  |
105. The following analysis provides an overview of progress under each Technical Project, over the review period. As a general statement, activities implemented were coherent with objectives stated, but as mentioned previously and in Section C below, it is not possible to quantify their actual contribution to achievement of those objectives.
106. 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. The plan of work is identified and formulated following more a reactive rather than proactive approach, and it includes mainly studies to assess actual importance of discards and environmental impact, and workshops to diffuse improved technologies. Important activities were the development of National Plans of Action under the IPOA-Seabirds and the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. The main FP activity is the GEF-funded project on impact of tropical shrimp trawling, which has given important impetus to work in this area. 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.
107. 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 under the New Programme Model to include diversification of fishing efforts, safety at sea, increased efficiency in post-harvest system and improvement of market opportunities, and disaster preparedness. Under the TP, normative work is carried out as well as field projects; FII manages some and backstops non-FII SSF projects. This TP contributes extensively to other FI technical Programmes, in particular P2.3.4, to FI projects (e.g. SFLP), and to 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 (Recommendation 1 below).
108. 233A3, Increased production from under-utilized aquatic resources and low-value catches: This entity stems from one element previously included in former sub-programme on Fish Utilization and Marketing. Before 2000, activities were mainly of a normative type, including studies, technical consultations and elaboration of guidelines. After 2000, the TP was mainly implemented through five TCPs (on low-value catches). All of them were assessed by the Evaluation missions, and only two were judged above a satisfactory level. Work on under-utilized resources has not been extensive. Resources for RP activities have been declining for this TP, in spite of what appears to be an important issue in view of declining stocks and potential for food-security.
109. 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’s 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.
110. 233A5, Promotion of international fish trade: The evolution of this TP follows closely the pattern of the previous TP, since the two issues are closely interlinked. The contribution of FII to international fish trade started in the 1970s. During the period under review, 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. One indicator of the direct utility of the FISH INFOnetwork and its publications is the number of paying subscribers, including both governments and private institutions, but for many countries the investment is perceived to be high against present returns. Still, the picture is very changeable and improvements could be expected. Although work on international fish trade did not emerge as a key priority in the questionnaire survey, it is felt to be important by FII and by those countries most involved in it.
111. The following SWOT analysis of P233 forms the basis for the conclusions and recommendations that follow:
112. FAO (and FII) has a number of strategic advantages over other organizations. These include:
113. An essential Programme. 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 WSSD and COFI. FII staff have performed well, in spite of a heavy and increasing workload.
114. While new priorities have been pursued during the review period, since the adoption of the New Programme Model, the number and titles of the TPs have not changed, nor have there been considerable resource shifts between them. In due course, the set of FI Programmes and TPs could be restructured using the CCRF as a backbone and providing support for the common theme of promoting, implementing, adapting the CCRF as executable modules at regional, national and fishery levels. Activities in the three key thematic areas (SSF, MCS/VMS, capacity building) can all be focused in a mutually supportive role.
115. Resource allocation. The resources at the disposal of the Programme cannot respond adequately to many of the needs of the Member States. Consequently, increased efforts are required to prioritize and optimize the use of these scarce resources. This must continue to be done in even closer coordination with other FI Programmes and external partners. Additional external resources would be required to address core problems. Mobilization of these additional resources would require the active involvement of the Fisheries and Technical Cooperation Departments.
116. Priorities. In view of FAO’s mandate regarding poverty reduction and food security, there should be a strong focus in the Programme on those themes and regions where the problem is most acute.
117. Recommendation 1: Small-scale fisheries should be the primary thematic target with particular reference to implementation of the CCRF, including enforcement of equitable access regimes. Increasing poverty and population combined with declines in nutrition and capacity suggest that Africa continues to be a primary geographical target for priority.
118. The design of RP Technical Projects poses considerable difficulty in terms of their contribution to key FAO strategic objectives. Impact assessment is constrained by the difficulties in determining cause-and-effect linkages between the outputs produced by the programme (e.g. trained individuals, publications, networks, workshop results) and developmental changes at country level.
