I. Executive Summary

i. Programme 2.3.3 Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization responds to the major problems facing the world’s capture fisheries: declining catches, over-exploitation, need to maximize value of the fish harvests and reduce waste, food security and poverty in artisanal fishing communities and problems related to world trade in fish products. Most of this work is of primary interest to the needs and requests of FAO developing country members, but in the areas of fish quality assurance and trade there is a high level of synergy between developing and developed country requirements.

ii. Since the approval of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) in 1995, as for virtually all work relating to fisheries, the main thrust of P233 focuses on the implementation of the Code itself. At the same time, the work programme is also guided by FAO’s five Corporate Strategies, all of them targeted by P233, by the international commitments for which FAO and the Fisheries Department are responsible, and by the bi-annual sessions of COFI.

iii. The new Programme Model introduced in 2000 did not imply any major re-orientation in the subject matter or methods of working, although emphasis shifted in accordance with the changing concerns of Member States. Some areas of work have received increased attention, notably: (i) the environmental impact of fishing operations, including revision of estimates concerning discards; (ii) fish quality and safety, involving more advisory services to Member States; (iii) the impact of multilateral trade agreements on fish trade; and (iv) Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and sea safety. However, the vertical structure of the concerned Divisions (indeed FI as a whole) has been largely untouched.

iv. There is an impression that considerable attention has been given to setting priorities, but translating those priorities into strategies for achieving particular objectives still requires effort. The Programme’s five Technical Projects (TP) all suffer from the same common design problem: the objectives attributed to the TP are set at a very high level and the contribution of the outputs produced to their achievement is (i) unmeasurable and (ii) requires many assumptions for the objective to be achieved. Moreover, since the nature itself of normative outputs makes it difficult to draw the linkages required by the logical framework approach, RP activities are far less amenable to effective evaluation than field activities such as TCP projects.

v. The relevance of field projects to development problems was found to be high, while the translation of this into clear objectives and a coherent and implementable design was considered only satisfactory, due to often poor formulation of requests in countries and the absence of project preparation funds. Project performance, on the other hand, was generally good and the overall score on outputs indicates that this was one of the strongest elements of field projects. There appears to be a considerable demand for FAO-TCP assistance in fisheries, though naturally not all requests are met.

vi. The following analysis provides an overview of progress under each TP, over the review period. As a general statement, activities implemented were coherent with objectives stated, but it is not possible to quantify their actual contribution to achievement of those objectives.

vii. 223A1, Reduction of discards and environmental impact from fisheries: This TP has come to the fore due to the increased attention given by COFI to environmental issues as well as to greater evidence and awareness about the need for a more rational exploitation of stock. Its thrust is mainly of a normative type, and the “honest broker” role FAO/FI can play on sensitive environmental issues has become increasingly important. While work specifically on discards may be brought to a logical conclusion at some point, environmental impact of fishing will remain a priority into the foreseeable future.

viii. 233A2, Sustainable Development of Small-scale Fisheries: Originally, work in this area in FII was focused on research and training on demographic characteristics and credit for artisanal fishing communities, with attention to gender issues and participatory methodologies. This important work has continued and expanded to include diversification of fishing efforts, safety at sea, increased efficiency in post-harvest system and improvement of market opportunities and disaster preparedness. Both normative work and field projects are carried out, often in collaboration with other FI technical Programmes, in particular P234, FI projects (e.g. SFLP) and programmes outside FI. However, progress in this area has been slow and the complexity of the subject, coupled with the attention given by last COFI call for revision of all FI work on small-scale fisheries.

ix. 233A3, Increased production from under-utilised aquatic resources and low-value catches: This entity stems from one element previously included in former sub-programme on Fish Utilization and Marketing. A shift from normative work to field projects took place over the years. Resources for RP activities have decreased for this TP, in spite of what appears to be an important issue in view of declining stocks and potential for food-security.

x. 233A4, Consumption, safety and quality of fish products: This TP has gained increasing attention from Member States because of the food safety and quality legislation imposed by the EU and other countries on fish products imports, and the introduction in this context of HACCP. Since 1996, many projects have been implemented on this topic, most of them successful in terms of output (capacity building) and immediate impact (inclusion in the EU list of authorized exporting countries). Increasing collaboration has taken place with Codex and WHO on food safety issues. The frequent requests for assistance from Member States and again, FAO role as honest broker, confirm the importance of this TP. However, some rethinking about the relative priority could also be advisable, to take account of a major EU project on training on this subject in most ACP/OCT countries.

