The Strategic Action Programme for International Waters
of the Pacific Small Island Developing States
with the assistance of GEF/UNDP
TERMINAL EVALUATION
OF THE
OCEANIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COMPONENT
(RAS/98/G32)
Philip Tortell and Sandra Tarte
March 2004
SPREP IRC Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Tortell, Philip
Terminal evaluation of the Oceanic Fisheries
Management component / Philip Tortell and
Sandra Tarte. Apia, Samoa : SPREP, 2004.
87 p. : figs., diagrams, tables ; 29 cm.
ISBN: 982-04-0265-4
1. Fisheries Economic aspects Oceania.
2. Fishery management Oceania.
3. Evaluation Utilization. 4. Performance
standards. I. Implementation of the Strategic
Action Programme of the Pacific Small Island
Developing States. Project No. RAS/98/G32.
II. International Waters Programme. III. South
Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).
IV. Tarte, Sandra. V. Title.
658.404
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
During this evaluation exercise we have received a great deal of cooperation, tremendous help
and lots of support from a whole range of individuals and organizations and to all we wish to
express our most sincere thanks. At the risk of not mentioning some of these kind individuals, we
wish to record our gratitude to some specific persons and organizations for their particular
generosity.
Our sincere appreciation to all at the FFA, in particular Mr. Len Rodwell, Economics and
Marketing Manager, and at the SPC, especially Dr John Hampton, Oceanic Fisheries Programme
Manager, for providing us with all the support we needed, for your great help with information,
for organizing and facilitating the extensive range of meetings we requested and for your
hospitality.
To all those stakeholders from Pacific Island States in various Ministries and Departments, the
private sector, and other organizations and individuals who met with us, thank you most sincerely
for giving us the time and for sharing your knowledge and experience of the OFM Component
Project with us.
To all at UNDP-Samoa, SPREP and the PCU, especially Mr. Andrew Wright, Project Manager
and Ms Rosanna Galuvao, Programme Assistant, thank you for your wise advice and logistic
support and for making our task more manageable.
THE EVALUATION TEAM
Philip Tortell
Environmental Management Limited
PO Box 27433, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Tel +64-4-384 4133, Fax +64-4-384 4022, Email <tortell@attglobal.net>
Sandra Tarte
Department of History/Politics, University of the South Pacific
Suva, FIJI
Tel +679-3212577, Fax +679-3301 487, Email <tarte_s@usp.ac.fj>
iii
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
v
Executive Summary
1
1 Introduction
8
1.1 The Project setting
8
1.1.1 Background
8
1.1.2 The GEF
9
1.1.3
The IW-Project and its Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Component 9
1.1.4 OFM Project chronology
11
1.2
The Evaluation
13
1.2.1 Purpose of the evaluation
13
1.2.2 Methodology of the evaluation
13
2
The Project Scope and Context
15
2.1
Problems that the Project seeks to address
15
2.2
Project objectives, outputs and activities
17
2.2.1 Objectives
17
2.2.2 Outputs and Activities
22
2.2.3 Public participation under the original Objective 4
24
2.2.4 Comment
24
2.3
Main stakeholders and beneficiaries
24
2.3.1 Stakeholders
24
2.3.2 Beneficiaries
25
2.3.3 Comment
26
2.4
Results expected
26
2.5
Implementation arrangements
27
3
Findings and Evaluation
29
3.1
Project design
29
3.1.1 Project Document
29
3.1.2 Indicators adopted
32
3.1.3 Linkages between the OFM Project and other interventions
33
3.2
Implementation and execution
34
3.2.1 Management, coordination and operational issues
34
3.2.2 Stakeholder participation
35
3.2.3 Risk management
36
3.2.4 Monitoring and evaluation
37
iv
3.3
Financial aspects
39
3.3.1 The FFA
39
3.3.2 The SPC
41
3.3.3 Discussion of financial aspects
43
3.4
Results achieved
43
3.4.1 Attainment of the Objective, Outputs and other results
44
3.4.2 Relevance to GEF of results achieved
47
3.4.3 Sustainability of results and benefits, replicability and possible follow-up 49
4
Conclusions and Lessons Learnt
51
5
Recommendations
57
ANNEXES
1
Mission Terms of Reference
59
2
Documents and websites reviewed/consulted
68
3
Persons met and/or consulted
72
4
Summary of field visits and salient meetings
74
5
Mission itinerary
76
6
Logical Framework Matrix (as revised on 23 September 2003)
77
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CRGA
Committee of Representatives of Governments and Administrations
(SPC)
C-SPOD
Canada South Pacific Ocean Development Programme
DWFNs
Distant Water Fishing Nations
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
FFA
Forum Fisheries Agency
FFC
Forum Fisheries Committee
GEF
Global Environment Facility
IATTC
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
ICCAT
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
ICWM
Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management
IOTC
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
IW-LEARN
GEF International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network
IW-Project
International Waters Project
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
LogFrame Matrix
Logical Framework Matrix
MCS
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MHLC
Multilateral High Level Conference (for development of Tuna
Convention)
MPR
Multipartite Review meeting
MSWG Marine Sector Working Group
NEX
National Execution (for UNDP supported projects)
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
OFM
Oceanic Fisheries Management
OFP
Oceanic Fisheries Programme
PCU
Project Coordination Unit
PDF `B'
GEF Preparatory Development Facility, Phase B
PICTs
Pacific Island Countries and Territories
PIROF
Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Forum
PrepCon
Preparatory Conference (for establishing Tuna Commission)
ProDoc
Project Document
RFMO
Regional Fisheries Management Organization
SAP
GEF Strategic Action Programme
SIDS
Small Island Developing States
SPC
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
USP
University of the South Pacific
VMS
Vessel Monitoring System
WCPO
Western and Central Pacific Ocean
WTP
Western Tropical Pacific (with reference to the Large Marine Ecosystem)
vi
Executive Summary
The Project
The UNDP/GEF-supported International Waters Project (IW-Project) for the Pacific Small Island Developing
States inception and development spanned a period of five years. This included the preparation of a Strategic
Action Programme (SAP) and the formulation of a project document covering the Oceanic Fisheries
Management (OFM) and the Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM) components. This
Terminal Evaluation is concerned only with the OFM Component/Project which was executed by the Forum
Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) and which targeted the
following outcomes:
· sustainable ocean fisheries;
· improved national and regional management capability;
· stock and by-catch monitoring and research; and,
· enhanced national and regional management links.
Project design and logic
The ProDoc was built on the SAP which had identified the problems of the region and their root causes.
However, the ProDoc fell short of expectations. It did not provide adequate guidance to those implementing
the OFM project; it did not build on past achievements and learn from past experiences; project design did not
seem to identify problem situations adequately and their root causes; it was weak in terms of strategic
planning, preparatory work and implementation strategies; having identified some risks it provided no risk
management strategies; it failed to unify the two components and no synergies were planned.
The root causes identified in the SAP were not the same as those in either the text or the LogFrame Matrix of
the ProDoc. While the FFA attempted to cope with this confusion by reverting to the root causes in the SAP
for guidance, the Evaluation Team adopted the ProDoc, and particularly the LogFrame Matrix, as the
framework for the evaluation and the root causes were determined to be "Lack of monitoring and enforcement
of regulations" and "Lack of trained staff for surveillance."
The objectives, outputs and activities of the broader IW-Project (including the OFM Component) went
through a series of changes during the course of its implementation and the latest version which was made
available to the Evaluation Team in the form of a LogFrame Matrix, was dated as recently as September 2003.
It is usual and desirable to reflect changing circumstances, lessons learnt and experience gained during the
implementation of a project, by reviewing and revising the various outputs and activities, usually by revising
the LogFrame Matrix. However, in the case of the OFM Project, it would seem that many of the changes
were necessitated by the inconsistencies between the SAP, the Project Concept and the ProDoc, and the low
level of consultation with prospective stakeholders (FFA and SPC) at the project formulation stages leading to
weak project design. There is also a feeling that some of the changes were a means of adapting the outputs
and activities to fit what was taking place anyway, rather than the other way round. When the work of the
executing agencies did not reflect the agreed Activities of the UNDP/GEF OFM Project, it was the Project
Activities that were changed to fit.
The indicators adopted in the original LogFrame Matrix are a mixture of outputs, means of verification and
some true indicators. However, even the latter are difficult to verify objectively since they are not adequately
targeted. The revised LogFrame Matrix includes the original indicators which are not very useful but on the
whole it is more helpful and there are some indicators among them which could be objectively verifiable, with
minor refinements. However, the majority of adopted indicators in the list are still impossible to verify,
objectively or otherwise.
1
Consultation and participation
Among the changes that have taken place in the wording, etc, of the Objectives, Outputs and Activities of the
OFM Component, is the removal of all reference to public participation activities.
The consultation process surrounding the SAP and the extent of participation by stakeholders in its adoption
was very satisfactory even though the focus of these consultations was more on the issues surrounding the
coastal and inshore environments of the region than in the area of oceanic fisheries resources. But the level
of participation by stakeholders did not follow through into the formulation phase of the Project and the
development and adoption of the ProDoc. Neither has the implementation phase of the OFM Project been
strong on stakeholder involvement or any other participation at country level.
The low level of stakeholder involvement and the almost total absence of participation by the public, NGOs
and the private sector have been acknowledged by both the FFA and the SPC, as executing agencies and there
is a commitment that the follow-up project will involve civil society in a manner which reflects local mores,
culture and sensitivities.
Implementation and monitoring arrangements
The pivotal role of SPREP in project implementation is spelled out clearly in the ProDoc without any
distinction between the two components. The Project Manager, located in the Project Coordination Unit
(PCU), has responsibility for day-to-day Project implementation. The PCU is established as a `distinct unit'
within SPREP, with the Project Manager reporting directly to the Director of SPREP and to the UNDP
Resident Representative. With respect to the OFM component, the ProDoc provides that this will be
implemented largely by FFA and SPC, according to a Memorandum of Understanding signed with SPREP.
This subsequently took the form of Letters of Agreement between SPREP and FFA and between SPREP and
SPC according to which FFA and SPC are the Executing Agencies for the OFM component and all OFM staff
are located at the two agencies. The extent and effectiveness of collaboration and coordination between FFA
and SPC are a subject of much pride for the two organizations. They have a tradition of working together and
of supplementing each other's efforts and there is no doubt that this positive situation has served the OFM
Project well.
Monitoring and evaluation for the OFM Component were undertaken mainly by FFA and SPC and `in-house'
even though independent audits were also initiated by the two organizations. There was no formal response to
audit reports from the implementing agencies and therefore there was no adaptive management in project
implementation, in response to monitoring. The Evaluation Team does not believe that M&E has been used
effectively as a management tool in directing the implementation of the OFM Component and cannot
recommend this approach for any future project support.
Financial aspects
The FFA share of the OFM component funded by GEF was $1.915 million. The largest proportion (56.22%)
of this amount was allocated to International Meetings to support Pacific Island countries' participation in
the MHLC (two meetings) and the PrepCon process (five meetings). This category also covers participation
at regional workshops and at meetings of other Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. The second
largest share (34.01%) was used to fund consultancies, namely the work of the Fisheries Management
Advisor. The other allocations were for Administration (1.53%), Equipment (0.77%) and Training (7.46%).
The Evaluation Team feels that the budget allocated to the FFA has been spent appropriately and while only a
small proportion was spent `in-country', it was almost totally spent for the benefit of the countries. As noted
by the PCU, while the benefits of this project have arguably been most effectively delivered through the focus
on support to FFA and SPC, national engagement has still been significant although in-country expenditure
has been relatively low.
2
The SPC budget allocation of US$1.526 million has been used to support three positions in the Oceanic
Fisheries Programme of SPC and the expenditure on these three positions amounted to 46% of the total
budget. When allocations for their travel and research support are added to the salaries amount, the total spent
on these three positions is equivalent to 74% of the total budget. The only other tangible output, namely
Enhanced National Capacity, has an allocation of 20%.
A feature of the SPC expenditure is the extremely low proportion of the total budget that has been, or will be,
spent `in-country' or directly for in-country beneficiaries. However, the Evaluation Team believes that as
long as the unspent funds earmarked for "Enhanced National Capacity" are indeed spent for those activities,
and as long as the overspent equipment budget is supplemented from within the "Support to FFA/SPC"
component, the funds allocated to SPC would have been spent appropriately.
By "investing" its resources in an organization like SPC whose OFP had on-going research activities directly
related to the aims and objectives of the OFM Project; and in the FFA whose fisheries management activities
mirrored and extended those proposed under the OFM Project, GEF has benefited from a broader input of
expertise and resources which would not have been available otherwise. It has therefore obtained an
incremental result, broader than it would have been able to achieve on its own with its available resources,
even though this result is somewhat more difficult to extract and quantify on its own.
Results achieved, sustainability and replicability
Stakeholders and beneficiaries agree that this was a good project. It may not have been very visible, and its
results may not be very distinguishable, but it is recognized as having contributed a very essential element to
what the Pacific Island countries have managed to achieve in terms of a regional management regime for a
regional resource of global dimensions.
The Evaluation Team feels that the original OFM objective could not have been expected to be achieved by
this project since its dimensions went beyond the boundaries of the project. On the other hand, the Evaluation
Team believes that the new objective has been achieved, even though there is a feeling that it might have been
retrofitted to an existing and/or developing situation.
The results achieved have contributed to the GEF objective of achieving global environmental benefits and a
well designed project may have been able to achieve more with the same resources and effort. Hopefully, this
shortcoming can be remedied in the proposed follow-up project.
Capacity building has been the most significant benefit of the OFM Project. But in spite of the impressive
nature of the results, their sustainability is not assured since it may not be easy retaining the trained, skilled
personnel in government. Inadequate resources are being made available by Governments to develop fisheries
management and research capacity. Instead, there is a tendency to rely extensively on regional assistance
programmes, mainly from SPC and FFA who are themselves constrained in their efforts to meet the numerous
requests for assistance from member countries. This reliance on external funding support is untenable in the
long term since the fisheries sector is a major revenue earner for the Governments and it makes sense to
reinvest some of this revenue in the administration and management of the sector to ensure its control and
sustainability.
The Evaluation Team sees the OFM Project as a unique intervention in the Pacific region and there is neither
the potential nor the need to replicate it in the region. SPREP agrees that the extent of replicability in the
region is minimal. However, there are definite global replication possibilities in other island regions
supporting significant tuna fisheries. Where distant water fishing nations and coastal states are expected to
collaborate on tuna resources management, the processes and strategies applied in the OFM Component set
global precedents. In addition, the processes employed in the oceanic fisheries sector do demonstrate best
practice that could usefully be applied to coastal resources management, and some aspects of the OFM
3
Component (particularly the linkages between science and management) have potential for replication in
integrated coastal management processes.
UNDP believes that the process leading up to and the actual establishment of the Tuna Commission is
considered a best practice and can have replicability globally.
Conclusions and lessons learnt
On the GEF and global environmental objectives:
The OFM Component can be said to have contributed to the objective of GEF OP#8 but with the divorce
practiced between the OFM and the ICWM components and the fact that the `ecosystem' approach to the
LME has yet to be applied, this contribution has been very limited. The Evaluation Team sees the need for
better understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures, etc, among current and prospective
stakeholders.
Root causes and imminent threats identified in the ProDoc:
The Root Causes were determined in the LogFrame Matrix to be "Lack of monitoring and enforcement of
regulations" and "Lack of trained staff for surveillance" and the OFM Project would have been expected to
focus on monitoring, enforcement of regulations and capacity building (mainly training) for surveillance.
There is no denying that the OFM Project did indeed address these aspects, however, they were not its main
focus and it centered predominantly on preparation for and participation in the MHLCs and the PrepCons
together with scientific research for management.
Project design:
Project design was weak, necessitating significant changes to the Objective, Outputs and Activities. It is
evident that this was an amalgam of two distinct initiatives brought together purely as a matter of
convenience. No synergies between the two components were planned and none were created during
implementation. There was no evident logical development of the OFM Component from the identification of
problems to the determination of their root causes, the setting of an objective, the selection of outputs and the
planning of activities which ultimately would have addressed the root causes of the identified problems.
The Project Document:
The ProDoc fell short of expectations. It did not provide adequate guidance to those implementing the OFM
project; it did not build on past achievements and learn from past experiences; project design did not seem to
identify problem situations adequately and their root causes; it was weak in terms of strategic planning,
preparatory work and implementation strategies; having identified some risks it provided no risk management
strategies; it failed to unify the two components and no synergies were planned.
The Logical Framework Matrix:
Both the original and the revised LogFrame Matrices have created confusion with their loose use of
terminology and the lack of logical structure. The majority of the performance indicators adopted for the
OFM Component in both versions of the LogFrame Matrix were not verifiable objectively and they were not
much help either to those implementing the project or to this Evaluation Team.
Achievement of planned objectives and outputs:
The original objective for the OFM Component could not have been expected to be achieved by this project
since its dimensions went beyond the boundaries of the project. On the other hand, the new, revised objective
has been achieved, even though there is a feeling that it might have been retrofitted to an existing and/or
developing programme of work of the executing agencies. Outputs were not clearly identified and were in
fact referred to as Activities. However, both FFA and SPC believe that the outputs/activities have been
achieved and the Evaluation Team agrees that these outputs have indeed been obtained.
4
Adaptive responses to changing circumstances:
Many project Activities, as well as the Project Objective and Outputs for the OFM Project, changed
substantially during implementation. But this was not as much in response to changing circumstances, as it
was in response to faulty project design. It is also possible that the changes came about from a desire by the
executing agencies to support their on-going or planned activities. Audits, regular reports and other results of
monitoring by FFA and SPC did not elicit any formal reactions from either SPREP or UNDP, therefore no
adjustments were thought to be needed.
Financial resources:
Budgets allocated to the FFA and SPC have been spent appropriately as long as the SPC unspent funds
earmarked for "Enhanced National Capacity" are indeed spent for those activities, and as long as the
overspent equipment budget is supplemented from within the "Support to FFA/SPC" component. By
"investing" its resources in organizations such as SPC and FFA, GEF has benefited from a broader input of
expertise and resources which would not have been available otherwise. It has therefore obtained an
incremental result, broader than it would have been able to achieve on its own with its available resources,
even though this result is somewhat more difficult to extract and quantify on its own.
Roles and responsibilities:
The OFM Project had a multiplicity of hierarchical layers and it was therefore essential that roles and
responsibilities were defined clearly, and this appears to have been the case. The pivotal role of SPREP in
project implementation is spelled out clearly in the ProDoc and the roles and relationship between FFA and
SPC themselves as executing agencies are also clearly delineated in a Memorandum of Agreement between
the two organizations. Benefits accrued from the good level of communication and cooperation between the
Executing Agencies, based on a strong record of working together and clear delineation of mandates.
Partnerships with other donors:
The OFM Component did not involve partnerships with any third-party donors. Funds came from GEF, FFA
and SPC. However, there was a high degree of complementarity between the activities of the OFM
Component and other activities being undertaken by FFA and SPC but funded by other donors.
Public participation and stakeholder involvement:
Stakeholder involvement in the OFM Project has been fairly weak in most aspects of the Project and both the
FFA and the SPC acknowledge the low level of stakeholder involvement and the almost total absence of
participation by the public, NGOs and the private sector. There is a commitment that the follow-up project
will involve civil society in a manner which will reflect local mores, culture and sensitivities.
Implementation and coordination by the implementing and executing agencies:
Implementation of the OFM Component was comparatively smooth and effective. The views of stakeholders
and beneficiaries on implementation arrangements have been positive in the main. But while implementation
appears to have been satisfactory, coordination has not been strong and apart from the handling of financial
reports and cash advances, neither SPREP nor the PCU made enough effort to coordinate the two components
of the IW-Project at the implementation level.
Beneficiaries:
The principal beneficiaries were expected to be government policymakers engaged in the management of the
oceanic fisheries resources (from Fisheries, Foreign Affairs and Legal Ministries and Departments). The
ProDoc identified "secondary target beneficiaries" which included intergovernmental organisations (namely
SPC, FFA and SPREP) and the private sector. However, FFA and SPC have been very much primary target
beneficiaries in view of the capacity building and funding support they have received from the OFM Project.
Sustainability and replicability of project outcome:
In spite of the impressive nature of the capacity building results, their sustainability is not assured. Some of
the barriers to sustainability have been identified and those that are within the Project's competence are
proposed to be addressed during the follow-up project. While there is neither the potential nor the need to
5
replicate the OFM Project in the region, there are definite global replication possibilities in other island
regions supporting significant tuna fisheries.
Monitoring and evaluation:
Monitoring and evaluation have not been used effectively as a management tool to obtain accountability or
measure progress or to direct the implementation of the OFM Component. What monitoring and evaluation
were undertaken were left to FFA and SPC `in-house' efforts even though independent audits (commissioned
by the organizations) were also carried out and an excellent baseline study and update were very useful
exercises.
Recommendations
That UNDP/GEF accept that although the OFM Project may not have addressed the identified root causes
fully or exclusively, the benefits obtained through the activities undertaken justify this departure and the
Project has been very successful in strengthening the institutional framework, the knowledge base and the
stakeholders capacity for managing this unique tuna resource which is of global significance.
That UNDP/GEF confirms their support for a follow-up project as the best way of ensuring the sustainability
of the benefits obtained from this Project.
That UNDP/GEF organize a GEF Workshop or series of workshops in the region, for GEF National Focal
Points and others, to raise awareness and improved understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures
and the GEF focus on global environmental benefits.
That those responsible for the formulation of the follow-up project place great emphasis on the design of the
project which should reflect the root causes of the problems and be structured according to the logic of the
setting of an objective, the selection of outputs and the planning of activities which ultimately would have
addressed the root causes of the identified problems, and for this logic to be evident in a robust Logical
Framework Matrix which includes objectively verifiable indicators that can guide those implementing the
project.
That in designing the project, the approach should be a participatory one involving as many as possible of the
prospective stakeholders and beneficiaries at regional, government, private sector and community levels.
That the project design should include a strategy for monitoring and evaluation that depends on a feedback
loop between those implementing the project and a project steering committee made up of knowledgeable
individuals able to appreciate the issues being brought before them and provide the feedback, advice and
direction necessary for the effective implementation of the project.
That the prime benefit that should be targeted from the follow-up project is the framework, capacity and
functioning of the proposed Tuna Commission so that it can undertake its crucial role of providing the
management context for the tuna resource and its ecosystem in a manner which will provide the greatest
benefits to the Pacific Island countries and their citizens on a sustainable basis.
That an equally important target of the follow-up project is the further building of capacity and capability of
the Pacific Island region, at regional, government, private sector and community levels so that each sector can
participate meaningfully in the management of the tuna resource and its ecosystem.
That the follow-up project places emphasis on the realignment, restructuring and strengthening of national
fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities that the Convention has
created and discharge the new responsibilities that it requires.
6
That fisheries management capacity at country level be enhanced for data collection and analysis, stock
assessment, MCS and enforcement and the development and application of contemporary fisheries
management tools, through a strategy that views capacity building and training as a continuing activity rather
than a one-off exercise to overcome the problem of capacity retention.
That Pacific Island countries that have adopted Tuna Management Plans and are having difficulties with
implementation, be assisted to identify and address the barriers that are hindering implementation.
That the regionally based pool of expertise provided by the FFA and SPC will remain a cost-effective means
of underpinning the implementation of an effective fisheries management framework, for the foreseeable
future.
That USP be encouraged and supported to establish relevant programmes in fisheries science, oceanography,
ecosystem management, fisheries administration and law, etc, to provide an important ingredient for the
capacity building effort and that Pacific Island Governments as well as the private sector be encouraged to
support such studies through the awarding of scholarships to promising nationals.
That national Colleges of Fisheries and similar institutions be assisted to start offering courses for observers,
monitors and similar technical positions leading to a recognized qualification.
7
1 Introduction
1.1 The Project setting
1.1.1 Background
The South Pacific region comprises almost 38.5 million square kilometers, with less than 2% of that vast area
constituting the terrestrial environment shared by Pacific SIDS. This vast and complex marine system
contains an enormous and largely undocumented array of diversity. According to the Project Document for
the International Waters Project (UNDP, 1999), the region contains the most extensive and biologically
diverse reefs in the world, the deepest ocean trenches, deep-sea minerals, the world's largest tuna fishery, as
well as an array of globally threatened species such as sea turtles and dugongs. The many thousands of
islands are, with the exception of some larger Melanesian islands, entirely coastal in nature, often with limited
freshwater resources and surrounded by a rich variety of coastal ecosystems including mangroves, seagrass
beds, estuarine lagoons and coral reefs. In addition to their significant biodiversity value, these coastal and
marine ecosystems support large subsistence and commercial fisheries which form an indispensable part of the
economic fabric for many Pacific SIDS. Despite the remarkable and globally significant biodiversity of the
region, and despite the extent to which the present and likely future economic health of the region is based on
sustainable coastal and oceanic fishery regimes, marine resource conservation and management regimes are
currently inadequate.
The limited land base of the area is distributed among 200 high islands and 2500 low islands and atolls. In
general, the islands increase in size from east to west, such that over 83% of the region's land mass is situated
in Papua New Guinea, and most of the rest is in the other Melanesian countries and territories.
The EEZs of the Pacific Island States cover approximately 30.5 million square kilometers, or about 74% of
the region's water surface. Pacific Island States thus look toward their substantial coastal and ocean fisheries
as an important, even indispensable, means of advancing economic well-being through commercial and
subsistence fisheries. They are crucial to food security for the region and are also an important source of
employment and income and foreign exchange. According to the Project Document (UNDP, 1999) oceanic
fisheries contribute little to local food supplies and only 1% of the close to two million tonnes of industrial
caught tuna enters the local economy. However, the cash value of the Pacific tuna fishery is approximately
US$1.7 billion annually, and growing, and this fishery is of national, regional and global significance. Four
fishing methods are generally employed in the tuna fishery, the purse-seine, longline, pole and line, and troll.
Although the purse-seine fishery takes about 84% of the total catch, it accounts for only about 51% of the total
value. By contrast, the longline fishery, with only 10% of the catch, accounts for 41% of the revenue. While
50% to 60% of the tuna catch is in the EEZs of the Pacific Island States, they only realize between 4% and
13% of the dollar value of the total catch, in license revenue.
There are a number of characteristics that give the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) tuna fishery a
truly global significance. Firstly, there is the size of the resource which amounts to 48% of the global tuna
catch worldwide in an area that covers a twelfth of the earth's surface. Secondly, the size and extent of the
markets and the value of the annual catch which stands at an estimated US$1.7 billion. The project (see
below) has reflected these global dimensions through the holistic ecosystem approach it has espoused, its
facilitation of the adoption and implementation of an international convention, and the approach it has adopted
for the management of trans-boundary tuna stocks which has potential for replication elsewhere.
8
1.1.2 The GEF
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) supports projects which have clearly identifiable global
environmental benefits. All projects must engage the broad participation of affected parties, be cost-effective,
replicable, and include an incentive-based design to promote prospects for financial sustainability after the
conclusion of GEF support. UNDP-GEF requires that projects possess a firm scientific and technical basis,
and include plans for monitoring and evaluation of the results. The GEF does not finance national sustainable
development. UNDP-GEF projects are typically complementary to a national sustainable development
initiative, and they provide the co-funding needed to accrue global benefits. A GEF project's budget is
determined by the additional cost, known as the incremental cost, of efforts to preserve the global environment
which are beyond what would otherwise be required for national sustainable development.
The GEF operates in six identified focal and thematic areas namely, biodiversity, climate change, international
waters, ozone layer protection, land degradation and persistent organic pollutants.
The overall strategic thrust of GEF-funded international waters activities is to meet the agreed incremental
costs of :
· Assisting groups of countries to better understand the environmental concerns of their international
waters and work collaboratively to address them,
· Building the capacity of existing institutions (or, if appropriate, developing the capacity through new
institutional arrangements) to utilize a more comprehensive approach for understanding trans-
boundary water-related environmental concerns, and
· Implementing measures that address the priority trans-boundary environmental concerns.
GEF Operational Programmes #8 and #9 under its international waters theme are said to be particularly
relevant to the IW-Project.
The Objective of GEF OP#8 is "to undertake a series of projects that involve helping groups of countries to
work collaboratively with the support of implementing agencies in achieving changes in sectoral policies and
activities so that trans-boundary environmental concerns degrading specific waterbodies can be resolved".
The objective of GEF OP#9 is "The long-term objective of the program is to achieve global environmental
benefits through implementation of IW projects which integrate the use of sound land and water resource
management strategies as a result of changes in sectoral polices and activities that promote sustainable
development".
As reported in the ProDoc the GEF Operational Programme makes special mention of Small Island
Developing States (SIDS) "With their special conditions and needs, SIDS require more integrated approaches
to improved land and water management in order to address threats to their water resources. In particular,
projects in this component stress integrated freshwater basin - coastal area management as key elements to
ensure a sustainable future for these island states. As noted in the GEF Operational Strategy, activities are
typically targeted to six major issues SIDS have in common (coastal area management and biodiversity,
sustainable management of regional fish stocks, tourism development, protection of water supplies, land and
marine-based sources of pollution, and vulnerability to climate change)."
1.1.3 The IW-Project and its Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Component
In 1997 the Global Environment Facility (GEF) supported a comprehensive analysis of trans-boundary marine
issues in the Pacific region which led to a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for International Waters of
Pacific Islands (Regional Task Force, 1997). The SAP was adopted in 1997 by fourteen Pacific Island States
namely, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau,
Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
9
The SAP identified the unsustainable exploitation of living and non-living marine resources as an imminent
threat, the root causes of which were weak governance and a lack of understanding of the resources and their
dynamics. These two areas formed the focus of a five-year UNDP/GEF International Waters Project (IW-
Project) to implement the SAP. The Project commenced in February 2000.
The IW-Project originated from two separate sources. The Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM)
Component was essentially an initiative of the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Secretariat of the
Pacific Community (SPC). The Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM) Component was an
initiative of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). They were combined into one
project on the advice of UNDP, that the GEF was unlikely to support two discrete and parallel International
Waters projects in the same region. The OFM Component was conceived as a 3-year project, shorter than the
overall IW-Project. The expectation was that this project would pave the way for a longer term, stand alone
OFM Project. In effect, the two components remained quite distinct and did not function as one but two
projects, and there were limited expectations that synergies would develop between them especially on trans-
boundary issues. This Terminal Evaluation is concerned only with the OFM Component/Project.
The OFM Project identifies the Western Pacific Warm Pool ecosystem as the `defining feature' of the region,
with boundaries that coincide with the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) tuna fishery and it
highlights as key issues the inadequate understanding of the Warm Pool ecosystem, and the interactions
within it. These interactions include large-scale physical and biological dynamics and the effects of fishing on
both target species and by-catch species. A lack of coherent management regimes at national and regional
levels is noted in the SAP as a constraint on the ability to effectively manage fishing effort and thereby
optimize economic returns to Pacific Island States from the WCPO tuna fishery.