119. Recommendation 2: TPs must be designed so that the causal relationships between interventions and objectives are more clearly manifest and the underlying assumptions for the achievement of objectives stated. The MTP (or supplementary supporting documentation) should contain details about how outputs are expected to be used, what results are expected from that use, which indicators are proposed to determine whether outputs are in fact being used and how those indicators will be measured.
120. Without overburdening the professional staff of FII with unproductive activities, TP reporting must be improved in such a manner that it serves as a useful operational tool. There needs to be more concern about determining the utility of the work performed in a more rigorous manner. The auto-evaluation process is intended to assist with this.
121. The structure of the FI Department of vertical groupings by professional skill (see Table 3) does not facilitate an holistic approach to fisheries problems, in spite of staff awareness of the problems and their willingness to overcome them. Many working groups in FI are not sufficiently effective.
122. Recommendation 3: It is recommended that FII reinforce, and if necessary lead, thematic initiatives, particularly on SSFs, capacity building and MCS. In association with other FI Divisions, the existing arrangements should be examined with a view to optimizing the use of scarce resources and focusing on suitable practical arrangements. The designation of officers as focal points for regions, countries and themes can be considered. FII must be fully engaged in key initiatives, e.g. SFLP.
123. All of FIIT activities and much of the P233 activities focus on capture fisheries. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002 clearly indicates that many of the world’s capture fisheries are seriously overexploited and there is ample evidence of a trend towards further decline. Resource depletion and the ensuing social consequences are partly driven by increasingly effective fishing technologies and globalisation of world fish trade.
124. Recommendation 4: The following are priorities in this area:
125. Ongoing work undertaken through the GEF project with regard to policy and economic aspects of shrimp trawl bycatch collection should be continued, as well as the preparation of technical guidelines on BRDs.
126. P233 and FII have made great strides in improving post-harvest utilization of fish. However, there is often a chronic lack of infrastructure, little awareness of fish handling requirements, deficient information on prices and trade, and low purchasing power may mean low, or negligible, returns for efforts to improve fish quality. Furthermore, there is an impression that the focus of efforts has gradually been shifting from concerns for the disadvantaged small-scale fishers and the supply to internal markets, to the requirements of international trade (e.g. HACCP systems, risk analysis). While this may be in response to the requests of Member States, an adequate balance between these competing interests must be maintained.
127. The demand for even greater assistance for reduction in post harvest losses in developing countries has already been noted. Post harvest losses in parts of Africa and Asia represent over 20% of the catch. Although increasing quantities are used for animal feed the gap between projected supply and demand for food fish is growing particularly in Africa.
128. Recommendation 5:
129. P233 in association with GLOBEFISH and the INFO Network provides an invaluable support for the ever-expanding global trade in fish and fish products. As the Secretariat to the COFI Sub-Committee on Trade, FII and P233 provide an important advocacy role as a fair broker in relation to trade issues. Current ‘hot topics’ include food safety standards acting as non-tariff barriers and ecolabels and traceability and labelling of products. It is expected that other areas will also require the services of P233. These may include the expansion of electronic trading systems and establishment of futures markets in major internationally-traded fish commodities. Further assistance will be required in establishing norms for traditional fish products and processes through CODEX.
130. Recommendation 6:
131. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is the flagship of the Fisheries Department and it contains a vast array of distilled best practice knowledge. The need for broad application of the CCRF is a common theme and the message needs to be diffused in different forms at different levels – the minister needs a ‘soundbite’ that makes the TV, or newspaper headline, the fisheries college instructor needs a class module, while the district administrator needs guidance on how to apply the CCRF in terms of local by-laws.
132. Recommendation 7: The following should guide production of information and training materials within P233:
133. Many fisheries management plans, in both developed and developing countries, founder due to weak enforcement. Management measures must firstly be enforceable and secondly a political will must exist to effectively enforce the regulations. VMS is but one tool in the MCS toolbox. Advice on VMS must be carefully tempered by the practical realities of enforcement and effective deterrence. FII technical expertise continues to be essential in matters relating to vessel registers, vessel flagging, vessel and seaman safety, vessel capacity measurement and IMO affairs, under the overall responsibility of FIP for MCS.
