publication in a peer reviewed journal.
In preparation of the workshops, the Global NEWS model had to be reconfigured to fit the context of
LMEs, to allow inputting of databases for 2030 forecasting scenarios and to facilitate its use by workshop
participants46. Specific training material was also developed for the workshops. IOC/UNESCO handled
the practical arrangements for the workshops (room scheduling, computer rentals, internet connections,
travel arrangements).
44 United States National Science Foundation.
45 LOICZ is a core project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the International
Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP).
46 The modelling work and training carried out in the context of the Project used a new Nitrogen Export from
Watersheds Model (NEWS N-Export Model) that predicts inorganic N export by rivers to the coast.

Table 8: Project activities carried out by Rutgers (by component indicators)
Date
Indicator
Activity
Remarks
completed
3.a. At least 5 developing countries and
1st training workshop held at
Jan 2006
Participants from 7
countries with economy in transition and
IOC/UNESCO (8 participants)
developing countries
7 GEF-LME projects trained. Training
(Chile, China, Ghana,
materials disseminated broadly through
India, Mexico,
the established network.
Namibia, Nigeria)
and 1 economy in
transition (Latvia).
3.b. Ongoing interactive operation of the
The network has been and
See also
IOC Eutrophication Network. Nitrogen
continues to be active. The
http://marine.rutgers.
modeling successfully applied in at least
Nitrogen export model was
edu/globalnews/LME
6 GEF-LME projects.
successfully applied in at least 6
workshop.htm
GEF/LMEs through the
workshop participant activities.
However, it is not known if the
results have been directly
incorporated into GEF/LME
projects.
3.c. Training completed. Completion of
2nd training workshop held at
Sep 2006
New participants
the final Nitrogen Flux Workshop
IOC/UNESCO (8 participants)
from Angola, China
Report and dissemination to the GEF-
and Latvia replacing
LME Network.
3 trainees from
earlier workshop that
could not attend.
Activities and outputs not explicitly
Nitrogen loading forecasts
Manuscript prepared
mentioned in Project Document but
developed for each of the
for publication in
included under the contractual
world's 64 defined LMEs.
peer reviewed
arrangements between IOC and Rutgers.
journal.
Technical report on the LME
2008
To be published by
models and analyses: Filling
UNESCO47.
gaps in LME Nitrogen Loadings
Forecast for 64 LMEs
Chapter in the UNEP Large
See further Appendix
Marine Ecosystems Report A
on NOAA.
perspective on changing
conditions in LMEs of the
World's Regional Seas (UNEP
Regional Seas Studies and
Reports No 182)
Project component summary
Sep 2007
document developed and
distributed at the 2nd Global
Conference on LMEs in
Qingdo, China
47 IOC Technical Series No 79. UNESCO 2008.

Results
With regard to the quality of the model results and the concepts and methodologies taught at the training
workshops, the TE Consultant believes that these are of a very high standard. The TE Consultant is not in
a position to assess the work from a technical point of view, nor does the scope of the TE allow for such
an assessment. However, considering the apparent general global renown of Global NEWS, the TE
Consultant concludes that the work carried out is state of the art.
However, Global NEWS is a relatively new approach; the first set of articles was published by the task
force in 2005 and 2006. The model is being used by the task force members and by academia. While it to
a certain extent feeds into management decisions in Europe and North America, its wider application in a
policy context is yet to begin (see also Box 5). In order to use its results in the context of
fisheries/ecosystem management, further analyses would be needed; the model estimates the nitrogen
export up to the coastline and not its effects on fish populations.
The network created through the workshops and follow-up work the IOC Eutrophication Network48
appears to be functioning well and to be useful. It is a virtual network (e.g. no webpage or other formal
structure), partly built on social contacts made during the training events but also because of professional
mutual interests. The fact that the group is relatively small with a common professional focus may be part
of the explanations for its success.
An overview of how the results of the activities implemented by Rutgers contributed to Project outcomes
and objectives is given in Table 9: Results of Rutgers Project activities answers to TE questions, using
the "TE main questions" as the framework49.
Beneficiaries
The direct beneficiaries of Rutgers University activities were the government agency and academic
scientists who participated in the workshops and training. These included a total of eleven individuals
from nine countries, representing seven LMEs (Baltic Sea, Bay of Bengal, Benguela Current, Guinea
Current, Gulf of Mexico, Humboldt Current and the Yellow Sea). Eight participants attended each
workshop: three from the first one could not attend the second and appointed replacements from their
respective LMEs. Trainees also took part actively in the work in between and after the training events. The
participants were selected with assistance of the relevant LME projects and had to fulfil certain
educational and professional criteria.
Sustainability and catalytic role
Considering that the Project activities were nested in the overall Global NEWS work, the results generated
by Component 3 are likely to be sustainable on the whole. Work on nutrient forecasting will continue after
the conclusion of the Project within the existing Global NEWS task force and the group at Rutgers. In
addition to the Global NEWS members at Rutgers, two members from the Netherlands also participated in
the second workshop carried out creating direct interaction between the workshop participants and the
larger group of Global NEWS individuals. The network established among developing country
participants appears sustainable, at least as long as there are shared interests as a basis for communication.
It is also likely that there will continue to be exchanges between scientists in developing and developed
countries although it is doubtful that work focusing on developing countries will be maintained by the task
force unless a follow-up project is approved (see below).
48 The network may be more of a social network consisting of workshop participants; it does not have a specific
agenda or formulised objectives.
49 See footnote 31.