The original proponents of the OFM Project, namely the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) which is based in
Honiara, Solomon Islands and the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) of the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community (SPC) which is based in Noumea, New Caledonia, were assigned the joint responsibility for
executing the OFM Project. The FFA was formed by the South Pacific Forum in 1979, and its mission is "to
enable its members to manage, conserve and use the tuna resources in their Exclusive Economic Zones and
beyond, through enhancing national capacity and strengthening regional solidarity" (Forum Fisheries Agency,
2002). The Pacific Community has a wider membership than the FFA, and includes the USA, France and their
Pacific territories. It delivers a wide range of regional programmes, including coastal and oceanic fisheries
(the OFP) and, according to its Corporate Plan (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2003), its Mission is "to
help Pacific Island people make and implement informed decisions about their future". All IW-Project
participating countries are members of both the FFA and the Pacific Community.
The two regional organizations have collaborated successfully for many years on issues related to oceanic
fisheries management, particularly tuna resources. When the OFM Project was initiated, both had (and still
have) a number of joint and complementary activities many of which had been stimulated by the 1995
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10
December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), and the GEF support enabled them to extend their on-
going activities as well as support new initiatives. In particular, GEF support facilitated the full participation
of Pacific Island States, as primary stakeholders, in the negotiation and development process for the
Convention and Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the
Western and Central Pacific. The project also contributed technical information to the Pacific Island States to
ensure that their participation was active and meaningful and initiated the strengthening of the legal,
institutional and management capacities of Pacific Island States at national level (Forum Fisheries Agency
2002a).
Key outcomes targeted by the project were: sustainable ocean fisheries; improved national and regional
management capability; stock and by-catch monitoring and research; and, enhanced national and regional
management links.
10
1.1.4 OFM Project Chronology
The UNDP/GEF-supported OFM Project inception and development spanned a period of five years. This
included the preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the International Waters of the Pacific
Small Islands Developing States and the formulation of a project document combining the OFM and ICWM
components.
The Project was originally planned to commence in 1998 but delays caused it to commence in June 2000.
Activities were originally programmed to last until June 2003. However, funding was extended until
December 2003 for FFA and until December 2004 for SPC to enable the orderly completion of on-going
activities. The following is a summary of the key stages in the development and delivery of the OFM Project
and related activities.
1995
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
(SPREP) and the Government of Australia co-funded a Global Environment Facility (GEF) Pacific regional
training and scoping workshop in Nadi, Fiji in August. Agreement was reached at this workshop to prepare a
Pacific Islands regional proposal for the development of a Strategic Action Programme. This SAP would
combine the following areas:
· integrated conservation and sustainable management of coastal resources including fresh water
resources;
· integrated conservation and sustainable management of oceanic resources;
· prevention of pollution through the integrated management of land or marine based wastes; and
· monitoring and analysis of offshore and near-shore environments to determine vulnerability to
environmental degradation.
The 8th SPREP meeting in October endorsed the project to prepare the SAP.
1996
The South Pacific Forum requested SPREP to coordinate the development of the SAP project.
1997
The proposal was approved by UNDP in April and a Regional Taskforce was established to oversee
preparation of the SAP. The Taskforce met in June to consider draft regional reviews, draft guidelines for
national consultations and draft terms of reference for Taskforce Coordinators. National consultations
followed and the results, in the form of national reports and targeted project proposals, were submitted to
SPREP. The draft SAP was reviewed and approved by the Regional Taskforce and Taskforce Coordinators in
September and endorsed by Pacific Island Heads of Government at the South Pacific Forum meeting, also in
September.
1998-1999
Project Brief and Document were prepared. According to the International Waters Project Mid-Term
Evaluation of July 2003, (para 39), this was supposed to have been done at the same time as development of
the SAP but due to `insufficient time and funds' it was prepared in a subsequent exercise.
2000
The GEF gave final endorsement to the Project for Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for the
International Waters of the Pacific Small Island Developing States on 18 January. The Project officially
commenced on 16 February, the day the Project Document was signed by SPREP (executing agency) and
UNDP Apia (Implementing Agency). Administrative arrangements for the implementation of the three-year
Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) component of the Project were subsequently negotiated between
SPREP and the SPC and the FFA. Implementation of activities within the Project began in June (for FFA)
and July (for SPC). However the FFA was able to access Advanced Authorisation funds from UNDP to
facilitate participation of Pacific Island countries in the Sixth Session of the MHLC process in April 2000.
The project also supported participation in the Seventh and final session of MHLC in September 2000 when
11
the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and
Central Pacific was concluded.
2001
First Regional Task Force Meeting in March, at Apia, Samoa, received the Inception Report and heard about
the difficulties with the Project Document and led to agreement to revise financial allocations across budget
lines and to modify/clarify the description of activities to be carried out by FFA and SPC. The Preparatory
Conference for the Establishment of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific (PrepCon 1) was launched in Christchurch in May.
The first Letters of Agreement between FFA and SPREP and SPC and SPREP were signed in August.
2002
The first Multipartite Review of the IW-Project (replacing the Regional Task Force) received a report of the
OFM component from FFA and SPC and a request to seek GEF support for a three to five years extension.
This component was due to end in 2003 for FFA and at the end of 2004 for SPC. A baseline study on the
oceanic fisheries resources of the Central and Western Pacific, commissioned by the SPC and FFA, was
completed in June. PrepCon-2 was held in Madang, PNG, in February and PrepCon-3 in Manila, Philippines,
in November.
2003
A second progress report on the OFM component was presented to the second Multipartite Review in June.
Meanwhile a GEF Concept Paper seeking further funding for the OFM component was finalized and
submitted to the GEF Council in May. The GEF CEO approved the Concept in June. The Forum Fisheries
Committee (FFC) meeting in September endorsed a draft application for a PDF `B' grant to develop a project
proposal for the next stage of activities and to provide bridging support to Pacific Island states in the interim
until the new project was approved. A revised Letter of Agreement between FFA and SPREP was signed in
February, and a revised Logical Framework adopted in September. PrepCon-4 was held in Nadi, Fiji, in May
and PrepCon-5 in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, in September.
2004
The PDF `B' grant to develop a project proposal for the next stage of activities was approved in February.
Terminal evaluation of the OFM component of the IW-Project is undertaken (February/March).
12
1.2 The Evaluation
1.2.1 Purpose of the evaluation
The GEF Manual on Monitoring and Evaluation Policies and Procedures (GEF, 2002) notes that "all GEF
regular projects will carry out a terminal evaluation at project completion to assess project achievement of
objectives and impacts". This Terminal Evaluation for the Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) Component
of the International Waters Project is based on this directive and full Terms of Reference can be found in
Annex 1.
According to the Terms of Reference, the overall objective of this Terminal Evaluation is to review progress
towards the project's objectives and outcomes, assess the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of how the project
has moved towards its objectives and outcomes, identify strengths and weaknesses in project design and
implementation, and provide recommendations on design modifications that could have increased the
likelihood of success. It is also expected to recommend specific actions that might be taken into consideration
in designing future projects of a related nature.
The evaluation is intended to assess the relevance, performance and success of the project. It should look at
early signs of potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development
and the achievement of global environmental goals. It will also identify/document lessons learned and make
recommendations that might improve design and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects.
In summary, this Terminal Evaluation is expected to :
· assess the relevance, performance and success of the project
· look at early signs of potential impact and sustainability of results
· identify/document lessons learned
· make recommendations that might improve design and implementation for future projects
The Evaluation Team was alerted to a number of issues through the Terms of Reference, that the evaluation
was expected to address. These and other issues that became evident during the evaluation exercise formed
the focus for the Team's work. They included:
· The extent to which objectives had been achieved and the targeted Outputs obtained
· The effectiveness with which the identified root causes of problems had been addressed
· Project design and the degree of guidance provided by the Project Document
· The monitoring and evaluation strategies applied to the project and any adaptive management
processes arising from the results of monitoring
· Various roles and responsibilities of primary stakeholders and levels of coordination and cooperation
· The extent of stakeholder involvement in various phases of the project
· Sustainability of outcomes and benefits
· The main lessons that have emerged
1.2.2 Methodology of the evaluation
The Evaluation was undertaken through a combination of processes including desk research, visits to selected
participating countries, set questions and interviews. The most appropriate process or combination of
processes was used to reach out to specific stakeholders, including UNDP, SPREP, the PCU, FFA, SPC,
participating Governments, NGOs and resource users (the private sector).
Desk research concentrated on relevant documentation provided by various stakeholders, particularly the
PCU, FFA and SPC. A list of the documents reviewed and consulted is in Annex 2. The annex also lists
websites that were consulted.
13
Prior to the mission, a meeting was held in Wellington with representatives of both the Forum Fisheries
Agency (FFA) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), who are the execution partners with
SPREP for the OFM Project. Subsequently, visits were paid to the offices of both organizations in Honiara
and Noumea respectively and detailed discussions took place with key officials involved in project
implementation. At the beginning of the visit, the Evaluation Team provided a structured list of questions and
topics that it wished to address with each organization and this served as a guide for the subsequent
consultative meetings.
The Team was only able to visit four out of the 14 participating countries, namely Fiji, Solomon Islands,
Vanuatu and Tuvalu, for discussions with national stakeholders. However, two opportunities were grasped to
make up for this lack of direct contact with national stakeholders. The first opportunity was presented by the
Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Forum (PIROF) which met in Suva in early February 2004. It was attended
by a member of the Evaluation Team and she managed to consult with a number of participants from
government delegations, NGOs, the private sector and regional organizations. The second opportunity was
provided by the Annual Consultation on the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries between the US and Pacific
Island Countries which took place at Funafuti. Another member of the Team traveled to Funafuti and was
able to meet with the majority of fisheries and other officials from the 14 participating countries. This
meeting was followed up as necessary with direct consultations.
Similar direct consultations with UNDP, SPREP and the PCU were undertaken and they also provided
responses in writing.
The Evaluation Team also managed to consult with other persons who were previously involved with the
project.
A full list of the persons met and consulted, together with an indication of their parent organization and
position, is provided in Annex 3, while Annex 4 provides a summary of field visits and salient meetings.
The mission itinerary is to be found in Annex 5.
14
2 The Project Scope and Context
2.1 Problems that the Project seeks to address
The IW-Project builds on, and derives its focus and rationale from, the SAP (Regional Task Force, 1997)
analysis of trans-boundary environmental concerns in the Pacific Islands region. The SAP highlighted the
global importance of the International Waters of the Pacific Islands in terms of biodiversity, marine habitats
and as a source of global (as well as regional) food security. It was noted that the "tuna fishery of the Western
and Central Pacific Ocean is one of only two remaining major fisheries in the world still considered to be in
healthy condition and amenable to increased exploitation" (Preston, cited in SAP (Regional Task Force,
1997)). The International Waters of the Pacific Island region were described as "vital to the continued health
of the planet as a whole".
The SAP concluded that there were three "overarching trans-boundary concerns" associated with the
International Waters of the Pacific Islands. These were:
· degradation of the quality of the International Waters
· degradation of their associated critical habitats
· unsustainable use of living and nonliving resources
The threats that were considered to be responsible for these problems or concerns included land-based sources
of pollution, physical alteration of the seabed and coastline and over-exploitation. These threats were viewed
as inter-related and requiring "comprehensive measures" in order to be effectively addressed.
In exploring the causes of, or factors responsible for, these threats, the SAP distinguished between proximate
causes and ultimate root causes. It was argued that an ultimate root cause of the threats to the region's
International Waters was "deficiencies in management" at all levels of society. These deficiencies were
linked to problems of governance and of understanding as set out in Table 1 below, taken from the SAP. The
SAP also highlighted the problem of "information gaps relevant to the work of decision-makers ... especially
strategic information presented in an appropriate manner".
Table 1.
Problems with governance and understanding (from the SAP)
A. Governance
B. Understanding
· no clearly defined responsibilities and · poor public education and awareness of issues and options
poor coordination among government · insufficient capacity to implement and enforce laws
agencies responsible for different sectors · inadequate understanding of valuation of environmental goods
· inadequate coordination and delegation
and services in sustainable development planning
of responsibility between local, state, · inadequate knowledge of technical response options
provincial, national and sectoral levels · failure to use current information in decision-making
of government
· selecting inappropriate technology
· inadequate laws and regulations
· ineffective data interpretation for management
· inadequate harmonisation of laws
· inadequate/insufficient socio-economic analyses and data
· issues of traditional and customary · inadequate or unreliable data collected through national data and
property and user rights and practices
statistical programmes
· deficiencies in stakeholder participation
· inadequate pre-operational prediction and planning (e.g., prior
· inadequate implementation, monitoring
comparative analysis of options, risk assessments,
and enforcement
environmental/social/economic impact assessments, complete
· inappropriate domestic and international
costing)
pricing
· inadequate ongoing and post-operational analysis
· subsidies and perverse incentives
· inadequate access to information at the regional and international
· national investment policies
level by governments
· inadequate operating budgets
· inadequate scientific understanding
· inadequate or inappropriate advice
15
The SAP analysis pointed to the "fundamental need for improved integrated cross-sectoral management of the
resources of the International Waters" in order to achieve sustainable development. It proposed "targeted
actions" in two complementary and linked contexts: Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM)
and Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM). The OFM component would concentrate, initially, on the tuna
fishery. Its principal elements would include enhancement of regional fishery management in line with
international developments (namely the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement), innovative ecosystem-based management in the Western Pacific Warm Pool Large Marine
Ecosystem (LME), research on the status of tuna stocks, and examination of by-catch.
The problems to be addressed by the OFM Component of the IW-Project were discussed in general in the
ProDoc which pointed to gaps in international efforts to conserve the tuna fishery of the Pacific Ocean. These
gaps were divided into two categories: geographical and functional. The geographical gaps were the result of
incomplete physical coverage of the region's fish stocks by existing management regimes. Functional gaps
resulted from lack of capacity or authority in such regimes to carry out key elements of conservation and
management, whether enforcement, data collection or research (pertaining to both target and non-target
species). The Project Document asserted that "the management of the international tuna fishery and related
by-catch is seen to be deficient in both these areas".
In addressing these deficiencies through the IW-Project, the OFM Component would contribute towards
achieving long term sustainable development of the region's ocean fisheries. This was necessary not only to
protect a globally significant biological resource. Sustainable development of the ocean fisheries would also
help to reduce fishing pressure on increasingly degraded and over-exploited coastal fisheries by increasing
domestic benefits from the tuna fishery and associated by-catch, according to the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999).
The ProDoc further addresses the problems purportedly faced by the oceanic tuna fishery in both the text and
in its Annex 4, however neither the text nor the annex is very helpful. It is ironic that in the text, under the
OFM sub-section, the discussion centers on the problems faced by in-shore fisheries and the coastal
environment and it do not identify any problems with the ocean fisheries or the oceanic environment.
Furthermore, according to Annex 4, the Threat of "Overfishing of oceanic resources" was identified through
the Symptom/Impact of "Potential decline in population" the Immediate Causes of which were "Excessive by-
catch and discards" and "Poor fishing gear selectivity especially purse seine/longline." The Root Causes were
determined to be "Lack of monitoring and enforcement of regulations" and "Lack of trained staff for
surveillance." The scale of the threat was seen as "Regional" and the Severity was "yet to be determined".
The root causes identified in the SAP are not the same as those in either the text or Annex 4 of the ProDoc.
While the FFA attempted to cope with this confusion by reverting to the root causes in the SAP for guidance,
the Evaluation Team believes that for the purpose of the evaluation the rightful framework is the ProDoc and
particularly the LogFrame Matrix.
If projects are meant to address the root causes of identified problems, the OFM Project would have been
expected to focus on monitoring, enforcement of regulations and capacity building (mainly training) for
surveillance.
16
2.2 Project objectives, outputs and activities
2.2.1 Objectives
The Development Objective of the International Waters Project, according to the signed Project Document
(UNDP, 1999), is "to achieve global benefits by developing and implementing measures to conserve,
sustainably manage and restore coastal and oceanic resources in the Pacific Ocean". It aims to assist Pacific
Island States to improve regional capacity for the management of trans-boundary water resources and create
improved management structures to address environmental degradation and ensure the long-term
sustainability of ocean fisheries in the Western Pacific Warm Pool ecosystem.
According to the Project Document, the full Project had the following four original Immediate Objectives (see
also Table 2):
Objective 1: To enhance trans-boundary management mechanisms
Objective 2: To enable the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and watershed resources
Objective 3: To enable the conservation and sustainable yield of ocean living resources
Objective 4: To maximize regional benefits from lessons learned through community-based participation and
to catalyze donor participation
Of these, Objective 3 was the one that is most closely related to the OFM component and therefore the one
most relevant to this Terminal Evaluation.
However, the objectives, outputs and activities of the broader IW-Project (including the OFM Component)
went through a series of changes during the course of its implementation (see, for example, SPREP 2002,
GEF/UNDP/SPREP 2002, and GEF/UNDP/SPREP 2003) and the latest version which was made available to
the Evaluation Team in the form of a LogFrame Matrix, was dated as recently as September 2003. This
version is carried in full in Annex 6 and the elements directly relevant to the OFM Project are summarized in
Table 3.
As can be noted, the number of Objectives changed and so did the sequential numbering and wording.
According to the latest version, the new Immediate Objectives are:
Objective 1: Establish effective project implementation support
Objective 2: Enhanced trans-boundary management mechanisms
Objective 3: Conservation and sustainable use of coastal and watershed resources
Objective 4: To support the establishment of new institutional arrangements for the conservation and
management of trans-boundary fish stocks and associated national capacities
Objective 5: Maximise regional benefits of lessons learned from management of oceanic, coastal and
watershed resources; and Catalyse donor support for conservation and sustainable oceanic,
coastal and watershed management initiatives
The OFM objective is now Objective 4 and its wording has changed significantly. The new wording is more
specific than and not as comprehensive as in the previous version. It has a single focus on institutional
arrangements.
These inconsistencies and the necessary changes were noted early on by the Project Manager in his Inception
Report to the First Regional Task Force Meeting in March 2001 (SPREP, 2002). At that time he noted with
reference to the Project Document that "the relationship between the activities described in Part D, Immediate
Objectives, Outputs and Activities, the UNDP Input Budget (Table 1), the UNDP Output Budget (Table 3)
and the Logical Framework (Annex 1) was not clear."
17
ry
a
y
ry
i
n
ry
a
t
e
ocks
by
pede
h
rough
count
ry
e
s m
t
h
rough
ocks
i
m
count
una st
n
ed t
i
f
y
sheri
a
y
appropri
n
ed
i
f
y
count
by
una st
t
h
e t
ry
una fi
h
e t
e
s m
ease
i
on just
t
s
of count
o
t
t
sheri
rel
t
s
t
o
be gai
t
s
from
approach.
o
be gai
i
on just
benefi
t
s
of count
n
.
onal
t
s
from
a
y
not
benefi
t
s
t
una fi
benefi
cooperat
atio
approach t
s m
ry
o
t
-
t
e
rm
ry
n
.
benefi
onal
benefi
co-operat
approach.
e
nt
ount
pede regi
atio
ry
C
regi
p
a
rticip
Increased
in country EEZs can be realized.
Short
count
i
m
-
t
e
rm
onal
onal
·
·
·
ount
C
regi
p
a
rticip
Increased benefi
country EEZs can be realized.
Short
approach t
regi
Governm
staff for further training.
·
·
·
·
Assumptions and Risks
ng
e
s
o
onal
i
ng
n
a
l
b
er
ent
eries
ni
onal
onal
r
ai
proved
e
m
sheri
opm
s
.
i
c
i
p
at
n
a
tio
i
m
fi
t
i
ons for
c regi
e
ch.
easures t
fi
t
n
a
l fish
m
onal
ra.
f
of m
-cat
i
c
report
proved regi
by
proved
e
nt capabilities.
proved regi
atio
q
u
a
litativ
m
e
s/
i
m
t
i
onal
m
ities.
i
nued devel
s
. Speci
tern
d
i
o
n
a
l fo
s and condi
e
.
o
i
sheri
o
o
i
ent
a
nagem
in
ch within country EEZs
reg
m
ng new and
o
addi
t activ
o
cont
e
rm
e an
s on behal
t
a
t
e
d econom
i
on on non part
ni
en
at
n
in
e
nt
a
t
e
d t
una fi
a
t
e
d t
a
t
e
d t
u
m
of professi
r
o
g
r
am
a
t
e
d t
a
t
e
d t
docum
e
d
in
atio
rcem
m
e
s rel
p
e
vel
s
defi
s
rel
e
for t
s
rel
fisheries m
s
rel
fo
i
ni
u
a
n
titativ
rk
m
s
rel
s
rel
18
e
riv
i
n
form
ities.
sheri
a
rticip
s
.
ent
arrangem
ent
ent
ent
ent
d
en
ent
fi
q
f
wo
regi
zed m
and SPC
i
a
t
i
ons.
ry
e
nt
docum
e
nt
g
activ
docum
ce an
oni
proved
eries p
creased
ility o
docum
es
docum
rin
docum
docum
ogical Framework Matrix in Annex 1 of the Project Document
ount
FFA
b
e
n
e
fits d
negot
C
Im
country tuna and by-cat
Increased l
opportunities for national fisheries personnel.
In
fish
i
ng report
ri
eillan
harm
eet
ailab
rv
Sources of Verification
a
nagem
a
nagem
o
n
ito
·
· ·
·
·
M
Av
Project
m
count
Project
m
Project
m
Project
strengthen country
Project
su
Project
for
FFV access to EEZs.
· · ·
·
·
·
·
·
r
tors
d
i
ng
o
f
e
s
in
an
i
ngs
s
for
t
from
ce
sheri
project
eet
i
c
i
p
at
o
secure
e
s.
i
es fo
eillan
t
.
m
r
afts
m
effectiveness
es t
benefi
rv
ilities with
ri
echanism
n
part
ab
f
d
onal
d
su
benefi
of GEF
of
n
strateg
of
of expert
regi
g
an
onal
ent
ent
tatio
ent
ocks i
e
n
t
cap
i
ng count
rin
hened fi
ility o
ng
en
entation m
i
a
t
i
ons.
st
opm
opm
opm
i
c
i
p
at
o
n
ito
rengt
a
n
a
g
e
m
a
t
e
d work program
ailab
p
l
em
plem
Increased regional
in global ocean fisheries
negot
Increased
t
una
country EEZs.
Increased capacity in
m
participating country EEZs.
St
m
part
added regi
FFA and SPC records.
Devel
rel
Av
conveni
according to agreed work plan.
Devel
im
each specific activity
Devel
im
each activity
Objectively Verifiable Indica
·
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
r
t
f
ng
e
s
onal
and
ilities
t
a
t
i
v
e
g
fo
t
o
ri
benefi
sheri
ab
ent
in
oni
i
nued
onal
m
es
cont
ri
Objective 3 (referred to as Output 3) from the original L
opm
u
ild
ne resources
sh
of regi
a
ri
e
n
t
cap
i
on/
ent
ce o
ent activity.
Achieve
sustainable
devel
use of ocean living
m
i
ze regi
nat
hened consul
m
ility.
opm
eillan
b
er count
·
acity b
a
xi
proved fi
ab
proved fi
a
n
a
g
e
m
oordi
rv
rengt
e
m
Cap
FFA and SPC.
M
of tuna/by-catch fisheries.
Im
cap
Im
m
for regional effect.
C
devel
su
enforcem
St
processes for FFA
m
Table 2.
Intervention Logic
Output 3
Outline 3
·
·
·
·
·
·
gn
ry
n
ry
ry
n
e
s
pede
e
nt
en
a
jor
e
nt
t
h
rough
ocks i
m
m
-
count
t
h
rough
ocks i
sheri
l
t
h
reat
fi
t
h
forei
-by
a
y
i
a
nagem
al
a
nagem
n
ed
i
f
y
count
una st
ry
n
ed
m
m
i
f
y
count
gai
una st
i
v
es
gai
ude
t
una
i
on wi
e
s m
h
e t
h
e t
e
s
be
t
n
cl
d
States.
sheri
t
i
o
i
on just
o
be
sheri
i
on just
t
s
of count
d
islan
perspect
t
y
on
t
s
t
t
s
from
t
s
from
t
una fi
t
s
t
i
onal
benefi
una fi
i
d
ari
s do not
s
es can be found
cooperat
n
benefi
t
o
n
.
i
on and
at
benefi
t
e
nt
terests an
e
nt
atio
approach
benefi
cooperat
atio
ng nat
sol
rat
st
ework for cooperat
ry
ry
ng st
-
t
e
rm
g
in
onal
onal
onal
onal
in
onal
i
ni
shi
ount
ount
e
gi
h
angi
Fram
fi
C
regi
p
a
rticip
Increased
country EEZs can be realized
Short
approach
regi
C
regi
p
a
rticip
Increased benefi
country EEZs can be realized.
R
arrangem
fish
C
regi
adm
arrangem
·
·
·
·
Assumptions and Risks
·
·
·
·
i
c
i
n
h
at
e
s
ce
and
i
on
use
onal
s
s
i
onal
ved
n
s
.
s
t
sheri
eillan
ent
econom
ent
ans
una
nat
rv
ans.
pl
ews
pl
t
s
deri
una fi
conservat
and regi
a
t
e
d
e
nt
s
.
e
g
o
tiatio
and
d
su
e
nt
ent
i
ng
s
on docum
i
c
report
i
on on t
onal
l an
ot
i
onal
s
ent
at
e
s rel
benefi
e resource
a
nagem
s
and revi
eries n
a
nagem
ent
n
t
ro
docum
onal
regi
nabl
sheri
ng Group docum
n
form
focused on t
s prom
ai
erification
g
,
co
t
una m
report
n
a
l fish
e
nt
e
nt
t
una m
docum
o
rki
on docum
and Prep C
fi
econom
ry
rin
s
cal
c regi
fi
atio
ry
s
from
hened on nat
LC
LC
S W
i
onal
i
onal
H
H
n
ito
ount
C
tern
ount
proved i
e
port
a
nagem
rengt
M
Prep C
M
C
report
M
Nat
Techni
FFA and SPC
Baseline study at Project start
Speci
in
C
include the fisheries sector.
Im
by-catch within country EEZs
R
workshops
m
Mo
arrangem
and sust
st
scales.
Nat
19
· · · ·
· · ·
· · ·
·
·
·
·
·
Sources of V
ce
n
i
n
f
and
re
ilities
hen
una
onal
e
nt
p
lian
ocks
ess in
a
nage
secu
m
ab
ved i
st
en
e
n
t
s o
proved
rengt
m
fisheries
l
y
m
to
o
regi
a
nagem
i
on of new
una
a
nage t
rat
e
n
t
cap
ent
u
i
rem
o
st
m
e
nt
t
st
d
co
n
s
onitoring
o
secure added
ci
o
m
a
t
i
ng t
i
ni
t
s
deri
es t
ded t
ilities
h
rough i
oceanic
m
t
from
ri
tiations developed.
ce req
ab
a
n
a
g
e
m
o
effi
s.
t
y
t
Matrix (as revised on 23 September 2003)
ce an
tiveness in global ocean
g
i
o
n
a
l effectiv
t
t
e
g
o
tiatio
ce rel
o
support
arrangem
t
y
t
eillan
e
nt
benefi
ation in support of the
es.
g
cap
capaci
e
nt
i
s
hed
n
s
benefi
rv
ce provi
e t
eries m
ri
i
ng count
rin
d
scien
a
bl
onal
eries n
benefi
t
capaci
i
f
i
c
advi
inform
d
su
l
a
bl
fiable Indicators
onal
reached in negotiations on new
an
ng.
o
n
ito
onal
arrangem
i
onal
e
nt
non-target species and the oceanic
a
nagem
e
work for ad
regi
e
s est
e
g
o
tiatio
i
c
i
p
at
a
ki
n
a
l fish
FFA
g
an
i
ng count
e
nt
nat
sci
avai
ent
m
n
m
benefi
tio
c
rin
em
fi
atio
g
t
h
e
n
e
d
fish
quality
ng and advi
st
on-m
onal
eries n
onal
i
c
i
p
at
ni
eries m
stocks,
si
stitu
tern
t
h
i
n
part
proved
o
n
ito
a
nagem
proved
Agreem
regi
Basic fram
in
program
Increased regional effec
fish
Speci
in
Increased regi
participating country EEZs
Increased capacity in m
surveillance of participating country EEZs
Stren
wi
regi
Capacity for increased re
global ocean fisheries nego
Im
high
m
part
Trai
fish
added regi
national and regional
m
Enhance
stocks within EEZs.
Im
tuna
ecosy
deci
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Objectively Veri
ent
n
a
l
the
and
tio
t
r
ans-
t
h
e
n
e
w
e
n
t
s
and
i
s
hm
acities
t
r
ans-
a
bl
stitu
ocks
g
e
m
i
on and
f
ocks
n
a
l cap
sh st
t o
of
sh st
Objective 4 from the Logical Framework
h
e est
of
t
a
tio
en
e
nt
e
w in
e
nts for
i
on and
e
nt
fi
n
m
n
a
l arran
fi
lish
tio
t
h
e conservat
support
ciated
acities.
a
nagem
stitu
a
nagem
Intervention Logic
To
o
f
n
arrangem
conservat
m
boundary
asso
To support
estab
in
for
m
boundary
associated national
cap
Table 3.
e
onal
and
n
in
national
u
a
litativ
atio
i
on
d
q
e an
a
rticip
.
place for a new
of professi
.
in
e
vel
eries p
una conservat
body
q
u
a
n
titativ
fish
e
nts
e
nt
t
e
s personnel
n
a
l
onal
sheri
creased
a
nagem
Records of regional Preparatory
Conference.
Increased l
training opportunities for
fi
In
n
a
tio
regional fora.
Arrangem
regi
m
20
·
·
·
·
ent
of
to
t
o
best
n
t
una
em
ded.
es i
pl
and
fisheries
).
at
m
onal
provi
n
support
es
SPC
regi
es i
approaches
ogi
a
nd St
at
op and i
i
on body
.
t
a
t
i
v
e processes
t
y
(FFA/
a
nd St
e
nt
e
t
hodol
t
o
FFA Isl
o
Isl
e m
consul
capaci
t
o
devel
e
d t
a
nagem
i
cat
onal
s
s for a new
and conservat
.
onal
ewed and enhanced (FFA)
e
nt
e
nt
o
repl
t
e
nt
effort
t
una m
hen regi
ce and support
s
revi
r
i
ons present
onal
ned regi
C
a
nagem
a
nagem
e
fi
rengt
T
Advi
t
h
ei
arrangem
m
Opt
their efforts to consider new
regi
Proposal
practices for sustainable ocean
m
R
st
M
· ·
·
·
·
·
The following table compares the list of Activities from the ProDoc with the lists that appear in the two
Letters of Agreement between SPREP and each of the FFA and SPC.