134. Recommendation 8:
The evaluation was conducted under the responsibility of the FAO Evaluation Service (PBEE). PBEE prepared the initial draft terms of reference, developed the questionnaires that were sent to national fisheries institutions, organized and carried out the field missions and prepared the mission report.
The evaluation comprised seven steps:
Terms of reference and consultation. After agreement on the terms of reference, work began on information gathering and interviews with the ADG and responsible FII officers. The main purpose was to establish an information base on subjects to be reviewed in depth and to obtain views of concerned staff on programme priorities, successes and areas in need of improvement. The process was consultative, involving FII at all crucial junctures, including items to be covered in the terms of reference, selection of countries to be visited and recommendations for consultants. The cooperation was fruitful and collegial.
Questionnaire. In order to have input from FAO Member States, a questionnaire survey was prepared and distributed to 50 selected developing countries. This was a change from past surveys, which were distributed to nearly all FAO Member States. Special efforts were devoted to make the questionnaire more user-friendly, to focus on a more limited group of countries where fisheries are particularly important, and to ensure a better follow-up. All this aimed at a better response to the questionnaire, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The analysis of the questionnaires is found in Section IV of this report.
Field missions and desk study. A key part of the evaluation was two field missions to eight countries36 in Africa, the Near East and Asia. The missions met with key informants (government officials, project implementing partners, project beneficiaries, including fishers) in order to assess fisheries sector priorities, knowledge about FAO fisheries programmes, use of FAO-produced outputs and to gauge follow-up and impact of FAO’s activities. Each mission produced a regional report with general conclusions, overall reports on each country and an assessment of each individual field activity reviewed. To ensure independence and to bring necessary technical skills to the evaluation, two external consultants were retained, one for each regional mission37. Because of rather limited field activity and due to time and cost considerations, no mission was undertaken to the Latin America and Caribbean region. However, the three TCP projects in the region that had been completed during the review period were subjected to a desk review by PBEE. Inputs to this desk review were given by FII, the Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, the Sub-regional Office for the Caribbean and FAO Representatives.
Report of the External Peer Review Panel. Further independent input was assured through the participation of experts in the External Peer Review Panel38. The Panel examined and commented upon the report, and its report is an integral part of the documentation submitted to the FAO Governing Bodies. The Evaluation Report and External Peer Review Panel Report were then submitted to FAO Senior Management for its response, including how it plans to implement agreed recommendations. Finally, all three documents (Evaluation Report, External Peer Review Panel Report and Senior Management Response) will be reviewed and commented upon by the FAO Programme Committee at its May 2004 session. After review by the Programme Committee, all the documents (including the Programme Committee’s report) will be submitted to the FAO Council and Conference.
i. The External Peer Review Panel on the Evaluation of the FAO Programme 2.3.3 Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization comprised Mr Menakhem Ben-Yami, International Fisheries Development and Management Adviser (Israel); Dr Enrique Bertullo Bernasconi, Director, Institute of Fisheries Research (Uruguay); Dr Ndiaga Gueye, Director of Marine Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries (Senegal); Dr James Muir, Professor of Aquaculture and Aquatic Resource Development, University of Stirling (UK); Dr Yugraj Yadava, Director a.i., Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organization (India); and Mr Kieran Kelleher, Fisheries Development Adviser (Ireland), as resource person. The Panel met in Rome from 26-28 January 2004 and held detailed discussions with management and staff of the Fisheries Industries Division, and with senior managers and other staff of the Fisheries Department, PBEE, and the TC Department. In carrying out its tasks, the Panel considered the draft Evaluation Report, the views of staff consulted and the current strategic framework and Medium Term Plan of FAO.
ii. The decision to evaluate FAO activities in Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization is valuable both in addressing themes of great and growing significance, and in assessing FAO’s strategic and practical capacity and performance. With respect to the Strategic Framework and the new programming model, it also provides an opportunity to assess structural effectiveness at both Divisional and Departmental level in meeting wide-ranging and often complex demands.