Table 9: Results of Rutgers Project activities answers to TE questions
1.
Did the project help to improve understanding of country fisheries scientists, managers, extension
professionals and policy makers in scientific, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management and
fishery assessments that include food web and nutrient effects?
The Project contributed to building capacity with regard to eutrophication modelling among government agency and
academic scientists from the nine participating countries and seven LMEs (Baltic Sea, Bay of Bengal, Benguela
Current, Guinea Current, Gulf of Mexico, Humboldt Current and Yellow Sea). Rutgers continues to be in contact
with several of the trainees and the original Global NEWS task force has in this way through the IOC
Eutrophication Network become more global with contacts in developing countries. The IOC Eutrophication
Network continues to be active and participants generally pursue research activities related to nitrogen loadings. Two
participants from the Project training courses are participating in the SCOR50/LOIZC working group of Land Based
Nutrient Pollution and Harmful Algal Bloom.
However, it is not possible to see an impact of the Project at the level of managers and policy makers at this stage.
Considering that nutrient export through river loads appears to receive increasing attention by global
environmentalists, the results of the Project could contribute to increased awareness of this issue in the future
although it will be difficult to distinguish between the impact of the Project and that of the Global NEWS task force
as a whole.
It should also be noted that Nitrogen export is not a fisheries issue as such and that additional analyses are needed to
understand the potential effect on fish populations (e.g. in the context of ecosystem modelling).This was outside the
scope of Component 3 of the Project.
2.
Has the consultative and collaborative network between developed and developing countries fisheries
experts sharing lessons on fisheries management within the context of the ecosystem approach targeted the
relevant key groups and organisations, and has this resulted in the adoption of new fisheries management
measures?
The IOC Eutrophication Network and its contact with the Global NEWS task force constitutes increased effective
collaboration between developed and developing country scientists, and trained government agency and academic
scientists who interact with their government agencies that address environmental issues. However, it is not known if
this has led to an adoption of new fisheries management measures (see also (1) above).
3.
Have the results of the ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling been adopted in at least 10 countries
involved in the implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
N/A please refer to table 6 above.
4.
Have the nutrient forecast models been successfully adopted in at least 10 countries involved in the
implementation of the GEF/LME's projects?
No. Scientists in nine countries are likely to have a good understanding of the issue and the forecast model but this
has not yet influenced GEF LME project implementation, as far as it is known. Further activities and support
focusing on linking the scientific results with management decisions would be needed for this to happen (and such
follow-up activities are currently being discussed within the context of a new project).
5.
To what extent did the project outputs produced have the weight of scientific authority and credibility
necessary to influence policy makers and other key audiences?
The modelling work carried out under the Project and Global NEWS appears to have an excellent international
reputation. With appropriate dissemination, outreach and delivery to policy processes, this could influence policy
makers and others in the future.
50 Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research.

The influence of nitrogen loading forecasts on future LME management will depend on a number of
factors. As mentioned above, the link to fisheries/ecosystem management is not direct but further analyses
are required. It would appear important to include nutrient export factors in the assessment and
management of LME ecosystems, both as an explanatory factor enhancing the understanding of ecosystem
state and health and as a basis for taking multi-sectoral action to mitigate the impact of human land based
activities on coastal areas. Political support would be important for the latter.
The Project did not explicitly address the need to disseminate and publicise the results of the work carried
out at national policy and LME management levels. It is recognised that this is a critical step to link
science and policy and management decision making and a new project proposal to GEF is under
preparation as a follow-up to the present Project. The new project would include the development of a
user friendly interface of the model as well as a tool box and would target LME managers and other
decision makers more directly. It would cover LMEs in Southeast Asia, West Africa and Central America.
Stakeholder participation and ownership
The stakeholders of the Project included the eleven workshop participants, LME and fisheries/ecosystem
managers, government agencies and other organisations concerned with the reasons for and effects of
nutrient export and ultimately the local populations dependent on effective management of fisheries and
LMEs.
The Project activities were directed to workshop participants and stakeholder involvement was limited to
this group.
Operational and administrative issues
M&E
Reports have been submitted to IOC/UNESCO as and when requested. The main documents in this
respect are the two final reports for year 1 and year 2 one for each of the two contracts Rutgers had
with IOC/UNESCO. Contacts have also been maintained with NOAA; this has been through telephone
discussions as well as by progress and final reports being copied to NOAA when submitted to
IOC/UNESCO.
Financial planning
Rutgers has had two contracts with IOC/UNESCO, one for each year of the Project implementation phase
relevant to Component 3.
The total amount of the two established contracts is US$ 164,000 (US$ 79,000 + 89,000). Co-funding in
kind contributions were not reported directly by Rutgers but by NOAA (since Rutgers' lead person, Sybil
Seitzinger, is a NOAA employee).

