Final Evaluation

MAY 2013

EUROPEAID/ 127054/C/SER/MULTI

BENF 2009 LOT N° 1: RURAL DEVELOPMENT

SPECIFIC CONTRACT NR 2012/308477

Final Evaluation Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH), 2008 - 2011 FED/2006/018-725 - 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8 - Mid-Term Evaluation Scientific Support for the Management of Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH), 2010 – 2014 FED/2010/235-690 - 10 ACP.RPA 01

Gilles HOSCH & Paul NICHOLS

TYPE OF REPORT FINAL EVALUATION & MID-TERM EVALUATION

DISCLAIMER:

The content of this report is the sole responsibility of the Framework Contractor and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union

ADDRESS COWI Belgium sprl Av. de Tervueren 13-B B-1040 Brussels Belgium

TEL +32 (0)2 511 2383 FAX +32 (0)2 511 3881 WWW cowi.com

Final Evaluation (SCIFISH) & Mid-Term Evaluation (SCICOFISH)

CONDUCTED BY:

MEMBER OF COWI CONSORTIUM

Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd Windrush, Warborne Lane, Portmore, Nr. Lymington Hampshire S041 5RJ (UK) http://www.consult-poseidon.com

MAY 2013

PROJECT NO. 2012/308 477 – Final Report

DOCUMENT NO. 2

VERSION 2

DATE OF ISSUE 17/05/2013

PREPARED G. Hosch & P. Nichols

CHECKED R. Banks

APPROVED

Report Quality Control certification

As per the COWI Consortium procedures, this report and its content has been proof-read and controlled for quality against the Terms of Reference of the assignment, and their subsequent possible modifications.

Name Richard Banks Company Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd Date 17 May, 2013

Signature:

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 PART I – FINAL EVALUATION OF SCIFISH ...... 2 3 PART II – MID-TERM REVIEW OF SCICOFISH ...... 104

1 INTRODUCTION

This document presents the Final Evaluation of the Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) project, which ran from 2008 – 2011, and the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Scientific Support for the Management of Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH) project, which commenced in 2010 and is due to terminate in 2014. Both evaluations were undertaken concurrently, conducted by Senior Fisheries Experts, Mr Gilles Hosch (TL), and Mr Paul Nichols 1 of Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd (part of the COWI Consortium) during February – April, 2013. The initiative consisted of an extended first field phase, during which nine countries throughout the Region were visited 2, and meetings with various stakeholders were held. The main body of this document is segmented into two fundamentally distinct parts. The Final Evaluation of SCIFISH is presented in Part I, whilst the Mid-Term Evaluation of SCICOFISH is presented in Part II. Each part is functionally a ‘stand-alone’ document, with all supporting annexes provided at the end in each case. These two documents are drawn together here as a requirement of the Terms of Reference.

1 E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] 2 Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, French Polynesia and New Caledonia.

2 PART I – FINAL EVALUATION OF SCIFISH

EUROPEAID/127054/C/SV/multi LOT N° 1: Rural Development REQUEST N°: 2012 /308477/1

Final Evaluation

Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH)

2008 - 2011

FED/2006/018-725 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8

Gilles HOSCH & Paul NICHOLS

Final Report May 2013

Final Evaluation SCIFISH

CONDUCTED BY:

member of COWI consortium

Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd Windrush, Warborne Lane, Portmore, Nr. Lymington Hampshire S041 5RJ (UK) http://www.consult-poseidon.com

MAY 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 SCIFISH Project summary features ...... 1 1.2 Final evaluation activities ...... 2 1.3 Evaluation approach and methodology ...... 3 2 SCIFISH PROJECT DESIGN ...... 4 2.1 Overall objective ...... 4 2.2 Project purpose ...... 4 2.3 Results and activities ...... 5 2.4 The Logical Framework ...... 6 2.5 Assumptions and Pre-conditions ...... 7 2.5.1 Assumptions ...... 7 2.5.2 Pre-conditions ...... 8 2.6 Relevance...... 9 2.7 Related interventions ...... 9 3 EFFICIENCY ...... 11 3.1 Organisation and management ...... 11 3.2 Monitoring of activities ...... 11 3.3 Financial management ...... 13 3.4 Implementation of activities ...... 14 3.5 Technical Personnel ...... 14 4 EFFECTIVENESS ...... 15 4.1 Results Group 1: Enhanced oceanic fisheries monitoring ...... 16 4.2 Results group 2: Enhanced stock assessments ...... 21 4.3 Results Group 3: Enhanced understanding of pelagic ecosystems ...... 25 4.4 Activities and results in the context of the Project Purpose ...... 28 4.4.1 Support to oceanic tuna fisheries management at the regional level ...... 28 4.4.2 Support to oceanic tuna fisheries management at the national level ...... 30 4.5 Unforeseen beneficiaries and consequences ...... 31 4.6 Realisation of assumptions ...... 32 4.7 Use of Project resources ...... 32 5 IMPACT ...... 33 5.1 Quantitative assessment of effectiveness ...... 33 5.2 Impact on quantity/quality of tuna fisheries data collection ...... 35 5.3 Impact on knowledge of status of tuna stocks and fishery interaction ...... 37 5.4 Impact on scientific understanding of the WCPO pelagic ecosystem ...... 38

5.5 Impact of communication and information measures ...... 39 6 SUSTAINABILITY ...... 41 6.1 Policy Support ...... 41 6.2 Economic and financial analysis ...... 42 6.3 Community acceptance and ownership ...... 43 6.4 Appropriate technology...... 44 6.5 Institutional and management capacity ...... 44 7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 45 8 LESSONS LEARNED ...... 49 9 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 50

TABLES

TABLE 1: MAIN FEATURES OF SCIFISH ...... 1 TABLE 2: SCIFISH RESULTS AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES ...... 5 TABLE 3: SEQUENCE OF EU FUNDED PROJECTS RELATING TO FISHERIES IN THE WCPO...... 10 TABLE 4: RESULTS ORIENTATED MONITORING MISSION SCORES ...... 12 TABLE 5: SPC STAFF POSITIONS SUPPORTED UNDER SCIFISH (BY YEAR ) ...... 14 TABLE 6: SCIFISH SUPPORT TO TRAINING ATTACHMENTS (NO . PARTICIPANTS BY COUNTRY , 2008-11) ...... 17 TABLE 7: ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS GROUP 1 AGAINST OVI S ...... 20 TABLE 8: ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS GROUP 2 AGAINST OVI S ...... 25 TABLE 9: ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS GROUP 3 AGAINST OVI S ...... 28 TABLE 10: KEY WCPFC MANAGEMENT MEASURES SUPPORTED THROUGH SCIFISH ...... 29 TABLE 11: NATIONAL TUNA MANAGEMENT PLANS DEVELOPED WITH SCIFISH SUPPORT ...... 30 TABLE 12: ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT PURPOSE AGAINST OVI S ...... 31 TABLE 13: SUMMARY EXPENDITURE AT SCIFISH TERMINATION ...... 33 TABLE 14: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SCIFISH EFFECTIVENESS ...... 34 TABLE 15: ACHIEVEMENT OF OVERALL OBJECTIVE AGAINST OVI S ...... 40