iii. The evaluators have carried out a systematic and professional process, highlighted strengths and weaknesses, and identified strategic demands, opportunities and potential priorities. The methodology employed to assess performance and priorities has offered valuable insights, and in the future could be developed further, using clearer targets and indicators. The Panel broadly agrees with the conclusions and recommendations of the review but considers that some elements of both strategic and specific proposals need further clarification and development.
iv. A number of issues raised by the evaluation, while well-targeted to Programme 2.3.3 and the Fisheries Industries Division, also reflect on broader questions of strategy, cross-cutting approach, priority setting and resource allocation relevant to the Department itself. The Panel recommends Department-level vision and goal setting consistent with FAO’s major themes. This could strengthen the external perception of achievements and future potential, and provide a more effective means of measuring and demonstrating impact.
v. The Panel recognizes the difficulty of measuring Programme impacts in relation to the MTP, and accepts the need to rely primarily on assessing outputs. The Panel is in broad accordance with evaluation findings. However, while it appears that satisfaction with FII amongst those surveyed is good, no specific quality indicators were available to apply.
vi. The role of FII in secretariat and related functions is well recognized, but it is not clear how cost-effective this is in meeting strategic objectives, given staff and other resource constraints. This justifies further analysis. FII’s role in networking is however particularly notable, though there would appear to be more scope for targeting impacts amongst sectoral investment agents and NGOs for whom FII’s technical support has been important but largely unmeasured.
vii. The prolific and widely distributed published outputs of FII are given due recognition, though the Panel considers that targeting and impact need further focus. The quality and value of FII outputs should be compared more widely, with others from FAO or other agencies, to ensure they were genuinely providing materials consistent with FII’s role and comparative advantage. A properly documented dissemination and impact strategy is recommended.
viii. FII’s role in training has been widely recognized, where over a considerable period it has helped introduce a wide range of valuable concepts and practices into developing sectors. Not enough has been done to document the impact of this, even on a sample or case study basis, but there is little doubt that these have been highly valued and have added not only to the reputation of FII and the Fisheries Department, but to FAO more generally. However, given the much wider range of training providers now present in public, private and NGO sectors and the increasing international focus on training quality, there may be a more important role for FII in the training of trainers, defining training standards and continuing professional development. The former role of FIIT in providing a central source of training strategy has not been noted, but a focal point at FI level should be reconsidered.
ix. Although specific impact assessment has not always been possible, the Panel considers that most field activities have been appropriate and effective. In some cases results have far exceeded expectations. FII has successfully adapted the Field Programme to the changing needs of Member Countries and there is a high and continuing demand for FII services across all Programme areas. It is clear that the quality of FII‘s interventions is well respected and should permit a more proactive approach.
x. However, concerns had been expressed about the increasing administrative difficulties in setting up external projects, particularly TCPs. This could be an important constraint to the longer term aims to increase external budgetary support and must be addressed. The Panel recommends that these concerns be taken up by FI senior management to determine where in practice the problems lie, whether in identification and defining project issues, the need for training in project formulation, or in streamlining and making more transparent the design and approval process. Efforts should also be made to reduce the administrative load of technical officers in so far as the budgetary and support staff resources allow.
xi. With new staffing in FIIT, an increased focus on cross-service and division processes, and networking with external agencies, staffing responsibilities for major interconnecting themes require to be further assessed. The focus and scope of work suggested by the evaluation, in capacity development, small-scale fisheries and MCS/VMS should be reviewed further within FI and amongst clients, to determine demand, cost-effectiveness and comparative advantage. Other technology areas such as for aquaculture should also be considered.
xii. The Panel confirms the evaluation’s support for capacity building, training and dissemination, but emphasizes the importance of avoiding duplication, basing delivery on sound needs analysis, and developing and promoting more flexible and innovative means of capacity building at a range of levels. Links with major field programmes could be strengthened and opportunities sought to network further with major credit institutions in using knowledge to promote measurable change in capacity and outcome.