ANNEX 9: PROJECT OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES AND COMPONENTS
Table 10: Project objectives
General objective:
To support participation in the [4th World Fisheries] Congress [May 2004 in Vancouver, Canada] and its courses, workshops, and the follow-on networking
of fisheries professionals from countries participating in the development and implementation of GEF/LME projects and other developing countries and
countries with economies in transition. The project will serve to strengthen capacity for improving fisheries management at local, provincial and national
levels through a holistic approach by facilitating sharing and applying usable knowledge and successful practices from the Congress and follow-on
workshops and networking.
Objectives:
Objective indicators:
1. Train fisheries experts from developing countries and countries with
Increased dissemination of lessons learned through the establishment of a
economies in transition in scientific, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries
collaborative network of trained developing country fisheries scientists,
management and fishery assessments that include food web and nutrient
managers, extension professionals and policy makers to promote sound,
effects considerations in management decision-making.
scientific approaches to fisheries sustainability and management with an
emphasis on the large marine ecosystems of developing countries.
Application by developing countries of advanced fishery assessments that
include food web and nutrient effects considerations in management decision
making.
2. Strengthen collaborative network and partnerships among fisheries
Consultative and collaborative network between developed and developing
scientists, managers, and policy makers from developed and developing
country fisheries experts sharing lessons on fisheries management within the
countries through ECOPATH/ECOSIM workshops, Nutrient modelling
context of the ecosystem approach
workshops, and the May 04 Fisheries Congress and follow-on activities on
fisheries management within the context of the ecosystem approach.
3. Fill gaps in ecosystem carrying capacity for sustainable fisheries.
ECOPATH/ECOSIM food-web modelling results adopted in at least 10
countries involved in the implementation of the GEF/LMEs projects for
management actions supporting recovery of depleted fish stocks.
4. Forecast Nitrogen induced eutrophication.
Nutrient forecast models adopted in at least 10 countries involved in the
implementation of the GEF/LME's projects for management actions to
reduce coastal eutrophication.
Source: Project Document.

Table 11: Project outcomes
Outcomes:
Outcome indicators:
1. Increased dissemination of information and lessons learned made readily End users survey shows applications of newly acquired database of
available to fisheries scientists, managers, extension professionals, and policy ecosystem-based fisheries management practices in developing countries and
makers in developing countries through extensive database of ecosystem increase in dissemination of information and lessons learned
oriented fisheries management practices.
2. Well trained fisheries scientists, managers, and extension professionals in Scientists and resource managers from at least 10 countries involved in the
developing countries who are better prepared to guide the management and implementation of the GEF/LME's projects receive certification in the
development of their countries' aquatic ecosystems in a holistic way, using application of advanced food-web and nutrient flux models, and apply new
responsible scientific approaches to estimating fisheries carrying capacity, methodologies as input to management actions for recovery of depleted fish
forecast Nitrogen eutrophication conditions, and who can act as the nucleus stocks and reduction of nutrient loadings to coastal waters.
of stakeholders group in each country that would approach fisheries issues in
a scientific and practical manner.
3. A global community of fisheries scientists, managers, and extension Operational network of experts from developing countries in the application
professionals from developing countries with growing science capacity who of ECOPATH/ECOSIM modelling for fisheries assessment and management
are able to continually access new scientific information and ideas on strategies, through 2 in-country workshops and 1 UBC workshop and IT-
scientifically based-approaches to responsible fisheries management through based communications on implementation progress over 24 months.
their association with the global GEF-LME project network and/or Evaluations of the influences of ECOPATH-ECOSIM food-web are to be
association with the World Council of Fisheries Societies/ American conducted and reported on quarterly intervals.
Fisheries Society.
Operational network of experts from developing countries in the application
of Nitrogen-flux modelling for management actions for reducing nutrient
loadings of LME coastal waters through participation in 2 workshops and IT
communications on implementation progress over 12 months. Evaluation of
influences of nitrogen modelling on management actions are to be completed
at quarterly intervals.
Operational network of experts from developing countries in the application
of ecosystem-based fisheries assessment and management methods through
participation at the 4th World Fisheries Congress, and follow-on workshops.
Preparation of CDs, detailed fisheries assessment modules, materials and
tapes, beginning in May 2004 and continuing with IT communications of the
Network for 24 months to 2006. Evaluations of the influence of ecosystem-
based networks on fisheries assessment and management are to be reported
on at quarterly intervals.

Outcomes (cont.):
Outcome indicators (cont.):
4. GEF-LME projects network trained in the application of the role of At least 7 GEF-LME projects under implementation trained successfully.
particle-size spectra as an indicator of pollution stressors on Large Marine Training materials prepared for IT distribution to the LME Network by May
Ecosystems, beginning in May 2004 and completion in May 2005.
2005. At least 4 GEF-LME projects under development involved at the latter
stage.
5. Fisheries experts from developing countries trained in GIS applications for At least 25-30 experts from developing countries and countries with
ecosystem-based assessment and management, beginning in May 2004 and economies in transition involved in the GEF/LME projects trained in the
targeted for completion in May 2005.
applications of a high-resolution internet map server capacity for LMEs by
May 2005. Training materials available to all participating countries and
GEF-LME projects.

