Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Managment Project (Regional)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2008-2012, Fiji
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
06/2008
Completion Date:
06/2008
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
050

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document PIOFM MTE TOR FINAL 151007.doc tor Posted 994
Download document FINAL_PIOFM_MTE_Report_Aug_2008.DOC report Posted 1311
Title Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Managment Project (Regional)
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2008-2012, Fiji
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 06/2008
Planned End Date: 06/2008
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 050
Source of Funding:
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Leon Zann and Veikila Vuki Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area:
Project Type:
GEF Phase: GEF-null
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: FIJI
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Greater collaboration with researchers (e.g. USP/UNU/FAO Fisheries science modeling training); & with seamount programmes in regional (SPC/IUCN; Jap Fisheries and French Fisheries scientific research vessels);
2 Revise Logical Framework
3 Effectiveness of reporting processes with view to streamlining
4 Wider consultations beyond Government or national fisheries offices required
5 NCC and monitoring of their effectiveness
6 To closely related IUCN seamount component to management options, law reform compliance, information strategy etc. of OFM project
7 A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed within the Logical Framework to better monitor progress in Project Outputs and Activities.
8 A baseline study of OFM in Pacific SIDS, including a summary of the achievements and shortfalls of WCPF Convention commitments, should be prepared. The monitoring and reporting requirements of the major donor, GEF, and implementing agency UNDP, should be assessed to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic procedures.
9 A review of the functions and effectiveness of the Regional Coordination Committees should be undertaken by the PCU and alternative strategies for in-country coordination is developed where necessary. Strategies may include smaller committees, less frequent meetings, delegated responsibilities to existing national coordination committees and/or wider use of newsletters, Internet and media releases to keep stakeholders informed
10 Explicitly linking to PP and Vavau Declaration;
11 Specific needs of smaller SIDS to be addressed; long-term, strategic approaches should be developed to build capacity in OFM
12 Smaller SIDS training needs
13 GEF Flexibility on PM ceiling to allow dedicated smaller SID person in FFA
14 Wider partnership with CROP agencies for now and future interests of follow up project
15 Gender, HR and Equity issues to be incorporated into follow up proposal
16 PCU Staffing inadequate to meet widespread needs
17 Identification of strategic plan based on SIDS priorities ? for harnessing of bi-lateral donor support e.g. Japan, EU, Australia; Knowledge Management
1. Recommendation: Greater collaboration with researchers (e.g. USP/UNU/FAO Fisheries science modeling training); & with seamount programmes in regional (SPC/IUCN; Jap Fisheries and French Fisheries scientific research vessels);
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

A policy workshop on seamounts was conducted by the IUCN & SPC in 2008 at the University of the South Pacific (USP). Participants were mainly national fisheries and some USP students. A similar workshop is planned for late 2009.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: Revise Logical Framework
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

PCU conducted an informal review of the logical framework in close consultation with regional technical adviser. An ongoing activity and FFA will keep UNDP updated. Key issues being revised is indicators.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Effectiveness of reporting processes with view to streamlining
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

PCU finds the UNDP and GEF annual reports challenging due to inconsistent definitions. It also notes that quarterly reporting is also an issue and there is a need to further discuss ways of simplifying UNDP quarterly reports and ensuring harmonization with reporting requirements of FFA. The PCU is also of the view impacts of project are better monitored and observable at 6 monthly periods and is therefore in favor of biannual narrative reporting. FFA currently provides to quarterly and annual reports to UNDP and annual reports to GEF. In addition it obtains reports to the SPC and FFA, governing councils, FFA & SPC Governing councils annually and as required on an ad hoc basis at intersessional meetings. Contributions to the Annual Reports and financial reporting obligations of the FFA and SPC and inclusions in the financial reporting to other donors (NZAID, AusAID etc)

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Wider consultations beyond Government or national fisheries offices required
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