xiii. The issue of small-scale fisheries is important and rightly highlighted by the review. While it is accepted that this is an FI-wide responsibility, the particular role of FII needs to be more clearly spelled out, and issues such as safety at sea brought into a wider perspective of the livelihoods, risks and opportunities of artisanal fishing communities, together with the links to domestic and international markets. Budget and resource allocations need to be more clearly specified, and internal goals defined to measure progress. The need for a Sub-committee on small-scale fisheries should be further discussed within FI with respect to its potential costs and benefits.
xiv. With respect to technologies such as those associated with MCS and VMS, the Panel considers that the remit of FII be grouped around the wider theme of technology intervention in capacity, efficiency, fishing impact, market access and management options. This also should extend to understanding the comparative advantages offered to specific groups in the fishery sector.
xv. The Panel confirms the evaluation’s positive assessment of the work of FII and its staff in relation to P233 while at the same time noting the variability of performance and the potential overlap across projects and with other FAO and external initiatives. It is increasingly important in each TP to recognize and make best use of FI’s specific capabilities and potential for adding value, leading on concepts and global perspectives, and being able to work in productive partnership with other agents in environmental management, social development and commercial enterprise. While the concept of ‘honest broker’ is well rehearsed, more evidence could be put forward on how this contributes to the needs of clients at all levels, and how that should translate into future focus.
xvi. The SWOT analysis in the evaluation provides a useful perspective on where FII has comparative advantage, or the potential for this, though some elements are more generic and could be more specifically focused. The Panel recommends that this be taken up in house for more precise targeting, and to set out how the Division would work most effectively with FAO and external partners.
xvii. The Panel endorses the positive conclusions about Programme’s strategic level orientation, and the effectiveness of FII in adapting to changing agendas. The foresight of its management and staff in identifying emerging trends and issues is also noteworthy. However, P233 Programme design has itself been essentially unchanged for over a decade. The Panel recommends that this should be reviewed within the context of any future FI strategic planning exercise, with particular emphasis on links to FAO’s Strategic Planning Framework, on MDGs and WSSD targets, on causal linkages between Programme objectives, outputs and activities and on verifiable indicators of impact.
xviii. Coordination with other FI Divisions is often informal and benefits from a high degree of flexibility between Programme elements. However, such arrangements do not always provide adequate support and continuity for specific themes or issues. The Panel recommends that working groups be formalized and strengthened to become more accountable on core thematic activities.
xix. With respect to FII core areas, the Panel agrees with the review’s focus on aspects of capture fisheries, utilization and trade, but recommends more focus on small-scale fisheries capacity and impacts, and on developing a more complete ‘value chain’ perspective linking production, people, technology and value from the resource to the market. This will allow clearer identification of goals and priorities in investment and training in landing, utilization, food safety and marketing. Clarification is also recommended of the role of FII’s work in trade issues with respect to analysis, advice, and policy development.
xx. The review identifies the CCRF as the primary framework for horizontal and cross-cutting issues, and correctly identifies the need for this to be set out and promoted at a range of practical levels. This framework however should also be employed to define priorities and goals, and can be used as an important guide for the technical interactions which can be promoted by FII. There is a particular need to develop and present more holistic perspectives on the ways in which fisheries resources are exploited and utilized, and to widen understanding at the level of policy makers, technical agents, development specialists, consumers and producers.
(FI Department)
1. General
Management is very appreciative of this evaluation and the methodology used. It is both extensive and thorough and in the course of the evaluation process, FI/FII management and staff have been given ample opportunity to provide information and respond to specific queries and findings. The assessments of both the PBEE Evaluation Team and the External Review Panel are generally found to be objective and fair and in congruence with each other. Management appreciates the positive outcome of the evaluation of Programme 2.3.3 for 1997 – 2003.
Whereas the External Peer Review Panel endorses the positive conclusions about the Programme’s strategic level orientation, and the effectiveness of FII in adapting to changing agendas as well as the foresight of its management and staff, it recommends a review of the design of Programme 2.3.3. It states that this should be done in the context of any future FI strategic exercises. Management endorses this view and has, in fact, already embarked upon such a strategic planning exercise within the Department.