Table 12: Project activity components
Components:
Component indicators:
Partners:
Component 1: Strengthening ecosystem-based approach to
fisheries conservation and sustainability:
1a: Workshops and seminars on fisheries management 13
1a: Each workshop is attended by at least 40 people. Of these 40
WCFS/AFS
workshops and seminars will be organised during the 4th fisheries
attendees, up to 30 will consist of professionals engaged in GEF-
congress in May 2004.
LME projects. The Project Steering Committee will undertake the
process of determining attendees. Fisheries scientists, managers,
extension professionals, and policy makers are trained at 13
Congress courses and workshops in successful approaches to
responsible fisheries management with an integrated approach.
Workshop attendees take their training back to developing
countries and share their skills with others. They will also serve as
the post Congress E-Network for receiving and exchanging
information on ecosystem based fisheries assessment and
management methods and tools.
1b: Development of extensive database of ecosystem oriented
1b: Database fully accessible by end of year 1. Regular updates of
WCFS/AFS
fisheries management practices and experts, hosted by WCFS and
the database. Project web site established by the WCFS and AFS.
AFS.
1c: Survey of the needs of each developing country in sound,
1c: Survey of the needs of developing countries is completed and
WCFS/AFS
responsible scientific approaches to fisheries management.
results assessed. Fisheries scientists, managers, extension
professionals, and policy makers in developing countries are
successfully trained in sound fisheries management approaches,
and they use these approaches in their future plans.
1d: Strengthening of the GEF-LME projects network and other
1d: Project network is strengthened through Congress workshops
WCFS/AFS
marine fisheries networks and partnerships.
and activities. Post-Congress network continues to grow based on
the existing GEF-LME projects network.
1e: Project management.
1e: Project Steering Committee and Project Secretariat established
Initially WCFS/AFS
and later
IOC/UNESCO
Component 2: Filling the gaps in LME fisheries carrying capacity
2a: Pauly-Christensen UBC Workshops and Seminars on carrying
2a: ECOPATH/ECOSIM training module completed and
FC/UBC
capacity based on ECOSIM and ECOPATH model training and
successfully utilized by scientists from developing countries
application for 64 LMEs.
during 2 in-country workshops and 1 UBC workshop
2b: Training of GEF-LME projects network in the application of
2b: At least 3 GEF-LME projects successfully using the
Princeton
particle size spectra as indicators of pollution in LMEs
methodology (Baltic, Guinea, Benguela LMEs).

Components (cont.):
Component indicators (cont.):
Partners (cont.):
2c: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) training in assessment
2c: At least 25 experts from 13 developing countries trained.
URI
and management of LME's
2d: FAO catch statistics updates for the year 2000 for the World's
2d: Completion and dissemination of 64 LME 11-year time-series,
FC/UBC (originally
64 LMEs, completing an 11-year time-series
1990 through 2000, depicting decadal trends in fish biomass
planned be FAO)
levels. Report produced and disseminated by FAO on updated
time-series data. Present FAO system for reporting global fish
catches is limited to large geographic areas of the world's ocean.
Component 3: Filling gaps in LME Nitrogen loadings forecasts
for 64 LMEs
3a: Organize initial IOC-UNESCO workshop on modelling
3a: At least 5 developing countries and countries with economy in
Nitrogen Flux and eutrophication. The workshop will be convened
transition and 7 GEF-LME projects trained. Training materials
at IOC/UNESCO in Paris.
disseminated broadly through the established network.
3b: Establish continuing training through electronic IOC
3b: Ongoing interactive operation of the IOC Eutrophication
Eutrophication Network on the methods and application of a
Network. Nitrogen modelling successfully applied in at least 6
Nitrogen-based model used to forecast eutrophication conditions
GEF-LME projects.
in the 64 LMEs of the world.
3c: Follow-on final workshop on modelling of N flux and
3c: Training completed. Completion of the final Nitrogen Flux
eutrophication to be convened at IOC/UNESCO, Paris.
Workshop Report and dissemination to the GEF-LME Network.
Component 4: Monitoring and evaluation
4: Quarterly progress reports are provided to the Project Steering
Committee. Final evaluation of the project carried out
independently and under the oversight of UNEP's Evaluation and
Oversight Unit. Final report submitted to GEF.
Source: Project Document.

ANNEX 10: TRAINEES AND PARTICIPANTS IN PROJECT WORKSHOPS
ANNEX 9A: Participants in 4th World Fisheries Congress
Vancouver, British Colombia (Canada), May 2004:

ANNEX 9B: Participants EwE workshops / FC/UBC
Latvia, October 2004:

South Africa, December 2005:

Ghana, April 2006:

Philippines, February 2008:

ANNEX 9C: Participants nitrogen export modelling / Rutgers (and IOC/UNESCO)
1st workshop, January 2006:

2nd workshop, September 2006:

ANNEX 9D: Particle size spectra / Princeton (and University of California-Berkeley,
International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) and the International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA))
Trieste, Italy March 2006
Gboyega Ajao
Leader, Evolution and Ecology Program
Nigerian Institute for Oceanography
IIASA
Victoria Island
2361 Laxenburg
Lagos
Austria
NIGERIA
+43 (2236) 807-386
234 80232 47991
dieckman@iiasa.ac.at
nana_ajao@yahoo.co.uk
Maria Esperanca dos Santos
Andrew Baku
National Institute of Fishery Research
University of Miami RSMAS/MBF
Luanda
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Angola
Miami, FL 33149-1098
mariasantos35@hotmail.com
(305) 421-4986
abakun@rsmas.miami.edu
Leen Hordijk
Director
Jack Barth
IIASA
Department of Physical Oceanography
2361 Laxenburg
Burt 292
Austria
Oregon State University
+43 2236 807-402
Corvallis, OR 97331-2914
hordijk@iiasa.ac.at
(541) 737-1607
barth@coas.oregonstate.edu
Anja Kreiner
Biological Oceanography
Kenneth Broad
National Marine Information & Research Center
University of Miami RSMAS/MBF
P.O. Box 912
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Swakopmund
Miami, FL 33149-1098
Namibia
(305) 421 - 4851
+264 - 64 - 410 1173
kbroad@rsmas.miami.edu
akreiner@mfmr.gov.na
Juan Carlos Castilla
Ants Leetmaa
Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas,
Director
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,
NOAA GFDL
Santiago
Princeton University Forrestal Campus
Chile
201 Forrestal Road
56-2-686 2651
Princeton, NJ 08540-6649
jcastill@genes.bio.puc.cl
+1-(609) 452-6500
Ants.Leetmaa@noaa.gov
Margaret R. Good Collins
Program Director, US Committee for IIASA
Heather Leslie
The National Academies
Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology and the
Board on International Scientific Organizations
Princeton Environmental Institute
Policy and Global Affairs
Princeton University,
The National Academies, W541
Princeton, NJ 08544-1003
500 Fifth Street, NW
+1-(609) 258-7915
Washington, DC 20001
hleslie@princeton.edu
+1- (508)548-2502
mcollins@nas.edu
Ulf Deskman