xi. 233A5, Promotion of international fish trade: The contribution of FII to international fish trade started in the 1970s. Recent emphasis was on adapting technology for fish trade information, keeping databanks continuously updated and expanding related publications. Technical backstopping is also provided to regional Common Fund for Commodities projects dealing with fish trade. This Technical Project is felt to be important: one indicator of the direct utility of the FISH INFOnetwork and its publications is the high number of paying subscribers, including both governments and private institutions.

Conclusions and Recommendations

xii. P233 is a valuable and appropriate part of FAO’s response to the needs of its Member States. Both the Regular Programme and associated field activities have been effectively executed by FII during the period of the review (1997-2003). The Programme is firmly anchored in the CCRF, has clear connections to the FAO Corporate Strategies to address Members’ needs and the focus of the activities has generally been very good. The Programme and FII as an executing Division have responded to a reasonable extent to the changing needs of the international community as expressed by the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) and COFI. FII staff have performed well, in spite of a heavy and increasing workload.

xiii. The evaluation includes eight recommendations. The first is that small-scale fisheries should be the primary thematic target for the Programme and in order to do this, consideration should be given to the creation of a Sub-committee or a Task Force under COFI on the topic, combining RP resources and improving coordination within the Fisheries Department and with external agencies and donors on small-scale fisheries. Recommendations on programme design and working arrangements include specific suggestions for more detail on the results expected from Technical Projects and for FII to reinforce or lead thematic initiatives and to examine arrangements within FI with a view to optimising resource use. The evaluation made specific recommendations for programme priorities in three areas of core competency of FII – capture fisheries, fish utilization and fish trade. It also made recommendations to guide the production of information and training materials in the future and for strengthening enforcement through improved MCS and VMS.

II. Scope of the Evaluation

1. FAO Fisheries Major Programme. FAO’s fisheries activities are included under Major Programme (MP) 2.3, one of the five Major Technical and Economic Programmes of the Organization¹. In this MP, budgetary and staffing resources are allocated between four Programmes, plus one for Programme Management (see Table 1 below). Each Programme is in turn subdivided into Programme Entities of three types: Technical Projects, Continuing Programme Activities and Technical Services Agreements² (TPs, CPs and SAs). Each Programme is the responsibility of a different Division within the Fisheries Department, as shown in the table below.

Table 1. Roles of FI Divisions for Major Programme 2.3 - Fisheries

2. Role of the Fishery Industries Division. Programme 2.3.3 Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization is largely executed by the Fishery Industries Division (FII) and embraces most of the activities of FII. The Mission Statement of FII states that it is concerned with the development of fisheries technology, information, policy and strategies. It provides advice and assistance to FAO Members and to the fisheries industry at all levels, on the optimum utilization of their marine and freshwater fishery resources for direct human consumption and other uses. In particular, the Division is concerned with the transfer and adaptation of appropriate techniques and technology in catching, handling, processing, distribution and marketing of fish and fish products and in the dissemination of information on these topics. FII is headed by a Director and divided into two technical Services: the Fishery Technology Service (FIIT) and the Fish Utilization and Marketing Service (FIIU). FIIT‘s technical mandate concerns fish capture technology and practices, with due regard to protection of the environment and well-being of fishing communities. FIIU aims at increasing the efficiency of operations that take place between harvesting the fish and the ultimate purchase and use by the consumer. It develops codes and standards related to utilization and marketing and monitors their implementation.³ There is considerable synergy between the fishery exploitation and utilization activities in key technical areas: e.g. fishery harbours and landing sites, fish quality ‘from the net to the plate’, creation of markets for low-value catch and bycatch, and trade issues such as ecolabelling. Thus for the purposes of the evaluation, FII activities and P233 are generally regarded as synonymous. However, P233 and FII activities also make significant contributions to a range of activities led by other FI Divisions.