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF RELEASED TAGGED SKIPJACK , BIGEYE AND YELLOWFIN DURING 2006-2010 .... 21 FIGURE 2: CRUISE TRACKS DURING PHASE 2 OF ALBACORE TAGGING PROJECT , 2010 ...... 22 FIGURE 3: STOCK STATUS OVERVIEW FOR THE FOUR MAJOR TUNA SPECIES IN 2011 ...... 24 FIGURE 4: SEAPODYM PRE -2009: 2 DEGREE X MONTH PHYSICAL FORCING (NO DATA ASSIMILATION ) ..... 27 FIGURE 5: SEAPODYM 2009-2010: 2 DEGREE X MONTH PHYSICAL FORCING (WITH DATA ASSIMILATION ) 27 FIGURE 6: SEAPODYM 2010-2012: 1 DEGREE X MONTH PHYSICAL FORCING (WITH DATA ASSIMILATION ) 27 FIGURE 7: IMPROVEMENT IN DATA SUBMISSION TO WCPFC BY 30 APRIL DEADLINE ...... 35

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 51 ANNEX 2: TIME SCHEDULE OF THE MISSION ...... 59 ANNEX 3: LIST OF PERSONS MET ...... 60 ANNEX 4: LIST OF PROJECT DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ...... 63 ANNEX 5: ORIGINAL SCIFISH LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (WITH ORIGINAL AND AMENDED OVI S) ...... 74 ANNEX 6: RELATIONSHIP MATRIX BETWEEN EDF-FUNDED FISHERIES PROJECTS ...... 77 ANNEX 7: COMPENDIUM OF ACHIEVEMENTS BY RESULTS GROUP AND ACTIVITY , 2008-2011 (ACP COMPONENT ) ...... 81 ANNEX 8: COMPENDIUM OF ACHIEVEMENTS BY RESULTS GROUP AND ACTIVITY , 2008-2011 (OCT COMPONENT ) ...... 88 ANNEX 9: SCIFISH AUDITED ACCOUNTS SUMMARY (2008-2011) ...... 95 ANNEX 10: ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO SCIFISH MTE RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 96 ANNEX 11: DAC SUMMARY ...... 102

vii

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT ACP African, Caribbean, Pacific (States) AusAID Australian Agency for International Development AWPB Annual Work -plan and Budget

BMSY Long -term average biomass at constant fishing mortality rate equal to F MSY CBT Competency -Based Training CFP Coastal Fisheries Programme (SPC) CLS Collecte Localisation Satelli tes CMM Conservation and Management Measure (of the WCPFC) CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, France COFISH Coastal component of PROCFISH DEVFISH Development of Tuna Fisheries in the Pacific ACP Countries DWFN Distant Water Fishing Nation EC European Commission EDF European Development Fund EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation EU European Union FA Financing Agreement FAD Fish Aggregating Device FAME Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Marine Ecosystems (Division of, SPC) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FE Final Evaluation FFA Forum Fisheries Agency

FMSY Fishing mortality rate that generates MSY for a particular fish stock FSM Federated States of Micronesia GDP Gross domestic product GEF Global Environment Fund HoF Head of Fisheries ICT Information and Communications Technology IFREMER Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer, France IMS Information Management System ISNR Issue Specific National Report IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (fishing) JTF Japan Trust Fund KMC Kavieng Maritime College (PNG) LMMA Locally Managed Marine Area MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (of fishing activities) MDG Millennium Development Goals miniPAT Satellit e archival tags MRAG Marine Resources Assessment Group MSG Melanesian Spearhead Group MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MTE Mid Term Evaluation MULTIFAN -CL Length -based, age -structured model for fish stock assessment NTFSR National Tuna Fisheries Status Report NTSA Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement NZAID New Zealand Aid OCT Overseas Countries and Territory OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OFCCP Oceanic Fisheries and Climate Change Project