Table 4.
`Evolving' list of Activities
FROM THE SIGNED LETTERS OF
FROM THE PROJECT DOCUMENT
AGREEMENT
Provide training to the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) to To provide technical assistance and support to the
develop and implement project-related management
FFA to build project-related capacity nationally and
3.1 arrangements on behalf of member countries. A regional regionally and to devise and implement project-
fisheries management workshop will be convened
related management arrangements with participating
countries
Provide training to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community Provide training and advice to strengthen fisheries
(SPC) to provide additional, project-related scientific advice monitoring capabilities, including monitoring of
and to accommodate additional reporting responsibility non-target species through appropriate mechanisms,
3.2 deriving from its involvement in project activities
such as observer and sampling programmes, with
participating countries to secure added regional
benefits through national and regional oceanic
fisheries management arrangements
Provide initial support to FFA member countries to develop To review and enhance FFA's capacity to efficiently
additional and appropriate national ocean fishery
manage high quality information in support of the
management regimes. Their commitment will be secured monitoring, control and surveillance requirements of
3.3 with the aim to maximize regional benefit from the regional participating countries
tuna fishery and its associated by-catch. This will include
the convening of in-country fisheries management
workshops
Provide support for increased fishery monitoring, including Provide initial support to participating countries to
monitoring of non-target species through appropriate develop additional and appropriate national ocean
3.4 mechanisms, such as observers and sampling programmes at fisheries management regimes to maximize regional
the national and regional levels. This will include the benefit from the regional tuna fishery and its by-
convening of in-country fisheries management workshops
catch
Strengthen, through the provision of additional training, the Strengthen, through the provision of additional
fisheries management capabilities of the National Fisheries training, the fisheries management capabilities of
3.5 Administrations and similar organizations in participating national fisheries administrations in participating
countries. This will include the convening of in-country countries
fisheries management workshops
Support the coordination and continued development of Improve biological information relating to regional
regional surveillance and enforcement. GEF support will tuna stocks, non-target species and the oceanic
top up the FFA's Monitoring Control and Surveillance ecosystem available to support management
3.6 System in order to deliver accurate and relevant information decision-making
to the participating countries to support the control of illegal
fishing and other threats to resource sustainability. Please
see Annex 11 for further details
Coordinate and refine consultative processes among FFA Prepare a project proposal to catalyze and replicate
member countries with the objective of strengthening methodologies and best practices for sustainable
regional capability. This is an activity that will be ocean fisheries management based on an evaluation
3.7 implemented and financed by the Forum Fisheries Agency of project capacity-building activities. This activity
and the Secretariat for the Pacific Community. This will be necessitates a study of baseline situations at project
undertaken through a series of joint FFA/SPC international commencement
meetings
Provide assistance to review and further develop harmonized Coordinate and refine consultative processes among
minimum terms and conditions for foreign fishing vessel FFA member countries with the objective of
3.8 access to the EEZs of participating countries. This is an strengthening regional capability. This is an activity
activity that will be implemented and financed by the Forum that will be implemented and financed by Forum
Fisheries Agency
Fisheries Agency and the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community
3.9 Prepare a project proposal to catalyze and replicate Provide assistance to review and further develop
methodologies and best practices for sustainable ocean measures for enhancing the management of foreign
21
fisheries management based on an evaluation of project fishing vessels and promoting the development of
capacity-building activities
domestic fishing fleets in participating countries.
This is an activity that will be implemented and
financed by the Forum Fisheries Agency
Develop criteria for the selection of three demonstration Assist with the development of criteria associated
2.7 projects with the objective to further identify regional with identifying sites for demonstration projects
elements necessary to the long-term sustainability of coastal addressing long-term sustainability of coastal
fisheries
fisheries issues
Develop three projects that demonstrate appropriate Participation in the implementation of demonstration
methodologies and best practices per the criteria per activity projects that address issues associated with the long-
2.8 2.7 above. Ensure the active participation of all stakeholders term sustainability of coastal fisheries. Such projects
in the development of methodologies, especially local may be linked to related activities undertaken by
communities and women
SPC
2.2.2 Outputs and Activities
According to the ProDoc text, Objective 3 which is the focus of the OFM component, has only one output,
"regional-level methodologies and best practices for the conservation and sustainable yields of ocean
fisheries" (UNDP, 1999) and there are nine Activities under this Output.
However, Annex 1 to the ProDoc, which is the LogFrame Matrix, replaces the term "Objectives" with
"Outputs" and the confusion is further compounded by the omission of specific reference to "Activities"
which are presumably contained in the bulleted list which seems to relate directly to the Objective. As with
the wording of the Objective itself, there have been changes in the number and wording of the Activities.
Table 4 above compares the list of activities from the ProDoc with the lists that formed the basis of the Letters
of Agreement between SPREP and each of FFA and SPC and as can be seen from the table, some of the
changes in Activities go further than mere changes in sequence and numbering and these are discussed below:
Activity 3.1 No substantive change.
Activity 3.2 Changed to reflect a significant shift from capacity building at SPC to capacity building for
fisheries management in participating countries.
Activity 3.3 Renumbered as 3.4, but no substantive change.
Activity 3.4 Has been renumbered 3.3 and there has been a shift from supporting monitoring activities at
national and regional levels to reviewing and enhancing FFA's capacity for data management in respect of
MCS.
Activity 3.5 Apart from removing the reference to "in-country fisheries management workshops", the new
activity also removes "similar organizations" as recipients of training benefits which are now focused
exclusively on "national fisheries administrations".
Activity 3.6 The Activity numbered 3.6 has been completely replaced by another activity of the same number.
Apart from an indirect reference in the new Activity 3.3 which is exclusively targeted for FFA capacity-
building, there are no activities to enhance the MCS capacity of participating countries. The new Activity 3.6
has a research focus.
Activity 3.7 Renumbered 3.8 with no substantive change except the omission of the reference to the "series of
joint FFA/SPC international meetings".
Activity 3.8 This activity is now shown as 3.9 and it abandons the development of "harmonized minimum
terms and conditions for foreign fishing vessel access to the EEZs of participating countries" and it aims to
promote "the development of domestic fishing fleets". It is also interesting to note that this new activity is
22
shown as number 3.10 in the Annual Progress Report of the OFM Component for July 2002 to June 2003
(GEF/UNDP/SPREP, 2003)
Activity 3.9 This activity (now numbered 3.7) is extended to specifically cover "a study of baseline
situations".
Activity 2.7 This activity appears on the signed Letter of Agreement between SPREP and SPC, however, it
has been the subject of reservations expressed by SPC and it has not been implemented by them.
Nevertheless, and although it does not form part of the OFM Component, it was subject to a change of
wording, albeit to reflect the PCU's wish for SPC involvement.
Activity 2.8 This activity too appears on the signed Letter of Agreement between SPREP and SPC, and like
the one above has been the subject of reservations expressed by SPC and it has not been implemented by
them. Although it does not form part of the OFM Component, it was subject to a change of wording, albeit to
reflect the PCU's wish for SPC involvement.
The latest version of the expected Outputs from the OFM Project that was made available to the Evaluation
Team was in the Terms of Reference. They were referred to as `key pilot activities' and are shown in Table 5
below together with an indication of their respective links with previous lists of activities.
The overall focus of the OFM Project Activities was the MHLC and PrepCon process. This is very much in
line with the new Objective 4, as revised on 23 September 2003, namely, "To support the establishment of
new institutional arrangements for the conservation and management of trans-boundary fish stocks and
associated national capacities". While this is laudable, it does raise some questions such as - When did the
changes occur? Why were they necessary? Were they discussed by stakeholders and beneficiaries before
they were adopted? Who approved them?
Table 5. Latest list of Activities
FOCUS AND LINKS WITH
KEY PILOT ACTIVITIES
PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES (as
(from Evaluation Terms of Reference)
agreed in signed Letters of
Agreement)
Providing support for the process of discussions and negotiation between Pacific The focus is the series of MHLC,
Small Islands Developing States (SIDS), other coastal states of the Western and PrepCon and related events.
Central Pacific Ocean (including Indonesia and the Philippines) and fishing states, Activities 3.1 and 3.4
on a new regional arrangement for the conservation, management and sustainable
development of trans-boundary stocks of highly migratory species and related
species, including support for effective participation by Pacific SIDS.
Providing training to Pacific SIDS to strengthen their understanding and capacity Once again MHLC and PrepCon
to participate in the process of preparing new arrangements for trans-boundary events, together with the obligations
fish stocks, and to identify the necessary policy, legal and institutional reforms at arising from the Convention.
national level associated with implementation of the new arrangements.
Activities 3.4, 3.5
Providing technical assistance through existing regional organisations to support Once again MHLC and PrepCon
Pacific SIDS in the development and implementation of new regional and national events, together with the scientific
conservation and management arrangements for trans-boundary stocks of tuna and basis for management.
related species, and provide additional scientific knowledge and information about Activities 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6
these stocks and the Western Tropical Pacific Large Marine Ecosystem (WTP
LME). The outputs of the scientific work include enhanced scientific information
on regional tuna stocks through developments in stock assessment methodology,
including analysis of stock-specific reference points, and improved flows of
information from regional programmes and databases.
Characterising the WTP LME through a programme of biological and ecological Research on broad ecosystem
monitoring, research and analysis.
approach.
Activity 3.6
23
The Evaluation Team notes that the reservations regarding the wording and substance of the Objectives,
Outputs and Activities, which surfaced very early in the Project, were discussed at the First Regional Task
Force Meeting in 2001, and apparently in the subsequent Multipartite Review Meetings in 2002 and 2003.
According to the meeting reports and selected working papers (SPREP 2002, GEF/UNDP/SPREP 2002,
2002a, 2003 and 2003a) made available to the Evaluation Team it appears that the decisions to amend the
Objectives, Outputs and Activities were not made at these multilateral meetings of stakeholders as expected,
but took place after further consultation by circular letter following the meetings.
2.2.3 Public participation under the original Objective 4
The original Objective 4 in the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999) makes specific reference to the OFM Project. In
promoting "the extrapolation of lessons learned" to future investments in OFM activities, the active
involvement of the NGO community was considered necessary. This was reflected in the following activity in
the main text:
Activity 4.5 Create a public participation programme aimed at key stakeholders for the OFM component of
the Project.
However, in the LogFrame Matrix (Annex 1) of the same document, the wording and the meaning are
changed significantly and it states under bullet 5 :
Identify key stakeholders for the OFM component.
By the time the latest version of the LogFrame Matrix is produced (September 2003), all reference to
stakeholders of the OFM Component seems to have been removed and there is no mention of it under the
newly numbered Objective 5.
2.2.4 Comment
It is usual and desirable to reflect changing circumstances, lessons learnt and experience gained during the
implementation of a project, by reviewing and revising the various outputs and activities, usually by revising
the LogFrame Matrix. The initiative for such changes can be expected to come from those involved with the
implementation of the project and, following appropriate discussion, the changes are agreed to and sanctioned
by the Project Steering Committee, the Multipartite Review Meeting or similar body.
In the case of the OFM Project, the need for revision was identified by those implementing the project but the
justification is not entirely clear and the changes were only approved in principle by the appropriate body. It
would seem that many of the changes were necessitated by the inconsistencies between the SAP, the Project
Concept and the ProDoc, and the low level of consultation with prospective stakeholders (FFA and SPC) at
the project formulation stages leading to weak project design. There is also a feeling that some of the changes
were a means of adapting the outputs and activities to fit what was taking place anyway, rather than the other
way round. When the work of the executing agencies did not reflect the agreed Activities of the UNDP/GEF
OFM Project, it was the Project Activities that were changed to fit.
2.3 Main stakeholders and beneficiaries
2.3.1 Stakeholders
The key stakeholders, according to the Evaluation Team's Terms of Reference are GEF, UNDP, FFA, SPC,
SPREP and stakeholders in participating countries. These countries are Cook Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands,
Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
24
UNDP sees FFA, SPC, SPREP, UNDP and the Pacific Island Governments as the stakeholders. The PCU
agrees that these are the primary stakeholders but adds "fishing states, Pacific territories, other coastal States
sharing the resource (Indonesia, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, etc) and the global tuna industry" as
secondary stakeholders. SPREP has a similar approach in its identification of stakeholders and sees the 14
Pacific Island Governments, FFA, SPC and SPREP as the primary stakeholders and adds that "local industry,
the industry and fisheries administrations of distant water fishing nations are also stakeholders".
GEF, which is the main funding agency, is only identified as a stakeholder in the Terms of Reference and by
the PCU. On the other hand UNDP, SPREP, FFA, SPC, and the participating governments are correctly
recognized as primary stakeholders. UNDP is the Implementing Agency from the perspective of GEF.
SPREP is the contractual Executing Agency for the full IW-Project but it has `sub-contracted' the OFM
Component to FFA and SPC. FFA has had primary responsibility for implementation of Activities 3.1, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.7 and 3.9. SPC, namely its Oceanic Fisheries Programme, has had primary responsibility for
implementing Activities 3.2 and 3.6. FFA and SPC share responsibility for Activity 3.8.
While the OFM component of the IW-Project is considered "principally inter-governmental in nature", non-
government organizations (NGOs), communities and resource users are also considered as secondary
stakeholders by those consulted, with the PCU having the broadest range of identified stakeholders.
The SAP had described "the establishment of effective partnerships between NGOs, the private sector and
government" as "essential to sustainable development". The Project Document subsequently noted that
implementation of the IW-Project was expected to "involve and build upon the complementary skills and
experience available from organizations and groups active in the region" (UNDP, 1999). It is also worth
noting that according to GEF OP#9, "stakeholder involvement and participation of different sectoral ministries
in each recipient country constitute important elements of GEF activities concerning international waters ...
Participation of these various stakeholders (including the private sector) within and across countries can
improve the quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of projects" (GEF, undated).
As has already been noted above, the original intention was for the Project to "create a public participation
programme aimed at key stakeholders for the OFM component" or at least "identify key stakeholders for the
OFM component" (UNDP, 1999). However, in the changes that have been made to the Objectives, Outputs
and Activities, all reference to stakeholders has been removed altogether. In fact, as SPC pointed out,
"stakeholder involvement generally has been fairly weak in most aspects of the project".
2.3.2 Beneficiaries
As stated in the Project Document (UNDP, 1999), the "beneficiary countries" of the IW-Project are Cook
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New
Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. "Primary target beneficiaries" include
governmental organisations, NGOs and community-based organisations (CBOs). For the OFM component,
the principal beneficiaries were expected to be government policymakers engaged in the management of the
oceanic fisheries resources (from Fisheries, Foreign Affairs and Legal Ministries and Departments). In other
words, the OFM component targeted primarily those responsible for developing and implementing effective
fisheries management regimes at the national and regional levels.
The ProDoc (UNDP, 1999) also identified "secondary target beneficiaries" which included intergovernmental
organisations (namely SPC, FFA and SPREP) and the private sector. However, in the view of the Evaluation
Team, FFA and SPC have been very much primary target beneficiaries in view of the capacity building and
funding support they have received from the OFM Project.
UNDP sees the governments and the participating countries in general as beneficiaries but also adds "the
global environment". SPREP agrees with this view while the PCU considers all the primary and secondary
stakeholders as beneficiaries of the project.
25
While the importance of oceanic fisheries to Pacific Island communities may vary across the region (in terms
of government revenue, employment, food supplies, etc), there is a common interest in promoting or
enhancing economic and social benefits from the oceanic (namely tuna) fishery. There is potential for
increased economic gain, through the introduction of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention
and associated domestic industry development. As coastal fisheries become more depleted and degraded,
there is an expectation that oceanic fisheries will assume greater importance in the domestic context.
According to the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999), sustainable use of oceanic fisheries will also help to reduce pressure
on coastal fisheries.
2.3.3 Comment
The participating countries certainly have a stake in the IW-Project, but they appear to have invested little in
the OFM Component and are seen more as beneficiaries than stakeholders. In fact, the secondary
beneficiaries of the OFM Component would include almost every family in the Pacific Islands since most
have an interest in fishing (as a livelihood, source of food or way of life). The industry is reputed to generate
around US$60-US$70 million in access fees and these economic gains from the oceanic fishery are expected
to be sustainable.
In view of the above, it is surprising that among the changes that have taken place in the wording, etc, of the
Objectives, Outputs and Activities of the OFM Component, all reference to public participation activities has
been removed altogether.
2.4 Results expected
As noted in Section 2.1 above, the root causes of the problems identified in the ProDoc for action by the OFM
Component of the IW-Project were determined to be "Lack of monitoring and enforcement of regulations"
and "Lack of trained staff for surveillance." A contributory factor was deficiencies in management (linked to
problems of governance and understanding). With respect to the OFM Component, this problem was
highlighted by the geographical and functional gaps in fisheries management regimes in the Western Tropical
Pacific LME. The results of the OFM Project could be expected to include monitoring and enforcement
regulations (and their effective implementation), a cadre of trained surveillance staff, and improved
management capacity, coupled with improved governance and understanding of the resource.
According to the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999), the OFM component of the IW-Project "will ensure the sustainable
harvesting of the oceanic fish stocks". It was expected that the project "will build capacity of the participating
countries to develop and implement regional fisheries management programmes and agreements (including
legal issues)".
Capacity would be strengthened through increasing knowledge of the oceanic fish resources of the Western
and Central Pacific Ocean, including status of exploitation, and through building more effective and cohesive
management and conservation arrangements. This would be expected to result from a number of pilot
activities carried out at national and regional levels by the FFA and SPC. These were to include training (in
science, fisheries management, legal issues, compliance and enforcement), technical assistance (for example
in developing national tuna management plans), financial and technical support to participate in regional and
international negotiations, and research (see Section 2.2 above).
Through these activities, the geographical and functional gaps in management would be addressed and the
conservation and sustainable yield of the oceanic fisheries promoted. In addition, increased domestic benefits
from the tuna fishery would be achieved, thereby alleviating pressure on over-exploited coastal fisheries.
26
Another expected result of the IW-Project, according to the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999), is ensuring sustainability
of the project "by strengthening existing national and regional coordinating mechanisms ... The project will
have assessed options for creating financial and institutional sustainability, undertaken consultations and held
a donor conference to secure necessary further investments'.
Finally, the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999) predicted that the IW-Project would demonstrate a "high potential for
successful replication both within and outside the region". For the OFM component, this would involve
preparation of a project proposal to "catalyze and replicate methodologies and best practices" relating to
sustainable fisheries management.
2.5 Implementation arrangements
The pivotal role of SPREP in project implementation is spelled out clearly in the ProDoc without any
distinction between the two components. According to the ProDoc "SPREP will be fully responsible for
reporting, accounting, monitoring and evaluation of the project together with UNDP, in full accordance with
UNDP's procedures for National Execution (NEX) ... SPREP and UNDP will also be responsible for the
supervision of the management and audit of the allocation of UNDP/GEF resources. SPREP will be
accountable to the participating Governments and to UNDP for the production of outputs, for the achievement
of project objectives and for the use of UNDP/GEF resources."
The Project Manager, located in the Project Coordination Unit (PCU), has responsibility for day-to-day
Project implementation. The PCU is established as a `distinct unit' within SPREP, with the Project Manager
reporting directly to the Director of SPREP and to the UNDP Resident Representative. SPREP, meanwhile,
has financial control of GEF project implementation. With respect to the OFM component of the IW-Project,
the ProDoc provides that this will be implemented largely by FFA and SPC, according to a Memorandum of
Understanding signed with SPREP. This subsequently took the form of Letters of Agreement between
SPREP and FFA and between SPREP and SPC according to which FFA and SPC are the Executing Agencies
for the OFM component and all OFM staff is located at the two agencies.
The Letters of Agreement with SPREP detail the administrative arrangements for implementation of the OFM
Project. Amongst other things, SPREP undertakes to facilitate FFA and SPC requests to UNDP for advances
for quarterly payments and to make payment of the necessary funds to support FFA and SPC activities under
the Project. For their part, FFA and SPC undertake to carry out activities according to the Work Plan and to
ensure that their activities are coordinated. FFA and SPC also agree to provide quarterly financial reports
(including reports of complementary or counterpart funding from other sources) with their requests for cash
advances. Both organizations also undertake to provide quarterly and six monthly progress reports to SPREP.
Reference is made in the Letters of Agreement to the participation of FFA and SPC in the work of the
Regional Task Force/Programme Technical Advisory Group. The Regional Taskforce was subsequently
replaced by the Multipartite Review process, and this undertook annual reviews of the Project. Monitoring
arrangements are discussed in more detail below (Section 3.2.4). Both Parties also agreed that the work of
National Fisheries Support Officers and National Coordinators will be coordinated.
Within FFA, the tasks of coordinating the work of the OFM component were delegated to the Corporate
Services Manager. This person was responsible for finalising narrative and financial reports to SPREP,
through the PCU, and for chairing internal meetings of FFA on the work of the Project. When this position
was vacated in October 2002, the role of Project Coordinator was assumed, in large part, by the Economics
and Marketing Manager.
Within SPC, the project has been coordinated by the Manager of the Oceanic Fisheries Programme who also
assumed responsibility for reporting to SPREP.
The diagram below summarizes the project implementation framework from the perspective of GEF.
27
OFM Project implementation framework from GEF perspective
GEF
UNDP
Steering
SPREP
PCU
Implementation
FFA
SPC
14 GOVERNMENTS
National benefits
TUNA STOCKS
Global benefits
LARGE MARINE
ECOSYSTEM
28
3 Findings and Evaluation
3.1 Project design
3.1.1 Project Document
A Project Document (ProDoc) is expected to set out in a standard, recognizable format, the blueprint for
activities that are to be supported so as to reach the set objectives. It serves as the reference document for all
involved in the project, from the funding partners, to the Steering Committee or similar body, project
management and administration, those implementing the activities and the beneficiaries.
The ProDoc is also the main reference document for an evaluation exercise.
The Evaluation Team came up against some rather critical comments in relation to the ProDoc. According to
the Inception Report by the Project Manager, "major components of the Project Document were difficult to
interpret ... the relationship between the activities described at Part D, Immediate Objectives, Outputs and
Activities, the UNDP Input Budget (Table 1), the UNDP Output Budget (Table 3) and the Logical Framework
(Annex 1) was not clear with the result that it was not possible to confidently identify financial resources
described in the Project Document with the activities and outputs envisaged under the Programme" (SPREP,
2002).
The Project Manager also noted "that there was little evidence that critical baseline information had been
adequately assimilated into the formulation phase for the Programme, that little attention had been paid to
lessons that had been learned from related programmes previously implemented in the region and that issues,
such as indicators of success, as well as a thorough treatment of partnership responsibilities, and monitoring
and evaluation strategies had received insufficient attention" (SPREP, 2002). He also referred to errors of
fact, incorrect assumptions and poor descriptions of activities and that the integration of the two components
was not efficient.
In consultations with the Evaluation Team, SPC said that they did not refer to the ProDoc for guidance, while
according to FFA, the ProDoc only provided guidance after issues associated with activity descriptions and
terminology had been resolved. Further discussions with other stakeholders confirmed that the ProDoc was
deficient in parts.
The implementation of the Project was delayed (due to start in 1998 but not activated until 2000), in large part
due to the lengthy formulation and finalisation of the ProDoc. Problems with the ProDoc had the potential to
cause inefficiencies and complications. However, according to the PCU, the clear delineation of mandates
(FFA, SPC and SPREP) meant that these did not lead to too many constraints for the OFM Component and
impacted more on the ICWM Component. Moreover, problems with the ProDoc were resolved early in the
process through cooperation between the Executing Agencies and SPREP and UNDP. The delay in the
project start-up also proved beneficial for the OFM Component since it enabled support Pacific Island
participation throughout the Preparatory Conference process (2001-2004). This would not have been possible
had the Project commenced (and ended) sooner.
In view of the concerns expressed about the ProDoc, the Evaluation Team decided to review it in some detail
and has used it as the departure point for their evaluation work. The following table is a summary of the
Evaluation Team's assessment on the extent to which the ProDoc for the IW-Project is considered to satisfy
the usual requirements of such documents and whether it could provide the expected guidance for those
implementing and executing the project, in particular the OFM Component.
29
Table 5.
Evaluation of the ProDoc as a document and guide
PRODOC SECTIONS AND SUB-SECTIONS
EVALUATION TEAM COMMENTS
A.1) Description of sub-sector
This section provides a comprehensive background to the
A.2) Prior and on-going assistance
project and describes its development context in some
A.3) Regional and country strategies
detail, especially the socio-economic perspective. There is
A.4) Strategic Action Programme formulation
good coverage of both the coastal and oceanic
A.5) Institutional framework for sub-sector
environments. The SAP summary is useful and it makes
A.6) Summary of SAP
the case for an integrated approach to the management and
Section A
Context
protection of coastal and oceanic resources.
B.1) Problems to be addressed : the present It is ironic that under the OFM sub-section the discussion
situation
centers on the problems faced by inshore fisheries and the
coastal environment and it do not identify any problems in
ocean fisheries or the oceanic environment.
B.2) Rationale for GEF support
The discussion is almost exclusively on the coastal
environment and does not seem to make the case for GEF
support since there is not even a mention of global benefits.
This is surprising since OFM has a truly
international/global character and could have been used to
provide the rationale for GEF support for the whole IW-
n
Project given that the ICWM and the OFM were meant to
t
io
be closely linked.
B.3) Expected end of project situation
Only a slight mention of OFM, but it lacks vision. Not
very helpful.
B.4) Target beneficiaries
The discussion on beneficiaries is weak and does not apply
to OFM. See Sections 2.3 and 3.2.2 of this Report.
j
ect justifica
B.5) Project strategy
Refers superficially to the integration that will take place
Pro
between two separate components, ICWM and OFM, but
does not enunciate the strategy for achieving this.
n B
B.6) Institutional arrangements
Clearly identifies SPREP as the organization with full
responsibility and accountability for both components. See
Sectio
Section 3.2.1 of this Report.
C) Development Objective
A bland statement with no supporting discussion or
elaboration. Not very helpful; not very inspiring.
D.1) Immediate Objective 1
Objectives,
This section is confusing. The usual logic of adopting an
objective to aim for, identifying the outputs that will help
achieve it and formulating the activities that will need to be
D.2) Immediate Objective 2
carried out to obtain the outputs, is missing. Instead, there
is an inconsistent use of terminology and the relationship
between Objective, Outputs and Activities is unclear. It
D.3) Immediate Objective 3
would seem that the OFM Objective is the one that has
suffered most from this weakness, with the result that a
C and D : Development
number of revisions have been necessary. This is
D.4) Immediate Objective 4
discussed more fully in Section 2.2 of this report but
focusing only on the OFM Objective.
bjective, Immediate
utputs, and Activities
Sections
O
O
E.1) Description of Inputs
Good description of the inputs required in general.
However, once again, the focus is on the inshore/coastal
work. For example, in discussing the expertise required,
the 3 specialists who will be working on the ICWM
component are identified while there is no mention of the 4
full-time positions required for the OFM component.
As noted by the Project Manager (see Section 2.2) there are
inconsistencies between the Budget by Inputs and the
Budget by Outputs. See discussion in Section 3.3.
E.2) Budget
There is no separate section E.2 and the budget is given
Section E - Inputs
under the previous section.
30
F) Work Plan
The proposed Work Plan for Objective 3, the OFM
component, is most unhelpful it simply indicates that all
the activities will be undertaken all the time, and there is no
discussion or explanation. It seems to have been written
either prematurely, or by someone who did not have an
understanding of what was being proposed, or it indicates
that the GEF funds were supporting on-going activities.
G) Risks
Some risks are identified but there is no mention of what
measures are to be taken by the project in order to
minimize or manage these risks. See also Section 3.2.3.
H) Sustainability
The discussion on sustainability is somewhat superficial
and could have been made more substantive by reference
to the institutional framework that was targeted by the
OFM component. See Section 3.4.3.
I) Obligations and pre-requisites
This is hardly a discussion on obligations and pre-
Sections F, G, H, and I
requisites. If there were none, it should have said so.
J.1) Implementation arrangements
This section describes in some detail the establishment of
the PCU and the pivotal role of SPREP in project
implementation. It also mentions the Regional Task Force
and its functions. It fails to make a distinction between the
ICWM and the OFM components and there is no mention
of the arrangements intended between SPREP and FFA and
SPC for the executing of the OFM component. It provides
no helpful guidance whatsoever to those involved with the
OFM component.
J.2) Financing and Contracting Arrangements
Good reference to the necessary arrangements which will
be entered into between SPREP and FFA and SPC.
However, it would have been more helpful, had it
identified some of the elements that MoU with the two
Section J
organizations need to provide for. See Section 3.2.1.
K) Project review, reporting and evaluation
Reasonable coverage, but no detail and no real strategic
approach to monitoring and evaluation. No mention of
stakeholder involvement in monitoring. See Section 3.2.4.
L) Lessons learned and technical reviews
As the Project Manager lamented in his Inception Report,
this section does not identify lessons that have been learnt
from past experience and which could be applied to this
project. Instead it provides a discussion on IW-LEARN
and on TRAIN-SEA-COAST which seems out of place.
M) Legal context
Standard text seems to have been cut and pasted without
any attempt to reflect the particular circumstances of this
particular project. Some of this material could have been
usefully explored under Section (I) Obligations and Pre-
Sections K, L and M
Requisites.
Annex 1. Logical framework
The terminology used is confusing. There are
inconsistencies between the wording used in the text and
that used in the LogFrame Matrix. Subsequently amended
a number of times.
Annex 2. Incremental cost assessment and It is difficult to evaluate the increment knowing that the
matrix
Objective for the OFM component has been subsequently
changed.
Annex 3. List of on-going and planned projects
Projects totaling $24.7 million are noted as planned or on-
going and relevant to Objective 3.
Annex 4. Table of environmental threats
Under "Unsustainable exploitation of resources" and the
single sub-set of "over-fishing of oceanic resources", the
problems identified are - "Excessive by-catch and discards.
Poor fishing gear selectivity especially purse
seine/longline", and the root causes are "Lack of
monitoring and enforcement of regulations. Lack of
trained staff for surveillance". The OFM Project is meant
Annexes
to be addressing these identified root causes.
31
Annex 5. Background information on the Interesting, but makes no reference to the IW-Project and
SPREP
does not appear very relevant to the OFM component.
Annex 6. Terms of References
The 3 OFM positions are well covered.
Annex 7. Regional Task Force Members for 3 out of the 16 members could be expected to have a close
SAP Formulation
knowledge of Pacific oceanic fisheries.
Annex 8. National Task Force Members for One out of 13 has a fisheries background.
SAP Formulation
Annex 9. Draft Schedule of Project Reviews
Good preliminary schedule. No intention of evaluating the
ICWM and the OFM components separately.
Annex 10. Organogram
OK but not particularly clear in terms of the relationships.