3. Technical dimensions of Programme 2.3.3. This Programme responds to the major problems facing the world’s capture fisheries: declining catches, over-exploitation, need to maximize value of the fish harvests and reduce waste, food security and poverty in artisanal fishing communities and problems related to world trade in fish products. Core activities focus on the following themes:

4. Most of the work in fisheries exploitation and post-harvest is of primary interest to the needs and requests of FAO developing country members. In the areas of fish quality assurance and trade there is, however, a high level of synergy between developing and developed country requirements.

5. These activities are grouped under five Technical Projects and one Technical Service Agreement:

6. The whole of P233 was analyzed under this evaluation, as per its Terms of Reference. However, at an early stage it became apparent that the linkages between P233 and other FI Programmes (e.g. fish resources and fishery planning) were such that an evaluation of P233 in isolation might present an unbalanced picture of the work undertaken. As a result, the evaluation of necessity strays into areas of responsibility of other FI Divisions. Thus, while comments and recommendations in the report normally refer to P223 and FII, they are often relevant to the larger scope of the FI activities and some, relating to more general issues, are applicable to FAO as a whole.

7. Period. As per the present practice of programme evaluations in FAO⁴, this exercise covers a six-year period, from 1997 to 2003.

III. Overview of Programme 2.3.3: Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization

A. EVOLUTION OF THE THRUST OF FAO ON FISHERIES EXPLOITATION AND UTILIZATION

8. For over 15 years now, the Fisheries Department of FAO has had a programme bearing the title “Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization”, covering fisheries technology and related activities, and fish marketing and trade. The primary focus is on marine capture fisheries; aquaculture enters this picture only for marketing and trade.

9. The 1995 approval of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) was a milestone in the overall approach to fisheries in that FAO’s emphasis changed from increasing fish production to the introduction of more responsible fishing methods. As with virtually all work relating to fisheries, the main thrust of P233 focuses on the implementation of the Code itself. At the same time, the work programme is also guided by FAO’s five Corporate Strategies (see below) and the international commitments for which FAO and the Fisheries Department are responsible (e.g. Agenda 21, World Summit for Sustainable Development, etc.) (see Annex 1). The bi-annual sessions of COFI play a major role in focusing the work of the Department, including P233.

10. Relationship to the FAO Strategic Framework. P233 has clear links to all five of FAO’s Corporate Strategies to address Members’ needs. With respect to Strategy A on reducing food insecurity and rural poverty, the Programme addresses particular efforts to sustainable development of artisanal fisheries, recognized as one of the poorest sectors in most developing countries. Work on enhancing sea safety is also relevant here. Strategy B, on ensuring enabling policy and regulatory frameworks, is addressed primarily through assisting countries in the implementation of the CCRF and work to promote the safe use and fair trade of fish and fish products. Strategy C concerns sustainable increases in supply, where the Programme emphasis has been primarily on reducing waste and increasing the worth of low-value species, and to a lesser degree, increasing production from under-utilised resources. The Programme has a clear focus on conservation and sustainable use of the natural resource base (Strategy D), while knowledge generation (Strategy E) is also addressed in all the Programme entities and is particularly strong in the areas of fish trade and quality.

11. Structure of the Programme. At the beginning of the review period and before the adoption of the New Programme Model and Strategic Framework effective in 2000, the Organization’s work under this programme was divided into two Sub-programmes.

Table 2. Main Responsibilities for Programme 2.3.3

12. It can be seen that during the review period, the shift to the New Programme Model did not imply any major re-orientation in the subject matter or methods of working, although emphasis shifted in accordance with the changing concerns of Member States and their requests, these being made directly to FAO (e.g. requests for TCPs) or through COFI. Indeed, some areas of work have received increased attention, notably: (i) the environmental impact of fishing operations, including revision of estimates concerning discards; (ii) fish quality and safety, involving more advisory services to Member States; (iii) the impact of multilateral trade agreements on fish trade; and (iv) VMS and sea safety. However, the vertical structure of the concerned Divisions (indeed FI as a whole) has been largely untouched. The large reduction in TP A3 in the PWB 2002-03 (see Table 5 below), left an even clearer distinction between the work of the two services.