viii

OFCF Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation (of Japan) OFP Oceanic Fisheries Programme (of the SPC) OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator P-ACP Pacific ACP countries PCM Project Cycle Management PFRP Pelagic Fisheries Research Programme PICs Pacific Island Countries (here meaning P-ACPs plus Pacific OCTs) PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat PIRFO Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Observers PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement PNG Papua New Guinea PRIP Pacific Regional Indicative Programme PROCFISH Pacific ACP and French Pacific OCT Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Development Project PSAT Pop -up archival tag PSAT Pop -up satellite archival tag PSC Project Steering Committee PTTP Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (8 th & 9 th EDF) RAO Regional Authorising Officer RIP Regional Indicative Programme RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands ROCW Regional Observer Coordinators Workshop ROM Results Oriented Monitoring ROP Regional Observer Programme RTTP Regional Tuna Tagging Programme (6 th EDF) RWSA Region -Wide Stock Assessment SAPW Stock Assessment Preparatory Workshop SC Science Committee (of the WCPFC) SCICOFISH Scientific Support for the Management of Coastal and Oceanic Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region SCIFISH Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Project SEAPODYM Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound (indicators) SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPRTRMP South Pac ific Regional Tuna Research and Management Project (7 th EDF) SSAP Skipjack Survey and Assessment Programme TA Technical Assistance TBAP Tuna and Billfish Assessment Programme TCC Technical and Compliance Committee (of the WCPFC) TDW Tuna Data Workshop TFAR Tuna Fisheries Assessment Report ToR Terms of Reference TUBS Observer data entry system TUFMAN Tuna fishery data management system TVM Te Vaka Moana UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UN DOALOS United Nations, Department of Ocean Affairs, Law of the Sea VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (the ‘Tuna Commission’) WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Final Evaluation of SCIFISH was conducted during February and March 2013 by Mr Gilles Hosch (Team Leader) and Mr Paul Nichols of Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd (part of the COWI Consortium). A total of 87 persons from concerned stakeholder and beneficiary institutions in SPC member States were interviewed in regard to their perceptions of SCIFISH. Relevance and Design • SCIFISH was a highly relevant project, following a long pedigree of EU-funded projects with similar objectives, purpose and intended results. • The Overall Objective - the conservation and sustainable use of oceanic fish resources of the western and central Pacific Ocean - was largely achieved, in that regional cooperation in tuna fisheries management has been successfully furthered through the WCPFC. • The Project Purpose - to provide a scientific basis for regional and national oceanic fisheries management decision-making by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and by Pacific ACP and OCT Governments - was certainly achieved. The quantity and quality of scientific information generated through the three inter-related results groups was effectively utilised by national governments and regional bodies such as the WCPFC and also FFA in pursuit of sustainable management of tuna resources within the Region. • The three main results groups (concerning enhancement of oceanic fishery monitoring, enhanced stock assessment of main tuna species and enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystem) were logical and mutually supportive. No changes were made to the results and their constituent activities during the course of SCIFISH, attesting to the fact that they remained relevant to attaining the Project Purpose throughout the Project’s life-span. • The assumptions and pre-conditions set for the Project remained pertinent and relevant throughout its life-span. • Recommendations resulting from the two ROMs (conducted Sep 2009 and Sep 2010) and MTE (conducted Oct 2010) were fully addressed and implemented by OFP. This resulted in improvement to the Project’s logical framework, as well as the format and content of the annual report. However, the late improvement of OVIs introduced at the end in Year 3 (2010) came too late to assist in measuring progress in implementation. • The visibility of SCIFISH (i.e. recognition of the acronym, and the EU as the funding source) was low. This has been addressed in the design of the successor SCICOFISH Project. Efficiency • SPC’s OFP performed the role of lead agency for SCIFISH implementation in an exemplary fashion. Synergies and complementarity between various funding sources available to OFP were utilised to maximum effect. The project was delivered within budget and in line with AWPBs. • FFAs role as an associate technical partner organisation responsible for MCS-related activities was hampered by the lack of managerial presence in the key portfolio of Operations Manager, although this situation improved in 2011 with the appointment of the current Operations Manager in Dec 2010. • The structure and content of 6-monthly and annual reports varied considerably, until completion of the MTE in Oct 2010, after which reporting improved significantly. • The role of the Project Steering Committee, which met a total of four times, was marginal in terms of executive oversight of the Project. A lack of specific Terms of Reference for this body may have contributed to its role being restricted to little more than rubber stamping. • Financial management was efficient and in compliance with the Financing Agreement and Contribution Agreements. Funds passed to FFA for MCS-related activities have still yet to be fully accounted for.

• Recruitment to all positions funded under the Project, followed standard SPC staff recruitment practices and procedures. In all cases, recruited staff members were of consistently high calibre. • SPC’s long experience in implementing EU-funded projects was a major factor in the efficient management of the Project, in full compliance with EU rules and procedures. Effectiveness • Results Group 1 (Enhanced Oceanic Fishery Monitoring ) provided significant support to fisheries monitoring throughout the Region. Main deliverables included data quality management tools, training programmes for fisheries observers, de-briefers and port samplers, and assessed technologies to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. • SCIFISH supported training for at least 478 observers. Numerous workshops for observer de- briefers, regional observer coordinators and training-of-trainers were held. A major accomplishment was the rapid development of a cadre of observers available in order to meet the requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse-seiners from 1 January 2010, as required by CMM 2008-01. • Development of the Competency Based Standard for PIRFO’s was substantially supported through SCIFISH, and represents a highly successful collaboration between SPC and FFA. • A total of 12 PIC nationals undertook training attachments to OFP, providing them with unparalleled access to international expertise in a wide range of tuna fisheries related scientific and management skills. • Significant material and financial support, as well as training and technical assistance, was provided to ACP and OCT states for the development of national observer and port sampling programmes. Some States (notably PNG, French Polynesia and New Caledonia) have made significant progress towards full institutionalisation of monitoring staff costs into national establishments and provision of adequate financial and material support. • Comparison of paired grab and spill samples was undertaken for 254 purse-seine sets (spread over 17 fishing trips) by on-board observers. The production of a Regional Standard for Spill Sampling was not completed, pending further field work. • MCS related activities under FFA’s responsibility did not proceed precisely according to plan, due largely to lack of managerial oversight. However, a Regional MCS Strategy was successfully completed, and the feasibility of using satellite tracking as an IUU deterrent was undertaken in New Caledonian waters. Standardised indexes and templates to identify and determine data and databases in the region that may be harmonised to enhance MCS and fisheries management was undertaken as part of the MCS Strategy. • TUFMAN evolved to version 6.27 with SCIFISH support, and became more widely used by participating ACPs to enter, store and manage the data collected through national monitoring programme, enhancing their capacity to inform both national and regional decision-making processes. The number of WCPFC member countries submitting Part-1 reports to WCPFC by the 30 April deadline improved from 3 out of 13 in 2008 to 14 out of 16 in 2011. • A pilot study undertaken in the New Caledonia EEZ and executed by CLS (contracted under the OCT contribution) in collaboration with the NC Service de la Pêche to assess the simultaneous analysis of VMS records with RADARSAT targets for the detection of IUU fishing indicated that this new approach to combatting IUU fishing was not viable in this particular situation. Trials of other emerging technologies, such as optical satellite data collection and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for fisheries surveillance, was not undertaken. • Results Group 2 (Enhanced stock assessments ) supported stock assessments for each of the four main tropical tuna species (bigeye, yellowfin, albacore and skipjack), with each having been were assessed at least twice during the course of SCIFISH. All stock assessments produced by OFP were accepted by the WCPFC Scientific Committee and duly utilised during plenary sessions of the Commission to inform the decision-making process for CMM formulation. At the national level, OFP (together with FFA) prepared nine National Tuna Fisheries Status Reports, many of