The evaluation has highlighted several areas where improvement is required. Some of these areas, such as better strategic planning using a “logical framework approach (LFA)”, improvement of the distribution of publications and more work to seek extra-budgetary funds are of a generic nature. In addition to actions taken at the Organization level to address these issues, FII plans to improve its coordination with regional and national FAO offices, the FishInfoNetwork and widen its partnerships as well as to strengthen the dissemination of its publications. Likewise, the elements of LFA are being introduced in the FII planning exercises, especially the yearly workplans. A strategy for improved and closer interaction with the donor community has been initiated in 2004 by FII.
2. Specific Points
Some specific points from the Evaluation Service report are addressed below:
3. FI Response to Recommendations
Þ Recommendation 1 a). Consider the creation of a Sub-Committee or a Task Force on Small-scale Fisheries under COFI, to ensure appropriate attention to this area.
It is not clear to whom the recommendation concerning the creation of the Sub-Committee on Small-scale Fisheries is being addressed. COFI has not considered it necessary to establish a Sub-Committee on Small-scale Fisheries. Creation of a Sub-Committee might be considered by COFI when it becomes apparent that one particular fisheries issue is repeatedly demanding an excessive amount of deliberation, and warrants its own Sub-Committee, subject to consideration of the resources implications. COFI has recently agreed to consider Small-scale Fisheries as a programmatic priority for the Department. The issue received general agreement without much debate. In response to COFI’s concern, the Department has increased its resources on Small-scale Fisheries and established a Task Force to foster cross programme collaboration.
Þ Recommendation 1 b). Combine the Regular Programme resources devoted to Small-scale Fisheries, i.e. TP 233A2 Sustainable Development of Small-scale Fisheries and TP 234A4 Promotion of Coastal Fisheries Management. Co-ordination of the TPs could be undertaken by the Departmental Groups/Task Force dealing with Small-scale Fisheries.
FI Management recognizes the need for better coordination of the activities devoted to Small-scale Fisheries and the Departmental Groups/Task Force dealing with Small-scale Fisheries will undertake this task. FI agrees that increased efforts are required to prioritize and optimize the use of scarce resources and that this must be done in even closer coordination with other FI Programmes and external partners. The scope and objectives of TP233A2 and TP234A4 will be reviewed and the ways and means in which improvements could be achieved will be examined.
Þ Recommendation 1c). Ensure full engagement and synergy with existing externally-financed activities, e.g. the SFLP [Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme in West Africa] and GEF-financed activities [Global Environmental Facility].
FII has taken the recommendation into account during the 2004-05 workplans and will do so during the preparation of MTP 2006-2011.
Þ Recommendation 1d). Harness additional resources for sustainable management of SSFs [Small-scale Fisheries] by increasing efforts to coordinate rather than implement, e.g. through TCPs to help prepare national roadmaps for sustainable SSFs, or through establishing a donor working group on SSF.
FI agrees that in a situation of declining resources, greater emphasis should be placed on coordination rather than on implementation. FII and FIP will continue to seek externally funded assistance geared towards sustainable SSF.
Þ Recommendation 2. TPs must be designed so that the causal relationships between interventions and objectives are more clearly manifested and the underlying assumptions for the achievement of objectives stated. The MTP (or supplementary supporting documentation) should contain details about how outputs are expected to be used, what results are expected from that use, which indicators are proposed to determine whether outputs are in fact being used and how those indicators will be measured.
FII concurs and will seek to ensure a more structured approach in the design of TPs (Technical Projects). It will take the recommendation into consideration during its planning exercises in the development of future work. On-going PBE efforts to elaborate an FAO-wide results-based approach should be of help. In addition, the Division will consider the use of retreats, external facilitation, and participation by relevant FAO and non-FAO key players in improving the design of TPs. Greater emphasis will be placed on the identification of outcomes in addition to outputs as a means of measuring performance.
Þ Recommendation 3. It is recommended that FII reinforces, and if necessary leads, thematic initiatives, particularly on Small-scale Fisheries capacity building and Monitoring Control and Surveillance.