Simon A Levin
Nande Nickanor
George M. Moffett Professor of Biology
Physical and Chemical Oceanography: Satellite
Princeton University
Remote Sensing
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
National Marine Information & Research Centre
203 Eno Hall
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Princeton, NJ 08544-1003
106 Bach St., Windhoek West
(609) 258-6880
Windhoek
slevin@princeton.edu
Namibia
+264 (46) 410 1118
Simone
Libralato
Istituto
Nazionale
di
nnickanor@mfmr.gov.na
Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale
Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica
Mick O'Toole
Sperimentale OGS Dept. Oceanography, ECHO
Chief Technical Advisor
Group
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem
Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c 34010
Hidas Centre
Sgonico
Corner of Sam Nujoma & Nelson Mandela Ave.
Italy
OGS Dept. Oceanography
Klein Windhoek
+39 (040) 2140276
Windhoek
slibralato@ogs.trieste.it
Namibia
+264 (61) 246948
Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer
otoole@mweb.com.na
Leader, Risk and Vulnerability Program
IIASA
Anthony Patt
2361 Laxenburg
Department of Geography,
Austria
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
+43 (2236) 807-308
Boston University
bayer@iiasa.ac.at
675 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Matteo Marsili
(617) 510-2340
The
Abdus
Salam
International
Centre
for
apatt@bu.edu
Theoretical Physics Strada Costiera 11, 34014
Trieste Italy
Daniel Pauly
+390402240461
University of British Columbia
marsili@ictp.trieste.it
Fisheries Centre
Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2
Christian Möllmann
Canada
Danish Institute for Fisheries Research
(604) 822-1201
Dept. of Marine Fisheries
d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.ca
Charlottenlund Castle
DK-2920 Charlottenlund
George Philander
Denmark
Department of Geosciences
+45 (3396) 3458
M47 Guyot Hall
cmo@dfu.min.dk
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
Pedro M. Scheel Monteiro
(609) 258-4100
Ecosystems Programme
gphlder@princeton.edu
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
P.O. Box 320
Thomas (Zack) Powell
Stellenbosch 7599
Integrative Biology
South Africa
UC Berkeley
+27 (21) 8882437
5041 Valley Life Sciences Bldg #3140
pmonteir@csir.co.za
Berkeley CA 94720-3140
642-7455
zackp@berkeley.edu

Andrea Rinaldo
Nils Christian Stenseth
UNIPD
Chair, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary
Trieste, Italy
Synthesis (CEES)
rinaldo@idra.unipd.it
University of Oslo
Biologisk
Claude Roy
Kristine Bonnevies hus
Directeur
Blindernveien 31
Centre IRD de Bretagne
0371 OSLO
BP 70 - 29280
Norway
Plouzané
+47 22854584
France
n.c.stenseth@bio.uio.no
+33 (0) 2 98 22 45 00
claude.roy@ird.fr
Charles Stock
Department of Integrative Biology
Jan Peter Sendzimir
University of California, Berkeley
Risk and Vulnerability Program
3060 VLSB #3140; Berkeley, CA 94720-3140
IIASA
(510) 643-1252
2361 Laxenburg
cstock@whoi.edu
Austria
+43 (2236) 807-471
Neville Sweijd
sendzim@iiasa.ac.at
Director
Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction &
Ken Sherman
Training Programme (BENEFIT)
NEFSC Narragansett Laboratory
P.O.Box 912
28 Tarzwell Drive
Swakopmund
Narragansett, RI 02882-1199
Namibia
(401) 782-3211
+264(064)4101162
kenneth.sherman@noaa.gov
nsweijd@benguela.org
Cosimo Solidoro
Michael Thompson
Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica
Risk and Vulnerability Program
Sperimentale - OGS
IIASA
borgo grotta gigante 42/C Sgonico
2361 Laxenburg
Trieste
Austria
Italy
+43 (2236) 807-308
+39 (040) 2140315
thompson@iiasa.ac.at
csolidoro@ogs.trieste.it
Katepalli R. Sreenivasan
Director
The
Abdus
Salam
International
Centre
for
Theoretical Physics
Strada Costiera 11
34014 Trieste
Italy
+39 (040) 2240 251
krs@ictp.trieste.it

ANNEX 9E: GIS training / URI
Rhode Island, March 2006:

ANNEX 11: PROJECT FINANCIAL STATEMENT
BUDGET AND EXPENDTURES
Unspent
Unspent
balance April
UNEP
Project
balance after
Revised budget
2008 after
budget OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE
Original budget
component
revisions and (proposal 2008)
proposed
code
actuals 2007
revision and
actuals
3201 Workshop (4th World Fisheries Congress)
1a
1
16,500.00
15
7.91 11
6,342.09
3202 Workshop on Fisheries Management
1a
20,000.00

20,000.00

1201 Consultant for dissemination information (IT support)
1b
5
0,000.00
27
,000.00 50
,000.00
1202 Consultant for development and maintenance of database
1b
45,000.00
27,000.00
45,000.00

1301 Administrative support
1b
5
,000.00
3
,000.00 5
,000.00
1203 Technical assistance: support for an IT network
1c
3
2,000.00
15
,000.00 26
,000.00
1204 Survey of needs: cost of survey and surv ey analysis
1c
55,000.00