which directly informed the process leading to national tuna management and development plans. • Twelve tagging cruises under the ACP Component for tropical tunas (bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack) were supported. At least 271,000 fish were tagged using conventional tags. At least 35,800 were recovered, indicating a recovery rate of 16%. At least 1,300 fish were tagged using archival tags, with a recovery rate of 13%. Under the OCT Component, approx. 3,000 albacore were tagged with conventional tags and 19 electronic tags (pop-up satellite tags). A wide range of biological material was collected, including otoliths and muscle tissue was successfully used in developing new (non-tagging) techniques for assessing tuna population dynamics in the WCPO. • Analysis of tagging and biological data generated by the tropical tuna and albacore tagging cruises by OFP scientific staff is on-going and will continue for several years, and forms a crucial input to MULTIFAN-C stock assessments provided to the WCPFC via the SC and TCC. This work was published in numerous scientific journals and has proved robust in the face of international peer review. • Results Group 3 (Enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystem ) supported the further development of SEAPODYM, which has developed to become cutting-edge tool for investigating the relationship between the distribution and abundance of tunas, their prey, and environmental / oceanic conditions. The development of the model and its application has been well documented, with at least 18 publications in peer-reviewed scientific media. • SEAPODYM has been endorsed by the WCPFC as a viable and trusted model for the provision of scientific advice on tuna management policies. By the end of SCIFISH, SEAPODYM acuity had increased to a level where it was able to estimate EEZ-scale biomass distributions and associated environmental variability for skipjack, bigeye and albacore tuna. • The scope and content of CMMs is firmly grounded on the scientific advice provided through the Science Committee. Between 2008 and 2011, much of this advice was generated through activities supported, at least to some extent, by SCIFISH. The important contribution by SCIFISH to tuna science is undoubted, although it must be noted that due to the plethora of other funding sources supporting OFP activities, the specific contribution to the overall body of scientific information made by SCIFISH is not quantifiable in specific terms. • PIC officials were clearly well engaged in the gathering, analysis and interpretation of results emanating from SCIFISH supported activities, as well as subsequent management options/negotiating positions with DWFNs, CMM formulation and application. Impact • SCIFISH made a highly significant contribution to the establishment of a cadre of 600+ well- trained, dedicated on-board observers capable of monitoring key aspects of the region’s tuna fishing activities, resulting in much improved scope and quality of biological and fishery-related basic data, key to informing national and regional policy and management decision-making processes. • Stakeholders reported unequivocally that building the national observer programme has without doubt led to their ability to meet regional reporting obligations, for example to the WCPFC on annual catch and effort statistics. • At the regional level, the cadre of skilled observers (created in a period of <2 years) enabled member states of the WCPFC to meet the ambitious target of 100% observer coverage on purse- seine vessels, as called for in CMM 2008-01. • The capacity of ACP and participating OCT states to collect, compile, analyse and, crucially, share data and other forms of information, relating to tuna fisheries falling within their jurisdiction has without continued to be strengthened throughout SCIFISH, thus building on the capacity development process initiated under predecessor EU-funded projects. • Data emanating from the Project has had direct positive impact on the deliberations of various technical meetings held at FFA to formulate management options and PIC positions prior to the

xii

conduct of annual meetings of the WCPFC Preparatory Meetings, SC and TCC. SCIFISH derived data fed directly into numerous keystone developments, e.g. the PNA Vessel Day Scheme. • Collaboration between OFP, FFA, PNA and WCPFC strengthened through collaborative efforts on observer training, standard setting (PIRFO), software development (TUFMAN TUBS), and establishing/implementing data sharing protocols for VMS, observer and other data forms related to tuna management in the Region. • The MCS-related activities implemented by FFA had less direct impact, although the Regional MCS Strategy developed established a framework for improved integrated MCS including Integrated Management Systems. • The PIRFO Standard and associated training syllabi and materials represents a world-class system for fisheries observers, much referred to in other parts of the world. • TUFMAN provides national administrations with a viable tool for ensuring the high quality of data, as well as the capability to store and analyse the data to meet a wide range of management needs. • Tuna tagging undertaken by SPC, notably through SCIFISH funding, has been the largest such undertaking in the world. Parameters have been key as inputs to MULTIFAN-CL stock assessment models. • SEAPODYM is able to inform on the impact of long term changes in the oceanographic environment due to factors such as climate change and El Nino, and is crucial for PICs to know how to deal with such likely changes at both national and regional levels. Sustainability • The shared/straddling nature of tuna stocks in the Region demands a regional approach and a high level of scientific and technical capacity in support to their management. Thus the type of services provided by SPC is likely to remain, or more likely increase in the face of pressure on stocks, in the foreseeable future. • The cost of providing such support will inevitably increase. The level of dependence on donor organisations to support the OFP has increased, over the past decade (see this report, Part II). • Countries such as French Polynesia and New Caledonia managed to find national funding support for their domestic observer programmes. For many other states, institutionalising the costs of fisheries staff and their running costs will continue to be problematic. • A good model for cost recovery exists in the Multi-Lateral Treaty on Fishing, managed by the FFA, whereby full cost recovery is in place and the industry pays for all observer and associated management costs. • Observer training has been a spectacular achievement of the Project. The bottleneck now lies in the availability of Observer De-briefers and Observer Trainers. The role of some national fisheries training schools in training also needs to be expanded (e.g. KMC in PNG), to reduce direct dependence on SPC-organised and implemented training courses, which are currently unable to meet demand due to shortage of staff availability. The fact that the SPC observer training system is totally reliant on three key staff positions is itself a matter of concern in regard to the sustainability of the system – if funding support from new donors ceases, this would spell disaster for the region’s observer programme. • In regard to regional stock assessments, such costs are largely met by the WCPFC, under the terms of its 3-year rolling agreement with SPC for the provision of scientific services. • Regional tagging experiments are an expensive undertaking. Although the SCICOFISH project has supported some continuing tagging operations, PNG has taken the lead in the Region in providing direct funding and management support of tagging, as well as technical support services provided by SPC.

xiii

Lessons learned • SciFish’s ambitious Overall Objective and Project Purpose calls into question whether it is plausible to have strict time limits for the delivery of results, since the underlying activities that achieve the results are largely never-ending. The inclusion of SMART Objectively Verifiable Indicators in the original log-frame, and annual SMART indicators in annual work plans, would have assisted in assessing progress of the Project. • Whilst collaborative projects between regional agencies (SPC and FFA in this case) make intuitive sense, experience shows that it is probably best to keep science and compliance projects separate. • SPC uses funds at its disposal in an integrated manner. The funding provided by SCIFISH became part of the general budget for SPC, and as such was complemented with funds from a range of other funding sources. (deleted space) Although this provided OFP with a high degree of flexibility and complementarity in optimal use of available funding, it makes difficult the task of evaluating the contribution made specifically and solely by SCIFISH. The MTE of SCICOFISH discusses in some detail issues surrounding the funding modalities employed by SPC and their consequences for financial accountability, flexibility and sustainability. • The project approach has left the Region to ransom in terms of continuation of key posts (e.g. those running the highly successful Regional Observer Programme) with the perennial question as to how to find new project support in order to maintain the level of services to PICs. • Project funding engenders serious inefficiencies due to the need for repeated project and contract preparations, project monitoring and reporting, and ineffective evaluation. • It would be preferable to move away from ‘projects’ which are in fact in reality a continuous stream of core support activities to the PICs, and for SPC to move towards negotiating more sustainable support mechanisms for the OFP with its development partners. This would allow SPC to plan and manoeuvre within its strategic plan, serve its entire member base, and become more efficient. Recommendations 1. PICs need to make provision for adequate human, financial and material resources in national establishments and recurrent budgets for long-term sustainability of the monitoring programmes. 2. PICs should progress the user-pays principle and include all monitoring, management and equipment costs from the fishing industry. The Multi-lateral Treaty on Fishing provides a good model. 3. WCPFC needs to capitalize on the science flowing from OFP and develop a well-structured management strategy, including target/limit reference points for major tuna and shark species, with limits on fishing capacity. 4. SPC needs to move away from a project approach and towards a more sustainable, programme support funding mechanism with the EU. Recommendations pertinent to the EU’s continued support of oceanic, and coastal, fisheries described fully in Part II of this document (SCICOFISH Mid-Term Evaluation).