Annex 11. Data Verification for FFA MCS Is this a project within a project? Its status is not clear in
Systems
spite of the reference to Activity 3.6 which was later
replaced by a related but quite different activity.
Annex 12. Project brief
Not attached to the copy made available to the Evaluation
Team but not considered necessary.
The ProDoc was built on the SAP which is still considered as a good document that had identified the
problems of the region and their root causes. However, as can be seen from the critical analysis above, the
ProDoc fell short of expectations. It did not provide adequate guidance to those implementing the OFM
project; it did not build on past achievements and learn from past experiences; project design did not seem to
identify problem situations adequately and their root causes; it was weak in terms of strategic planning,
preparatory work and implementation strategies; having identified some risks it provided no risk management
strategies; it failed to unify the two components and no synergies were planned.
3.1.2 Indicators adopted
Objectively verifiable indicators describe a project's objectives and outputs in measurable and empirically
observable terms and provide the basis for performance measurement and project monitoring and evaluation.
They are parameters of change or of results, indicating the extent to which the project objectives and outputs
have been achieved. Indicators help to create transparency, conveying to others what the project intends to
achieve.
Indicators must be selected in terms of `targets', such as:
Quantity how
much?
Quality what?
Target group
who?
Time/period
starting when and for how long?
Place
where?
The indicators adopted in the original LogFrame Matrix are a mixture of outputs, means of verification and
some true indicators. However, even the latter are difficult to verify objectively since they are not adequately
targeted. For example, how can one measure in a meaningful and objective way "increased regional
effectiveness", or "increased regional benefit", or "increased capacity in monitoring and surveillance", or
"strengthened fisheries management capabilities"?
According to the FFA, the indicators adopted in the original LogFrame Matrix were too broad to be of
practical use. More specific indicators were developed later but apparently they were not used as intended.
The list of indicators in the revised LogFrame Matrix still includes the original ones which are not very useful
but on the whole it is more helpful and there are some indicators among them which could be objectively
32
verifiable, with minor refinements. For example, "agreement reached in negotiations" by when? "Specific
regional benefits derived" what, precisely? "Training and advice provided" how many trained? However,
the majority of adopted indicators in the list are still impossible to verify, objectively or otherwise.
3.1.3 Linkages between the OFM Project and other interventions
There was a clear intention in the ProDoc that the IW-Project "will be undertaken ...... in two
complementary, linked consultative contexts: integrated coastal and watershed management (ICWM) and
oceanic fisheries management (OFM)." However, in the implementation of the IW-Project, the ICWM
Component and the OFM Component have not been linked and the Evaluation Team felt that in some
respects, there appears to have been a decision at times to keep the two components completely separate. For
example in the scope of the Mid-Term Evaluation, the scope of reporting to the SPREP Governing Council,
and the membership of the MPR Meetings (from environment agencies and unable to discuss the OFM).
On the contrary, a high level of complementarity has been forged between the OFM Project activities and
existing activities underway within the Executing Agencies (FFA and SPC). According to FFA, extensive
linkages were established with its other programmes, the most notable being work on developing tuna
management plans at the national level, funded in large part by the Canada-South Pacific Ocean Development
programme (C-SPOD). It was pointed out that the Fisheries Management Advisor, funded under the GEF
IW-Project, assisted with the development of tuna management plans funded by C-SPOD. When C-SPOD
funds for this activity were exhausted, GEF funds were utilised to continue the work. Other FFA activities
supported by the Project included the review of the Palau Arrangement for the management of the purse seine
fishery in the Western and Central Pacific, reviews of national fisheries legislation, observer training and
licensing arrangements for foreign fishing vessels.
According to SPC, the activities of the OFM component are "tightly integrated" into the overall strategic plan
and annual work plans of the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP). The fishing monitoring and stock
assessment activities of the Project complemented other parts of the OFP; the most significant link being with
the activities funded by the European Community under the PROCFish project. In addition, the ecosystem
work supported by the Project has contributed "much needed scope" to the OFP's biology and ecology
activities.
It is apparent that the OFM Project served to further enhance collaboration between FFA and SPC. The
activities where such collaboration and coordination have been most significant include data collection,
national fisheries management planning and support to Pacific Island states in international negotiations. On
the other hand the Project forged few linkages between FFA, SPC and SPREP. The reason for this, according
to SPREP, is because tuna ecosystem issues are principally the mandate of the SPC and FFA. Moreover, it is
important to minimise the overlap in interests between organizations in order to avoid competition for
resources and confusion among stakeholders. According to SPREP, the only linkages between the OFM
component and SPREP related to by-catch issues, principally turtles and longline interaction issues.
No linkages were recorded or observed between the OFM component and other UNDP activities in the region
as there were no related projects supported by UNDP. Relationships with other GEF initiatives (such as IW
projects and IW-LEARN) were not strong.
An important link with the University of the South Pacific could not be established, mainly because the
University does not have a complementary fisheries research and management programme.
In conclusion, the OFM Component was kept separate from the ICWM Component. However, while it did
not create any new or additional linkages at the regional or global levels, it did strengthen linkages where they
already existed, namely complementarities within and between FFA and SPC. This may also be regarded as a
useful strategy for achieving project outcomes.
33
3.2 Implementation and execution
3.2.1 Management, coordination and operational issues
The extent and effectiveness of collaboration and coordination between FFA and SPC are a subject of much
pride for the two organizations. They have a tradition of working together and of supplementing each other's
efforts. This strong working relationship has been the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding between
the two organizations since 1997 and has recently (November 2003) been revised. The MoU addresses
specifically their "collaboration in the development, conservation and management of the tuna and related
resources of the Western and Central Pacific", their "currently excellent mutual understanding to facilitate the
attainment of their common objectives", and the definition of their respective work areas including specific
activities.
There is no doubt that this positive situation has served the OFM Project well.
Both FFA and SPC consider their relationship with the PCU as having been excellent and the PCU has
expressed reciprocal positive sentiments about their relationship with the two executing agencies - "due to the
established institutional framework for oceanic fisheries in the region, and FFA's and SPC's high level of
professionalism, implementation arrangements worked well and were effective. The lesson is that
implementation efficiency is improved when a Project is supported by such arrangements".
The relationship of FFA and SPC with SPREP and UNDP (through the PCU) was also described as good. For
example, the degree of flexibility demonstrated by UNDP in response to proposals for refinement (for
example extension arrangements) is quoted widely as a positive ingredient and is credited with having had a
significant impact on the capacity to achieve project objectives. The flexibility demonstrated by UNDP was
seen by many as instrumental in the successful implementation of the project. A good example of this was the
constructive response by UNDP when the political situation in Solomon Islands caused the Fisheries
Management Advisor to relocate to New Zealand. SPREP and UNDP accommodated this move and the
position was redefined as a project consultant. Likewise, proposals for Project (and budget) modifications
were readily accepted and this facilitated the achievement of project objectives.
However, the relationship was described as indirect with both SPREP and UNDP. The OFM Component was
not included on the agenda of SPREP Annual Meetings. Neither was there much contact with UNDP, except
in the process of the annual Multipartite Reviews and in the selection of the three SPC staff members to fill
the positions funded by the Project. There was virtually no contact with GEF, until the process of developing
a follow-up project commenced. This is discussed further in Section 3.2.4 below in the context of monitoring
of project progress.
The Evaluation Team has come across a matter of some uncertainty regarding the Letter of Agreement
between SPREP and the SPC. In 2001, presumably following the required discussion and negotiation, a
Letter of Agreement was signed by the heads of the two organizations clearly spelling out, among other
things, the scope of work that SPC was expected to address under this arrangement. The Team was advised
that after the signing, some reservations were expressed within SPC regarding their obligation to contribute to
activities within the inshore fisheries area. Changes and movements in personnel within SPC did not allow
the Team to explore this matter fully, however, it seems that, despite SPC concerns, a revision to this scope
never took place and apparently there has not been a signed new Letter of Agreement to replace the first. This
being the case, the Evaluation Team has no option but to consider the signed version from 2001 as the basis
for the agreement between SPREP and SPC with the result obligations under the Letter of Agreement were
not fully discharged.
Individuals in FFA, SPC and UNDP credit the personal links and previous experience which were brought to
the IW-Project by the Project Manager, as instrumental in the positive and cooperative relationship that has
existed between them and the PCU. The hierarchical nature of the arrangement with the FFA and SPC
reporting to the PCU, the PCU reporting to SPREP, SPREP reporting to UNDP, and UNDP reporting to GEF,
34
had substantial potential for problems. The fact that problems did not materialize is probably due to the
Project Manager's positive influence and his personal professional network in the region.
The SPC has developed a series of Memorandum of Understanding arrangements with the relevant
organizations at national level in each participating country and the Evaluation Team was able to examine an
example of one such MoU. The document was found to be very comprehensive and covered various aspects
of the collaboration on the Observer Programme between SPC and the relevant institution at the national level
including the scope of the work the respective responsibilities, budget, job description and monitoring
objectives.
UNDP sees itself as having a comparative advantage in relation to the other GEF Implementing Agencies.
This view is based on the fact that it is located in the region and has extensive experience with implementing
similar complex multi-country projects. But the Evaluation Team was told that UNDP was seen as adding
another layer of bureaucracy without any real involvement in project implementation.
UNDP-Samoa has had a long and productive relationship with SPREP, particularly in regional environmental
initiatives. This has given this particular Country Office a comparative advantage compared to the other two
UNDP Country Offices in the region which have not been involved at all in any aspects of this project. The
Evaluation Team feels that as the OFM Project does not deal with environment, a higher degree of
collaboration between the three UNDP Country Offices could have been beneficial. As a minimum, this could
have involved information exchanges.
The Evaluation Team has gained a good insight into the implementation arrangements from discussions it has
had with stakeholders and beneficiaries and these have been positive in the main. For example, the PCU's
relationship with FFA and SPC was considered to be very good because of the high level of understanding by
the Project Manager (a former Deputy Director of FFA) of the FFA and SPC processes. This very effective
relationship meant that the extra layer of bureaucracy (SPREP) did not lead to any difficulties during
implementation. From SPC's perspective, the PCU was an effective advocate on behalf of SPC with SPREP
and UNDP, providing sound advice on reporting and budget issues.
It was also pointed out to the Evaluation Team that the implementation of the OFM Component benefited
from the highly effective institutional framework provided by FFA and SPC, and the long period (at least 25
years) of regional cooperation on oceanic fisheries policy. There is no similar record of regional
harmonization or collaboration on coastal fisheries management.
3.2.2 Stakeholder participation
The OFM Component, like its `twin' the ICWM Component, of the IW-Project, is founded on the SAP.
According to many of those consulted by the Evaluation Team the consultation process surrounding the SAP
and the extent of participation by stakeholders in its adoption was very satisfactory even though the focus of
these consultations was more on the issues surrounding the coastal and inshore environments of the region
than in the area of oceanic fisheries resources.
It would seem that the level of participation by stakeholders did not follow through into the formulation phase
of the IW-Project and the development and adoption of the ProDoc. From what could be gathered by the
Evaluation Team, there was little or no further consultation with national level stakeholders during the
development of the ProDoc. When this issue was raised by the Evaluation Team in discussions with a
representative group of country delegates mainly from Fisheries administrations, there was a mixed reaction.
Some were quite clear that they wished to be part of the formulation process of any follow-up project. They
saw the benefits of their being fully informed about what was being proposed on their behalf; the opportunity
to ensure that the project would reflect their national priorities, needs and aspirations; and that their
participation was in the national interest. Others were not so sure that adequate resources would be available
for a round of consultations that would include all participating countries and that there were plenty of
regional consultation events already. The suggestion (from the Evaluation Team) that the consultation process
35
should also involve the private sector, drew at least one cynical response. A further point of view emerged
from more than one representative they felt that as this was a regional project, their interests may best be
represented by FFA, a regional organization.
Likewise, the implementation phase of the OFM Component has not been strong on stakeholder involvement
or any other participation at country level.
One activity that did experience a degree of stakeholder participation, even to the NGO and community levels,
was the formulation of Tuna Management Plans. However, in some countries (such as the Solomon Islands)
these were well advanced, or even fully completed, before the GEF project.
It has been noted to the Evaluation Team that governments in the region were weak on communication, public
information and outreach; hence there was a weakness in the area of public involvement. Some of these
difficulties arise as a result of the many traditional community structures and leadership through which
conflicts of interest and parochialism could arise.
The low level of stakeholder involvement and the almost total absence of participation by the public, NGOs
and the private sector have been acknowledged by both the FFA and the SPC, as executing agencies.
According to the SPC "stakeholder involvement generally has been fairly weak in most aspects of the
project". Both organizations feel the need to remedy the situation in any future projects through the provision
of adequate public information and opportunities for stakeholders at the country level to become involved in a
meaningful way in project formulation and implementation. There is a commitment that the follow-up project
will involve civil society in a manner which reflects local mores, culture and sensitivities. To this end, the
FFA has retained a consultant to study the issue of public participation.
3.2.3
Risk management
While the Executing Agencies (FFA and SPC) were of the opinion that risks and assumptions were adequately
identified in the ProDoc and revised LogFrame Matrix, this opinion is not shared completely by the
Evaluation Team. The ProDoc is not consistent between its discussion of risks in the text and its summary of
risks and assumptions in the LogFrame Matrix in Annex 1. The text identifies three moderate risks, namely
potential lack of political will, potential focus on short-term priorities and the difficult communications
situation. With the exception of the communications problem which is said to have been addressed through
project resources, the ProDoc makes no attempt to identify measures that are to be taken prior to the project or
during its implementation in order to minimize or manage these risks.
The original LogFrame Matrix is different from the text. It identifies the potential focus on short-term
priorities as a risk and adds the risk that Governments may not release appropriate staff for training. It ignores
the other two risks identified in the text and adds two assumptions, namely that increased benefits from the
tuna stocks in country EEZs can be realized; and that country benefits that are to be gained through regional
co-operation will justify country participation.
This confusion between parts of the same document and the lack of any consideration for risk minimization or
management is a weakness in project design. The Evaluation Team is aware of attempts to rectify the
situation through the revision of the LogFrame Matrix but does not feel that this revised version is completely
satisfactory.
The revised LogFrame Matrix notes the risk posed to the regional approach by a possible country by country
approach; adds a new risk that regional arrangements may not include all major fishing interests and island
States; and acknowledges a further new risk posed to regional solidarity by changing national perspectives.
The revised LogFrame Matrix also repeats the two assumptions made in the original LogFrame Matrix.
It is interesting to note that the revised LogFrame introduced two new risks, since neither FFA nor SPC
recorded any new risks or threats to Project success during implementation.
36
One of the risks identified in the ProDoc text and later ignored in both LogFrame Matrices, did materialize.
This was the absence of political will at national level to follow through with some regional commitments.
This was partly due to political instability within some countries and therefore outside the influence of the
Project, but also due to a lack of appreciation or awareness of Project objectives and the Project may have
been able to do something about this.
Finally, the Evaluation Team believes that there was one further key risk that should have been identified and
addressed in the ProDoc. That was the lack of human resources (or capacity) within participating countries to
allow countries to take full advantage of the opportunities for training (e.g. attachments), and to undertake the
implementation of activities at the national levels (e.g. legislative drafting and policy implementation). While
this might have been alluded to in the original LogFrame Matrix within the risk that Governments may not
release appropriate staff for training, there is no way of knowing for certain that this risk had been adequately
identified since there was no discussion and no remedial measures were proposed.
3.2.4 Monitoring and evaluation
The IW Project set up a cluster of monitoring and evaluation activities according to the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999)
- it would be subject to a yearly Multipartite Review, involving representatives of participating governments,
the Executing Agencies, CROP members and UNDP; it would be subject to an annual GEF Project
Implementation Review; Annual Progress Reports would be submitted to UNDP for consideration at the
MPR; independent mid-term and final evaluations would be undertaken, as per UNDP procedures. The
Project Manager was also required to regularly brief the Marine Sector Working Group, the coordinating body
among the CROP agencies, on the implementation status of the Project and issues arising. These
requirements made no distinction between the two components of the Project and applied equally to both.
The FFA and SPC, as "sub-executors" of the OFM Project, reported regularly to SPREP, the lead executing
agency, through the PCU, in the form of quarterly, six monthly and annual reports. They also reported
quarterly on their financial delivery when making requests for cash advances as per the Letters of Agreement
between each of them and SPREP. Both organizations had independent annual audits conducted either
specifically on the GEF funds (SPC) or as part of the organization's annual audit with specific reference to the
GEF funds (FFA). These audit reports were forwarded to SPREP (as well as to their respective governing
councils) but there was no feedback to either organization. As a result, FFA and SPC believed that there was
no need for any amendments or adjustments in the way the project was being implemented, and none were
made as a result of monitoring.
According to FFA, the governing council of SPREP (Executing Agency) did not require or consider any
progress reports of the OFM component, even though the IW-Project was on its annual meeting agenda. This
was explained on the grounds that FFA and SPC were in effect the OFM executing agencies and therefore the
OFM component was the responsibility of the FFA and SPC governing councils. In this connection it needs
to be noted that neither the FFC nor the SPC Governing Council were accountable to UNDP/GEF and
therefore there was a hiatus in the chain of accountability.
The FFA governing council the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC) received regular updates on the OFM
Project. These updates (to the annual meetings of the FFC and to special FFC meetings held on the margins of
the Preparatory Conference) were provided to update members of the progress in implementation of the OFM
Project, as well as to seek members' endorsement for various administrative actions such as the extension of
the project to a second phase. On the other hand, no separate reporting took place to the SPC governing
council the CRGA except through the comprehensive OFP report.
The separation of the two components was also apparent in the scope of the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE)
which was undertaken in July 2003 for the broader IW Project. The OFM component was specifically
excluded from that evaluation because, according to the MTE authors, the OFM component had been treated
throughout as a separate project (Hunnam and Schuster, 2003).
The two components were meant to be reviewed together, annually, at the:
37
· First Regional Taskforce Meeting in March 2001
· First Multipartite Review in June 2002
· Second Multipartite Review in June 2003
· Some administrative coherence for the two components was expected and a broader overview of the
full Project was meant to be achieved at these occasions where the progress of the OFM component
within the wider IW Project was meant to be assessed.
At each MPR meeting, the OFM Component was the subject of a joint report by the FFA and SPC and these
were very well received. Strong praise for the oceanic component was forthcoming from UNDP/GEF
representatives.
However, the reports of the meetings suggest that the separation of the two components continued even at this
level. Country representatives at the MPRs confessed that they had little exposure to the oceanic component
as they mostly came from the environment sector. This made it difficult for the MPR to undertake a
`comprehensive review' of the OFM Project. The representative of Samoa at the MPR in 2003, requested the
PCU to explore options for strengthening the links between the Oceanic and Coastal components. The UNDP
responded that the linkage should be seen in terms of the overall SAP.
Finally, a further effort at monitoring and evaluation was made on the initiative of the PCU, FFA and SPC.
This comprised an initial baseline study which was followed by a progress report, both prepared by a
consultant (Cartwright, 2002 and 2004). The aim of the first report was to provide an overview of the baseline
situation in early 2000 concerning knowledge and status of oceanic fisheries resources in the Western and
Central Pacific; and to describe current initiatives to address management and conservation issues, including
those by Pacific Island states. The second report documented the changes that had occurred to various aspects
of the Western and Central Pacific tuna fishery since the commencement of the OFM Project, in particular the
increase in knowledge of the oceanic fishery and progress with management and conservation regimes. These
reports were of great help to the Evaluation Team.
In conclusion, it would seem that monitoring and evaluation for the OFM Component were undertaken mainly
by FFA and SPC and `in-house' even though independent audits were also initiated by the two organizations.
There was no formal response to audit reports from the implementing agencies and therefore there was no
adaptive management in project implementation, in response to monitoring. The Evaluation Team does not
believe that M&E has been used effectively as a management tool in directing the implementation of the OFM
Component and cannot recommend this approach for any future project support.
38
3.3
Financial aspects
3.3.1
The FFA
The FFA share of the OFM component funded by GEF was $1.915 million. As can be seen on the chart
below, the largest proportion (56.22%) of this amount was allocated to International Meetings to support
Pacific Island countries' participation in the MHLC (two meetings) and the PrepCon process (five meetings).
This category also covers participation at regional workshops and at meetings of other Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations. The second largest share (34.01%) was used to fund consultancies, namely the
work of the Fisheries Management Advisor. The other allocations were for Administration (1.53%),
Equipment (0.77%) and Training (7.46%).
Administration
2%
Training
7%
Advisory
Country Participation
34%
in MHLC and
PrepCons
56%
Equipment
1%
Relative expenditure of FFA project budget (%)
Figure 1
The Evaluation Team feels that the budget allocated to the FFA has been spent appropriately and while only a
small proportion was spent `in-country', it was almost totally spent for the benefit of the countries. As noted
by the PCU, while the benefits of this project have arguably been most effectively delivered through the focus
on support to FFA and SPC, national engagement has still been significant although in-country expenditure
has been relatively low.
The budget allocation, in original and revised amounts, together with the actual expenditure, is shown in Table
6 below based on information supplied by FFA.
39
Table 6.
FFA budget allocation and expenditure (in US dollars)
ORIGINAL REVISED
ACTUAL
ACTIVITY
BUDGET
BUDGET
EXPENSES
3.1 Technical assistance to FFA
FMA post
320,000
379,130
381,382
FMA Travel
70,500
47,256
41,121
Fellowships 127,000
116,639
109,950
Equipment
15,500
55,719
6,875
8,950
7,950
Printing/Reporting
14,500
10,900
9,900
Auditing
3,000
3,235
3,185
Communications
15,000
11,950
11,090
Sundries
5,000
4,952
5,133
Sub-total 570,500
673,731
716,586
3.3 Enhanced Regional Surveillance
Sub-total
140,000
80,036
84,098
3.4 Support for National Ocean Fish Management regimes
International meetings
520,000
787,759
735,126
Regional Workshops
275,000
188,741
199,604
Sub-total 795,000
976,500
934,730
3.5 Strengthening Fisheries Management Capability
National workshops
300,000
41,446
37,143
FFA Attachments
110,000
143,787
142,943
Sub-total 410,000
185,233
180,086
TOTAL 1,915,500
1,915,500
1,915,500
As can be seen, project expenditure stayed within the total allocated budget and remained close to what was
forecast in most items. According to FFA (GEF/UNDP/SPREP, 2002), budgets for regional and national
workshops were underspent largely because it was possible to use in-country experts and regional experts that
were already funded from other sources to conduct the workshops. There was no reduction in the workshop
programme. On the other hand, financing for Pacific Island participation to the PrepCon was fully spent by
the end of 2002 and further funds were required to continue work on this activity. UNDP/SPREP showed
flexibility in shifting funds across budget lines to accommodate overspending/under-spending.
Although normally FFA charges a fee of 10% of project cost to manage specific aid funded projects, this was
not provided for in the OFM Project. The FFA also believed that to pursue such a request could have led to
further delays in the start up of the Project. But by waiving this fee, FFA was effectively subsidising the
implementation of the Project (although the actual amount is difficult to quantify).
FFA included financial audits of the Project within its annual (FFA) audits, and the findings were reported to
the FFC as well as to SPREP. No queries were raised by the auditors, nor were there any queries raised by
SPREP or by UNDP.
Financial reporting proved onerous and difficult at the beginning of the project, due to problems with the
ProDoc. But these problems were ironed out and things went smoothly from then on. Overall, cooperation
with SPREP on budget and finance was very good according to FFA and no hold-ups were experienced in
receiving quarterly disbursements from UNDP and SPREP. These disbursements followed the submission of
quarterly reports which spelt out expenditure for the previous quarter and forecasts for the next quarter. The
exception to this was at the start of the Project, when FFA required early release of funds to support
participation of Pacific Islands members to the sixth MHLC in Hawaii in April 2000. This was facilitated by
UNDP providing Advanced Authorisation of funds.
40
3.3.2
The SPC
The major part of the OFM Project budget allocation of US$1.526 million to SPC has been used to support
three positions in the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of SPC. One of these, the Stock Assessment Specialist,
resigned in August 2003 and SPC, after consultation with UNDP, elected to use the funds for short-term
consultancies as well as to provide some bridging funding at the end of the project if necessary. However, at
the time of the Terminal Evaluation the savings were yet to be utilized.
As a result of the two-year delay in project commencement, the funds allocated for the three new staff
positions were below current SPC salaries for professional staff and had to be supplemented by additional
allocations. As can be seen from the chart and table below, the expenditure on these three positions amounted
to 46% of the total budget. When allocations for their travel and research support are added to the salaries
amount, the total spent on these three positions is equivalent to 74% of the total budget. The only other
tangible output, namely Enhanced National Capacity has an allocation of 20%.
Support to FFA/SPC
6%
Fishing Monitoring
27%
Improved scientific
advice
47%
Enhance national
capacity
20%
Relative expenditure for SPC budget (%)
Figure 2
The administration and equipment costs (shown as `Support to FFA/SPC') are somewhat higher than those of
FFA but are well within acceptable limits nonetheless and SPC, like the FFA, did not apply its usual project
servicing charge and finished up effectively subsidising the project. A feature of the SPC expenditure is the
extremely low proportion of the total budget that has been, or will be, spent `in-country' or directly for in-
country beneficiaries. The Evaluation Team believes that as long as the unspent funds earmarked for
"Enhanced National Capacity" are indeed spent for those activities, and as long as the overspent equipment
budget is supplemented from within the "Support to FFA/SPC" component, the funds allocated to SPC would
have been spent appropriately.
Table 7.
SPC Budget allocation and expenditure (in US dollars)
41
EXPENDITURE
TOTAL
BALANCE
ACTIVITY
(to December
BUDGET
REMAINING
2003)
Support to FFA/SPC
Equipment 21,000
27,526.07
(6,526.07)
Operations and maintenance
45,000
2,355.56
42,644.44
Printing/reporting
12,000
9,263.32
2,736.68
Audit
3,000
3,459.49
(459.49)
Communications
15,000
7,254.51
7,745.49
Sundries
3,000
1,469.81
1,530.19
Sub-total 99,000
51,328.76
47,671.24
Fishery monitoring
Scientific Monitoring Supervisor
225,000
228,801.34
(3,801.34)
Duty travel for SMS
70,500
63,246.93
7,253.07
Field research support
120,000
36,648.89
83,351.11
Sub-total 415,500
328,697.16
86,802.84
Enhance national capacity
National coordinators
150,000
109,204.24
40,795.76
Attachments
90,000
47,185.08
42,814.92
Fellowships
61,000
16,307.07
44,692.93
Sub-total 301,000
172,696.39
128,303.61
Improved scientific advice
Stock Assessment Specialist
240,000
209,980.46
30,019.54
Ecosystem Modeler
240,000
199,762.16
40,237.84
Duty travel SAS
70,500
6,042.71
64,457.29
Duty travel ESM
70,500
25,231.71
45,268.29
Biological sampling and analysis
90,000
20,423.04
69,576.96
Sub-total 711,000
461,440.08
249,559.92
TOTAL 1,526,500
1,014,162.39
512,337.61
Table 7 above shows the SPC budget by activity with expenditure to date and balance remaining. SPC
activities have been going for three years and are scheduled to run for another year until the end of 2004.
Although it is a little on the high side (33.56%), the amount of unspent funds overall is not a cause of concern
at present since it is expected to reflect the usual inertia experienced at the start of most projects.
What could be cause for concern however, is the unspent portion (almost 43%) of the allocation for activities
dealing with Enhancing National Capacity. The Evaluation Team questions whether SPC will be able, in the
remaining 10 months, to organize and implement almost twice the amount of activity in this area than it has
organized in the three years since the beginning of the Project.
The SPC reported some difficulty with keeping up the quarterly reporting to PCU and SPREP. Because of
limited staff and their heavy travel schedule it was sometimes difficult to submit reports (and requests for the
next installment) on a timely basis, resulting in some delays. However, these did not appear to cause major
problems as SPC/OFP could always cover the shortfall in the interim. The norm, according to other project
support provided to OFP, was six monthly reporting and annual receipt of funds.
The SPC reported no formal feedback on either their narrative or financial reports to PCU and SPREP, other
than minor technical queries by email. No issues were raised by the auditors (contracted by SPC to conduct
independent annual audits). Since there were no queries or issues raised in the reporting, no changes were
initiated during the Project as a result of financial monitoring.
42
3.3.3
Discussion of financial aspects
The principal funding sources for the total IW-Project, according to the ProDoc, were GEF ($12,000,000) and
UNDP ($60,000), with parallel financing from Governments via SPC ($1,331,532), FFA ($6,107,311) and
SPREP ($619,540). Associated UNDP/ICARE funding amounted to $877,250. Activities undertaken within
the OFM Component were financed by a GEF grant of almost $3.5 million, with co-financing of OFM
activities and other complementary activities by an estimated $6.3 million in FFA and SPC resources (SPREP,
2002). The GEF funds for the OFM Component were split between FFA (US$1.915 million) and SPC
(US$1.526 million).
The OFM Project did not involve funding partnerships with any third-party donors. However, while funds
came exclusively from GEF, FFA and SPC, there was a great deal of complementarity with the work and
activities supported by other donors' funds.
The ProDoc did not provide adequate guidance on how to allocate the budget. In fact, according to the Project
Manager "it was not possible to confidently identify financial resources described in the Project Document
with the activities and outputs envisaged under the Programme." (SPREP, 2000). However, in spite of these
initial hurdles and some initial delays and confusion, the financial arrangements for the OFM Component
worked well. Financial management, though considered onerous at times by the Executing Agencies, was
efficient and effective. Project expenditure was close to what was forecast overall, although actual
expenditure for different activities did not reflect original estimates. These changes in part reflected
efficiencies that were achieved by making use of other existing resources (for example for conducting regional
workshops). They also reflected the greater than expected costs of other activities (namely the funding of
participation at international meetings). In response to this situation, UNDP and SPREP showed flexibility in
authorising the movement of funds across budget lines.
By and large, FFA and SPC may be seen as the major beneficiaries since funds appear to have been spent with
them and for them. However, on closer analysis, while the funds were not spent directly in-country, the
participating governments were the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds. The activities funded were truly
regional in application if not in fact and therefore it is inevitable that in-country expenditure was low and the
two regional organizations were the major recipients.
The Evaluation Team believes that expenditures were appropriate and according to commitments. The
relative proportions of expenditure between administration, equipment, training and consultancies appear
weighted in favour of the latter, however, this is to be expected in a project which had such a strong focus on
capacity building. The project has been good value for money. Perhaps, true combination of the two
components of the IW-Project or their complete separation, is likely to have achieved better use of funds and
some economies of scale.
