The Consultation discussed at length the ways in which FAO and SPC could assist in determining and assisting national needs. The FAO representative stated an interest in offering assistance, but to do so required full consultation with countries. The various possibilities for obtaining country views and inputs were distilled into three options:
1. FAO could assist through a Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) in which all involved countries (i.e. those countries that request assistance) would be visited and a comprehensive needs analysis could be carried out for those countries. The end product of this process would be a detailed project document which would assist countries develop their national sea safety strategies and that a donor could subsequently use in conjunction with a substantial national or regional sea safety project.
2. The report of the Consultation could be presented for further input and endorsement at two relevant forthcoming SPC regional meetings. These are the SPC Heads of Fisheries (HoF) meeting, tentatively scheduled in July-August 2004 and the meeting of the Association of Pacific Island Maritime Training Institutions and Maritime Authorities (APIMTIMA) in May 2004. Participants to HoF could start identifying and prioritizing national needs and formulate a request to FAO for a TCP project. The outcomes of the Consultation would also be presented at the CRGA (SPC's governing body) meeting in November 2004.
3. A smaller number of countries (or countries individually) could formulate a request to FAO for a TCP project that would include identification of needs, assistance with the development of a national strategy and implementation of some activities. SPC could assist with the coordination of this TCP project.
There was a discussion of the merits of the above options. Although the importance of national consultation was recognized throughout the Consultation, there was some sentiment that considerable discussions on national needs had already occurred or would occur soon through regional meetings. There was an alternative view that such consultation would be largely limited to government agencies and may not take into consideration the views of other groups, such as fishermen's associations and NGOs. It was noted that the production of a detailed project document is no guarantee that major donor support would follow. A clear consensus for a preferred option did not emerge from the participants, partly because of funding uncertainties associated with the options. There appeared to be general support for Option Two, while there was little enthusiasm for Option One. There was support for the concept of formulating a request to IMO for some of the important foundation activities (e.g. accident database).
Discussion also focused on the other steps to be taken in the near future in support of sea safety initiatives. As noted above, it was generally agreed that the report of the Consultation should be presented to forthcoming SPC meetings. These regional meetings could serve several purposes, including raising the profile of sea safety in the region, serving as a mechanism for national consultation, attracting donor attention, and gauging the support/need for a regional small vessel safety programme.
Participants to HoF could start identifying and prioritizing national needs and formulate a request to FAO for a TCP project. It may also be possible that the HoF meeting could recommend that an SPC-based regional small vessel safety programme be established. It was noted that these discussions would be enhanced if a session of the HoF was set aside to focus on sea safety issues. This possibility is to be explored. At the APIMTIMA meeting, country delegates would be asked to report on small boat safety as part of their country paper.