xiv

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCIFISH PROJECT SUMMARY FEATURES

The Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Project (SCIFISH) aimed to provide a scientific basis for offshore fisheries policy and management decision making at both the national and regional level. It directly served the mandates and aims of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, as well as the 14 Pacific ACP (African, Caribbean, Pacific) states (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu) and French Overseas Countries and Territory (OCTs) (New Caledonia and French Polynesia). SCIFISH was a four year project, funded under the 9th European Development Fund (EDF). It commenced in March 2008 and formally terminated on 31 December 2011. SCIFISH was designed to achieve three main results: a) Enhanced oceanic fisheries monitoring, with activities focused on observer and port sampling training and support but including a Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) component (implemented by the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the New Caledonian Service de la Pêche); b) Enhanced stock assessment of key tuna species (skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore), with activities focused on tuna tagging, biological research and model development; and c) Enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystem and fishery interactions, with activities focused on developing ecosystem models as tools for determining the impacts of environmental variations, including climate change, on oceanic tuna fisheries. Summary information taken from the Financing Agreement is given in Table 1 below. Table 1: Main features of SCIFISH Project Name : Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the western and central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) Identification Number : RPA/001/06rev. Accounting Number : 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8. Financing Agreement Number : 9276/REG. Implementing agency : Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Location: Regional with Project Staff based in Noumea, New Caledonia and Honiara, Solomon Is. Duration : 48 months (2008-2011). Value : total: €6,610,000 (ACP €4,000,000, OCT €2,610,000). Participating countries : The 14 Pacific ACP countries: Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu and French OCTs: New Caledonia and French Polynesia. Key Stakeholders : Pacific Island Country (PIC) nationals involved in management and development of tuna resources within the region. Project Purpose : Improved policy and scientific information for better management of the regional and national oceanic fisheries. EU Monitoring missions : Two project Results Orientated Monitoring missions were undertaken in Sep 2009 and Sep 2010. A Mid-Term Evaluation was conducted during October-November 2010. Source: Project documents.

The Financing Agreement was signed by the European Union (EU) on 24 Oct 2007. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) signed on 19 Nov 2007 (on behalf of the ACP States) and the Government of New Caledonia on 17 Dec 2007 (on behalf of the OCT States: French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna). The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), as implementing agency, commenced draw-down of funds early in 2008. The Financing Agreement was supplemented by two Contribution Agreements: one signed between SPC and PIFS, Suva, Fiji (as the Regional Authorising Officer (RAO) for the ACP states), and one between SPC and the Government of New Caledonia (as RAO for the participating OCT states), although all project activities were to a large extent integrated and complementary. These Contribution Agreements set out matters concerning the Special Conditions relating to the purpose of SCIFISH, entry into force, implementation period, the finance available and financing arrangements (for the specific country groups), as well as reporting requirements (both technical and financial). The annexes provide a detailed description of the intervention, EC general conditions applicable to funding provided to international organizations, a details budget breakdown, standard financial forms and payment request formats.

1.2 FINAL EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

This Final Evaluation was conducted by Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd (part of the COWI Consortium). A two-man Review Mission Team (MT) was contracted to undertake the work, comprising Mr Gilles Hosch (Team Leader) and Mr Paul Nichols. The Terms of Reference for the Final Evaluation of SCIFISH form part of the ToR given in Annex 1. The work schedule followed is given in Annex 2 . Field work commenced with arrival of the MT members in Suva, Fiji on Wednesday 6 th February 2013. An initial briefing to clarify the ToR, and agree logistical and practical issues was held on Thursday 7 th Feb 2013 with representatives of the EC Delegation in Fiji and the Forum Secretariat (Regional Authorising Officer for the Pacific-ACP States). The Consultants visited, either individually or together, and held discussions with key stakeholders in Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. Meetings were also held in Noumea, New Caledonia, with staff of the Offshore Fisheries programme (OFP) and Coastal Fisheries Programme (CFP) of the Division of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Marine Ecosystems (FAME), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and with the Government of New Caledonia (as RAO for the participating OCTs under SCIFISH). Given the fact that some key P-ACP officials with involvement in SCIFISH and SCICOFISH were attending a regional meeting held at Palau by the PNA Secretariat during the period 20 th Feb – 2nd March 2013, arrangements were made for one of the RM Team to visit Palau and discuss the two projects in the margins of those meetings. A total of 87 persons from concerned stakeholder and beneficiary institutions were interviewed in regard to their perceptions of SCIFISH. Names, designation and e-contacts are given in Annex 3 . Project documentation was kindly provided by the EC Delegation to the Pacific in Fiji, and the OFP and CFP Programme in Noumea (Annex 4) . Additional material was obtained from the websites of the OFP, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and FFA. The Mission Team provided their outline findings and key recommendations to the third SCICOFISH Steering Committee Meeting held on March 7 th 2013, during the 8 th Heads of Fisheries Meeting (HoF-8), held at SPC Headquarters (4-8th March 2013). A final debriefing meeting was held with delegates from the EU Delegation to the Pacific (Suva), PIFS and SPC on Friday 8 th March 2013.