55,000.00

1101 Project Coordinator
1d
1
5,000.00
9
,000.00 13
,712.81 7,
712.81
3204 Project Steering Committee meeting
1d
12,000.00
6
,952.00
5
,048.00

SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 1
350,500.00
88,109.91 336,102.90 7,
712.81
1601 Travel payment for participants in ECOPATH model training
2a
20,000.00
20,000.00
18,835.00

3203 Workshop on ECOPATH model training
2a
6
0,000.00

60
,000.00
5201 Reporting cost
2a
5
,000.00
5
,000.00 5
,000.00
5301 Communications
2a
20,000.00

20,000.00

5302 Database and websit development and upkeep
2a
4
0,000.00
10
,000.00 40
,000.00
5303 Modelling on LMEs, information retrieval
2a
80,000.00

80,000.00

SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 2A
225,000.00
35,000.00 223,835.00
3301 Training in LME scaling models
2b
70,000.00
10,000.00
70,000.00

3302 GIS training for ecosystembased fisheries assessment and web portal
2c
3
5,000.00

35
,000.00
1205 Preparation of FAO fish catch statistics for LMEs
2d
40
,000.00
40
,000.00 40
,000.00 40
,000.00
SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 2
370,000.00
85,000.00 368,835.00 40,000.00
3303 Initial LME nitrogen loading/eutrophication training workshop
3a
8
0,500.00

80
,500.00
5201 Reporting cost
3a
12,500.00

31,500.00

4201 Office equipment (computers)
3b

4101 Computer rental
3b
4
,000.00

4
,000.00

4102 Software purchasing
3b
4
0,000.00
9
,116.49 26
,408.50 24
,678.59
3304 LME nitrogen loading/eutrophication workshop
3c
80,500.00

109,653.60

5201 Reporting cost
3c
12
,500.00

12
,500.00
SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 3
230,000.00
9
,116.49 264,562.10 24,678.59
5581 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
4
44,500.00
44,500.00
25,500.00
25,500.00
TOTAL
995,000.00
226,726.40 995,000.00 97,891.40

ANNEX 12: CO-FUNDING AND LEVERAGE RESOURCES
IA own
Government
Other*
Total
Total
Co financing
Financing
Disbursement
(Type/Source)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual

Grants

Loans/Concession
al (compared to
market rate)

Credits

Equity
investments

In-kind support
AFS
0.300
0.410
0.300
0.410
IOC-UNESCO
0.140
0.139
0.140
0.139
NOAA**
0.200
0.160
0.200
0.160
FC/UBC
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100

Other (*)
Totals
0.140
0.139
0.200
0.160
0.100
0.100
0.300
0.410
0.740
0.809
* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs,
the private sector and beneficiaries.
** Also includes in-kind contributions from Rutgers University (Sybil Seitzinger is a NOAA employee).
Leveraged Resources
Leveraged resources are additional resources--beyond those committed to the project itself at the time of approval--that are mobilized later as a
direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO's, foundations, governments,
communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since inception and indicate how these resources
are contributing to the project's ultimate objective: N/A

ANNEX 13: CV OF EVALUATOR
CURRICULUM VITAE
of
Lena Maria WESTLUND
PERSONAL DATA
Date of birth:
22 May 1964
Nationality:
Swedish
Sex:
Female
Marital status:
Married with one child
Address:
Westlund Research & Consulting
148 Pinewood Crescent
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
B2V 2P9 CANADA
Telephone: ++1-902-435 5271
Mobile telephone: ++1-902-471 8049 (or ++46-708-548813)
E-mail: lena.westlund@swipnet.se or lena.westlund@ns.sympatco.ca
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
1989
Master of Science in Business Administration and Economics.
International Business Program, University of Göteborg, SWEDEN.
Specialisation: International finance.
1989
Course in international relations.
University of Göteborg, SWEDEN.
1991
Course in social anthropology.
University of Göteborg, SWEDEN.
1991
Project formulation training course.
FAO, Rome, ITALY.
1994
Course in economics of transition.
International Summer School, London School of Economics, U.K.
1996
Course in econometric principles and data analysis.
University of London, Centre for International Education in Economics (distance-learning
programme).
1996
Course in participatory rural appraisal-techniques.
Asian Association for Management in Development, Bhaktapur, NEPAL.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
06/2000 to present
Independent consultant in research and development, based in CANADA (June 2000 March 2006
based in SWEDEN):
Carrying out consultancies in the field of development policy and planning, and project implementation and evaluation.
Main assignments include (year and funding body in parentheses):
Consultant for finalisation of draft FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries on Human
Dimensions of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (2007ongoing, FAO).
Consultant for auto-evaluation of Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries programme of the
Fisheries and Aquaculture Economics and Policy Division (2007ongoing, FAO).
Editor of FAO Fisheries Technical Paper on key lessons learnt from the Sustainable Fisheries
Livelihoods Programme (SFLP), a regional DFID/FAO project including 25 countries in West
Africa (2007-ongoing / World Fish Center).
Financial advisor to Swedish-Kazakh joint venture company for project management services in
Astana, Kazakhstan (2007 Hifab/private sector).
Rapporteur at CWP (Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics) and FIRMS (Fishery
Resources Monitoring Systems) sessions and steering committee meetings (2006 and 2007, FAO).
Main author of FAO Fisheries Technical Paper on "Disaster Response and Risk Management in the
Fisheries Sector" (2006, FAO).
Mid-term review of the global GEF-funded project "Reduction of Environmental Impact from
Tropical Shrimp Trawling through the Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change
of Management", implemented by UNEP and executed by FAO (2006, UNEP).
FAO Fisheries Tsunami Country Programme Support Officer: 10-month assignment based in
headquarters with travel to tsunami-affected countries in Asia. Main tasks included: technical and
operational support to field activities, situation analysis and preparation of project proposals for
continued tsunami rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance (2005-2006, FAO).
Preparation of documents and participation as rapporteur in a workshop on "The Role of Regional
Fisheries Bodies in Implementation of the FAO Strategy for Improving Information on Status and
Trends of Capture fisheries" and in the 22nd Session of the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery
Statistics (CWP) hosted by ICES, Copenhagen, 28 February 4 March 2005 (2005, FAO).
Deskstudy of current development strategies in the Republic of Turkey (2005, Opto International AB
/ Sida).
Preparation of final document on evaluation of FAO Fisheries Department's work programme
"Global analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture" (2004, FAO).
Participation in the Annual ECOWAS / Development Partners Coordination meeting and in other
meetings attended by the Swedish delegation, 22-25 November 2004, Abuja, Nigeria. Preparation of
internal report of the meetings (2004, Sida).
Preparation of meeting documents and participation in FAO Expert Consultations and meetings on
fisheries subsidies (2002-2004, FAO).
Preparation of the "Guide for identifying, assessing and reporting on subsidies in the fisheries
sector", including case studies in Norway, Trinidad and Tobago, Vietnam and Tanzania, published as
an FAO Fisheries Technical Document, (2002-2004, FAO).
Provision of inputs in the field of socio-economics and gender for a development study project in
Guinea (2002-2003, Overseas Agro-Fisheries Consultants Co. Ltd. / JICA).
Responsible for the socio-economic component of a project for the development of a fisheries
management plan for the main demersal fisheries of Mauritania (2000-2002, Overseas Agro-Fisheries
Consultants Co. Ltd. / JICA).