13. Main Outputs. The principal outputs of the Programme (for details, see Sections ‎V and ‎VI) are:

• Information and knowledge produced and diffused through a range of projects, technical publications, workshops and databases;
• advice and training for Member States and for Regional Fishery Bodies and Arrangements (RFBs); and
• fora for international discussion through expert consultations, networks and partnerships with other organizations.

14. Programme 2.3.3 within the Fisheries Department. The FAO Fisheries Department, similarly to other technical departments in the Organization, is structured by grouping staff with similar technical skills. This organizational structure is regarded as ‘vertical’ and is illustrated somewhat simplistically in the following table.

Table 3. Links between Capture Fisheries and FI Structure

15. However, it is clear that the fisheries sector is extremely complex and characterized by strong horizontal linkages, and that it requires the application of a range of different skills in order to achieve the objectives set. This asks for accrued coordination and thematic linkages between the activities of the different Divisions, as shown in the table below:

Table 4. Links between FII and Other FI Units

16. Linkages with other parts of FAO. Outside the Department, important working relationships are maintained between FIIU and the Food and Nutrition Division (ESN) on food quality and safety and activities related to the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme (Codex Alimentarius). FIIU also participates in the Programme Activity for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIA) on WTO Multi-lateral Trade Negotiations on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, aimed at assisting developing and transition countries to participate effectively in WTO negotiations.

17. Partnerships. In order to fulfil its mandate, FII collaborates with a wide range of partners, including other UN organizations, governments, NGOs, IGOs and fishing industry organizations (see Table 11). Through these collaborations, FII develops codes of best practice, standards and guidelines for fisheries operations and fish handling, for safety at sea and protection of the environment, and in a wide variety of related areas (see Section ‎VII). It should also be noted that no other institution in the world produces similar outputs on such a wide range of themes in the fisheries sector, and has the ability and potential to service the needs of such a high number of countries.

B. REGULAR PROGRAMME RESOURCES

18. Since the adoption of the New Programme Model, Regular Programme resources have been distributed against the TPs of P233 as follows:

Table 5. Regular Programme Resources since Adoption of New Programme Model

19. FII has opted to leave a relatively high proportion of its resources un-programmed, to respond to unforeseen requests. The Programme Entity 233S1 “Support and Advice in Fishing Technology, Fish Utilization and Trade” (covering field programme development and latterly activities on VMS and studies of costs and earnings in coastal fisheries) comprises 32% of Programme resources for the proposed 2004-05 PWB, compared to 26% for the comparable entities in Programme 2.3.2 (FIR) and 8.5% in the comparable entity in P234 (FIP). The amount is, however, somewhat lower than in the previous two biennia, when this Entity represented up to 37.5% of Programme resources. Shifts in resources among TPs have been relatively minor; the previously mentioned decreases in 233A3 and 233S1 have been compensated by increases in 233A1 and 233A2.

20. The FII establishment presently (December 2003) consists of the Director, the two Service Chiefs and 16 technical officers (7 in FIIT and 9 in FIIU). FIIT however has had four professional posts that became vacant during the biennium and has used a proportion of the funds saved for consultants and other operational activities. It is now in process of filling these posts, but the Service will still undergo an important staff turnover in the near future, since a generational change is occurring. FIIU has filled seven of its nine Headquarters posts at the time of writing this report. Staffing of the two Units (as of December 2003) is shown in the Table below:

Table 6. FII Staffing

21. Within the Regional Offices, there are: 3 Fisheries Officers in RAF, 2 in RAP, 2 in SAFR, 1 in RLC, 2 in SLAC, 1 in RNE and 1 in SAPA. None of these are specifically dealing with FII-related matters. As a result, most work related to FII is dealt with from Headquarters, leaving a gap, although the FISH INFOnetwork provides support on FIIU-related matters.