1.3 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The approach to evaluation is outlined in the Terms of Reference (Annex 1 ), which also set out specific evaluation questions. Guidance on the interpretation of evaluation criteria was drawn from the applicable EU Manual on Project Cycle Management, which also covers project evaluations 3. A Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of SCIFISH was conducted under EUROPEAID/119860/C/SV/multi LOT N° 6: Environment, Request N°: 2010 /247943 by one of the MT members (Mr Paul Nichols) over the period 18 October - 18 November 2010. The MTE was therefore undertaken within the last year of the Project’s four year lifetime. The MTE focused on the design and relevance of SCIFISH, efficiency of implementation, and effectiveness, i.e. in terms of progress made towards producing results. The MTE identified constraints and issues relating to efficiency and effectiveness, and proposed options for remedial action. The focus of this Final Evaluation (FE), therefore, is to provide a succinct update on the findings of the MTE in relation to design/relevance, efficiency and effectiveness, but with greater attention on the impact and sustainability aspects of SCIFISH. The FE therefore builds on the findings of the SCIFISH MTE, since the analysis and conclusions presented in the MTE are accepted, and are used as a point of departure for the FE. The FE also examines the continuation of SCIFISH into the successor SCICOFISH Project, and how the recommendations of the MTE were used to re-direct the Programme. Key lessons to be learned from SCIFISH are also provided. Participation of stakeholders that were involved in the Programme was an essential aspect of the evaluation methodology. The country visits undertaken provided those stakeholders most closely associated with SCIFISH (and SCICOFISH) with an opportunity to provide feed-back on their perception on the assistance provided, and allowed assessment of impact, successes and failures, through specific country examples. The MT used a set of evaluation questions to cover the following six classic OECD/DAC and EC evaluation criteria (as set out in the ToR, Annex 1), namely: 1. Design - how well SCIFISH responded to real needs in the Region; 2. Relevance - consistency between project objectives and identified needs and priorities; 3. Efficiency – how well the various activities undertaken transformed the available resources into the intended results; 4. Effectiveness – the extent to which the intended results and Project Purpose have been achieved; 5. Impact - the relationship between the Project Purpose and Overall Objective; and 6. Sustainability – whether or not the positive outcomes of SCIFISH and the flow of benefits have continued after termination of EU funding support. In terms of assessing the effectiveness of SCIFISH, quantitative information (situation before / after project) was obtained through stakeholder interviews, which allowed rating of the achievement of expected results at national level for the countries that were visited. In doing so, it allowed individual country respondents to rate their capacity to operate observer schemes to WCPFC requirements, and their capacity to submit tuna catch and effort data to WCPFC requirements (key elements of the SCIFISH Project Purpose). Discussions with stakeholders proceeded as semi-structured interviews, ensuring that the thematic areas of interest to the FE were properly covered. In terms of evaluation criteria other than

3 EU PCM Guidelines (2004).

effectiveness, information presented is generally more qualitative, rather than quantitative in nature.

2 SCIFISH PROJECT DESIGN

This chapter examines how relevant and appropriate SCIFISH was in terms of design and the means at its disposal, as a tool to contributing to the stated overall objective and to achieving the Project Purpose. The chapter briefly re-examines the extent to which SCIFISH addressed real problems, responded to actual needs of ACP and OCT countries, and how appropriate the design and approach of SCIFISH was in order to address those problems and needs.

2.1 OVERALL OBJECTIVE

The overall objective of SCIFISH was: the conservation and sustainable use of oceanic fish resources of the western and central Pacific Ocean . In order to provide support for this Overall Objective, SCIFISH was designed with three mutually supporting and inter-related basic results groups. These are discussed more fully under section 2.3 below, and comprised: • Enhanced fisheries monitoring through support to national fisheries observer programmes and related data processing and dissemination activities; • Scientific research through the conduct of tagging experiments and advancement of stock assessment models for key tuna species; • Advancement of fine-scale modelling of the interaction between tuna fisheries and pelagic ecosystem / environmental variables. SCIFISH was a de facto extension of work supported by predecessor EU-funded projects, supporting many of the staff positions and key responsibilities of the OFP as one of the several funding sources supporting OFP. The chronological history of EU support is further discussed in the SCICOFISH MTE Report (Part II). The focus on ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable use’ in the Overall Objective was laudable and anchored SCIFISH to the 2007 Vava’u Declaration for economic growth through sustainable fisheries development, as well as bringing it in line with global trends towards conservation of fish stocks through responsible fishing practices and adequate management leading to sustainable fisheries. According WCPFC, tuna production in the western-central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) in 2011 was around 2.2-2.4 million tonnes annually towards the end of SCIFISH, accounting for 55-60% of the world tuna catch, or 80-85% of the entire Pacific catch. Around 76% of this production is taken within the EEZs of PIC members states of the WCPFC. Tuna caught by the dominant gear – purse-seine – in the EEZs of WCPFC PIC member countries accounts for 80% of this total, with only 20% taken on the high seas in the region. Long-liners catch around 51% of their production in EEZs, and 49% on the High Seas. Tuna fisheries provide significant income to the Pacific Island countries and territories, as well as an essential part in terms of national food security for all PICs. Unlike many other industrial fisheries globally, the tuna stocks in the region are in reasonably good shape, and SCIFISH’s Overall Objective was designed to support efforts to ensure that they remain so. SCIFISH’s Overall Objective was also consistent with the 9 th EDF’s aim of promoting regional cooperation on tuna fisheries policy formulation and delivery of Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) through the WCPFC.

2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE

The SCIFISH Project Purpose was: to provide a scientific basis for regional and national oceanic fisheries management decision-making by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and by Pacific ACP and OCT Governments .

The three results and associated activities are well designed to enhance the effectiveness of the WCPFC, in line with the Pacific Regional Indicative Programme (PRIP) which calls for the improvements in scientific information on oceanic marine resources and their ecosystem. SPC’s OFP is contracted by WCPFC as its primary service provider of high quality scientific advice. Given the long history of involvement of OFP in the region in this regard, and the vast amount of data and scientific capacity that has been developed, it was a logical conclusion that OFP perform this role once the Commission was established. Work conducted is contracted under the terms of a rolling 3-year service agreement between WCPFC and OFP 4. The OFP provides the major scientific input to the work of the Tuna Commission’s Scientific Committee, which meets annually in August. OFP’s role is to ensure that the Commission has the best available scientific information on which to base appropriate conservation and management measures. The Scientific Committee utilises the services of expert fisheries scientists of OFP and others. Its meetings are usually attended by scientific and other related technical representatives. The Science Committee 5 (SC) also coordinates with the Technical and Compliance Committee 6 (TCC) on certain matters to ensure consistent advice is provided to the Commission.