By "investing" its resources in a body like SPC whose OFP had on-going research activities directly related to
the aims and objectives of the OFM Project; and in the FFA whose fisheries management activities mirrored
and extended those proposed under the OFM Project, GEF has benefited from a broader input of expertise and
resources which would not have been available otherwise. It has therefore obtained an incremental result,
broader than it would have been able to achieve on its own with its available resources, even though this result
is somewhat more difficult to extract and quantify on its own.
3.4 Results achieved
Stakeholders and beneficiaries agree that this was a good project. It may not have been very visible, and its
results may not be very distinguishable, but it is recognized as having contributed a very essential element to
what the Pacific Island countries have managed to achieve in terms of a regional management regime for a
regional resource of global dimensions.
43
3.4.1 Attainment of the Objective, Outputs and other results
The objective of the OFM component in the original LogFrame Matrix was - "to enable the conservation and
sustainable yield of ocean living resources". This was changed to "support the establishment of new
institutional arrangements for the conservation and management of trans-boundary fish stocks and associated
national capacities".
The Evaluation Team feels that the original objective could not have been expected to be achieved by this
project since its dimensions went beyond the boundaries of the project. On the other hand, the Evaluation
Team believes that the new objective has been achieved, even though there is a feeling that it might have been
retrofitted to an existing and/or developing situation.
Outputs targeted by the project included capacity building for FFA and SPC, maximizing regional benefits
from tuna and by-catch, improved fish monitoring capability, improved fisheries management capabilities,
development of regional surveillance/enforcement activity and strengthened consultative processes for FFA
countries. Both FFA and SPC believe that the targeted outputs have been achieved and from what can be
ascertained, the Evaluation Team agrees that these outputs have indeed been obtained. The following table
summarizes the results achieved and evaluates them.
Table 8.
Evaluation of results targeted and achieved
TARGET
RESULTS ACHIEVED
EVALUATION
Latest Objective: To support Support provided for the participation of It is generally agreed that the
the establishment of new Pacific Island governments at the two last capacity and capability of Pacific
institutional arrangements for sessions of the MHLC process (which saw the Island States to participate
the conservation and
adoption of the Convention) and at the five effectively in the work of MHLC,
management of trans-boundary sessions (to date) of the Preparatory PrepCon and similar international
fish stocks and associated Conference. The PrepCon process has been negotiation events, has been greatly
national capacities.
crucial to establishing the administrative, enhanced by the OFM Project (see
financial and regulatory framework of the new Tarte, 2003). They have gained
Convention. The Project has also supported confidence and self-assurance and
Pacific island attendance at the annual their participation is truly from the
meetings of the Standing Committee on Tuna perspective as owners and stewards
and Billfish.
of the resource.
This is a very important result
which helps ensure the
sustainability of global, regional
and national benefits achieved or
facilitated by the Project.
Activity 3.1: To provide Funding support made available for the The contribution made by the
technical assistance and support position of Fisheries Management Advisor at Fisheries Management Advisor
to the FFA to build project- FFA, who assisted with the development of engaged through OFM Project
related capacity nationally and Briefs for Pacific Island delegations to the funds is widely acknowledged by
regionally and to devise and MHLC and PrepCon. These briefs greatly beneficiary Governments as having
implement project-related
enhanced the quality and extent of Pacific been invaluable.
management arrangements with Island input, especially into the PrepCon
participating countries.
process.
Insights have been gained into the
workings of these RFMOs, for
Attendance by FFA and Pacific Island possible application in the new
representatives as observers at the meetings of Tuna Commission.
other regional fisheries management
organizations (IATTC, IOTC and ICCAT).
Activity 3.2 : Provide training Support to national observer coordinators in This has enhanced the monitoring
and advice to strengthen four countries (Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands capacity of these countries through
fisheries monitoring and Papua New Guinea). Direct support of port strengthened monitoring and
44
capabilities, including
sampling contractors provided to Samoa and national port sampling programmes.
monitoring of non-target species Tonga.
These programmes, in turn, support
through appropriate
management and conservation and
mechanisms, such as observer Establishment of position of Scientific contribute to greater benefits for the
and sampling programmes, with Monitoring Supervisor who conducted regional region from the tuna fishery.
participating countries to secure and national observer training courses, port
added regional benefits through sampling training and data evaluation
national and regional oceanic exercises; manuals and other materials to
fisheries management
guide Observers
arrangements.
Activity 3.3 : To review and Convening of a regional technical consultation This result has increased the input
enhance FFA's capacity to on Monitoring Control and Surveillance and influence of Pacific Island
efficiently manage high quality (MCS) in October 2002 at which a draft MCS delegations in the PrepCon process
information in support of the scheme was developed for use at the PrepCon with the aim of setting up a strong
monitoring, control and
negotiations.
MCS regime within the
surveillance requirements of
Commission.
participating countries.
A study carried out by FFA to improve the
quality of data in its Regional Register and
VMS databases resulting in a more reliable
data bases at FFA.
Activity 3.4: Provide initial Support for the development and/or review of These plans are critical to the
support to participating
Tuna Management Plans in: Cooks Islands, effective national management and
countries to develop additional Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Niue, Tuvalu conservation of tuna fisheries at
and appropriate national ocean and Vanuatu. The Project-funded Fisheries both the national and international
fisheries management regimes Management Advisor in FFA again provided levels, as well to securing enhanced
to maximize regional benefit valuable input into these Plans. Also important regional benefits from the tuna
from the regional tuna fishery as resource materials were National Tuna/ fisheries. They also facilitate
and its by-catch.
Fisheries Status Reports prepared by the SPC. cooperation amongst stakeholders
at national level.
Activity 3.5: Strengthen, Attachments of personnel from Pacific Island In spite of these capacity building
through the provision of states to SPC and FFA were supported by the activities, this remains the area of
additional training, the fisheries Project.
greatest need.
management capabilities of In-country visits by Project funded personnel
national fisheries
also provided direct training to Pacific Island
administrations in participating fisheries staff.
countries.
Activity 3.6: Improve Three professional positions established in the Work has led to improved
biological information relating SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme (Scientific knowledge of the status of the
to regional tuna stocks, non- Monitoring Supervisor, Stock Assessment stocks. It has enhanced SPC's
target species and the oceanic Specialist and Ecosystem Modeler).
capacity to support national and
ecosystem available to support
regional science requirements as
management decision-making.
Improved knowledge of the status of the well as to meet the future needs and
stocks.
demands of the new Commission.
Regional stock assessments have been refined Ecosystem research requires more
and stock assessment methodology subjected time and data to achieve tangible
to rigorous simulation testing. Work results. Progress with by-catch
characterising the Western Pacific Warm Pool research has been limited.
LME, especially trophic relationships, has
been carried out. Sampling programmes were
designed and implemented. A preliminary
ecosystem model incorporating preliminary
trophic data has been developed.
Activity 3.7: Prepare a project Project concept developed and submitted to This result is part of the `unwritten
proposal to catalyze and GEF. Concept approved by GEF and go-ahead exit strategy' for the project. It may
replicate methodologies and given for the preparation of a proposal for PDF have been somewhat too early in
best practices for sustainable support. PDF `B' Proposal submitted to GEF relation to this Evaluation, however,
ocean fisheries management and approved in February 2004.
the formulation phase covered by
based on an evaluation of
the PDF `B' funding support will
project capacity-building
provide an opportunity to consider
45
activities. This activity
the outcome of this Evaluation.
necessitates a study of baseline
situations at project
commencement.
Activity 3.8: Coordinate and Coordination and collaboration between FFA In effect this is a continuation of
refine consultative processes and SPC strengthened. Additional meetings of Activities 3.1 and 3.4 above
among FFA member countries the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC)
with the objective of
convened on the margins of the MHLC and
strengthening regional
PrepCon to facilitate regional consultation and
capability. This is an activity cooperation. Other regional technical
that will be implemented and consultations, addressing aspects of the
financed by Forum Fisheries Convention, have been held.
Agency and the Secretariat of
the Pacific Community
Activity 3.9: Provide
Vanuatu was assisted, under the Project, by a This result has led to increased
assistance to review and further study on the operation of Vanuatu's flag state financial benefits for Vanuatu as
develop measures for enhancing shipping registry. Project assistance was by well as to improved compliance by
the management of foreign way of the Fisheries Management Advisor.
Vanuatu with international
fishing vessels and promoting
standards (eg the FAO Code of
the development of domestic Modifications to Minimum Terms and Conduct for Responsible Fishing)
fishing fleets in participating Conditions of access were endorsed by FFC.
countries. This is an activity Progress made towards achieving full
that will be implemented and implementation of the FFA's VMS.
financed by the Forum Fisheries
Agency.
Activity 2.7: Assist with the No activities undertaken and no results
development of criteria
achieved under the OFM Component.
associated with identifying sites
for demonstration projects
addressing long-term
sustainability of coastal
fisheries issues.
Activity 2.8: Participation in No activities undertaken and no results
the implementation of
achieved under the OFM Component.
demonstration projects that
address issues associated with
the long-term sustainability of
coastal fisheries. Such projects
may be linked to related
activities undertaken by SPC
It is important to note that although the targeted Outputs have been achieved, several constraints and hold-ups
were encountered along the way and these were brought to the attention of the Evaluation Team. They
included delays in the implementation of tuna management plans in some participating countries, delays in
reviewing and revising fisheries and related legislation, delays in expanding the coverage of national observer
and port sampling programmes and delays in implementing biological sampling methods and protocols. These
delays and hold-ups can be attributed to a number of factors. In some countries, Government lacks a
sufficient number of skilled personnel to carry out the legal drafting required to amend legislation in order to
comply with international obligations. A number of countries experienced political instability and/or frequent
changes of government during the life of the Project. This contributed to hold-ups in the formal adoption and
implementation of Tuna Management Plans and in one case (Vanuatu) to hold-ups in the ratification of the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention. New governments were often unfamiliar with the issues
and unwilling to facilitate speedy implementation of the policies adopted by their predecessors.
Delays were also attributed to perceived conflicts or tensions between national priorities. For example,
between maximising license revenue from foreign fishing operations and implementing/enforcing MCS
46
requirements (observers, VMS, etc). This problem, which was foreseen as a risk in the ProDoc but without
any proposed mitigating measures, may be one of poor governance (including vested interests) as well as lack
of appreciation of the value of MCS measures. Another area of tension that was noted was between measures
to limit fishing capacity (to avoid or reduce excess capacity) and plans to develop national fishing capacity
(domestic fleets).
The resolution or otherwise of these difficulties encountered during project implementation will serve as a
learning experience for future application to similar interventions.
The area of greatest impact of the OFM Project has been capacity building. From comments of country
participants, capacity building has been achieved in a number of ways
Attendance at meetings of other regional fisheries management organizations (IOTC, IATTC) saw how
other RFMOs operated, appreciated more the extent of collaboration and cooperation established in the
Pacific.
Attendance at PrepCon and MHLC exposure to issues, negotiations process, working together as a team
(both on national delegations and at regional level).
Attachments to FFA and SPC, workshops and training programmes.
From the perspective of the FFA and SPC, there were significant contributions to capacity building
At the regional level including building the capacities of FFA and SPC; and of building the capacities of
national administrations to participate in and contribute to regional fisheries management; and
At the national level, particularly in terms of the building of the capacities of national monitoring
programmes, and of national policy making capacities through national workshops and the attachment
programme that exposed FFA member personnel to the workings of other international tuna commissions.
The barriers and obstacles that they identified to capacity building included inadequate funding to attract
highly skilled scientists and modelers at the regional level; and at the national level, the poor skills base, the
lack of regionally-based tertiary training in quantitative fisheries, and limited funding for fisheries at the
national level, despite the importance of the sector in regional economies.
Following some prompting at a group meeting convened by the Evaluation Team, many country delegates
from both Fisheries and Foreign Affairs backgrounds, readily acknowledged the assistance they had received
at the national level with various aspects of fisheries management, training and other capacity building and to
enable their participation at MHLC and PrepCon events. In particular, all were united in their
acknowledgement of the crucial role in capacity building played by the Fisheries Management Advisor
engaged by FFA under the OFM Project. His input was across a broad spectrum and ranged from assistance
with the development of Tuna Management Plans to the support and preparation of national delegations for
the PrepCon events.
3.4.2 Relevance to GEF of results achieved
From the GEF perspective, this project was to address the root causes of the threat posed to the globally
significant tuna resource as a major component of the Western Tropical Pacific LME. The root causes were
determined to be "Lack of monitoring and enforcement of regulations" and "Lack of trained staff for
surveillance" with deficiencies in management (linked to problems of governance and understanding) as a
contributing factor. The results of the OFM Project could be expected to include monitoring and enforcement
regulations (and their effective implementation), a cadre of trained surveillance staff, and improved
management capacity, coupled with improved governance and understanding of the resource.
The original set of activities planned by the ProDoc, could have been expected to contribute to improvements
in monitoring and enforcement regulations (Activity 3.4) and their implementation (Activity 3.6). They may
have also produced a cadre of trained surveillance staff (Activity 3.4) and improved management capacity
(Activities 3.3, 3.5). But it is unlikely that improved governance and
understanding of the resource would have been achieved.
47
The revised activities (see Table 4) have contributed to monitoring and enforcement regulations (new
Activities 3.2, 3.3) and their effective implementation (new Activity 3.3). They have enhanced capacity,
through training, for surveillance staff (new Activity 3.2). There has also been an improvement in
management capacity (new Activities 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.9) and a better understanding of the resource (new
Activities 3.3, 3.6). However, any improvement in governance is thought to have taken place only at regional
level and not at national level.
It is therefore possible to say that the revised activities have had a better outcome than the original activities
would have had as measured against the need to address the root causes. But it must also be said that neither
the original nor the revised activities achieved the desired improvement in governance, at least not at the
national level.
The results achieved have contributed to the GEF objective of achieving global environmental benefits and a
well designed project may have been able to achieve more with the same resources and effort. Hopefully, this
shortcoming can be remedied in the proposed follow-up project.
48
3.4.3 Sustainability of results and benefits, replicability and possible follow-up
An expected result of the IW-Project, according to the ProDoc (UNDP, 1999), is ensuring sustainability of the
project "by strengthening existing national and regional coordinating mechanisms ... The project will have
assessed options for creating financial and institutional sustainability, undertaken consultations and held a
donor conference to secure necessary further investments". It would seem that many of these activities have
not yet been undertaken, at least not in respect of the OFM Component and there does not seem to have been
any deliberate strategies for the sustainability of the project results. However, it would seem that in both FFA
and SPC, the work they have implemented with GEF support formed an intricate part of their on-going
activities, the goals and objectives of which coincided with those of the GEF IW-Project for the OFM
Component. While there is always a danger that the work will stop once the GEF funds run out, this is not
very likely and the organizations are confident that a funding source will be found to support the on-going
work, even though there does not appear to be a clear strategy for fund mobilization.
As mentioned above, capacity building has been the most significant benefit of the OFM Project. But in spite
of the impressive nature of the results, their sustainability is not assured since it may not be easy retaining the
trained, skilled personnel in government. Some countries experience a high turnover and an over-reliance on
short-term consultancies and expatriate staff. There has also been limited capacity building for non-state
stakeholders (fishing industry associations and local communities).
The Pacific Island States are therefore going to require significant further assistance with their capacity
building to execute their obligations, roles and responsibilities under the Convention. A comprehensive
discussion of the requirements of the Convention and the Commission, the capacities of member Pacific
Island States and Territories to satisfy these requirements, and the priority gaps that each PICT must address
in order to satisfy its obligations is given in Anon (2003). Assistance will also be required to enhance their
fishery monitoring, data management and analytical capacities.
The lack of involvement in OFM by industry, communities and local government has led to a degree of
resentment, and to a perception that there were no effective, functioning fisheries administrations in the
region. The Team was told that there is a need to increase the constituency participation in the governance of
fisheries and to increase government accountability.
The Evaluation Team also observed first hand the problem of poorly resourced national fisheries
administrations in terms of personnel, premises, equipment and training. This situation arises due to
inadequate resources being made available by Governments to develop fisheries management and research
capacity. Instead, there is a tendency to rely extensively on regional assistance programmes, mainly from
SPC and FFA who are themselves constrained in their efforts to meet the numerous requests for assistance
from member countries. This reliance on external funding support is probably untenable in the long term
since the fisheries sector is a major revenue earner for the Governments and it makes sense to reinvest some of
this revenue in the administration and management of the sector to ensure its control and sustainability.
According to the SPC, the sustainability of the improved scientific understanding, the effective fishery
monitoring programmes, and the enhanced management at the regional level which resulted from the OFM
Project, will depend on the ability of the Commission to provide a long-term adequate funding base for data
and science activities, as well as other necessary activities in compliance. The SPC also sees the need for a
regular (say triennial) in-depth review of tuna management plans. They also believe that governance is also
an issue in many countries, although there have been some notable improvements.
The FFA believes that the sustainability of the Commission's activities is largely assured since the bulk of the
funding burden falls on the fishing nations including Japan, the US and Taiwan. On the other hand,
sustainability of benefits from the improved management of tuna resources depends on the capacity of the
member countries of the Commission to agree on, and implement, effective conservation measures. The real
constraint is not financial but the lack of human resources for Pacific Island States to participate effectively in
Commission business. FFA also feels that there is a need to strengthen national fisheries management
institutions and national observer, port sampling, VMS, catch and effort data collection and inspection
49
programmes. In the longer term, sustainability of outcomes depends on improved information on the stocks
and the ecosystem.
In this regard, the Evaluation Team has been told that while there is a continuing role for the OFP of the SPC
in terms of research and data management, and for the FFA in terms of fisheries management in general, in-
country capacities and capabilities must be built as the first line of response to future challenges. It was
suggested that USP could be encouraged and supported to establish relevant programmes in fisheries science,
oceanography, ecosystem management, etc. Likewise, national Colleges of Fisheries and/or Technical
Institutes should be assisted to start offering courses for example for Observers, Samplers, Monitors, etc,
maybe leading to certificates of proficiency or a similar recognizable qualification.
The ProDoc (UNDP, 1999) predicted that the IW-Project would demonstrate a "high potential for successful
replication both within and outside the region". For the OFM component, this would involve preparation of a
project proposal to "catalyze and replicate methodologies and best practices" relating to sustainable fisheries
management.
The Evaluation Team sees the OFM Component as a unique intervention in the Pacific region and there is
neither the potential nor the need to replicate it in the region. SPREP agrees that the extent of replicability in
the region is minimal. However, as the PCU and SPREP suggest and the Evaluation Team agrees, there are
definite global replication possibilities in other island regions supporting significant tuna fisheries. Where
distant water fishing nations and coastal states are expected to collaborate on tuna resources management, the
processes and strategies applied in the OFM Component set global precedents. In addition, the processes
employed in the oceanic fisheries sector do demonstrate best practice that could usefully be applied to coastal
resources management, and some aspects of the OFM Component (particularly the linkages between science
and management) have potential for replication in integrated coastal management processes.
UNDP believes that the process leading up to and the actual establishment of the Tuna Commission is
considered a best practice and can have replicability globally.
50
4 Conclusions and Lessons Learnt
Conclusions have been drawn throughout this report. They are gathered here, augmented as necessary and
presented sequentially based on the list of issues in the Terms of Reference for the Evaluation. Lessons that
may be learnt from the experience are also recorded.
4.1 The GEF and global environmental objectives
The Evaluation Team was required to assess the extent to which the OFM Component has helped to achieve
the objectives of GEF operational focal areas 8 and 9.
As noted in Section 1.1.2 above, the objective of GEF OP#9 is "The long-term objective of the program is to
achieve global environmental benefits through implementation of IW projects which integrate the use of
sound land and water resource management strategies as a result of changes in sectoral polices and activities
that promote sustainable development" and this is not applicable to the OFM Component.
The Objective of GEF OP#8 is "to undertake a series of projects that involve helping groups of countries to
work collaboratively with the support of implementing agencies in achieving changes in sectoral policies and
activities so that trans-boundary environmental concerns degrading specific waterbodies can be resolved".
The OFM Component can be said to have contributed to the objective of OP#8 but with the divorce practiced
between the OFM and the ICWM components and the fact that the `ecosystem' approach to the LME has yet
to be applied, this contribution has been very limited.
The Evaluation Team sees the need for better understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures, etc,
among current and prospective stakeholders. Most of those consulted were totally unaware of the GEF focus
on global environmental benefits. A GEF Workshop, perhaps conducted back-to-back with some other
regional event, could be very beneficial for future projects. Furthermore, UNDP should continually update
constituents on GEF which is well-known for its regular reviews of its procedures, criteria and guidance.
4.2 Root causes and imminent threats identified in the ProDoc
In the ProDoc text, under the OFM sub-section of Section B.1: `Problems to be addressed the present
situation', the discussion centers on the problems faced by in-shore fisheries and the coastal environment and
it does not identify any problems with the ocean fisheries or the oceanic environment. Furthermore, according
to the ProDoc Annex 4, the Threat of "Overfishing of oceanic resources" was identified through the
Symptom/Impact of "Potential decline in population" the Immediate Causes of which were "Excessive by-
catch and discards" and "Poor fishing gear selectivity especially purse seine/longline." The Root Causes were
determined to be "Lack of monitoring and enforcement of regulations" and "Lack of trained staff for
surveillance." The scale of the threat was seen as "Regional" and the Severity was "yet to be determined".
If projects are meant to address the root causes of identified problems, the OFM Project would have been
expected to focus on monitoring, enforcement of regulations and capacity building (mainly training) for
surveillance. There is no denying that the OFM Project did indeed address these aspects, however, they were
not its main focus. According to the Evaluation Team's Terms of Reference, the Key Pilot Activities of the
OFM Project centered predominantly on preparation for and participation in the MHLCs and the PrepCons
together with scientific research for management. This is evident in the proportions of the budget spent on
these activities 56% in the case of the MHLCs and PrepCons (FFA) and 47% in the case of scientific
research (SPC) respectively.
51
4.3 Project design and the Project Document
Project design, at least for the OFM Component was weak, hence the need to make significant changes to the
Objective, Outputs and Activities. It is evident that this was an amalgam of two distinct initiatives brought
together purely as a matter of convenience. No synergies between the two components were planned and
none were created during implementation. There was no evident logical development of the OFM Component
from the identification of problems to the determination of their root causes, the setting of an objective, the
selection of outputs and the planning of activities which ultimately would have addressed the root causes of
the identified problems.
The ProDoc fell short of expectations. It did not provide adequate guidance to those implementing the OFM
project; it did not build on past achievements and learn from past experiences; project design did not seem to
identify problem situations adequately and their root causes; it was weak in terms of strategic planning,
preparatory work and implementation strategies; having identified some risks it provided no risk management
strategies; it failed to unify the two components and no synergies were planned.
There was insufficient involvement of stakeholders in the Project design (including FFA and SPC) resulting in
the various anomalies, inconsistencies, etc in the ProDoc. The lesson from this is the importance of full and
comprehensive stakeholder consultation and input in Project design.
Delays and holdups were experienced during implementation. Some of these were not adequately identified as
risks in the Project design and therefore no remedial action was proposed or taken. The lesson is to ensure that
the ProDoc identifies both potential risks and measures to be taken to minimize or manage these risks.
4.4 The Logical Framework Matrix
The weak project design and the unhelpful nature of the ProDoc have already been alluded to above. The
LogFrame Matrices, both the original and the revised one, have created confusion with their loose use of
terminology and the lack of logical structure. One executing agency admitted that it did not refer to it at all.
The majority of the performance indicators adopted for the OFM Component in both versions of the
LogFrame Matrix were not verifiable objectively and they were not much help either to those implementing
the project or to this Evaluation Team.
Weak project design and an unhelpful ProDoc make it necessary to review and revise project outputs and
activities, usually by revising the LogFrame Matrix. However, they need to be formalized by the proper
approval process involving appropriate discussion, agreement and sanction by the Project Steering Committee,
the Multipartite Review Meeting or similar body.
4.5 Achievement of planned objectives and outputs
The Evaluation Team feels that the original objective for the OFM Component could not have been expected
to be achieved by this project since its dimensions went beyond the boundaries of the project. On the other
hand, the Evaluation Team believes that the new, revised objective has been achieved, even though there is a
feeling that it might have been retrofitted to an existing and/or developing programme of work of the
executing agencies.
The Outputs targeted by the project were not clearly identified and were in fact referred to as Activities.
Furthermore, the original list of Activities/Outputs was revised and some were changed significantly. As far
as can be ascertained, the targeted products of the OFM Project were capacity building for FFA and SPC,
maximizing regional benefits from tuna and by-catch, improved fish monitoring capability, improved fisheries
management capabilities, development of regional surveillance/enforcement activity and strengthened
52
consultative processes for FFA countries. Both FFA and SPC believe that the targeted outputs have been
achieved and the Evaluation Team agrees that these outputs have indeed been obtained.
Stakeholders and beneficiaries agree that this was a good project. It may not have been very visible, and its
results may not be very distinguishable, but it is recognized as having contributed a very essential element to
what the Pacific Island countries have managed to achieve in terms of a regional approach to the management
regime for a regional resource of global dimensions.
4.6 Adaptive responses to changing circumstances
As noted above, many project Activities, as well as the Project Objective and Outputs for the OFM Project,
changed substantially during implementation. But this was not as much in response to changing
circumstances, as it was in response to faulty project design. It is also possible that the changes came about
from a desire by the executing agencies to support their on-going or planned activities.
Audits, regular reports and other results of monitoring by FFA and SPC did not elicit any formal reactions
from either SPREP or UNDP, therefore no adjustments were thought to be needed.
The lesson is, that for monitoring to be useful and effective, it must be two-way, there must be feedback.
4.7 Financial resources
The Evaluation Team feels that the budget allocated to the FFA has been spent appropriately and while only a
small proportion was spent `in-country', it was almost totally spent for the benefit of the countries. Regarding
the SPC budget, as long as its unspent funds earmarked for "Enhanced National Capacity" are indeed spent for
those activities, and as long as the overspent equipment budget is supplemented from within the "Support to
FFA/SPC" component, the funds allocated to SPC would have also been spent appropriately.
The relative proportions of expenditure between administration, equipment, training and consultancies appear
weighted in favour of the latter, however, this is to be expected in a project which had such a strong focus on
capacity building and the project has been good value for money.
By "investing" its resources in a body like SPC whose OFP had on-going research activities directly related to
the aims and objectives of the OFM Project; and in the FFA whose fisheries management activities mirrored
and extended those proposed under the OFM Project, GEF has benefited from a broader input of expertise and
resources which would not have been available otherwise. It has therefore obtained an incremental result,
broader than it would have been able to achieve on its own with its available resources, even though this result
is somewhat more difficult to extract and quantify on its own.
It would seem that a lesson from this experience is the advantage of working through or investing in regional
organizations (as Executing Agencies) that have a strong track record in the relevant areas and a high level of
complementarity (and linkages) between the Project and their existing work programmes. This had both
financial and operational spin-offs.
4.8 Roles and responsibilities
The OFM Project had a multiplicity of hierarchical layers with the FFA and SPC reporting to the PCU, the
PCU reporting to SPREP, SPREP reporting to UNDP, and UNDP reporting to GEF. It was therefore essential
that roles and responsibilities were defined clearly, and this appears to have been the case. The pivotal role of
SPREP in project implementation is spelled out clearly in the ProDoc without any distinction between the two
components. The PCU is established as a `distinct unit' within SPREP, with the Project Manager reporting
53
directly to the Director of SPREP and to the UNDP Resident Representative. With respect to the OFM
Component, the ProDoc provides that this will be implemented largely by FFA and SPC, according to a
Memorandum of Understanding each will sign with SPREP. The relationship between FFA and SPC
themselves as executing agencies it also clearly delineated in a Memorandum of Agreement between the two
organizations which simply formalized a clear understanding that has existed between them on their
complementary activities for some time. From SPREP's perspective, the existence of an effective institutional
framework in which the OFM Component was implemented was an important lesson.
The Evaluation Team believes that roles and responsibilities were clearly identified in general and that there
was a positive and cooperative working relationship between the various layers of project management.
Benefits also accrued from the good level of communication and cooperation between the Executing
Agencies, based on a strong record of working together and clear delineation of mandates. This meant there
were few conflicts or risks of duplication.
4.9 Partnerships with other donors
The OFM Component did not involve partnerships with any third-party donors. Funds came from GEF, FFA
and SPC. However, there was a high degree of complementarity between the activities of the OFM
Component and other activities being undertaken by FFA and SPC but funded by other donors.
4.10 Public participation and stakeholder involvement
The original Objective 4 included an Activity to create a public participation programme aimed at key
stakeholders for the OFM Component of the IW-Project. This intention was first revised and watered down
and then, by the latest revision of the LogFrame Matrix, there was no mention of public participation
whatsoever.
As noted by SPC, stakeholder involvement in the OFM Project has been fairly weak in most aspects of the
Project. However, FFA felt that the outputs of the Project have been country driven through their influence in
the FFC. Both the FFA and the SPC, acknowledge the low level of stakeholder involvement and the almost
total absence of participation by the public, NGOs and the private sector and both feel the need to remedy the
situation in any future projects through the provision of adequate public information and opportunities for
stakeholders at the country level to become involved in a meaningful way in project formulation and
implementation. There is a commitment that the follow-up project will involve civil society in a manner
which reflects local mores, culture and sensitivities.
The Evaluation Team acknowledges that securing direct participation in a meaningful way is a challenge for
an oceanic fisheries project, but with minor exceptions, all Government level stakeholders said that they
would welcome more opportunities to be directly involved. Likewise, exponents of the fisheries private sector
expressed indignation about the perceived low extent of consultation and are seeking to remedy this through
their own initiatives.
4.11 Implementation and coordination by the implementing and executing
agencies
In spite of the potential problems which could have resulted from the numerous hierarchical layers mentioned
elsewhere, implementation of the OFM Component was comparatively smooth and effective. The views of
stakeholders and beneficiaries on implementation arrangements have been positive in the main. For example,
the PCU's relationship with FFA and SPC was considered to be very good because of the high level of
understanding by the Project Manager (a former Deputy Director of FFA) of the FFA and SPC processes.
54
This very effective relationship meant that the extra layer of bureaucracy (SPREP) did not lead to any
difficulties during implementation. From SPC's perspective, the PCU was an effective advocate on behalf of
SPC with SPREP and UNDP, providing sound advice on reporting and budget issues.
While implementation appears to have been satisfactory, coordination has not been strong. The Evaluation
Team notes that apart from the handling of financial reports and cash advances, neither SPREP nor the PCU
made enough effort to coordinate between the two components of the IW-Project at the implementation level.
Likewise, had it not been for existing arrangements between FFA and SPC, coordination within the OFM
Component would have been lacking. Neither was there anyone entrusted with coordination between the two
components at the country level and the project may have suffered because of this.