Whereas management agrees with the need for “optimizing the use of scarce resources and focusing on suitable practical arrangements”, it is a matter for the Department to decide which Divisions should lead “thematic initiatives” such as Small-scale Fisheries and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS). The Department already has functioning coordination mechanisms in place, but admittedly these can be made more effective.
Þ Recommendation 4. (Priorities in Capture Fisheries)
FI Management would agree that overfishing and the ensuing social consequences are partly driven by increasingly effective fishing technologies and globalization of world fish trade, but would give greater emphasis to the issues of demography, open access, weak management and enforcement, poverty, and lack of alternative employment as being contributory causes. FI Management is in full agreement with the priorities listed under recommendations (a), (b) (c), (d) and (e) and would note that these are consistent with activities included in MTP 2004-09.
In collaboration with FIR (Fishery Resources Division), FII has initiated work on post-harvest aspects of aquaculture in Asia. Plans are underway, along with FIR and NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific) to strengthen the collaboration in this area. Likewise, the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products has requested FAO and WHO to urgently address the issue of biotoxins. Plans for a workshop and a consultation on biotoxins are in preparation in close collaboration with IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) and WHO.
Þ Recommendation 5 a). On-board handling of fish, port and landing site handling of fish and related training and capacity-building are critical areas where many developing Member States have weak capacity. P233 should aim at improvements in this area.
Management agrees with this recommendation to improve on-board handling as well as port and landing site handling of fish. This will help reduce post-harvest losses and improve fish value for human consumption. FII has split a P-4 post into two P-2 posts and revised the job description of another post to meet the increasing needs of Member States in this field. Management acknowledges the valuable contribution of Technical Cooperation Projects (TCP’s) to this endeavour although it recognisesrecognizes that the overall resources are still insufficient.
Þ Recommendation 5 b). Particular attention is devoted to post harvest handling and marketing in Africa. In the SSF, interventions at several levels may be required – to enforce equitable access following traditional gender-based division of labour, to make credit available, to improve quality and to add product value.
FII plans to strengthen its activities in post-harvest handling and marketing in Africa by devoting the work of one P-2 post to this region, supplemented by the African experience of its staff (e.g. FIIU Chief) and by collaborating with SFLP (Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme) in the implementation of the pilot project devoted to post-harvest fisheries in West Africa
Þ Recommendation 5 c). FIIU should make efforts to leverage its experience in fish food quality and safety by playing a stronger advisory role in the on-going ACP/OTC project in this area.
FII has been involved in the EU-funded ACP/OTC project (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific/ Overseas Territories and Countries) on fish safety and quality since its inception. The project document and its leading team recognizes FII’s wide and unique experience in this area, although FII attempts to benefit from the EU funds for this project have been unsuccessful.
Þ Recommendation 5 d). Direct increased attention to technical aspects of aquaculture, including fish slaughtering, handling, processing and transport.
FII 2004 workplan includes activities in post-harvest aspects of aquaculture in Asia. FII plans to strengthen this area in the MTP 2006-2011, in close collaboration with FIRI as requested by COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade and COFI Sub-Committee on Aquaculture.
Þ Recommendation 6 a). FIIU may consider studies on the role of multinational fishing and trading companies in fish trade and distribution of fish products (particularly small pelagics and other products of high importance in international trade), and in influencing trends in major fisheries.
FIIU is undertaking studies on the market forces impacting international fish trade, and will include, as a priority, studies on the multinational companies, distribution channels and their vertical concentration.
Þ Recommendation 6 b). In order to advise on fish food security further information is required on the relationships between supply and demand for food fish at national level. FIIU may wish to actively promote the inclusion of a fish component into household consumption surveys and provide advice on the collection of such information and its subsequent analysis.
FII is seeking extra-budgetary funds to continue and expand its studies on the impact on fish trade on food security, including the relationships between supply and demand for food fish at national level and household fish consumption surveys. Twelve developing country case studies are ongoing, to be complemented by other country studies as funds permit.
Þ Recommendation 7. Production of information and training materials within P233.