2.3 RESULTS AND ACTIVITIES

SCIFISH aimed to achieve three main results. These and the corresponding activities are stipulated in the original logical framework and summarised in Table 2 below. Table 2: SCIFISH Results and associated Activities Result 1: Enhanced oceanic fishery monitoring in Pacific ACPs, and OCTs and in the Commission Convention Area generally . • Activity 1.1. Provision of training programmes for scientific observers and port samplers in Pacific ACPs through regional, sub-regional and national workshops. • Activity 1.2. Provision of training attachments of national fishery monitoring staff at SPC headquarters. • Activity 1.3. Provision of operational support (e.g. the provision of equipment, data forms, funding of observer trips and port sampling operations) for national scientific observer and port sampling programmes. • Activity 1.4. Provision of quality control for scientific observer and port sampling data through data audits, operational reviews of sampling activities, observer debriefing and generally enhancing national capacity in observer and port sampling programmes.

4 Revised Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (signed March 2010) . 5 The SC meets in August and ensures that the Commission has the best available scientific information on which to consider appropriate conservation and management measures. The SC utilises the services of expert fisheries scientists and its meetings usually comprise scientific and other related technical representatives. The SC also coordinates with the Technical and Compliance Committee on certain matters to ensure consistent advice is provided to the Commission. (source: www.wcpfc.int) 6 The TCC meets in October and is the “enforcement” committee of the Commission. The TCC reviews members’ adherence to Commission decisions and monitors individual countries’ implementation of those measures. The TCC also makes recommendations to the Commission with respect to encouraging, improving and enforcing compliance by members with the decisions of the Commission. (source: www.wcpfc.int)

• Activity 1.5. Development and trial of new technologies for enhancing quality of data and timeliness of data collection. • Activity 1.6. Development of harmonised fisheries monitoring systems and data sharing protocols. • Activity 1.7. Conduct of compliance audits and IUU risk assessments of ACPs. • Activity 1.8. Development and implementation of methodologies to verify fisheries data. • Activity 1.9. Development and trial of new technologies, including satellite based technologies for the detection of IUU fishing activities.

Result 2: Enhanced assessments of the status of oceanic fish stocks and the impacts of fishing upon them . • Activity 2.1. The conduct of large-scale conventional and electronic tagging and associated biological studies of tunas in the WCPO, including both tropical tunas (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna) and South Pacific albacore. • Activity 2.2. The conduct of analyses of tagging, biological and fishery oceanographic data to obtain a better understanding of the population dynamics, behaviour and biology of oceanic fish stocks. • Activity 2.3. Incorporation of tagging and biological data and/or the results of supporting analyses into models used to assess the status of targeted oceanic fish stocks and the impacts of fishing.

Result 3: Enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystem that supports oceanic fish stocks, including the ecosystem impacts of fishing . • Activity 3.1: Development and enhancement of models of the pelagic ecosystem supporting oceanic fish stocks targeted by regional tuna fisheries. • Activity 3.2: Use of such models to provide scientific advice on ecosystem aspects of fishery management, including (i) the impacts of environmental variability on oceanic fish stocks and fisheries; (ii) the effects of fishing on the pelagic ecosystem; and (iii) the potential benefits and effectiveness of specific ecosystem management measures, such as marine protected areas. Source: Financing Agreement, Contribution Agreements

No changes were made to the results and activities during the course of SCIFISH, attesting to the fact that the results and constituent activities remained relevant to attaining the Project Purpose throughout the Project’s life-span.

2.4 THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The logical framework, as presented in the signed Financing Agreement, is given here in Annex 5 . This follows the standard EU format and meets the requirements of the EU’s Project Cycle Management (PCM) Guidelines. The SCIFISH MTE (Oct 2010) found the logical framework to be clear and unambiguous. However, it found that the originally stated Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) specified in the logical framework were not ‘SMART’ (i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound). As a result, OFP introduced amended OVIs at the beginning of the fourth year 7 of the Project (2011).

7 Year 3 Annual Report and Provisional 2011 Work Plan and Cost Estimate (1 Jan 2011 – 31 Dec 2011), page 28: Project Administration .

These are also indicated in Annex 5 (together for the original OVIs that they replaced). The FE Team finds that the revised OVIs are a marked improvement on those given in the original log-frame, albeit having been made far too late to be of real value for assessing annual progress in implementation. The MTE also recommended that OVIs given in the Annual Work Plan and Budget should indicate, for the particular year in question, a baseline and a target for each of the results/activities envisaged for that particular year. This would then make the report produced for the PSC and the donor partners more meaningful, since this would allow progress towards reaching the stated target indicators easer to see in the 6 and 12 monthly reports. This was not implemented for SCIFISH, probably due to the late timing of the MTE.

2.5 ASSUMPTIONS AND PRE -CONDITIONS

2.5.1 Assumptions The logical framework lists the following assumptions: For the overall objective : World demand for tuna and related products of the Central and Western Pacific maintained at high levels . Demand for tuna is high and continues to increase. The dominant position of the WCPO Region as a supplier of world tuna supply continues to attract industrial interest from vessel owners to processors and exporters. Such attention is set to increase as world population increases. Domestic demand for pelagic tuna resources is also set to increase, due to national food security implications of ever rising domestic populations throughout the Region. For the Project Purpose : The tuna fishery remains a priority area for management and conservation by regional and national administrations : this certainly holds true throughout the Region, and is certain to continue to be the case. The very high level of political support provided to WCPFC, as well as regional sub-groups such as the PNA, MSG and TVM attest to the fact that effective management of tuna fisheries remains one of the top priorities for PIC governments. For results 1, 2 and 3 (collectively) : Appropriate and compatible technologies available to strengthen existing monitoring, control and surveillance infrastructure: the information and communications infrastructure available to regional fisheries administrations and organisations varies from country to country, but continues to improve. FFA, in particular, has done much to facilitate the development of information and communications infrastructure which have been instrumental to the success of the monitoring activities under SCIFISH, including sharing of data and the development of high tech MCS tools such as the Vessel Monitoring Scheme (VMS). Slow internet access and computer viruses continue to present problems for some states, and this in turn has impacted on their ability to contribute to, and benefit from, involvement in SCIFISH. Aside from Information and Communications Technology (ICT), items of equipment required for fisheries monitoring (e.g. measuring boards, sample bottles, wet weather gear, etc.) is readily available through commercial suppliers. Sufficient number of observers available for observer and port sampling missions : this assumption could well have become a killer assumption, especially in the face of the unexpected CMM/2008/01 agreed by the Commission, requiring 100% observer coverage on all purse-seiners operating in the WCPO. OFP staff recruited with SCIFISH support to undertake the observer training were able to respond very quickly and succeeded in recruiting and training a sufficient body of national observers, at least to cadet level, who were subsequently able to undertake regional observer duties. By the end of SCIFISH, the challenge had shifted to ensuring adequate further training of basic observers to advanced level, able to take on the role of Observer De-briefers. The number and availability of De- briefers is now a major constraint for the Region.