Preparation and presentation of a keynote document on "Outlook of fish supply and demand in the
ASEAN region" for the ASEAN/SEAFDEC/FAO conference "Fish for the people" in November
2001 in Bangkok, Thailand (2001, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre).
05/1998 to 06/2000
Business Management Adviser / Team Leader
Department For International Development (DFID, U.K.), based in Dhaka, BANGLADESH:
Responsible for the implementation of the "Support to Grameen Motsho Foundation Project". The project
aimed at strengthening the institutional capacities of the Foundation (part of the Grameen Bank group and
involved in aquaculture) focusing in particular on aspects of financial viability and the enhancement of social
development skills (participatory approaches, gender, etc.). In addition to general project management and the
recruitment and management of international and national consultants, specific tasks also included: assistance
in defining organisational goals and a future vision, financial analyses of various activities/cost centres,
improvement of financial monitoring systems, and organisation of staff training in participatory working
methodologies and other subjects related to social development and gender concepts.
01/1996 to 04/1998
Independent consultant in development economics
Based in Kathmandu, Nepal, and carrying out various short-term consultancies, mainly in the field
of fisheries planning and socio-economics. The main assignments included (year and funding body
in parentheses):

Review of the fish marketing structure of Kathmandu Valley and formulation of recommendations
for the operation of the new fish wholesale market in Kathmandu (1997-1998, FAO).

Development and implementation of an aquaculture component as an income-generating activity for
rural women within the Churia forest Development Project in south Nepal (1996-1997, GTZ).

Elaboration of an accounting and financial reporting system for the Nepal-Denmark Watershed
Management Project and the Natural Resource Management Sector Assistance Programme (1997,
Royal Danish Embassy/DANIDA).

Review of the economic aspects of the fisheries of Kompienga and Bagré lakes in Burkina Faso and
giving recommendations for the elaboration of resource management plans for the two fisheries
(1997, FAO).

Review of the economics of the small pelagic fisheries sector in West Africa and participation in a
regional CECAF workshop (1997, FAO).

Review of the overall policy framework of the Estonian fisheries sector and analysis of development
options and institutional requirements (1996, FAO).
09/1993 to 12/1995
Fisheries Planning Analyst
Fishery Policy and Planning Division/Development Planning Service, FAO, Rome, ITALY:
Performing economic and financial analyses, assisting in the division's work on issues related to natural
resources management and sector planning, formulating specific research and project activities including
drafting of project documents and study outlines, providing technical assistance to field projects as well as co-
ordinating projects and activities, and drafting technical reports and documents. Specific tasks carried out
included: a study on the exploitation and use of small pelagic fish species in West Africa, the coordination of
a project on the rationalisation of the distant-water fishing fleets in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and the
preparation of a report on global fish consumption and future demand as well as the coordination of the
preparation of other documents for the "International Conference on Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries
to Food Security", held in Kyoto, Japan, in 1995.