Management agrees that more of FII’s publications could be made even more useful for training purposes. In addition, it is a good suggestion to devise repositories of training materials to be used for extension purposes. FII is embarking upon such work through its Aquatic Food Programme which focuses on creating highly structured and up-to-date information and training materials through the internet.
Þ Recommendation 8. Monitoring Control and Surveillance/Vessel Monitoring Systems becomes a Departmental TP with FIP and FII inputs, its own identity and assigned resources.
Management particularly welcomes this recommendation and will examine the best way to make Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) function as Departmental Technical Projects as suggested in the report.
ACP |
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States |
ACFR |
Advisory Committee on Fishery Research |
AfDB |
African Development Bank |
BoBP |
Bay of Bengal Project |
BRDs |
Bycatch Reduction Devices |
CCRF |
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries |
CECAF |
Fishery Committee for the Eastern and Central Atlantic |
CFC |
Common Fund for Commodities |
CIFA |
Committee for Inland Fisheries in Africa |
CITES |
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife and Fauna |
CMS |
Convention on Migratory Species |
COFI |
FAO Committee on Fisheries |
EU |
European Union |
FAOR |
FAO Representation at country level |
FI |
FAO Fisheries Department |
FIDI |
FAO Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit |
FII |
FAO Fisheries Industries Division |
FIIT |
FAO Fisheries Technology Service |
FIIU |
FAO Fisheries Utilization and Marketing Service |
FIP |
FAO Fisheries Planning Division |
FIR |
FAO Fisheries Resources Division |
GEF |
Global Environment Facility |
HACCP |
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point |
IDAF |
Integrated Development of Artisanal Fisheries |
ILO |
International Labour Organization |
IMO |
International Maritime Organization |
IPOA |
International Plan of Action |
IUU |
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing |
LTU |
Lead Technical Unit |
MCS |
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance |
MP |
Major Programme |
MTP |
Medium Term Plan |
NOAA/OGC |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Office of the General Counsel |
NPC |
National Project Coordinator |
OCT |
Overseas Countries and Territories |
P233 |
Programme 2.3.3. Fisheries Exploitation and Utilization |
PBEE |
FAO Evaluation Service |
PWB |
Programme of Work and Budget |
RAF |
FAO Regional Office for Africa |
RAP |
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific |
RFBs |
Regional Fishery Bodies and Arrangements |
RLC |
FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean |
RNE |
FAO Regional Office for the Near East |
RP |
Regular Programme |
SFLP |
Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme |
SOFIA |
The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture |
SSF |
Small-scale (artisanal) Fisheries |
TCDC |
Technical Cooperation between Developing Countries |
TCP |
Technical Cooperation Programme |
TED |
Turtle Exclusion Devices |
TP |
Technical Project |
UTF |
Unilateral Trust Fund |
VMS |
Vessel Monitoring System |
WB |
World Bank |
WHO |
World Health Organization |
WSSD |
World Summit for Sustainable Development |
WTO |
World Trade Organization |
_________________________
35 Current P233 work is on the Gulf of Aden mesopelagics.
36 Africa/Near East – Tunisia, Mauritania, Eritrea, Zambia; Asia – Maldives, India, China, Myanmar. The Africa/Near East mission also visited the Regional Office for Africa (Accra) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA – Lusaka); the Asia mission additionally visited the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok) and INFOFISH (Kuala Lumpur).
37 Africa: Richard Chamberlain; Asia: Kieran Kelleher. Mr Kelleher assisted the Evaluation Service in the final report writing.
38 Panel members are: Mr. Menakhem Ben-Yami, International Fisheries Development and Management Adviser (Israel); Dr. Enrique Bertullo Bernasconi, Director, Institute of Fisheries Research (Uruguay); Dr. Ndiaga Gueye, Director of Marine Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries (Senegal); Dr. James Muir, Professor of Aquaculture and Aquatic Resource Development, University of Stirling (U.K); Dr. Yugraj Yadava, Director a.i., Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organization (India); and Mr. Kieran Kelleher, Fisheries Development Adviser (Ireland), as resource person.
|
|