PIOFM has produced a knowledge management strategy as required by GEF. Initial challenge was the lack of staff, in particular a specialist media officer but there has been improvements. FFA media officer has assisted the project and via website they are able to link with regional and global networks. Communication Strategy is a subset of Knowledge Management Strategy.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: NCC and monitoring of their effectiveness
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Effective functioning of NCC is a key challenge and members are not always motivated. Designs fault because most countries do not observe enough tangible results on the ground. However, FFA is closely monitoring the NCC and emphasis is on improvements to in country coordination.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: To closely related IUCN seamount component to management options, law reform compliance, information strategy etc. of OFM project
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

At the last Regional Steering Committee meeting a revised work plan developed through consultation between UNDP, FFA, IUCN and SPC, was approved and IUCN is implementing these activities accordingly.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: A suite of appropriate indicators should be developed within the Logical Framework to better monitor progress in Project Outputs and Activities.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Baseline study conducted and completed in November 2008 Appropriate indicators produced through revision of logical framework.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: A baseline study of OFM in Pacific SIDS, including a summary of the achievements and shortfalls of WCPF Convention commitments, should be prepared. The monitoring and reporting requirements of the major donor, GEF, and implementing agency UNDP, should be assessed to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic procedures.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Indicators review progress: ? included in Baseline study and recommendations to be incorporated in the revision of the logical framework. Indicators will also be addressed in the 2nd annual report of the OFMP due April 2009.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: A review of the functions and effectiveness of the Regional Coordination Committees should be undertaken by the PCU and alternative strategies for in-country coordination is developed where necessary. Strategies may include smaller committees, less frequent meetings, delegated responsibilities to existing national coordination committees and/or wider use of newsletters, Internet and media releases to keep stakeholders informed
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Progress on FFA review on ways to improve national coordination and effectiveness of monitoring as an alternative to wider RCC coordination function; Effective functioning of NCC is a key challenge and members are not always motivated. Designs fault because most countries do not observe enough tangible results on the ground. However, FFA is closely monitoring the NCC and emphasis is on improvements to in country coordination.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: Explicitly linking to PP and Vavau Declaration;
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

The PP and Vavau declaration underpin what the individual countries want to achieve as well as has direct linkages to the revised logical framework. In the proposed second phase of the projects attempts will be made to ensure that linkages to the PP and Vavau declaration are strengthened and made more obvious

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: Specific needs of smaller SIDS to be addressed; long-term, strategic approaches should be developed to build capacity in OFM
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Recommendation strongly supported by FFA and will be considered in the preparation of a proposal for the proposed second phase of the project. FFA has commenced informal discussions with various donors and has commenced draft proposal

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation: Smaller SIDS training needs
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Designed of second phase of project targets specific needs of small island developing countries

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation: GEF Flexibility on PM ceiling to allow dedicated smaller SID person in FFA
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

To consult with UNDP MCO & regional technical adviser

Key Actions:

14. Recommendation: Wider partnership with CROP agencies for now and future interests of follow up project
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Engaged in on going discussions with CROP agencies and is a issue which PIOFW will strengthen in the proposed second phase of project

Key Actions:

15. Recommendation: Gender, HR and Equity issues to be incorporated into follow up proposal
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Not currently addressed but is being considered in design of second phase project

Key Actions:

16. Recommendation: PCU Staffing inadequate to meet widespread needs
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

Will be addressed in budget of second phase of project and PIOFM to discuss issue with GEF & UNDP

Key Actions:

17. Recommendation: Identification of strategic plan based on SIDS priorities ? for harnessing of bi-lateral donor support e.g. Japan, EU, Australia; Knowledge Management
Management Response: [Added: 2010/01/14]

In the development of the concept for a further phase of assistance particularly attention is being given to the identification of ?priority? SIDS to enable the design of assistance that will also envisage the contribution of other bi-lateral donors Emerging publications, enhanced media attention and releases are designed to raise awareness of the issues, progress and distribution to donor organizations is a strategic action.

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org