4.12 Beneficiaries
The beneficiary countries of the IW-Project are Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and
Vanuatu. "Primary target beneficiaries" include governmental organisations, NGOs and community-based
organisations (CBOs). For the OFM component, the principal beneficiaries were expected to be government
policymakers engaged in the management of the oceanic fisheries resources (from Fisheries, Foreign Affairs
and Legal Ministries and Departments). In other words, the OFM component targeted primarily those
responsible for developing and implementing effective fisheries management regimes at the national and
regional levels.
The ProDoc identified "secondary target beneficiaries" which included intergovernmental organisations
(namely SPC, FFA and SPREP) and the private sector. However, in the view of the Evaluation Team, FFA
and SPC have been very much primary target beneficiaries in view of the capacity building and funding
support they have received from the OFM Project. The benefits of the FFA activities have indeed accrued to
the intended beneficiaries at in-country and Government levels. But some of the benefits of SPC activities
will take some time before they will filter down to the same levels. In this regard it is important to remember
that benefits to FFA and SPC as organizations are only a means to an end and that the ultimate beneficiaries
should be the people and Governments of the Pacific Island States.
4.13 Sustainability and replicability of project outcome
There is a slight misunderstanding regarding `sustainability'. The FFA and SPC appear to think of
sustainability as the continuation of the project itself rather than the survival of the project results after the
project has ended. They therefore see the proposed follow-up project as a sign of sustainability. The
Evaluation Team feels that the need for a follow-up project is almost an indication that the project results are
unlikely to be sustained without this further intervention.
Capacity building has been the most significant benefit of the OFM Project. But in spite of the impressive
nature of the results, their sustainability is not assured. Some of the barriers to sustainability have been
identified and those that are within the Project's competence are proposed to be addressed during the Phase II
Project. The Evaluation Team believes that a follow-up project will be an effective means for GEF to secure
and ensure sustainability for the investment it has made in the global oceanic resources of the region.
While there is neither the potential nor the need to replicate the OFM Project in the region, there are definite
global replication possibilities in other island regions supporting significant tuna fisheries. Where distant
water fishing nations and coastal states are expected to collaborate on tuna resources management, the
processes and strategies applied in the OFM Component set global precedents.
55
4.14
Monitoring and evaluation
Both FFA and SPC considered the quarterly financial and narrative reporting as somewhat excessive and
would suggest that 6-monthly and annual reporting and annual work plans would be more effective. This
would allow a more detailed approach to assessing progress to be taken.
Monitoring and evaluation for the OFM Component were undertaken by FFA and SPC `in-house' even
though independent audits (commissioned by the organizations) were also carried out and an excellent
baseline study and update were very useful exercises. There was no response to audit reports or any other
reports from either SPREP or UNDP and no reporting was required, even though it was offered, to the
governing body of SPREP. Reporting by the OFM Component executing agencies to the MPR meetings (in
lieu of a Project Steering Committee) elicited few substantive comments since those present were mainly from
Environment administrations and more interested in discussing the ICWM Component than Fisheries matters.
The MPR meetings cannot be seen as adequate evaluation events for the OFM-Component. Similarly, the
Independent Mid-Term Evaluation of the IW-Project specifically excluded the OFM Component.
The Evaluation Team does not believe that monitoring and evaluation have been used effectively as a
management tool in obtaining accountability or measuring progress or in directing the implementation of the
OFM Component and cannot recommend this approach for any future project support.
56
5 Recommendations
General recommendations
That UNDP/GEF accept that although the OFM Project may not have addressed the identified root causes
fully or exclusively, the benefits obtained through the activities undertaken, justify this departure and the
Project has been very successful in strengthening the institutional framework, the knowledge base and the
stakeholders capacity for managing this unique tuna resource which is of global significance.
That UNDP/GEF confirm their support for a follow-up project as the best way of ensuring the sustainability of
the benefits obtained from this Project.
That UNDP/GEF organize a GEF Workshop or series of workshops in the region, for GEF National Focal
Points and others, to raise awareness and improved understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures
and the GEF focus on global environmental benefits.
Corrective actions
That those responsible for the formulation of the follow-up project place great emphasis on the design of the
project which should reflect the root causes of the problems and be structured according to the logic of the
setting of an objective, the selection of outputs and the planning of activities which ultimately would have
addressed the root causes of the identified problems, and for this logic to be evident in a robust Logical
Framework Matrix which includes objectively verifiable indicators that can guide those implementing the
project.
That in designing the project, the approach should be a participatory one involving as many as possible of the
prospective stakeholders and beneficiaries at regional, government, private sector and community levels.
That the project design should include a strategy for monitoring and evaluation that depends on a feedback
loop between those implementing the project and a project steering committee made up of knowledgeable
individuals able to appreciate the issues being brought before them and provide the feedback, advice and
direction necessary for the effective implementation of the project.
On future directions to reinforce project benefits
That the prime benefit that should be targeted from the follow-up project is the framework, capacity and
functioning of the proposed Tuna Commission so that it can undertake its crucial role of providing the
management context for the tuna resource and its ecosystem in a manner which will provide the greatest
benefits to the Pacific Island countries and their citizens on a sustainable basis.
That an equally important target of the follow-up project is the further building of capacity and capability of
the Pacific Island region, at regional, government, private sector and community levels so that each sector can
participate meaningfully in the management of the tuna resource and its ecosystem.
That the follow-up project places emphasis on the realignment, restructuring and strengthening of national
fisheries laws, policies, institutions and programmes to take up the new opportunities that the Convention has
created and discharge the new responsibilities that it requires.
That fisheries management capacity at country level be enhanced for data collection and analysis, stock
assessment, MCS and enforcement and the development and application of contemporary fisheries
57
management tools, through a strategy that views capacity building and training as a continuing activity rather
than a one-off exercise to overcome the problem of capacity retention.
That Pacific Island countries that have adopted Tuna Management Plans and are having difficulties with
implementation, be assisted to identify and address the barriers that are hindering implementation.
That the regionally based pool of expertise provided by the FFA and SPC will remain a cost-effective means
of underpinning the implementation of an effective fisheries management framework, for the foreseeable
future.
That USP could be encouraged and supported to establish relevant programmes in fisheries science,
oceanography, ecosystem management, fisheries administration and law, etc, to provide an important
ingredient for the capacity building effort and that Pacific Island Governments as well as the private sector be
encouraged to support such studies through the awarding of scholarships to promising nationals.
That national Colleges of Fisheries and similar institutions be assisted to start offering courses for observers,
monitors and similar technical positions leading to a recognized qualification.
58
ANNEX 1 Mission Terms of Reference
Terminal Evaluation of UNDP-GEF's
Strategic Action Programme for the International Waters of the Pacific Small
Island Developing States:
Oceanic Fisheries Management Component (RAS/98/G32)
I.
Introduction:
The International Waters Project (the IWP) is a 7-year initiative to implement the Strategic Action Programme
for the International Waters of the Pacific Small Island Developing States1 (the SAP). It is implemented by
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and executed by the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP). The Project Document was signed by UNDP and SPREP in February
2000. Actual execution did not commence until July 2000 when the Programme was activated at SPREP.
The IWP is designed to support actions to address the root causes of degradation of the international waters of
the Pacific Islands region. The actions are to be carried under the auspices of two complementary, linked
consultative programs: Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM), to be executed over seven
years, and Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) executed over four years. This Terminal Evaluation (TE)
is confined to the OFM component of the IWP. Although a Project Coordination Unit (PCU) based at SPREP
is responsible for overall project coordination and administration, the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) (based
at Honiara, Solomon Islands), and the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) (based at Noumea, New
Caledonia) are responsible for the execution of the OFM Component of the IWP.
The SAP identifies unsustainable use of living resources as one of the three priority trans-boundary concerns
relating to the International Waters of the Pacific Islands Region. In respect of oceanic fisheries, the SAP
identifies deficiencies in management at the national and regional levels as the ultimate root cause of the
threat of unsustainable exploitation of trans-boundary oceanic stocks and related species, and recognises these
deficiencies as arising from weaknesses in governance of fishing on these stocks and related activities, and a
lack of understanding, including a lack of understanding of the biotic components and system dynamics of the
Western Tropical Pacific Large Marine Ecosystem.
At the time the SAP and the IWP were prepared in 1997-1998, there was substantial uncertainty about the
future pattern of management of trans-boundary oceanic fish stocks in the region. Negotiations had begun on
new arrangements for the conservation and management of trans-boundary stocks of highly migratory species
in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, but there
were a wide range of proposals tabled and it was not clear what the outcome of the negotiations would be.
Because of this uncertainty, the activities of the OFM Component were funded for only three years as a pilot
programme within the broader original 5-year programme of the IWP. It is now programmed to terminate in
2004. The key pilot activities of the OFM Component are:
providing support for the process of discussions and negotiation between Pacific SIDSs, other coastal states of
the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (including Indonesia and the Philippines) and fishing states, on a new
regional arrangement for the conservation, management and sustainable development of trans-boundary stocks
of highly migratory species and related species, including support for effective participation by Pacific SIDSs;
providing training to Pacific SIDSs to strengthen their understanding and capacity to participate in the process
of preparing new arrangements for trans-boundary fish stocks, and to identify the necessary policy, legal and
institutional reforms at national level associated with implementation of the new arrangements;
providing technical assistance through existing regional organisations to support Pacific SIDSs in the
development and implementation of new regional and national conservation and management arrangements
1
The 14 Pacific Island States that qualify for GEF support are: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands,
Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
59
for trans-boundary stocks of tuna and related species, and provide additional scientific knowledge and
information about these stocks and the WTP LME. The outputs of the scientific work include enhanced
scientific information:
on regional tuna stocks through developments in stock assessment methodology, including analysis of stock-
specific reference points, and improved flows of information from regional monitoring programmes and
databases; and characterizing the WTP LME through a programme of biological and ecological monitoring,
research and analysis.
These activities are financed by a GEF grant of US$3.5 million, with co-financing of these and other
complementary activities amounting to an estimated US$6.3 million in FFA and SPC resources.
II. Objectives
The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy at the project level in UNDP/GEF has four objectives: i) to
monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments
and improvements; iii) to promote accountability for resource use; and (iv) to document, provide feedback on,
and disseminate lessons learned. A mix of tools is used to ensure effective project M&E. These might be
applied continuously throughout the lifetime of the project e.g. periodic monitoring of indicators -, or as
specific time-bound exercises such as mid-term reviews, audit reports and terminal evaluations.
The GEF Manual on Monitoring and Evaluation Policies and Procedures notes "All GEF regular projects will
carry out a terminal evaluation at project completion to assess project achievement of objectives and impacts".
This Terminal Evaluation for the OFM component of the IWP is based on this directive.
Final evaluations are intended to assess the relevance, performance and success of the project. It looks at early
signs of potential impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and
the achievement of global environmental goals. It will also identify/document lessons learned and make
recommendations that might improve design and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects.
The overall objective of this TE is to review progress towards the project's objectives and outcomes, assess
the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of how the project has moved towards its objectives and outcomes,
identify strengths and weaknesses in project design and implementation, and provide recommendations on
design modifications that could have increased the likelihood of success, and on specific actions that might be
taken into consideration in designing future projects of a related nature.
In pursuit of the overall objectives, the following key issues will be addressed during the TE of the OFM
Component of the IWP:
· Assess the extent to which the OFM Component achieved the IWP's regional and global
environmental objectives as described in GEF operational focal areas 8 and 9;
· Assess the effectiveness with which the IWP addressed the root causes and imminent threats
identified by the SAP as giving rise to the concern about unsustainable use of transboundary oceanic
fishery resources in the Pacific Islands region
· Assess the extent to which the planned objectives and outputs of the IWP were achieved;
· Describe the IWP's adaptive management processes how did project activities change in response to
new conditions encountered during implementation, and were the changes appropriate?
· Review the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various institutional arrangements for IWP
implementation and the level of coordination between relevant players;
· Review any partnership arrangements with other donors and comment on their strengths and
weaknesses;
· Assess the level of public involvement in the IWP and recommend whether public involvement was
appropriate to the goals of the project;
· Describe and assess efforts of UNDP, SPREP, FFA and SPC in support of the implementation of the
OFM Component of the IWP;
60
· Review and evaluate the extent to which IWP impacts have reached the intended beneficiaries;
· Assess the likelihood of continuation and sustainability of project outcomes and benefits after
completion of the OFM Component of the IWP;
· Describe key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects for sustainability of IWP
outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach;
· Assess whether the Logical Framework approach and performance indicators have been used as
effective IWP management tools;
· Review the implementation of the IWP's monitoring and evaluation plans;
· Review the knowledge management processes of the Project, including the use of IW:LEARN;
· Describe the main lessons that have emerged in terms of:
· country ownership/drivenness;
· regional cooperation and inter-governmental cooperation;
· stakeholder participation;
· adaptive management processes;
· efforts to secure sustainability; and
· the role of M&E in project implementation.
· In describing all lessons learned, an explicit distinction needs to be made between those lessons
applicable only to this project, and lessons that may be of value more broadly, including to other,
similar projects in the UNDP/GEF pipeline and portfolio.
The Report of the TE will be a stand-alone document that substantiates its recommendations and conclusions.
The Report will be targeted at meeting the Evaluation needs of all key stakeholders (GEF, UNDP, FFA, SPC,
SPREP and stakeholders in Participating Countries).
III. Scope
Three main OFM Component IWP elements to be evaluated include Delivery, Implementation and Finances.
Each component will be evaluated using three criteria: effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness.
Programme Delivery
The TE will assess to what extent the IWP has achieved its immediate objectives? It will also identify what
outputs have been produced and how they have enabled the SAP to achieve its objectives?
The section will include an assessment of the following priority areas:
1. Institutional arrangements:
· Strategic planning, preparatory work and implementation strategies,
· Consultative processes,
· Technical support,
· Capacity building initiatives,
· Programme outputs,
· Assumptions and risks, and
· Programme-related complementary activities.
2. Outcomes:
· Efficiency of IWP activities,
· Progress in the achievement of immediate objectives (level of indicator achievements when
available), and
· Quality of IWP activities
61
3. Partnerships:
· Assessment of regional collaboration between governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations,
· Assessment of national-level involvement and perceptions
· Assessment of local partnerships, and
· Involvement of other stakeholders
4. Risk Management:
· Were problems / constraints, which impacted on the successful delivery of the IWP, identified at
project design?
· Were there new threats/risks to project success that emerged during project implementation?
· Were both kinds of risk appropriately dealt with?
· Are they likely to be repeated in future phases?
5. Monitoring and evaluation:
· Assess the extent, appropriateness and effectiveness of adaptive management in project
implementation
· Has there been a monitoring and evaluation framework for the IWP?
· Is the reporting framework effective/appropriate?
· Has M&E been used as a management tool in directing project implementation in a timely manner?
· Is this framework suitable for replication/ continuation for any future Programme support?
Programme Implementation
Review the IWP's management structure and implementation arrangements at all levels, in order to provide an
opinion on its efficiency and cost-effectiveness.. This includes:
1. Processes and administration:
· Programme-related administration procedures,
· Milestones;
· Key decisions and outputs;
· Major Programme implementation documents prepared with an indication of how the documents and
reports have been useful
· Processes to support national components of the Programme.
2. Programme oversight:
· GEF
· UNDP
· SPREP
· SPC
· FFA
· Participating country mechanisms
3. Programme execution:
· SPREP as the Executing Agency (under the UNDP National Execution (NEX) modality)
· SPC and FFA
· The PCU
· National functions.
62
4. Programme implementation:
· UNDP as the Implementing Agency
5. Comparative assessment:
· Compare the IWP's overview (GEF/UNDP), execution (SPREP, FFA and SPC) and implementation
(PCU, National Lead Agencies, National Coordinators, etc) elements of the Programme with similar
regional natural resource management programmes in the Pacific and elsewhere. Provide an opinion
on the appropriateness and relevance of the structure and recommend alternatives (if required) for
future consideration.
Programme Finances
How well and cost-effective did financial arrangements of the IWP worked? This section will focus on the
following three priority areas:
1. Programme disbursements. Specifically:
· Provide an overview of actual spending vs. budget expectations
· With appropriate explanation and background provide a breakdown of the ratio of funds spent
"directly" in-country against total funds spent
· With appropriate explanation and background provide a breakdown of the ratio of funds spent
"indirectly" in-country (i.e. external consultants and regional training) against total funds spent, and
· Critically analyse disbursements to determine if funds have been applied effectively and efficiently.
2. Budget procedures:
· Did the Project Document provide enough guidance on how to allocate the budget?
· Review of audits and any issues raised in audits; and subsequent adjustments to accommodate audit
recommendations;
· Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and provide an opinion on the
appropriateness and relevance of such revisions, taking into account the increased duration of the
IWP.
3. Coordinating mechanisms:
· Evaluate appropriateness and efficiency of coordinating mechanisms between national agencies,
SPREP (including internal coordination), FFA, SPC, UNDP and the GEF.
· Does the IWP/SAP approach represent an effective means of achieving the objective of the OFM
Component of the IWP? How can the approach be improved?
IV. Methodology
The TE will be undertaken through a combination of processes including desk research, visits to selected
participating countries, questionnaires and interviews - involving all stakeholders, including (but not restricted
to): UNDP (Apia), GEF, SPREP, FFA, SPC, participating Governments, National NGOs, communities,
resource users and local governments.
The methodology for the study is envisaged to cover the following areas:
· Desk study review of all relevant IWP documentation;
· Possible Apia, Honiara and Noumea-based consultations with UNDP, SPREP, FFA, SPC, and the
PCU;
· Visits to as many participating countries as feasible within budgetary and timeframe constraints, and
· Possible participation in a regional consultation of senior fisheries officials (FFC) to discuss the TE
Report in Kiribati in May 2004.
63
V. Products
The main product of the Evaluation will be:
A Terminal Evaluation Report based on the general format outline at Annex 1.
The Terminal Evaluation report will include: i) findings and conclusions in relation to the issues to be
addressed identified under sections II and III of this TOR; ii) assessment of gaps and/or additional measures
needed that might justify future GEF investment in the Pacific Islands region, and iii) guidance for future
investments (mechanisms, scale, themes, location, etc).
The Evaluation Report will be written in the format outlined in Annex 1. It will be submitted to UNDP,
SPREP, FFA and SPC by 1st March 2004. The final report will be formally presented to the 2004 annual
session of the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC) in May 2004. It will also be forwarded to the GEF for
review and extraction of broadly applicable lessons by the Independent M&E Unit.
The reviewers will provide UNDP, FFA, SPC and SPREP with an electronic copy of the final reports at the
time of their submission.
Reviewer Attributes:
Team Leader:
· Academic and/or professional background in institutional aspects of oceanic fisheries resource
management. A minimum of 15 years relevant experience;
· Detailed knowledge of the international sustainable development agenda, with particular emphasis on
regional priorities of the South Pacific. Knowledge of regional groupings structures, priorities and
operations;
· Experience in the evaluation of technical assistance projects, preferably with UNDP or other United
Nations development agencies and major donors;
· Experience in the evaluation of GEF-funded international waters and/or biodiversity conservation
projects;
· Excellent English writing and communication skills. Demonstrated ability to assess complex
situations in order to succinctly and clearly distill critical issues and draw forward looking
conclusions;
· Experience leading multi-disciplinary, multi-national teams to deliver quality products in high stress,
short deadline situations;
· Proven capacity in working across the levels of institutions from policy, to legislation, regulation, and
organisations;
· An ability to assess institutional capacity and incentives, and
· Excellent facilitation skills
Resource Specialist
· Academic and professional background in oceanic fisheries resource research and/or management
preferably in Pacific Island environments;
· An understanding of GEF principles and expected impacts in terms of global benefits;
· A minimum of 15 years relevant working experience;
· Experience in implementation or evaluation of technical assistance projects;
· an understanding of UNDP, FFA and SPC activities and operational procedures in the Pacific Islands
region;
· Skills and experience in OFM-related processes and programmes;
· Excellent English writing and communication skills, and
· Excellent facilitation skills
At least one of the Reviewers will be a Pacific Island national.
64
VI. Tentative
Schedule
August 2003
Calls for Expressions of Interest
September 30 2003
Expressions of Interest close
October 31 2003
Selection of Reviewers
January 1 2004
Reviewers commence the Evaluation
February 29 2004
Final Report submitted to UNDP, FFA, SPC and SPREP
May 2004
Annual Session of the Forum Fisheries Committee
VII Report Submission
The report will be submitted simultaneously to:
Ms Joyce Yu,
Resident Representative,
UNDP,
Private Mail Bag,
Apia, Samoa
(to the attention of Mr. Tom Twining-Ward tom.twining-ward@undp.org).
AND Mr. Asterio Takesy,
Director,
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme,
PO Box 240
Apia, Samoa
(to the attention of Mr. Andrew Wright dreww@sprep.org.ws)
AND Mr. Feleti Teo
Director
Forum Fisheries Agency
PO Box 629
Honiara, Solomon Islands
feleti.teo@ffa.int
AND Dr John Hampton
Oceanic Fisheries Program Manager
Secretariat for the Pacific Community
PO Box D5,
Noumea Cedex
New Caledonia
John.Hampton@spc.int
Additional information is available at www.sprep.org/iwp
65
Annex I : EVALUATION REPORT: SAMPLE OUTLINE (Minimum GEF
requirements1 are underlined)
Executive summary
Brief description of project
Context and purpose of the evaluation
Main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned
Introduction
Purpose of the evaluation
Key issues addressed
Methodology of the evaluation
Structure of the evaluation
The project(s) and its development context
Project start and its duration
Problems that the project seek to address
Immediate and development objectives of the project
Main stakeholders
Results expected
Findings and Conclusions
Project formulation
Implementation
Stakeholder participation
Replication approach
Cost-effectiveness
UNDP comparative advantage
Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector
Indicators
Implementation
Delivery
Financial Management
Monitoring and evaluation
Execution and implementation modalities
Management by the UNDP country office and other partners
Coordination and operational issues
Results
Attainment of objectives
Sustainability
Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff
Recommendations
Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation for consideration in future
projects
Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
Lessons learned
Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success
1 Please refer to GEF guidelines for explanation of Terminology
66
Annexes
TOR
Itinerary
List of persons interviewed
Summary of field visits
List of documents reviewed
Questionnaire used and summary of results
67
ANNEX 2 Documents and Websites Reviewed/Consulted
A) References
Anon (2003) Capacity of Pacific Island Countries and Territories to Meet the Likely Data Requirements of
the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. A paper prepared by the Oceanic Fisheries
Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, for Working Group II of the Preparatory Conference,
Fifth Session.
Cartwright, Ian (2002) The Oceanic Fisheries Resources of the Central and Western Pacific: A Baseline
Study. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, in collaboration with the Forum Fisheries Agency,
Honiara.
Cartwright, Ian (2004) The Oceanic Fisheries Resources of the Central and Western Pacific: Progress Report.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, in collaboration with the Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara.
Duda, Alfred (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects.
Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10. Global Environment Facility, Washington.
Forum Fisheries Agency (2002) Six-monthly Narrative Report for the Period July 2001-December 2001,
FFA Component, Report No.1/2001. Strategic Action Programme for the International Waters of the Pacific
Small Island Developing States. South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara.
Forum Fisheries Agency (2002a) Forum Fisheries Agency Corporate Plan 2002-2005. South Pacific Forum
Fisheries Agency, Honiara.
Forum Fisheries Agency (2002b) South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA): Annual Report 2002. South
Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara.
Forum Fisheries Agency (2002c) Working Paper for the Forum Fisheries Committee Meeting on the
International Waters Project. FFC50/WP 4. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara.
Forum Fisheries Agency (2003) Information Paper for the Forum Fisheries Committee Meeting on the
International Waters Project. FFC54/INFO 5.1. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara.
Forum Fisheries Agency (2003a) Working Paper for the Forum Fisheries Committee Meeting on the
International Waters Project. FFC53/WP 8.2. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara.
Forum Fisheries Agency and Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2002) Annual Progress Report for the
Oceanic Fisheries Management Component of the Strategic Action Programme for the International Waters of
the Pacific Small Island Developing States. Report to the First Multipartite Review Meeting, Majuro,
Marshall Islands, June 2002.
Forum Fisheries Agency and Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2002a) Annual Progress Report for the
Oceanic Fisheries Management Component of the Strategic Action Programme for the International Waters
of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. Report to the Second Multipartite Review Meeting,
Nuku'alofa, Tonga, June 2003.
GEF (undated) Operational Programme Number 8, Waterbody-Based Operational Programme. GEF,
Washington.
GEF (undated) Operational Programme Number 9, Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area
Operational Programme. GEF, Washington.
68
GEF (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation Policies and Procedures. Global Environment Facility, Washington.
GEF/UNDP/SPREP (2002) First Multipartite Review (MPR-1), July 2002, Majuro, Marshall Island: Working
Paper 1a - Summary Report Oceanic Component. SPREP, Apia.
GEF/UNDP/SPREP (2002a) First Multipartite Review (MPR-1), July 2002, Majuro, Marshall Island :
Summary Record of Discussion. SPREP, Apia.
GEF/UNDP/SPREP (2003) Second Multipartite Review (IW-PROJECT/MPR-2), June 2003, Nuku'alofa,
Kingdom of Tonga: Working Paper 2 Annual Progress Report, July 2002 to June 2003 Oceanic Fisheries
Management Component. SPREP, Apia.
GEF/UNDP/SPREP (2003a) Second Multipartite Review (IW-PROJECT/MPR-2), June 2003, Nuku'alofa,
Kingdom of Tonga: Summary Record of Discussion. SPREP, Apia.
Hunnam, P and Schuster, C (2003) Mid-Term Evaluation Report, International Waters Project.
Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. UNDP and
SPREP, Apia.
Project Coordinating Unit (2001) First Regional Task Force Meeting, International Waters Programme.
Meeting Report 2001/01. SPREP, Apia.
Regional Task Force (1997) Strategic Action Programme for International Waters of Pacific Islands. SPREP,
Apia.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2003) Annual Report: 2002. Secretariat of the Pacific Community,
Noumea.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2003a) Corporate Plan 2003-2005. Secretariat of the Pacific
Community, Noumea.
SPREP (2002) First Regional ask Force Meeting Strategic Action Programme for the International Waters
of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, March 2001, Apia, Samoa. Meeting Report. SPREP, Apia.
SPREP and Forum Fisheries Agency ( 2003) Letter of Agreement between the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency for the Implementation of the
UNDP/GEF International Waters Project, dated 6 February, 2003.
Tarte, Sandra (2003) Fifth Session of the Preparatory Conference for the Establishment of the Commission
on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean, 29 September to 03 October 2003, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Unpublished Report, University of the
South Pacific, Suva.
UNDP (1999) Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small Island
Developing States: Project Document, RAS/98/G32/A/1G/99. UNDP, Samoa.
UNDP (2003) Project Implementation Report. UNDP, Samoa.
69
B) Other documents made available to the Evaluation Team
Anon (2002) Purse Seine Debriefing Form Observer feedback. For use with Purse-Seine Observer Forms
Revised FFA/SPC Dec. 2002. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Brogan, Deirdre (Ed) (2002) Fork Length Newsletter The Observer and Port Sampler Newsletter for the
Tuna Fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Issue #4, September 2002. Secretariat of the
Pacific Community, Noumea.
Brogan, Deirdre (2002a) Port Sampling Manual. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific
Community, Noumea.
Brogan, Deirdre (Ed) (2003) Fork Length Newsletter The Observer and Port Sampler Newsletter for the
Tuna Fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Issue #5, October 2003. Secretariat of the Pacific
Community, Noumea.
Lawson, Timothy A (Ed) (2002) Tuna Fishery Yearbook 2001. Secretariat of the Pacific Community,
Noumea.
Ocean Fisheries Programme (undated) South Pacific Regional Longline Logbook. Forum Fisheries Agency,
Honiara.
Ocean Fisheries Programme (2003) Workplan for the Year 2003. Secretariat of the Pacific Community,
Noumea.
Ocean Fisheries Programme (2003) Workplan for the Year 2003: First Six-Monthly Progress Report (01 Jan
30 Jun 2003). Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2003) Oceanic Fisheries Programme Strategic Plan 2003-2005.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2003a) Council of Regional organizations in the Pacific (CROP).
Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community and Forum Fisheries Agency (2002) South Pacific Regional Longline
Fisheries Observer Workbook. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, and Forum Fisheries Agency,
Honiara.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community and Forum Fisheries Agency (2002a) South Pacific Regional Purse-
Seine Fisheries Observer Workbook. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, and Forum Fisheries
Agency, Honiara.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community and Forum Fisheries Agency (2002b) South Pacific Regional Pole-and-
Line Fisheries Observer Workbook. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, and Forum Fisheries
Agency, Honiara.
