Success message
error message
warn message
Terminal Evaluation West Pacific Oceanic Fisheries Management
Commissioning Unit: Philippines
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2018
Evaluation Type: Project
Completion Date: 01/2013
Unit Responsible for providing Management Response: Philippines
Documents Related to overall Management Response:
 
1. Recommendation: It is recommended that GEF and UNDP prepare awareness material on the need for, and value of, their various M&E requirements (such as that for a detailed M&E plan) that is suitable for ordinary stakeholders ? who otherwise may feel that requirements are excessive.
Management Response: [Added: 2014/02/28]

We are aware that the perceptions of the stakeholders on various M&E requirements are quite burden and to some extent excessive. We agree with the recommendation, but should not be limited to awareness material, since all these requirements can be seen online but rather constant capacity building and IEC on these requirements to our stakeholders.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Improve IEC on M&E requirements of UNDP and GEF to project stakeholders
[Added: 2014/02/28] [Last Updated: 2017/06/27]
UNDP 2014/12 Completed to be initiated in successive WPEA project History
2. Recommendation: It is recommended that to achieve desired project outcomes, project managers should strive to obtain consultant input of the highest quality, rather than what is just adequate. In this regard, two factors may be more important to consultants than the financial compensation: (a) advance planning (i.e. identifying/notifying individuals long in advance of period required), and (b) to the extent possible, encouraging their involvement in aspects of project design or fine tuning ? as was done on the WPEA Project. By involving the range of stakeholders (including commercial interests) in various project activities, the WPEA project in effect established a constituency aware of the need to see that some key outcomes are sustained ? and evidently willing to push for such continuation. In many cases this was done at little or no cost to the project, simply by inviting the range of stakeholders to relevant meetings and workshops. It is recommended that this type of intervention (i.e. stakeholder-related mechanisms to reduce sustainability risks) be considered in the implementation of similar projects
Management Response: [Added: 2014/02/28]

UNDP fully agrees with the recommendation on widening the range of experts / stakeholders to be involved in future project implementation

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ensure that next phase project would involve a more wider range of stakeholders
[Added: 2014/02/28] [Last Updated: 2017/06/27]
UNDP / WCPFC 2014/12 Completed To be initiated in successive WPEA project History
3. Recommendation: It would seem logical that a follow-up project should be at least partly oriented to reinforcing those outcomes established for the WPEA Project where risks to sustainability are greatest. In this respect, there are five outcomes where the evaluation judged the risk to outcome sustainability as ?moderately likely at present, decreasing to moderately unlikely at the end of a follow-up project ? Improved knowledge of oceanic fish stocks and related ecosystems ? Reduced uncertainty in stock assessments ? National capacities in oceanic fishery monitoring and assessment strengthened ? National laws, policies and institutions strengthened to implement applicable global and regional instruments ? National capacities in oceanic fisheries management strengthened Of the activities associated with the above outcomes, it is recommended that the tuna monitoring (especially the port sampling and annual catch estimation) be considered as top priority. This is because the monitoring has implications for many outcomes ? as well as affecting stock assessment in the entire western and central Pacific Ocean and even global environment benefits. As part of any follow-up dealing with this subject, in addition to project support for actual tuna monitoring, there should be considerable attention paid to developing mechanisms to assure that the governments of the three project countries will pick up the monitoring after GEF support ends. Following from the above, it is recommended that a cost-benefit study of tuna monitoring in the three countries be carried out. This would portray the expense of items such as port sampling and an observer programme against the value of, for example, the trade with the EU, which could be lost without government monitoring efforts. There are numerous advantages of having the private sector involved in the study, not the least of which is so they are well aware of the cost consequences should their governments neglect monitoring responsibilities. Also with respect to tuna monitoring, consideration should be given to expanding the coverage. This includes the scale (i.e. including artisan tuna fishing), the species (i.e. including neritic tuna), and the geographic area (i.e. including archipelagic waters)
Management Response: [Added: 2014/02/28]

UNDP agrees and in the next phase WPEA OFM Project the sustainability and improvements in tuna monitoring be given due attention. Suggested study on cost-benefits and expansion of coverage in tuna monitoring would really depend on the countries involved but UNDP will consider bringing this as part of the next phase

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ensure sustainability of WPEA OFM Project outputs in next phase project
[Added: 2014/02/28] [Last Updated: 2017/06/27]
UNDP / IP / countries 2014/12 Completed Sustainability measures are included in new WPEA project History
4. Recommendation: Knowledge management was not a strong point of the WPEA Project. It was largely limited to creation of national e-mail address lists and a listing of project reports with a few dozen of those placed on the WPEA portion of the WCPFC website. This hardly equates to what was stated in the GEF and UNDP project documents: ?Widely publicize project findings and results to raise awareness on importance of oceanic fisheries management and highlight new information? and ?Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums.? More could and should be done in this area in a successor project It is recommended that, early in the life of a follow-up project, a consultant communications professional be employed to formulate a communications strategy to be closely followed by the project
Management Response: [Added: 2014/02/28]

UNDP will accommodate the communication specialist or any mechanism to develop communication strategy of new WPEA OFM Project

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Improvement in Knowledge management System
[Added: 2014/02/28] [Last Updated: 2017/06/27]
UNDP / IP / countries 2014/12 Completed to be ensured in successive WPEA project History
Include in project workplan hiring of communication specialist
[Added: 2014/02/28] [Last Updated: 2017/06/27]
UNDP / IP 2014/12 Completed Included in PIF for new WPEA OFM Project History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org