09/1991 to 09/1993
Project Operations Officer
Operations Service of the Fisheries Department of FAO, Rome, ITALY:
Directly responsible for headquarters management of development projects in approximately ten countries,
mainly in West Africa. Specific tasks included: formulation and drafting of project documents, recruitment of
experts and consultants, budget preparation and monitoring, operational backstopping at field level and
negotiations and discussions with recipient governments and the donor community.
11/1989 to 07/1991
Controller / Business Manager
Atlet AB / Atlet Leasing AB, Mölnlycke, SWEDEN:
Carrying out financial analyses and preparing annual reports and budgets at group level, improving internal
reporting routines including maintaining contacts with European subsidiaries. Responsible for the
management of the Atlet Leasing finance company, including the evaluation of internal and external financial
reporting needs, development of accounting and reporting procedures, establishment of a financial reporting
system, and the preparation of budgets and reports.
09/1989 to 10/1989
Consultant - Socio-economist
FAO Trust fund project, Madras, INDIA:
Participating in the mid-term evaluation mission to the Bay of Bengal Programme project "Small-Scale
Fisherfolk Communities", a regional development project.
ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE
1995 to
present
Member of The International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade
(IIFET).
1991-1995
Member of the FAO Core Group on Women in Fisheries.
1989
Visit to Indonesia under the Minor Field Study Programme, Swedish International
Development Co-operation Agency (SIDA).
1989
Trainee, 1-month assignment, International Business Department, Dresdner Bank
AG, Regensburg, GERMANY.
1988
Trainee, 2-month assignment, Financial Department, Entreprise J. Serpollet SA (public
engineering company), Lyon, FRANCE.
LANGUAGES
Swedish: mother tongue.
English and French: fluent.
Danish and Norwegian: excellent comprehension.
Italian and Spanish: good.
German: knowledgeable.
Indonesian: basic notion.

COUNTRIES VISITED FOR WORK
Europe: Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom.
Africa: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Tanzania.
Asia: Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Maldives, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines,
Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam.
The Caribbean and South America: Ecuador, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago.
REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS
Westlund, L. 1994. Report of the study on exploitation and use of small pelagic species in West Africa. FAO Fisheries
Circular No. 880, Rome FAO, 1994. 57 p. [Also published in French]
Westlund, L. 1995. Rapport du groupe de travail ad hoc sur les aspects économiques de l'exploitation des sardinelles et autres
espèces de petits pélagiques de l'Afrique du Nord-Ouest. Comité des Pêches pour l'Atlantique Centre-Est,
COPACE/PACE series 94/59, FAO, 1995. 32 p.
Westlund, L. 1995. Apparent historical fish consumption and future demand for fish and fishery products - exploratory
calculations. Kyoto, Japan, 4-9 December 1995. International Conference on Sustainable Contribution of
Fisheries to Food Security. KC/FI/95/TECH/8 Government of Japan, Japan, and FAO, Rome. 55 p.
Westlund Löfvall, L. 1996. Review of the policy framework and development options for the Estonian fisheries sector. FAO
project report TCP/EST/4452, March 1996. 58 p.
Westlund, L. and P.L. Joshi. 1997. Production technology and prospects of trout farming in Nepal. pp. 27-34. IN.
"Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Role of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Economic
Development of Rural Nepal 15-16 August 1996, Kathmandu". Nepal Fisheries Society, Kathmandu, 1997.
Westlund, L. and J. Swan. 1997. Regional review. pp. 50-104. IN. "The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 1996". FAO, Rome.
Westlund, L. 1997. World situation of small pelagics with particular reference to consumption and supply patterns. pp. 72-
76. IN "Workshop on the Management and Regulations of Small Pelagics in the CECAF divisions 34.1.3,
34.3.1, 34.3.2 and 34.3.3". Project GCP/RAF/302/EEC Improvement of the Legal Framework for Fisheries
Co-operation, Management and Development of Coastal States of West Africa. Document No. 56.
Westlund, L. 1997. Economic aspects of small pelagic fisheries in West Africa. pp. 77-98. IN "Workshop on the
Management and Regulations of Small Pelagics in the CECAF divisions 34.1.3, 34.3.1, 34.3.2 and 34.3.3".
Project GCP/RAF/302/EEC Improvement of the Legal Framework for Fisheries Co-operation,
Management and Development of Coastal States of West Africa. Document No. 56.
Westlund, L. 1997. Etude économique de la filière pêche sur les lacs de Bagré et de Kompienga. FAO/Norway project
GCP/INT/466/NOR Doc. de travail 97/48. FAO, Rome. 61 p.
Westlund, L. 1998. Fish marketing in Katmandu Valley. Support to the new Kalimati market project. Technical Report
AG: DP/NEP/91/035, FAO office, Kathmandu, Nepal. 47 p.

Westlund, L. 2001. Outlook of fish demand and supply in the ASEAN region. pp. 15-58. IN "Fish for the people".
ASEAN/SEAFDEC/FAO Bangkok, Thailand, November 19-24, 2001. SEAFDEC, P.O. Box 1046,
Kasetsart Post Office, Bangkok.
Westlund, L. and T. Ismaila. 2002. Socioeconomic Aspects. Chapter 8.1. IN "The Study for the Fishery Resources
Management Plan in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania". Unpublished report for JICA and Ministère des
Pêches et de l'Economie Maritime, Mauritania.
Westlund, L. 2004. Guide for identifying, assessing and reporting on subsidies in the fisheries sector. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper No. 438, FAO, Rome. 71 p.
Westlund, L. 2005. Future prospects for fish and fishery products. 5. Forecasting analysis: a literature review. FAO
Fisheries Circular No. 972/5, Rome, FAO, 2005. 17 p.
Westlund, L. 2006. Mid-term review: Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical Shrimp Trawling through the
Introduction of By-catch Reduction Technologies and Change of Management. Project No UNEP GF/2731-02-4469 &
GF/4030-02-04. FAO EP/GLO/201/GEF. UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit. December 2006. 67 p.
Westlund, L., Poulain, F., Båge, H. and R. van Anroy. (2007). Disaster Response and Risk Management in the
Fisheries Sector. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 56 p.

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