70
C) Websites visited and consulted
The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)
http://www.sprep.org.ws
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) website for its GEF activities
http://www.undp.org/gef
The Global Environment Facility (GEF)
http://www.gefweb.org
http://www.gefonline.org
The South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)
http://www.ffa.int
The Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC)
http://www.spc.org.nc
The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
http://www.unescap.org
International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network
http://www.iwlearn.org/
71
ANNEX 3 Persons Met and/or Consulted
Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)
Mr. Bruce Chapman, Interim Deputy Director
Mr. Len Rodwell, Economics and Marketing Manager
Mr. David Rupokets, Finance/Accounts Manager
Mr. Andy Richards, Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Manager
Ms Barbara Hanchard, Executive Officer
Dr Transform Aqorau, former Legal Counsel (1998-2003)
Mr. Les Clark, Consultant, Fisheries Management Advisor
Dr Kenneth MacKay, Consultant, Field Programme Coordinator for C-SPODP II
Mr. Ian Cartwright, Consultant
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)
Ms Lourdes Pangelinan, Director-General
Dr Tim Adams, Director of Marine Resources
Dr John Hampton, Oceanic Fisheries Programme Manager
Dr Patrick Lehodey, Principal Oceanic Fisheries Scientist
Dr Adam Langley, Principal Oceanic Fisheries Scientist
Dr Valerie Allain, Fisheries Research Scientist, Ecosystems
Mr. Tim Lawson, Fisheries Statistician
Mr. Peter Sharples, Port Sampler and Observer Coordinator
Ms Kay Perry, Project Officer
Cook Islands
Mr. Alava'a Navy Epati, Secretary, Ministry of Marine Resources
Federated States of Micronesia
Mr. Bernard Thoulag, Executive Director, National Oceanic Resource Management Authority
Mr. Mathew Chigiyal, Licensing Officer, National Oceanic Resource Management Authority
Fiji
Mr. Apolosi Turaganivalu, Principal Fisheries Officer, Ministry of Fisheries & Forests
Mr. Grahame Southwick, Executive Chairman, Fiji Fish Marketing Group Limited
Kiribati
Mr. Johnny Kirata, Deputy Director of Fisheries
Marshall Islands
Mr. Danny Wase, Director, Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority
Niue
Mr. Brendon Pasisi, Fisheries Advisor, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Palau
Mr. Ramon Rechebei, Ministry of State
Papua New Guinea
Ms Masio Nidung Finter, Acting State Solicitor, Department of Justice and Attorney General
Mr. Dennis Bebego, Director, Bilateral & Regional Economic Arrangements Branch, DFA&I
Samoa
Mr. Tanielu Su'a, Assistant Chief Executive Officer, Samoa Fisheries
Mr. Terry Toomata, Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
72
Solomon Islands
Mr. Fred Ganate, Permanent Secretary, Fisheries
Mr. Eddie Orehaka, Director-General of Fisheries
Mr. Adrian Wickham, Director, National Fisheries Development Limited
Mr. Milton Sibisiopere, Managing Director, SolTai Fishing and Processing Limited
Tonga
Ms `Apisake Soakai, Acting Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries
Mr. Bill Holden, General Manager, Alatini Fisheries
Vanuatu
Mr. Moses Amos, Director of Fisheries
Australian Delegation to 16th Consultation on Fisheries Treaty between certain Pacific Island
Governments and the US Government, Funafuti, Tuvalu
Mr. James Lee, International Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia
New Zealand Delegation to 16th Consultation on Fisheries Treaty between certain Pacific Island
Governments and the US Government, Funafuti, Tuvalu
Mr. Matthew Hooper, Senior International Adviser, Ministry of Fisheries
University of the South Pacific
Prof Leon Zann, Professor of Marine Sciences, Coordinator Marine Studies Programme
Dr Vina Ram-Bidesi, Lecturer in Marine Studies
Project Coordination Unit (PCU)
Mr. Andrew Wright, Project Manager
Mr. Rama Vaa, Project Accountant
Ms Rosanna Galuvao, Programme Assistant
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)
Mr. Asterio Takesy, Director
Mr. Vitolio Lui, Deputy Director
Mr. Gerald Miles, past Deputy Director (1990-2002)
United Nations Development Programme Office in Fiji
Ms Linda Petersen, Thematic Team Leader
United Nations Development Programme Office in Samoa
Mr. Tom Twining-Ward, Environment Advisor
Ms. Easter Galuvao, Assistant Resident Representative (ARR) Environment
73
ANNEX 4 Summaries of Field Visits and Salient Meetings
Wellington Meeting
On Monday 19 January 2004, a meeting was held in Wellington between a member of the Evaluation Team
and Mr. Len Rodwell, Head of Div of Economics and Marketing, FFA Honiara; Dr John Hampton, Manager
of Oceanic Fisheries Programme, SPC Noumea; and Mr Les Clarke, FFA Consultant. The meeting, which
lasted most of the day, ranged widely on various aspects of the OFM Project including its background and
context, its formulation stages, its implementation and its achievements. The Project Document was discussed
at some length as were implementation arrangements, monitoring and reporting procedures, financial
management aspects, linkages and relationships with other ongoing activities, etc.
The meeting also discussed the planned conduct of the evaluation and arrangements which were being made
for the Team in Honiara and Noumea.
PIROF Meeting
From 02 to 04 February (inclusive) one member of the Evaluation Team attended the Pacific Islands Regional
Ocean Forum (PIROF) held at the University of the South Pacific in Suva. Delegates/participants at the Forum
came from all countries in the region that are beneficiaries of the IW-PROJECT-OFM Project. They
represented Government with representatives from Fisheries, Foreign Affairs, Meteorological and
Environment Ministries/Departments; the private sector (fishing and tourism operators), Non-government
Organisations (Greenpeace, WWF, the Nature Conservancy), regional intergovernmental organizations such
as Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, FFA, SPC, USP, SPREP and South Pacific Applied Geoscience
Commission (SOPAC) and academic researchers. Official statements from all participating governments were
presented at the Forum. These addressed country priority issues and emerging issues in respect to a Regional
Ocean Strategy. The Evaluation Team member also held one on one discussions with a number of participants
to seek their input into the evaluation of the OFM Project. Those interviewed included Government
representatives from FSM, PNG, Kiribati and Samoa; private sector representatives from Tonga and Solomon
Islands; the PCU Project Manager (informally) and the former Deputy Director of SPREP.
Visit to FFA and Honiara
The Evaluation Team traveled to Honiara for a visit to the FFA Head Office between Friday 06 and Thursday
12 February. Meetings were held with various key personnel who had been involved in activities under the
GEF/UNDP OFM Project. It was also possible to work very closely with the FFA officer who had
coordinated the Project within FFA. A final debriefing meeting was also held with the Acting Deputy
Director of FFA.
While in Honiara, the Evaluation Team took the opportunity to visit the Solomon Islands Fisheries
Department and meet with senior officials. A meeting was also held with an exponent of the private sector.
Visit to SPC
Following a brief overnight transit stop in Port Vila where the Evaluation Team met with a senior official of
the Vanuatu Fisheries Department, the Team arrived in Noumea on Friday 13 February for a visit to SPC
which lasted until Thursday 19 February. Meetings were held with various key personnel from the Oceanic
Fisheries Programme who had been or were still involved in activities under the GEF/UNDP OFM Project.
The Team also had the opportunity to observe port sampling procedures in Noumea.
74
Meetings in Suva, Fiji
The Evaluation Team made use of the short periods of time spent in Suva, mainly in transit, to hold meetings
with a past official from FFA who had been intimately involved in the OFM Project, the Marine Studies
Programme administration at USP, an exponent of the fisheries private sector, a current consultant to the FFA
and the UNDP Country Office in Fiji.
US/Pacific Governments Fisheries Treaty Meeting (Funafuti)
One Evaluation Team member visited Funafuti, Tuvalu, during the Sixteenth Annual Consultation on
Fisheries Treaty between the Governments of certain Pacific Island States and the US Government between
Monday 01 and Thursday 04 March. This was an excellent opportunity to meet with relevant officials from
Fisheries and Foreign Affairs administrations from each of the stakeholder Governments, in one place. The
team member made a presentation to the delegates and a general discussion ensued with a focus on the need
and the means for better stakeholder involvement, at country level, in project formulation and project
implementation. Following the plenary meeting with delegates, the team member was able to discuss specific
aspects of the OFM Project with individual country representatives, officials from FFA and SPC and
consultants.
Visit to SPREP, the PCU and UNDP in Apia
On Saturday 06 March, the Evaluation Team traveled to Apia for a one day meeting with SPREP, the PCU
and UNDP. While discussing some queries which arose during the evaluation, the meeting also served as a
preliminary debriefing and the Evaluation Team provided the meeting with an indication of the main issues
that the Evaluation Report was likely to address.
75
ANNEX 5 Mission Itinerary
January
Document review from Homebase
PT : meeting in Wellington with FFA and SPC reps
02 - 05 February
ST : Attend PIROF Meeting, Suva
05 February
Team travel to Honiara
06 -12 February
In Honiara meetings with FFA officials, Government Fisheries officials, and private
sector
12 February
Team travel to Port Vila
13 February
In Port Vila meeting with Fisheries officials
Team travel to Noumea
14 -18 February
In Noumea meetings with SPC officials
18 / 19 February
Return to Homebase
20 - 26 February
Homebase drafting
27 February
PT : Travel to Suva
28 - 29 February
Team in Suva team discussions + drafting + meetings
01 March
PT : Travel to Funafuti
02 - 04 March
PT : in Funafuti consultations with delegates to Treaty Meeting, FFA, SPC, etc, ST :
at Homebase drafting
04 March
PT : Travel to Suva
04 - 06 March
Team in Suva drafting and meetings with USP and private sector
06 March
Team travel to Apia
06 March
In Apia meetings with PCU, SPREP and UNDP
07 / 08 March
Return to Homebase
08 - 09 March
Homebase - Final drafting of Draft Evaluation Report
10 March
Homebase - Dispatch Draft Evaluation Report
11 - 18 March
Consideration of Draft Report by FFA, SPC, PCU, SPREP and UNDP
19 March
Comments from stakeholders to Team
20 - 25 March
Homebase consideration of comments received and finalization of the Evaluation
Report
Fri 26 March
Dispatch of Final Evaluation Report
76
77
r
f
a
y
P
es
e
nts
of,
m
ri
fo
t o
ders,
.
a
y
not
ed by
en
ent a
es and
ice IW
count
s
m
e
nt
itm
plem
ecessary
akehol
ponent
approach.
governm
feasibility
i
ng
serv
t
n
p
l
e
m
her donors.
agenci
com
onal
i
c
i
p
ant
and
to
i
c
i
p
at
ten
ot
r
recru
her st
and im
M
o
onal
W
national
i
on.
part
e ex
u
r
ced
ry
e
l
y
com
th
i
c
.
t
h
ot
t
o
a regi
ent to,
ng from
e
layed
at
c regi
fi
h
e IC
ent
itm
l
a
borat
em
m
s of 14 part
ely to
i
t
m
col
onceptualize
e
nt
ps wi
m
and count
staff d
h Paci
y
.
onal
u
a
tely reso
rem
be adequat
ic, political and social conditions
eq
p
e
rativ
s
and fundi
com
i
v
el
ad
i
ons
-o
a
t
i
onshi
u
a
tely c
ry
zat
ent
PCU
co
a
y
not
rel
eq
i
t
m
her Sout
country com
e
in
rk
o
f
aff proves probl
s and regi
m
m
ot
ad
a
t
i
on requi
t
wo
i
v
e
y
a
y b
organi
en
t
y
based approach for t
ent
a
t
e
st
funds
com
arl
i
nued count
ng co-operat
itm
uni
em
onal
le to
ry
i
c
ul
acity to
m
ont
l
o
t
project
pl
e
gi
o
l
l
a
borat
C
Key regional institutions and
worki
Changes in econom
detract from
pi
PCU m
i
m
and three co-executing agencies.
R
b
e
ab
project success.
GEF
count
Recru
appropri
C
part
NGOs, difficult to establish.
Cap
com
Assumptions and Risks
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
s
g
s
e
nt
eetin
s
s
.
s
s
n
a
l m
records
TERS OF THE PACIFIC SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES
ent
s
ber 2003)
i
ngs
g
atio
report
report
e
nt
p arrangem
eet
e
port
atin
tern
cal
Strategies
cal
a
l
report
M
U docum
F M
nershi
T
d
in
sbursem
nanci
PC
R
GEF R
UNDP Reports
Executing agency reports
PCU work plans
References to SAP in regional
an
Techni
ICW
Technical Guidelines
Techni
Narrative reports
Di
Fi
Meeting records
Particip
agency/organization reports
Part
· · · · · · ·
· · · · · · · · ·
·
Sources of Verification
M
on
M
h
t
i
cal
onal
her
W
cri
i
on
ICW
Sout
(as revised on 23 Septem
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
tors
t
h
ot
i
ssues.
i
o
n
.
her
e
nt
i
c
i
p
at
and
s wi
ot
e
i
on on
ent of ocean
e
nt
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
pl
and regi
proved IC
part
e
work for regional
m
ry
a
nagem
e Pacific Reg
SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
m
i
onal
co-operat
arrangem
nat
developm
th
i
v
e
i
onal
s
l
a
nd count
ders, for exam
e
s and i
ilities in
c i
i
t
t
ees and workgroups
enhanced fram
fi
m
ities.
proved
ab
sheri
o
l
l
a
borat
akehol
An
and nat
t
r
ans-boundary
Im
capacities for the long-term
sustainable
fi
cap
Paci
com
associated with OFM
activ
C
st
Pacific regional agencies and NGOs.
Objectively Verifiable Indica
·
·
·
·
e
Component Revised 23 September 2003)
e
nt
o
f
d
s
m
M
i
onal
and
a
nagem
e
rnat
program
Logical Framework Matrix
e Pacific Islan
proved OFM
and m
n
a
l waters.
m
ent
th
atio
i
on of Int
in
h
rough a
on i
.
opm
tern
on t
M
a
ters
ANNEX 6 :
STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME (SAP) FOR THE INTERNATIONAL WA
Logical Framework (ICW
Intervention Logic
Goal Integrated sustainable devel of in
Project Purpose Address the root causes degradat W regi focused ICW
78
in
f
o
IW
e
n
t
e
m
ack o
t
l
n
creased
ent
v
e
stm
g
r
am
i
t
m
gh i
in
m
it physical space
zed by
wei
secured.
m
ect is to succeed.
e Pro
i
on.
ra.
tial
th
entation.
to
i
c
i
p
at
a
y
out
to com
b
s
tan
i
o
n
a
l fo
ited
responsibility to the GEF
plem
part
h
e SAP not
reg
e
nt
e
s reduce com
p
er im
a
y
be jeopardi
m
needs m
n
in
for t
a su
t
s
m
i
onal
atio
resources.
t to
a
y ham
governm
support
en
nat
benefi
a
rticip
e
nt
itm
evel
i
ng program
es.
f
p
m
unications capability if proj
p
etent staff are recru
onal
p
et
-
t
e
rm
m
m
e
l o
e
gi
gher-l
o
m
itiativ
Executing agency willing
and support
Co
com
Com
Lack of clear lines of
secretariat m
R
hi
C
in
Short
lev
Governm
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
s
s
e
nt
for
s
s
s
ng
ans
e
nts
support
s
s
a
ndi
i
on report
i
on pl
uat
us report
n
lists
fora report
ract
ent
e
port
at
t
a
t
i
on report
atio
i
c
i
p
at
obal
aff cont
i
v
e arrangem
a
t
i
on St
a
rticip
st
rat
consul
and gl
st
l
a
n
s
ng and eval
der part
i
ng on UNDP
eeting records
Progress R
ent
g
p
o
randa of Underst
SPREP
t
o
ri
i
onal
i
ni
in
i
nistrative arrangem
r
k
P
em
onal
onal
e
m
oni
pl
e
gi
akehol
e
gi
PCU staff contracts
FFA and SPC staff contracts
Nat
M
Adm
with
Adm
SPREP reporting to UNDP
Letters of Agreem
Purchase orders
Wo
Report
services
MPR Meeting Records
M
NTF m
Annual
Im
R
Meetin
Stakeholder analyses
St
R
· · · · ·
·
· · · ·
· · · · · · · · ·
t
·
o
f
s
ng
n
g
ent
M
i
ce
Uni
a
t
e
d
e
nt
onal
l
y
i
a
l
l
y
s t
e
d.
atin
w
t
i
ons
oppi
i
s
hed
i
t
m
ICW
ans i
t
ent
e
nt
-rel
i
on o
a
bl
m
regi
,
posi
fora.
uat
n
a
rticip
east
pot
i
on
l
/
b
ackst
com
i
on pl
obal
ded.
n
in
i
p
nat
project
and
ent
once annual
s at
ry
e
d
.
sory
e
d
a
t
i
on est
onal
atio
i
c
i
p
at
fora support
i
t
m
e
d
in
eet
onal
ous gl
oordi
lish
ent
lish
and eval
m
s
t
i
ng
obal
l
east
lish
i
v
e arrangem
em
fora provi
pl
a
rticip
s at
n
vari
e
d
rat
n
-count
advi
ng
and regi
der part
o
exi
onal
C
st
i
cal
i
m
d
p
t
a
t
i
v
e arrangem
com
a
t
e
d gl
eet
es and m
l
y
e
d i
t
lish
i
ni
i
onal
ities estab
ry
re-estab
ri
ices estab
t
o
ri
m
i
onal
ities.
R
i
c
i
t
regi
oni
, an
onsul
akehol
ount
P
Project
estab
Adm
support
activ
Techni
serv
M
Project
Nat
to
activ
C
operat
St
place.
C
and rel
M
NTF
count
annual
Expl
support
Support
new regi
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
p
r
o
j
ect
.
e
r
ans-boundary
c
h
a
n
i
s
ms
a
t
i
on support
n
t
me
effectiv
ent
lish
em
pl
n
a
g
e
me
Immediate Objective 1 Estab im
Immediate Objective 2 Enhanced t ma
79
a
e
es
ry
t
o
ong
i
ze
m
at
st
onal
Project
h
e l
i
c
i
p
at
a
xi
SPC's
i
v
e.
ng
regi
ng from
n
count
shi
with
a
nd t
vi
o
part
approach
e
d.
fi
ry
unities recognize
t
y
, t
i
a
l
t
o
m
e
d
with
gn
ocks i
m
t
deri
s
are effect
t
h
rough
i
on.
align
ent
lish
-
count
approach.
pot
s
m
t
h
forei
n
ed
i
c
i
p
at
una st
-by
onal
and underst
benefi
.
h
e capaci
rk
ry
e
estab
gai
part
h
e t
e
nt
e
rm
fisheries projects.
echani
a
y not
have
b
i
on wi
ry
t
e
nts and com
r
o
j
ects.
anned and execut
vem
t p
pede regi
ong-t
have t
i
ng m
o
be
y
pl
nvol
ilo
a
y
not
nat
t
s
of count
h
e l
t
s
t
i
f
y
count
t
s
from
a
y
i
m
governm
e p
.
r
o
j
ect site wo
a
y
not
k
a
g
e
s can
t p
s m
s poorl
t
s
of i
f
th
m
benefi
benefi
e
s m
ilo
n
.
coordi
ry
benefi
i
on just
ent focal issues.
e lin
o
a
l o
es see t
p
r
o
ach
es
ri
ri
p
unity-based coastal
ry
sheri
g
-
t
e
rm
t ap
ework for cooperat
licatio
m
ount
ount
lly in
l
o
t
project
l
o
t
project
ount
Country priorities m
docum
Participating
t
h
e benefi
term
C
p
ilo
C
fu
Pi
rep
Pi
Effectiv
com
In-count
Fram
can be found
C
cooperat
Increased
EEZs can be realized
Short
t
una fi
·
·
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
on
i
t
t
ee
i
on
and
C
a
t
e
d
e
nt
m
uat
ews
e
ws
a
nagem
s
m
s
e
s rel
o
r
ts
s
ent
s
.
ng Group
s
and revi
l
an
n
t
e
rvi
ent
her sub-com
sheri
o
r
ts
o
rki
una
ity p
ity rep
s
.
s
report
t
u
re records
ng and Eval
der i
e rep
t
docum
on docum
and Prep
fi
i
c
report
cal
t
o
ri
s
i
sits
s
ent
ry
ent
t activ
t activ
LC
LC
S W
i
onal
oni
akehol
H
H
ount
C
ans
Narrative reports
Pilo
Pilo
Expendi
NTF and ot
records
M
report
Site v
St
report
Baselin
M
Prep C
M
docum
C
econom
M
docum
Nat
pl
Techni
· · · · ·
·
· ·
·
· · ·
·
·
·
·
y
f
o
g
-
e
f
d
g
n
a
l
on
e
nt
i
n
e
nt
onal
u
n
ity-
i
v
el
atin
th
focal
tio
n
s
.
t
una
atin
m
i
on
ved
e
ce an
i
s
hed
m
i
n
project
oped and
stitu
a
nagem
a
bl
a
nagem
e
d and
i
cat
p
a
rticip
i
nistration o
t
from
p
a
rticip
co
ned
t
s
deri
onitoring and
ent
ities in
scal
d
in
e
g
o
tiatio
M
s effect
unicated at the
g
devel
e
s est
e
s m
em
m
onal
d
scien
m
in
pl
o
engage
e
rm
m
benefi
m
benefi
creasin
activ
eries n
sheri
ICW
ponent
and repl
t
y
t
M
o
licy an
onal
n
an
onal
ong-t
p
tio
onal
of participating country
e
vel
r in
ewed and refi
e
work for adm
regional effectiveness in
capacity in m
t
o
secure added regi
results com
n
a
l fish
l
and regi
e
nt
stitu
y
fo
capaci
ICW
t
o
l
ented
ent reached in negotiations
c regi
hened fi
es
t
o
red.
t
.
t
s
begun.
ry
um
fram
fi
atio
ilities with
ri
j
ect-related
gned, i
onal
i
onal
e-related
p
l
i
a
nce program
ab
oni
e
di
plem
a
t
t
e
rs revi
tern
rengt
Pro
based com
desi
m
Project
regi
resul
Strateg
count
related
m
im
Nat
issu
m
Agreem
new regi
arrangem
Basic
n
e
w in
com
Increased
global ocean fisheries negotiations.
Speci
in
Increased regi
stocks in participating country EEZs.
Increased
surveillance
EEZs.
St
cap
count
benefi
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
e
f
o
e
n
t
s
nabl
ai
e
rshed
ent
g
e
m
i
s
hm
i
on and
associated
a
bl
arran
r
ans-boundary
a
l
and wat
n
a
l
h
e est
tio
of t
acities
i
on and sust
t
e
nt
stitu
h
e conservat
support
n
a
l cap
onservat
a
nagem
Immediate Objective 3 C use of coast resources.
Immediate Objective 4 To new in for t m fish stocks and natio
e
l
m
v
e
p
et
.
ona
ong
80
gher-l
com
am
ent
cal
t
y
e
s
a
de.
e
nt.
ci
lo
uni
com
t
r
act
o
a regi
i
v
es,
unities.
m
m
o
t
h
e project
n
suffi
with
ack of hi
out
i
e
d t
g
l
s can be m
t
e
d t
object
e
nt
appl
ders.
a
y
be i
p
etin
t
i
ons can at
y
m
and com
zed by
i
on m
aff recrui
i
v
el
ders.
co
i
v
er project
cal space and support resources.
ng project
st
benefits of involvem
akehol
o
r
ibility to the GEF secretariat
ect
arrangem
ry
i
c
i
p
at
t
ong st
akehol
o
del
s and condi
i
cal
i
on
st
its physi
respons
.
a
t
i
on.
o
addressi
s am
n
s
isten
donor support
t
y
t
e
rm
m
t
ogi
of
a
y
be jeopardi
i
c
i
p
at
i
ng count
t
s
of part
co
ent
e
nt
and l
em
t
s
m
part
a
t
i
on t
n
t
e
rest
l
range of st
s
in
t
r
act
capaci
m
pl
i
c
i
p
at
e
d project
at
n
.
oy
m
e
nt
ent
n
rel
i
ng i
ful
ry
pl
part
ved benefi
atio
u
a
te.
p
er i
benefi
em
p
et
t
r
act
ent
j
ect aim
eq
e support
pl
on, i
o
m
terests.
ad
EP em
PCU staff.
ham
onal
governm
p
et
i
m
Stakeholders will recognize
C
Countries will be willing to partner with com
Percei
t
o
at
Pro
in
Lessons
p
a
rticip
In-count
in
t
a
bl
e
gi
o
m
ohesi
SPR
Sui
Executing agency com
Lack of clear lines
R
C
NEX Guidelines can be eff
C
· · · ·
·
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
· ·
·
i
c
al
i
on
ry
soci
s
es
al project
report
e
gi
a
t
e
d publ
a
t
e
d
s
t
y
educat
sal
i
ng count
iews.
rat
j
ect
-rel
-rel
y
uni
ent
ract
p
ro
terv
m
s
a
terials
i
c
i
p
at
o
i
on St
ans.
records
s
cat
ans
n
Strateg
aff apprai
e
nt
aff cont
project
project
com
n
a
l m
i
ons t
a
l
records
i
ons
c st
a
l
report
st
l
a
n
s
i
sits
o
l
d
e
r in
uni
i
ng pl
al and form
but
eh
m
i
onal
i
onal
i
onal
i
cat
ail records
licatio
U report
odi
i
onal
r
k
p
ri
o
m
a
t
i
ons pl
a
rket
ans
nanci
e
b
s
ite statistics
u
catio
nanci
sbursem
ecords of part
Site v
Stak
C
Nat
rel
Nat
m
Nat
pl
Narrative reports
Fi
W
Inform
publ
Databases
Em
Ed
Rep
Staff contracts
PC
Peri
Narrative reports
Letters of Agreem
Fi
Narrative reports
Di
Nat
Wo
R
cont
· · · ·
·
·
· · · ·
· · · ·
· · · ·
· · · · · · ·
e
s
e
ng
es
i
on
and
in
der
em
i
ons
i
cal
ri
st
cat
i
onal
t
e
d
l
o
cat
e
ssons
i
e
d.
es.
st
oppi
sat
sy
al
uni
l
ogi
count
m
akehol
oped and
project
i
ng l
effectiv
i
ng
t
e
s appl
itiativ
e
nt
and nat
aff recrui
/
b
ackst
es
com
oped
ent
si
in
st
ri
e
d.
M
her st
lt in
onal
devel
sory
i
s
hed.
i
c
i
p
at
i
onal
ent
a
nagem
e
gy
i
onal
a
bl
r ICW
rat
st
t
o
support
n
for docum
l
o
t
project
-based NGOs activity
s est
n
s
resu
for regi
i
v
e and
t
h
14 part
and nat
pi
and ot
i
p
s
fo
and nat
n
a
l PCU
advi
e
nt
i
ng organi
e
nts in place
i
ng count
tatio
es devel
ented.
es
i
on m
i
on
rat
unity
on docum
at
ented.
cal
st
en
onal
i
s
hed
e
gi
e
gi
m
e
rsh
ents of the Project.
i
cat
onal
eratio
i
c
i
p
at
i
ni
i
c
i
p
at
e
gi
rat
plem
rat
n
s
u
ltatio
a
bl
e
pl
plem
a
t
i
on support
e
gi
p
l
em
o
U's wi
R
st
im
St
l
earned at
Com
t
h
e regi
Donor
co
p
a
rtn
Inform
est
elem
R
im
R
Op
Techni
arrangem
Part
adm
arrangem
Part
resources
im
M
executed.
ent
·
·
·
·
·
·
· · ·
·
·
·
o
f
e
em
pl
e
t
s
from
nabl
coastal
for
ai
i
m
t
sust
i
n
i
strativ
benefi
es
m
i
on uni
onal
i
v
e project
earned
itiativ
nat
ad
s
donor support
e
nt of oceanic,
i
on and
e
n
t
in
e
nt
i
se regi
e
rshed resources.
i
s
h effect
coordi
m
e
diate Objective 1
m
a
bl
j
ect-related
a
xi
a
nagem
a
t
a
l
y
se
a
n
a
g
e
m
Immediate Objective 5 M lessons l m and wat C conservat oceanic, coastal and watershed m
Output 1
Output 2
Im
Est
Project
Pro
arrangem
e
l
b
p
e
d
al
.
t
o
IW
81
op and
e
v
e
lo
ent
n
e
gy
r
o
cesses
rat
e
d
e.
e
dged by
i
t
m
g
p
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
ed.
atio
b
m
r
o
cesses can
a
n
ce
o
devel
p
i
on st
istin
i
c
i
p
at
a
rticip
cat
ex
ities can
n
a
l relev
uni
e to
m
ew acknowl
ces can be m
related
a
lu
a
tio
activ
e
s reduce com
unable to allocate resources
d
v
offi
p
r
o
p
r
iate p
resources t
com
m
i
f
i
e
d and part
a
t
i
on
s its n
es ad
ent
related
k
a
g
e
s with
d
ent
project
tain
em
a project
ry
pl
e
d
.
a
in
project
ders i
itiativ
g
s
attract ap
e lin
ent
ies with
ders
i
ng program
es
i
m
ent
t
s
of proposed revi
lish
ci
u
tual benefit
j
ect m
em
p
et
pl
e
rg
j
ect in
akehol
e
nefi
akehol
o
m
itiativ
i
ng count
Meetin
Effectiv
estab
Pro
Suffi
i
m
St
Syn
for m
B
st
C
in
Pro
Project
i
c
i
p
at
· ·
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
part
support
Participating countries unwilling/
s
onal
e
d
es
·
regi
ent
n
e
gi
n
e
port
i
ngs
s
ons
eet
em
rat
pl
t
atio
e
d
o
r
t
age
ans
and
s
i
ng R
m
ent
ng
eet
scussi
EP M
resen
em
e rep
i
onal
t
a
t
i
v
e st
a
ndi
ng report
i
on pl
eetings
pl
s
.
s
s
t
y
di
i
ons i
elin
t
o
ri
e
gy
e
gy
m
o
r M
SPR
m
uni
ts/rep
id
us report
executing
G
at
rat
rat
e
port
i
c
i
p
at
nat
an
consul
oni
e
port
a
t
e
d nat
m
e
ndat
m
ons i
n
si
e Gu
s
oordi
e
port
i
on St
i
on St
i
ng R
i
ng R
a
rticip
tatio
a
t
i
on st
cat
cat
a
t
i
on report
eet
eet
der part
C
recom
g
p
en
ent
i
on and m
uni
uni
ent
correspondence
i
ngs
ew report
i
ng deci
i
n
i
strativ
t
report
i
on R
em
o
randa of Underst
i
ngs
uat
m
m
i
onal
em
F M
T
akehol
ecords of Annual
ecords of rel
eet
ecords of com
e
vi
e
port
eet
p
l
em
m
pl
e
m
eet
o
m
o
m
pl
e
b
s
ite statistics
R
NTF M
MPR Meeting Records
Stakeholder analyses
St
Records of MSW
Nat
R
R
m
R
R
R
Meeting records
Meetin
M
Trans-boundary
im
Ad
Audi
Im
M
Incept
Minutes of internal
m
M&E Plan
Eval
C
C
i
m
Project
W
· · · · · · · · ·
·
· · · · · ·
· · · · · ·
· · · ·
· ·
e
g
s
s
i
v
e
or
tin
and
e
gy
o
rs
e
nt
her
s
m
rat
ot
i
ngs.
r
ans-
oped
r
ans-
st
i
ssues
ecu
rat
nat
Sect
st
eet
i
ni
n
s
u
ltativ
i
n
oped
R
ne
oordi
m
echani
devel
s agreed.
P
a
ri
m
d
co
e ex
e
d.
p
leted
arrangem
i
on
a
t
e
d t
s
e
nt
C
t
r
ans-boundary
adm
e
nt
devel
i
on
M
i
onal
-rel
e
nt
e an
th
ent
n
M
cat
ited
ry
in
an
em
i
onal
t
a
t
i
v
e
i
c
i
p
at
uni
pl
i
on i
t
a
t
i
v
e
t
a
t
i
ons on t
ans prepared
with
m
m
f
NTFs
a
nagem
and nat
e
d
arrangem
of annual
i
n
i
strativ
E Pl
t o
&
en
ent
of Nat
i
c
i
p
at
onal
o
enhance
ent
i
ng count
i
cal
m
aff part
of project
e
n
t
s
m
t
y
consul
consul
oned
em
consul
m
work pl
st
ad
e
d
.
M
ented
com
part
st
es t
e
d
n
a
l staff recru
ng Group
uni
t
a
t
i
v
e arrangem
pl
i
nistrative guidelines prepared
al
oped and i
lish
i
s
hm
i
ssi
i
c
i
p
at
ogi
g
e
m
i
ngs
m
lish
ew
m
e
gi
m
onal
tern
plem
a
bl
eet
o
rki
o
m
a
t
e
d regi
e
vi
rat
e
gi
Natio
Annual
Adm
Part
and l
Inception report prepared.
In
arran
agency established.