C. FIELD PROJECTS

22. During the review period, FII had primary responsibility for the implementation of 39 non-emergency field projects, 34 of which were funded by FAO-TCP and five by extra-budgetary sources. Of the latter, one was funded by UNDP⁹, two by GCP¹⁰ and two by other sources, including the important GEF project on Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical Shrimp Trawling and a fisheries marketing and credit project in Vietnam. The regional breakdown of TCP projects is as follows:

Table 7. TCP Projects by Region

23. FIIU is or was the lead technical unit (LTU) for 26 of the TCP projects, while FIIT is or was the LTU for eight. However, for the externally-funded projects, FIIT is the LTU for four (including the $9.15 million GEF project, implementation of which began in 2002), while FIIU is the LTU for one. By far the leading technical subject for TCP projects was fish quality assurance and inspection; 13 TCP projects were on this topic. Other TCP topics included improved handling after catch (6 projects), increasing value from small pelagics (4 projects), credit/assistance to artisanal fishers (4 projects) and fish trade information (2 projects). Besides these projects, FII is involved in backstopping some emergency projects and other projects primarily implemented by FIP and the Legal Office. FIIU has had an overseeing function over seven projects funded by the Common Fund for Commodities, which focus on value-addition for fishery products and are executed by the FISH INFOnetwork.

24. Field missions and desk studies undertaken for this evaluation examined 15 of the 39 projects. These included 12 national TCPs, two regional TCPs and one UNDP-funded project. FIIU was the LTU for 12 of the TCPs; FIIT was the LTU for two TCPs and the UNDP-funded project.

25. Two major observations can be made about the field projects. One is the very low number of extra-budgetary projects approved and implemented during the review period – only five in total. In financial terms, the situation was very much improved by the approval of the GEF project. FIIU has been less successful in attracting donor funds – its single donor-funded project was for the establishment of Eurofish (formerly Eastfish) in Copenhagen, with DANIDA funding. The second relates to TCPs, where the situation with the two Services of FII is reversed. Very few projects were approved for FIIT during the review period (three in 2003, two in 1997, one in 1999, 2001 and 2002, none in 1998 or 2000). The lack of projects can be attributed to both external and internal causes, e.g. low number of fisheries requests by Member States authorities, amount of staff time required in the TCP approval process. FIIU has a far larger TCP portfolio, largely due to interest by requesting governments in fish inspection, safety and quality in recent years. As many of these projects are similar, FIIU has developed a capacity to deliver these projects rather effectively.

IV. Questionnaire Survey on FAO Priorities in Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization

26. In order to obtain a broad cross-section of views from Member States, it was decided to undertake a questionnaire survey of 50 developing countries not visited by the two regional evaluation missions. This was to obtain their views on: national priorities, familiarization with FAO’s fisheries activities and their assessment of the performance of FAO’s programmes in areas related to fisheries exploitation and utilization. As mentioned previously, special efforts were made in this survey to identify desired respondents. In addition, a sample answer to the questionnaire was provided, with a view to enhancing the quality of responses. These measures were successful: Out of the 50 countries surveyed, 34 responded (68%), almost all by heads or senior officials of Fisheries Departments and the results reflect their priorities. Overall, the quality of responses was higher than in previous comparable surveys. Responses by region are presented below.

Table 8. Questionnaire Responses by Region

27. Overall, Member States expressed a high degree of satisfaction with FAO fisheries programmes and their outputs in general. Fully 94% of the countries surveyed had made use of services related to Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization. Respondents were asked to assess their degree of satisfaction with the various types of outputs produced: TCP projects, assistance with preparation of projects for donor financing, expert advice on particular topics, participation in networks, publications, FAO fisheries websites. The highest score for “exceeded expectations” was in the area of ad hoc expert advice (39%), which suggests that FAO/FI is a reliable and credible partner to many countries. FAO’s websites, publications and networks also scored high levels of satisfaction.

28. Countries were asked to benchmark the performance of FAO in areas related to Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization against other sources of advice and assistance, much of which came through field activities (especially TCP). Areas scored included extension and application of appropriate fishing technologies, socio-economics of small-scale fishing communities, assistance related to marine food product safety and quality, and provision of trade and marketing information. FAO’s performance was found clearly the best in marine food product safety and quality, where the Organization was found to be superior to other sources by 86% of respondents and about the same as others by the remaining 14%. FAO’s performance scored next best on trade and marketing information, where 58% felt FAO was the best source, 31% thought FAO and others were about the same, and 12% stated others were superior. For appropriate technology, FAO was superior to other sources by 48% of respondents while for small-scale fisheries, 39% said FAO was the best source. Among the various regions, there were no marked differences in the responses, except that in Africa, FAO was seen as superior in provision of trade and marketing information, while in Asia and Latin America, other sources of information were viewed as being nearly as good as FAO.

29. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the questionnaire related to programme priorities. Respondents were given a list of 10 subject areas of P233 and asked to select the five priorities in order of importance. Results are in the table below.

30. The survey forced choices to be made among various programme components. The first two choices, community planning and management, appropriate fishing and processing technologies for artisanal fishermen concern clearly the small-scale sub-sector, and this could be true also for the third in rank, post-harvest fish handling and processing, since fisheries departments are not usually directly concerned with these aspects for the industrial fisheries sector. This focus on artisanal fisheries should not be surprising, since 58% of the respondents are low-income countries, where the small-scale fisheries sub-sector plays an important role in employment generation and food-security. Indeed, the questionnaire confirmed the observations of the evaluation missions to Africa and Asia of the importance of work related to small-scale fisheries, as did the last COFI. At the same time, the questionnaire surprisingly did not confirm mission observations about the importance of food safety and quality and international trade. This may be due to a separation within national fisheries Departments between resource, fishing and planning related responsibilities on the one hand and trade issues on the other, as respondents were almost exclusively of the first group. Finally, the low ranking for safety at sea may be attributed to the fact that fisheries departments do not acknowledge a role in this area.

31. The results of the question on priorities was further analyzed on a regional basis, to determine if there were significant differences¹¹. Work on international fish trade had a much lower relative priority in Africa (1.7% of total possible points) than in Asia (7.0%) or Latin America (8.4%). Another significant regional difference was on reduction of adverse environmental impact of fishing operations, which was more important for Latin America (16.8%) than Africa (9.5%) or Asia (8.4%). Also, while artisanal fisheries issues were important everywhere, they were considered more important in Africa and Asia than in Latin America. For some topics, the relative importance across regions was quite consistent, e.g. on Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and food safety and quality. The relatively high level of interest in VMS supports FAO’s rather extensive recent work in this area.

32. Conclusions. The priorities identified suggest an increased focus on SSF, MCS and capacity building. It is suggested that similar questionnaires may be of value in accessing the entire FI work programme. COFI provides clear guidance in qualitative terms, but does not necessarily reveal the relative importance attached by different groups of Member States to the different FI activities. While COFI can ‘take due note’ of the results of a balanced and representative assessment of needs, it may not be in a position to prioritize FI activities.

Table 9. Results of Questionnaire to Member States showing the relative importance of different P233 activities as perceived by Member States

The weighted total was calculated by assigning five points to the highest priority item, four to the second highest priority, etc., with one point for the fifth item. No points were assigned for items not selected.

_________________________

¹ The others are Agricultural Production and Support Systems; Food and Agriculture Policy and Development; Forestry; and Contributions to Sustainable Development and Special Programme Thrusts.

² A Technical Project has the following general characteristics: a duration of up to six years, precise time-bound objectives defined in terms of the use which target users will make of outputs, definition of major outputs, demonstrable effectiveness criteria and indicators, specification of target users and of linkages with partners. Continuing Programme Activities are of an ongoing nature, not amenable to time bound objectives, but otherwise similar to TPs; Technical Services Agreements are designed to cover demand-oriented services and can include servicing of regular meetings (adapted from PWB 2002-2003).

³ FII, FIIT and FIIU Mission Statements from the Fisheries Department website.

⁴ Indicative Rolling Work Plan of Thematic and Programme Evaluations, 2003-2007, Programme Committee, 89^th Session, May 2003.

⁵ The table does not reflect the entire range of skills in each Unit.

⁶ Expenditures 2000-2001 (Oracle Data Warehouse)

⁷ Expenditures 2002-2003 (Oracle Data Warehouse) as of 15 December 2003

⁸ Zero Real Growth (ZRG) Budget (PWB 2004-2005). The absolute amounts will be reduced due to the approval by the FAO Conference of a budget considerably less than ZRG. The percentage figures are more significant as an indicator of relative priority.

⁹ In Bangladesh.

¹⁰ In Tunisia (Italian funds) and support to Eastfish (Danish funds).

¹¹ No analysis made for the Near East because of the low number of questionnaires and returns.