Project
im
Project
devel
Stakeholder analyses com
Estab
Est
M
arranged
Project
W
C
estab
Project
rel
R
boundary
com
St
consul
and i
R
boundary
support
· · · ·
· ·
·
·
· · · ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
e
s-
t
a
t
i
v
e
tran
n
s
u
ltativ
and
i
onal
co
s
established
s
.
consul
j
ect-related
echanism
i
o
n
a
l SAP-related
echanism
Immediate Objective 2
Enhance trans-boundary management mechanisms
Output 1
Pro m
Output 2
Enhanced nat reg boundary m
t
o
t
o
i
s
e
s
l
s
ng
an
o
be
pl
al
ni
t
y
i
onal
e
d
n
ci
es is
odate
u
a
tely
a
t
i
on,
es i
82
elin
m
eq
t
r
ai
ent
e
gi
areas t
id
ad
e
d by
s
rat
t
h
e nat
i
on
em
support
e
ssen due
ng purposes i
pl
st
t Gu
uat
t
o
h
e capaci
e
s at
i
on generat
a
t
e
for pri
i
m
ental issues
en
ent
.
a
y
l
at
anni
es is
em
ent
e
gy
SAP focal
s.
com
m
p
l
em
elin
es to addressing focal
pl
ci
id
m
ders
cept can be effectively
rat
ent
out
project
rities.
for pl
flexible to accom
.
Inform
appropri
al
d
im
ng and eval
n
i
on
i
on St
holder participation.
i
t
m
r
io
o
rs have t
at
n
s
f
Gu
akehol
l
o
t
project
m
uat
e
vel
a
t
e
ri
n
an
atio
a
l
concerns support
t
o
ri
gn and i
cat
n
a
l p
nat
n
o
e st
ent
oni
uni
brace the significance of effective
t
y
l
a form
pl
t
h
e pi
com
ew m
a
rketing con
m
ry
a
tio
oordi
m
uni
d
e
sig
n
ci
i
n
cal situ
tatio
o
desi
o
m
g
n
ronm
m
to
ap
ory
es can agree on GEF/
C
ders
t
lo
e
d
ders
ders engage i
ng and eval
ri
e
d
of revi
unity-based approach
envi
i
s
e t
unication strategies are effective in
ng pri
resources are suffi
count
t
o
ri
i
v
e C
i
onal
u
e
m
i
c
i
p
at
m
ount
n
f
lictin
akehol
p
e
rtise
cal ad
akehol
akehol
oni
C
addressed by
Host
co
Nat
effectively deliver project
and com
present
st
Val
appreciated by project executors
Ex
available
Guidelines sufficiently
d
i
fferen
Lo
support
Com
i
ssue
st
Guidelines written in non-technical term
Stakeholder analyses are accurate
Part
processes are effective
St
m
Expert
available
Com
engagi
The social m
adapted to Pacific Island environm
Project
effect
Stakeholders em
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· · ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
i
c
al
i
on
cat
publ
ans
rces and community-based stake
i
n
es
ans
uni
m
ans
del
i
on pl
l
e
s
es
o
m
i
on pl
C
a
t
e
d
a
t
e
d soci
e
gi
-rel
s
rat
ans
uat
-rel
or profi
St
Pl
a
t
i
on gui
iews
iews.
t
y
educat
ract
ans
ans
U work pl
ent
terv
terv
uni
sect
records
em
ans.
m
ent
cont
e
nt
pl
ans
work pl
work pl
and PC
ng and eval
project
project
com
t
a
nt
i
m
o
l
d
e
r in
o
l
d
e
r in
i
ng pl
ronm
ew report
t
o
ri
i
onal
i
onal
i
onal
i
s
hed or draft
i
s
hed or draft
eh
eh
i
s
hed or draft
i
onal
i
onal
i
onal
e
vi
onsul
sbursem
oni
a
t
i
ons pl
a
rket
Envi
R
NTF records
C
Nat
Di
Nat
Nat
Publ
Publ
Project
Stak
Narrative reports
M
Stak
Publ
Strategies
Nat
rel
Nat
m
Nat
Narrative reports
of coastal and watershed resou
· · · · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· ·
·
·
· ·
t
y
-
on
e
g
i
on
SAP
o
ri
a
t
e
d
ities
e
gy
e
gy
i
onal
i
onal
and
ities
etin
tified
rat
rat
endorses
pri
gn and
-rel
a
rk
en
i
n
i
strativ
nat
aken
activ
a
naged
id
m
ng
a
l
concerns
i
onal
t activ
a
l
concern
i
on st
i
on st
ilo
t
o
ri
ased
cial m
ent
ent
her nat
ism
cat
ented.
cat
oned and
h
e desi
an
oni
t
y
educat
e
d
p
uni
o
support
ted
plem
uni
uni
ews undert
ronm
i
ssi
ronm
ech
m
m
n
s
, so
m
oped and m
ased
ad
en
u
n
ity-b
m
n
f
irm
a
l
concerns
n
m
s t
m
processes for project
m
revi
a
t
i
on of project
m
s) prepared and
Task Force
o
address nat
ent
e
nt
p
l
em
ory
e
d
com
com
relatio
cal
ent
i
on
ented in each participating
.
t
y
envi
s
t
i
n
es for t
u
n
ity-b
co
t
e
devel
ronm
em
oped
t
y
envi
lish
onal
ry
o
ri
ew com
rities co
i
onal
d
el
m
ritizatio
i
c
i
p
at
uat
ponent
pl
ews or ot
ts im
m
o
ri
j
ect-related
i
onal
e
gi
u
b
lic
plem
e
b si
Techni
Pri
revi
p
r
io
Nat
report
envi
Gui
i
m
co
devel
Project focal area(s) based
pri
revi
p
r
io
Pro
arrangem
p
ilo
Part
eval
related
estab
R
prepared and im
Nat
(p
and com
com
im
count
W
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
t
-
i
on
and
h
e
ilo
i
on
at
and
a
t
e
d
cat
-rel
project
uni
n
form
a
t
i
on
m
onal
i
n
es for t
ent
project
p
del
em
pl
ased
gui
m
ng of
and regi
c
u
n
ity-b
gn, i
t
o
ri
m
ities.
nopses of i
i
onal
oni
m
a
t
e
d com
Immediate Objective 3
Strengthened processes supporting conservation and sustainable use
Output 1 Sy relating to focal areas focal areas selected
Output 2 Generi desi m co activ
Output 3
Nat rel strategies
s
s
h
e
n
i
ng
ng
ni
i
ni
and
o
t
e
gy
u
a
tely
a
t
i
on,
e
gy
u
a
tely
a
t
i
on,
u
n
ity-
83
eq
t
r
ai
ent
eq
t
r
ai
ent
m
or t
rat
rat
m
em
em
ideas
but
St
s
i
on
St
s
i
on
ri
pl
pl
ent
uat
i
m
ent
uat
i
m
n
,
co
e
s
em
y
is ad
em
y
is ad
pl
pl
r
o
j
ect site selectio
m
m
t p
a
jor cont
com
ely adapted to different
project
ely adapted to different
project
ilo
n
i
on
n
i
on
a m
out
ng and eval
ng and eval
o
f
Strateg
e p
uat
o
f
Strateg
uat
as
gn and i
t
o
ri
t
o
ri
effectiv
n
gn and i
r
o
j
ect site selectio
oni
effectiv
n
oni
desi
desi
t p
i
ons
of Project
n
s
tatio
m
n
s
tatio
m
a
n
a
g
e
th
ilo
t
o
t
o
cat
e
nt
ap
ap
atio
ory
ory
m
ad
ders engage i
ng and eval
atio
ad
ders engage i
ng and eval
g
p
uni
i
s
e
e
d
i
s
e
e
d
m
e
vem
i
c
i
p
at
t
o
ri
i
c
i
p
at
t
o
ri
win
cal situ
cal
akehol
oni
cal situ
cal
akehol
oni
llo
com
achi
Expert
available
Generic strategy
lo
Lo
support
Strategy written in non-technical term
Part
processes are effective
St
m
Expert
available
Generic strategy
lo
Lo
support
Strategy written in non-technical term
Part
processes are effective
St
m
Stakeholders receptive to new
approaches
NTFs can
process.
Fo
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
n
atio
s
s
e
gy
rat
al project
s
d
Particip
i
c
St
i
on report
i
c
i
ssues report
t an
en
y
s
i
s
report
i
c
i
p
at
s
s
a
terials
ent Reports
a
t
e
d Econom
n
a
l m
report
report
a
l
records
der anal
der part
al and form
i
ons
-rel
a
t
e
d econom
cal
cal
i
cat
i
sits
nanci
e
b
s
ite statistics
ail records
u
catio
cial Assessm
akehol
akehol
l
o
t
-rel
Fi
W
Inform
publ
Em
Ed
Narrative reports
So
Strategy
St
St
Social Assessm
Narrative reports
Project
Pi
Techni
Narrative reports
Site v
Techni
· · ·
· ·
· ·
· · ·
· · · ·
· · ·
n
t
s
es
n
f
es
i
c
a
t
e
d
and
e
d
ent
ent
ent
e
gy
for
e
nt
atio
y
s
i
s
udi
rat
udi
-rel
st
e
gy
ssues i
a
t
i
on o
activities
econom
s
support
a
rticip
assessm
assessm
rat
i
on st
i
c
i
ent
ities.
ewed
SAP-related
i
s
hed
St
em
pilot
.
produced
e
s and anal
pl
i
n
e st
o
s
t
her project
i
on
t activ
a event
al
ori
i
c
i
p
at
m
l
y
revi
ewed
ilo
h
e
di
a
t
e
ri
of a social assessm
u
n
ity p
p
l
e
t
e
d and resul
cal
i
c
i
p
at
of a
of econom
p
m
m
i
nvent
odi
process for engagem
ent
m
e
d.
.
l
y
revi
ent
i
on
e
d
a
t
i
on of
ities selected
ory
i
ons publ
ed
a
t
e
m
der
der part
gn and i
ic aspects of
i
c
basel
peri
e
t
t
e
rs and ot
i
onal
ent
entation of social
cal
ent
opm
ent
u
n
ities to
i
cat
but
d
erat
ri
es com
p
leted for each pilot project.
p
leted
odi
p
leted
em
e
gy
m
t activ
i
c
i
p
at
st
d
co
udi
akehol
akehol
m
plem
m
pl
rat
m
Newsl
publ
di
Appropri
Educat
Developm
an
strategy.
Pilot project social
st
docum
St
com
St
co
Im
and part
peri
Devel
consi
t
h
e desi
p
r
o
j
ect-related
Econom
docum
Econom
co
Im
st
Co
p
ilo
Part
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
-
ts
e
nt
unity
ilo
issue
m
es.
com
y
a
nagem
for project
m
itiativ
p
e
gy
n
in
ased
n
strateg
rat
a
tio
ent and
atio
i
c
st
n
s
erv
u
n
ity-b
m
a
t
e
d resource
d
co
m
Output 4
Project-related social
assessm
p
a
rticip
Output 5
Econom rel an
Output 6 Co addressing SAP focal
e
in
in
n
y
i
m
to
ented
e
vel
s are
ssue-
ities
p
acit
84
em
i
c
y
and
e
d
i
i
c
y
and
e
d
ders i
plem
l
o
t
project
t
y
l
t
and t
st
lish
lish
im
pi
uni
pol
cul
sy
f
activ
rm
der ca
m
at will lead
pol
akehol
ffi
e
nt
ent lessons
re o
d
er focal
es
terest.
onal
r
refo
a
tu
akehol
poorly
y
affect
oo di
p
e
d
th
ra estab
o
support
ra estab
st
vil society in project
t n
ng com
a
nagem
n
a
l issu
e
t
secto
u
n
ity in
vi
ilo
e
v
e
lo
o
consi
tio
to
t
o
engage st
ities
m
e
d
r
al fo
r
al fo
g
i
onal
a
y be
adversel
m
nvol
i
on m
and regi
es t
at
b
ri
stitu
itted
es
m
ri
f
co
e
ve.
t activ
p
r
eciate p
i
onal
es
d
in
t
y
adequat
i
ews
m
and re
n
a
y
be seen as t
ilo
e
l o
m
n
form
u
lti-secto
u
lti-secto
i
c
t
s
do not
o
achi
e
l p
i
onal
tatio
o
nat
ng success.
a
t
e
i
e
nt stakeholders support Project activities
i
ng count
e
n
t
s co
i
ng count
en
ders
i
ng t
e
d
ility
n
a
l issu
o
licy an
capaci
n
a
l rev
m
, nat
confl
agencies include ci
o
l
d
e
rs ap
l
e criteria can
tio
l
e m
p
tio
l
e m
p
eri
u
a
te lev
lish
eh
n
a
l lev
p
l
em
eq
licab
i
c
i
p
at
i
onal
v
e
rn
i
c
i
p
at
j
ect
akehol
itab
a
t
i
ng t
stitu
itab
stitu
itab
based activities m
ham
Local
im
Lead
work.
Ad
The work of i
st
consum
Appropri
estab
Sufficient project capacity to docum
Stak
Su
rep
Governm
rel
in
Su
part
related
Nat
in
Go
Su
part
n
a
tio
Pro
·
·
· ·
·
· · ·
·
·
·
· ·
·
s
n
s
s
s
ans
s
tatio
e
port
s
.
i
on Pl
i
on report
r
esen
uat
uat
i
ng report
i
on R
t p
i
ons
i
ons
uat
an
cat
eet
e
ws and report
s
us report
records
i
cat
uni
o
r
ts
at
m
o
r
ts
l
an
a
rticip
e
nt
n
t
e
rvi
a
l
st
ng and Eval
publ
ng and Eval
t
s
o
r
ts
si
g
p
cal
com
ity p
ity rep
ent
t
o
ri
t
o
ri
ng and Eval
vi
der i
t
u
re records
e rep
sbursem
ry
oni
oni
o
rkshop and M
alysis rep
t
o
ri
i
sits
t activ
t activ
ronm
Meeting Records
Meetin
Di
M
Techni
Project
Narrative reports
M
W
An
oni
ount
akehol
Narrative reports
M
C
St
NTF Records
Lead agency reports
Pilo
Pilo
Expendi
Site v
Baselin
Envi
· · · ·
· · · · · ·
· · · · · · · · · · · ·
t
d
f
g
e
d.
i
n
e
s
o
at
and
and
ilo
i
ce
i
ce
a
de
an
n
a
l
ses
for
issue
root
ental
m
p
i
o
n
a
l
m
aken
onal
tio
s
etin
gned
e
d
ent
m
-based
reg
pract
n
a
l
ans
ent
ence
targ
ng
o
u
t
co
o
t
cau
oped and
e
ssons
pl
d
s.
stitu
unity
tio
undert
em
h
e basi
focal
n
fro
an
m
pract
d
pl
ress, desi
o
address
environm
t
o
ri
stitu
i
on
and regi
a
l
concerns
oni
atio
r
o
j
ect
ed
r
in
i
on of l
n
a
l
com
i
s
hed and
ot
ews
d
r
ess ro
ent
a
l
st
uat
t
y
i
m
rm
in
i
on t
e
d and docum
fo
e
l, an
a
tio
f
p
i
onal
ned on t
ad
ent
uni
ans devel
l
ect
ra
ronm
m
a
l
concerns at
m
pl
i
on of experi
e
ssons and best
e
d
o
licy o
ent
t
y
act
ory
a
t
i
on of project
ronm
i
c
col
at
n
nat
s refi
i
on publ
a
t
e
form
ility o
e-related
r
al fo
ities to
n
a
l lev
ent
com
ented.
ent
es
unity site agreed
uni
i
on
at
r
actice in
e
nt
at
ssues revi
e
nt
t
y
envi
em
ng and eval
ronm
m
m
i
c
i
p
at
uat
em
ities at n
em
y
s
i
s
of l
a
tio
pl
e
ls
licab
n
a
l p
o
ri
t
o
ri
o
m
plem
st
pl
itiativ
t activ
m
of host
Root causes of
envi
com
C
causes for focal issue
concerns support
Part
eval
im
Sy
b
e
st p
activ
lev
Docum
i
m
Anal
for related
in
Lessons and best
i
n
form
available to all stakeholders in an
appropri
Rep
assessed and prom
cal issu
i
c
y
i
scussed i
u
lti-secto
e n
oni
Fo
pol
di
m
Natio
arrangem
project-supported initiatives
Pilo
for pri
th
reduced envi
and i
M
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
-
i
on
i
ce for
e
nt
project
pract
onal
a
nagem
a
l
concerns.
ts
ent
t
y
-based conservat
and regi
ilo
uni
p
ronm
m
i
onal
envi
Output 7
Lessons and best com and resource m
Output 8
Nat related
s
-
d
ry
by
l
e
onal
e
nt
s
l
a
nd
onal
n
s
to
ental
cip
regi
i
on and
85
project
n
count
cies an
p
r
in
udy
s and i
en
rat
st
g
o
p
tio
en
arrangem
environm
i
ni
h
e st
ps can be
h
rough regi
i
on.
ocks i
g
a
g
e
s
e
nt
h
reat
n
t
e
rest
p
l
o
r
in
es.
ag
o
support
ake t
es
en
i
c
i
p
at
nershi
n
ed t
una st
ng i
ex
t
i
v
es t
e
s adm
itiativ
ely
part
a
nagem
shi
to
ent
itiativ
h
e t
s
ci
ry
m
g
in
es with
t
o
undert
sheri
part
in
e
nt
itted
in
e
s
al
a
jor fi
m
suffi
e t
ci
o
be gai
perspect
m
u
ild
itiativ
in
ent appraisals are accurate
l
a
bl
related
t
s
from
sheri
l
m
d
y
effectiv
t
s
t
i
f
y
count
una fi
i
onal
e
arrangem
acity b
una fi
ude al
on t
e
n
t
s co
s
avai
benefi
t
e
nt
m
resources
e
d
with
i
on just
ders
ders
cap
o
r
ativ
i
s
e i
l
y
benefi
n
cl
ility stu
ng nat
t
y
lish
ry
i
onal
v
e
rn
llab
not
akehol
u
t
u
al
akehol
ount
e
gi
h
angi
i
d
ari
a
nagem
adequate to support national scale pilot activities
Go
address root causes for focal issue
concerns
Funding secured for Train:Sea:Coast initiative
Project
related
Co
institutions with related interests is supported
st
Capacity assessm
Expert
M
estab
Feasib
st
Participating countries support the feasibility study
C
cooperat
Increased benefi
EEZs can be realized.
R
do
States.
C
sol
m
·
· ·
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
n
-
s
e
s
ude
by
s
i
onal
s
ved i
n
cl
n
s
.
sheri
i
and
fi
ent reports.
e
port
t
a
t
i
ons
h
at
i
v
i
t
y
report
t
s
deri
s
t
t
una
t
una
i
on R
s
.
e
g
o
tiatio
and nat
uat
consul
ng act
ent
onal
e
ws and report
ni
s
benefi
i
on on
onal
ent appraisals
at
r
ai
eries n
i
c
report
o
r
t
docum
regi
t
s
n
t
e
rvi
onal
n
form
ental stress assessm
si
p
report
ng and Eval
n
a
l fish
e
nt
vi
der i
t
u
re records
c regi
econom
s
from
t
o
ri
ry
arshi
ility rep
fi
atio
ry
oni
ount
akehol
ecords for regi
o
rkshop and t
tern
ount
proved i
e
port
a
nagem
Environm
Narrative reports
M
C
St
NTF Records
Lead agency reports
R
W
Capacity assessm
Schol
Feasib
Narrative reports
Expendi
FFA and SPC
Baseline study at Project start
Speci
in
C
the fisheries sector.
Im
catch within country EEZs
R
workshops focused on
m
·
· · · · · · · · · ·
· · ·
· · ·
·
·
·
-
d
e
es
g
e
i
ng,
i
on
in
m
o
f
t
o
ng
clu
ities
ities
o
t
h
e
r
i
o
n
a
l
i
ons
n
in
in
uat
t
o
ri
activ
project
itiativ
b
u
ild
reg
opt
ded
i
o
n
a
l
at
report
activ
fisheries
atio
ng and
oni
th
of
rm
e
d
e
n
t
s
e
d
g
in
t
o
ri
in
p
program
sposal
fo
us
ent
r
o
j
ect
d
e
d
reg
ent
i
v
ery
assess
in
oni
ities,
at
acity
em
r p
u
ild
cy related
arshi
u
i
rem
es.
ce provi
e
s m
pl
ng and eval
ri
re ad
en
obal ocean
oped.
m
t
o
ri
u
a
lity
h
e m
sheri
t activ
ag
d
y
to
a
l
st
d
i
es fo
secu
oni
and del
ng workshops
acity b
e cap
i
ng and di
ilo
for increased regional
ent
m
ent
ni
a
t
e
d schol
cl
lead
i
g
h
q
ce req
i
ng count
e stu
e
d
.
c
r
ai
o
r
ativ
es with
-rel
e
d
of t
hen fi
n
a
l p
opm
recy
ng and advi
ilities to
ronm
oped and i
p
l
e
t
e
d and docum
i
a
t
i
ons devel
odi
lish
ility stu
aken.
eillan
ni
a
t
e
d t
j
ect cap
k
e
d
to
llab
e
i
c
i
p
at
ab
itiativ
proved FFA capacity to efficiently
a
n
a
g
e
h
rv
rengt
n
a
tio
envi
devel
Baselin
com
Peri
reports prepared.
Devel
rel
Pro
lin
(e.g. Train:Sea:Coast)
Co
in
agencies/institutions, including NGOs
estab
Project
support
Capacity
effectiveness in gl
negot
Im
m
support
su
part
Trai
st
cap
·
·
·
·
·
·
Feasib
wast
undert
·
·
·
·
t
y
a
l
rity
and
i
ng
ent
cl
ent
n
a
l
the
and
p
r
io
tio
t
r
ans-
capaci
ronm
i
s
hm
stitu
e recy
a
bl
ocks
i
onal
envi
o
r
t
h
e est
of
sh st
d
r
ess
a
l
concerns
wast
t
ent
e
w in
e
nts for
i
on and
e
nt
fi
onal
hened nat
ility rep
ronm
support
acities.
rengt
ad
a
nagem
Output 9
St
to
envi
t
r
ans-boundary
issues.
Output 10 Sub-regi feasib
Intermediate (sic)
objective 4 To of n arrangem conservat m boundary associated national cap
i
s
ng
an
86
es
e
gi
rat
st
i
n
engagi
o
support
ent
i
v
e
ental issues
t
.
em
pl
ent
ci
e
gy
m
g
nificance of effective
cept can be effectively
rat
es are effect
e
gi
i
on St
gn and i
rat
cat
ders
brace the si
a
rketing con
uni
m
o
desi
i
on st
cat
akehol
o
m
resources are suffi
i
s
e t
uni
e st
m
pl
social m
i
v
e C
o
m
n
ci
Expert
available
C
pri
The
adapted to Pacific Island environm
Project
effect
Stakeholders em
·
·
·
·
·
ce
e
i
on
n
s
i
on
ng
in
i
ng
onal
ni
new
cat
eillan
r
ai
n
uni
relatio
a
rket
rv
t
fisheries
m
q
u
a
litativ
atio
m
ans
su
ans.
i
on and
onal
o
m
al
and regi
pl
d
C
u
b
lic
d
a
rticip
i
on pl
i
ng conservat
e
nt
e an
p
l an
ot
i
onal
e resource use
nat
.
a
t
e
d soci
n
t
ro
a
nagem
of professi
iews.
t
y
educat
nabl
eries p
-rel
s prom
ai
uni
of regional Preparatory
u
a
n
titativ
una conservat
body
terv
g
,
co
m
e
nt
l
e
vel
.
q
e
nts in place for a
e
nt
r
o
j
ect-related
rin
t
una m
t
hened on
n
a
l fish
project
com
n
ito
i
onal
onal
nd watershed management initiatives
o
l
d
e
r in
n
a
l p
rengt
creased
a
nagem
eh
i
s
hed or draft
Mo
arrangem
and sust
st
scales.
Nat
Records
Conference.
Increased
opportunities for national
personnel
In
n
a
tio
regional fora.
Arrangem
regi
m
i
onal
i
onal
ans
ans.
Stak
Publ
Strategies
Natio
pl
Nat
pl
Nat
·
· ·
·
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
,
et
t
o
n
es
e
e
gy
ed
e
nt
a
nd
d
er
una
a
t
e
d
onal
i
onal
targ
e
d
a
nage
a
rget
es i
ogi
nabl
t
a
t
i
v
e
rat
but
op and
and
at
t
ai
st
nat
-rel
ri
i
onal
a
t
i
ng
st
rel
non-t
a
nagem
e
nt
onal
nagement of oceanic and coastal and watershed resources
i
on
n
a
l
s.
o
consi
a
naged
t
y
t
o
m
ce
consul
s for a new
ded.
a
nd St
e
t
hodol
e
nt.
cat
e
d for
s
support
e
nt
m
o
FFA Isl
o
devel
s t
hen regi
atio
t
s t
e
nt
a
nagem
uni
o
Isl
o
regi
e m
ent
tern
her project
produced
proved nat
ocks,
provi
rengt
m
em
al
m
capaci
i
f
i
c
advi
a event
e
d t
r effort
i
cat
i
ces for sust
a
nagem
onal
pl
i
s
hed and di
ng.
m
oped and m
e
di
a
t
e
ri
arrangem
i
onal
e
nt
r effort
h
ei
d
in
una st
o
support
.
o
st
a
ki
arrangem
t
una m
and sustainable oceanic, coastal a
m
e
nt
i
on body
e
nt
t
o
repl
pract
ewed and enhanced (FFA)
a
t
e
d com
t
e t
present
of t
i
ons publ
a
t
e
m
t
t
h
rough i
ent
on-m
i
n
t
h
ei
approaches t
-rel
t
e
devel
best
i
onal
s
revi
e
t
t
e
rs and ot
onal
l
a
bl
si
ce and support
es
em
onal
i
ons
ned regi
C
i
cat
a
nagem
proved sci
at
pl
a
nagem
i
o
n
a
l an
e
fi
T
e
b si
benefi
and regional oceanic fisheries
m
Enhance nat
tuna stocks within EEZs.
Im
regi
species and the oceanic ecosystem
avai
deci
Advi
St
i
m
regi
conservat
Opt
support
new
m
Proposal
and
ocean fisheries m
R
processes t
capacity (FFA/SPC).
M
Project
prepared and i
reg
audiences.
W
Newsl
publ
Appropri
Educat
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· ·
· ·
es.
e
gi
rat
i
ons st
cat
uni
m
Immediate Objective 5
Maximise regional benefits of lessons learned from ma
Catalyse donor support for conservation
Output 1
Effective project-related com
-
f
h
e
ng
l
y
her,
87
ori
o
t
a
rized
o
r
ate
u
tual
ed.
project
m
rp
co
t
o
ot
but
or t
i
s
fact
e
portance o
ri
s dependi
in
work.
st
but
at
a
bl
ri
o
support
e
nt
g
to
n
t
h
e Project
e t
e
nt
n
project
es.
a
t
e
l
y
di
e
s
a
t
e
form
cies identify m
i
on i
i
s
adapt
l
a
bl
a
jor cont
a
nagem
com
ts willin
e
gy
a
nagem
the critical im
hers i
an
i
c
i
p
at
itiativ
es can be sat
rat
appropri
out
i
on m
, in
i
on m
at
n
appropri
sput
identify benefits by replicating
e
gy
at
a
rticip
i
on st
ed i
u
r
ced
rat
understand
b
ers and ot
i
cat
n
form
but
e
n
t
p
p di
i
ons as a m
of Project
e
resources avai
n
form
e
m
i
on st
ation is collected, analyzed, sum
ri
st
m
t
s
t
h
rough part
repl
agencies
cat
e
nt
i
v
e i
di
i
c
m
i
cat
v
e
rn
nershi
uni
a
t
e
d i
e
pl
m
e
vem
Adequat
rel
Executors
effect
Inform
and
on target audiences
Target audiences are accurately identified
Go
publ
External assistance agen
benefi
Part
resolved
Project
less well reso
Other
Project strategies
R
com
achi
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
i
ons
a
t
e
d
rel
i
cat
ent
es
i
ons
publ
her
l
e
s
i
cat
i
b
rari
ce l
ce fi
t
h
ot
project
y
s
i
s
publ
al
al
y
s
offi
offi
s
a
terials
o
randa of Agreem
s
s
i
onal
i
onal
ng anal
n
form
alysis
e
m
n
a
l m
report
report
n
Strateg
a
l
records
and form
al
cal
cal
a
l
records
and i
es
i
ng report
al
i
ng report
i
v
i
t
y
fundi
licatio
nanci
e
b
s
ite statistics
ail records
u
catio
U and nat
U and nat
e
b
s
ite an
t
e
rs or M
eet
nanci
eet
o
rrespondence wi
itiativ
Narrative reports
Fi
W
Inform
Em
Ed
Techni
Narrative reports
PC
PC
Databases
W
Techni
Narrative reports
Let
Act
M
Fi
Form
Rep
Narrative reports
M
C
in
· · · · · ·
· · · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· · · ·
s
o
f
f
o
s
em
best
ed.
ities
e
d
der
and
her
st
s
i
but
i
ce.
s
r
o
j
ect
ot
sy
ri
p
r
o
j
ect-
e
nts for
e
gy
st
activ
pract
akehol
p
ponent
rat
e
nt
p
e
d.
e
d by
r
o
j
ect
her form
red
ent
tilize
for OFM
n
in
e
ssons and
e
d and di
nershi
.
i
on st
em
a
nagem
al arrangem
e
d
atio
pl
ent
oped and support
part
i
o
n
a
l p
m
es.
ner and st
es secu
o
t
ed
i
cat
a
t
e
d l
i
v
e/
e
ssons and best
a
t
i
on of com
ng or ot
a
rticip
r
o
m
i
on m
e
n
t
s u
r
reg
part
p support
itiativ
itiativ
at
-rel
e
d l
or inform
ent
repl
ed and i
processes adapt
in
i
ce docum
g
e
m
al
em
n
a
l o
i
f
i
e
d, devel
i
ngs support
nanci
nershi
ities p
ot
o
l
l
a
borat
pl
eet
o
-fi
b
lic p
Inform
established at PCU, the executing
agency and in national offices
Project
pract
C
arran
generat
Form
i
m
n
a
tio
i
d
ent
Project
m
C
part
ICZM in
Pu
activ
Project
prom
Project
related
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
n
atio
t
e
rm
oped
rm
s.
fo
e
nt
devel
ong
e
gy
in
e
d
processes
rat
ent
e
nt
e
d
.
p arrangem
i
on st
em
pl
lish
and l
m
j
ect-related
nershi
i
cat
a
nagem
e
pl
Output 2
Pro m estab
Output 3
Short part
Output 4
R and i