Commitment by governments to seriously address Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing: the threat posed by IUU fishing vessels is high on the political agenda in the Region, as it is worldwide. The entry into force on 1 Jan 2010 of new EU legislation 8 to reduce and eliminate the entry of IUU caught marine fish into the EU market has stimulated national fisheries administrations world-wide to examine and improve their national capacity for effective MCS. SCIFISH has assisted in these endeavours, primarily through the training of national observers and port-side enumerators, who form an essential element against the scourge of IUU fishing. The development of a Regional MCS Strategy by FFA, funded under SCIFISH, set an excellent framework for further development of a regionally-coordinated response to the threat of IUU fishing vessels. ACP and OCT governments will commit to implementing fishery monitoring methods as recommended by the project: this assumption has held true, given the significant improvement in the coverage and quality of data collected, analysed and dispersed to date by national fisheries administrations. Maintenance of an effective national observer programme indeed appears to be a national priority in all PIC cases. Even in the case of the participating OCTs - French Polynesia and New Caledonia - identified in the MTE as facing problems in guaranteeing continued support for their national observer programmes (staff salaries and recurrent costs) after the conclusions of SCIFISH, have been able to secure funding from national sources to continue support for national observer/port samplers, albeit through contracting arrangements made with OFP (as discussed more fully elsewhere). Availability of vessel to be chartered for tuna tagging exercise : Tagging activities under SCIFISH were sustained and faced no significant problems such as vessel availability, breakdowns, or lack of live baitfish, other than forces beyond control (bad weather, scarcity of schools to tag). 2.5.2 Pre-conditions A number of ‘Assumptions’ were listed against Project activities in the logical framework. These might better be described as pre-conditions, and included: • Availability of technical expertise for long and short term engagement : No problems were encountered regarding the availability of technical expertise. All Technical Assistance (TA) positions funded by SCIFISH were successfully filled with high calibre, highly competent professionals. • New technologies for surveillance and data management affordable : budgetary constraints were not reported for the technology required for MCS and data storage/ analysis/ transmission. However, electronic tags used under Result 2 were found to be very expensive (around $5,000 each), resulting in necessary judicial use in tagging experiments. • Commitment from the countries to trial new technologies : participating countries were supportive and willing to embrace and support the application new technologies trialled with SCIFISH support, such as VMS, electronic tags, and new database designs. • Status of tuna stocks at good levels to undertake scientific work covering targeted species . The availability of albacore, caught in suitably good condition for tagging, presented a considerable challenge, as was the low availability of juvenile bigeye for tagging.

8 EU Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, (establishing a new European Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, of 29 September 2008, and subsequent implementing Regulations .

2.6 RELEVANCE Stakeholder interviews unanimously confirmed that the Project Purpose, results and activity areas indicated in the logical framework were highly relevant to informing the processes leading to policy and management strategies for the tuna resources. Support was given for the necessary regional approach, but many stressed a need for advice to be available for planning and management at the national level. The strategy employed was broadly similar to that followed in previous interventions, and builds on earlier successful work delivered.

2.7 RELATED INTERVENTIONS

SPC’s OFP is the regional focal point for tuna fisheries science and data acquisition, and performed the role of the lead technical implementing agency for SCIFISH. The OFP traces its origins back to the establishment of the Skipjack Survey and Assessment Programme (SSAP) in SPC in 1977, whose main role it was to provide advice to SPC member states on skipjack pole-and-line fishery and associated baitfish resources of the SPC region, and to support the development and management of these fisheries (which dominated at that time). SSAP undertook pioneering large-scale tagging experiments which revealed the exploitation potential of the skipjack tuna resources of the region. The Tuna and Billfish Assessment Programme (TBAP) was established in 1982 as a follow-up programme to the SSAP, and in response to the growing need to document tuna catch and effort and to understand tuna population dynamics and the interaction among the fisheries. TBAP established the Regional Tuna Fisheries Database and implemented a second successful large-scale tagging experiment, the Regional Tuna Tagging Project (RTTP), funded under the 6 th EDF. The RTTP focused on the three principal tropical tuna species: skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna, and also implemented an albacore tagging project with complementary French OCT funding. The RTTP provided updated information on the exploitation status of skipjack tuna, and the first tag-based information on the exploitation, growth, mortality and movements of yellowfin, bigeye and South Pacific albacore tuna. The results of these tagging experiments continue to make an important and direct contribution to routine stock assessments for the four species. In 1995, the TBAP was renamed the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP), to reflect the need for SPC members to collect information on the pelagic ecosystem in general. The OFP implemented the 7 th EDF-funded South Pacific Regional Tuna Resource Assessment and Monitoring Project (SPRTRAMP), which was designed to establish continuous and comprehensive scientific monitoring of the region's tuna fisheries, to undertake studies of the biology and ecology of the main exploited species, and to develop and enhance methods for providing scientific advice on the status of stocks and the impacts of fishing. The tuna tagging activities under SCIFISH (which is the main focus of Result number 2) evolved from RTTP (6th EDF), and SPRTRAMP (7th EDF). OFP oceanographic research has received support from the Pelagic Fisheries Research Programme (PFRP), in association with the University of Hawaii. PFRP is taking the “SEAPODYM” and “SKIP I” models (developed with EU support under PROCFISH – Oceanic component) and combining them on a single “stretched” grid. The “stretched grid” allows the spatial resolution to vary so that increased accuracy can focus on the areas of the ocean of greatest interest, such as major fishing grounds. PFRP forms part of a larger International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and Oceanic Fisheries and Climate Change Project (OFCCP GLOBEC), which aims to predict the effect of short and long term climate changes on productivity and distribution of the oceanic tuna stocks and fisheries. The aim here is to develop a realistic simulation model that can be used to test outcomes under various global warming scenarios. The support provided under SCIFISH has allowed considerable progress towards SEAPODYM achieving this aim. A summary of more recent EDF-funded projects is included in Table 3 overleaf.

Table 3: Sequence of EU funded projects relating to fisheries in the WCPO. Title Duration Value Objective PROCFISH 2002 -2007 PROCFISH - An oceanic component Provided scientific support to OCEANIC : P-ACPs, P-OCTs and the fledgling WCPFC for the 8th EDF. sustainable management of the region’s oceanic ACP’ S €3.9 m fisheries resources. OCT’s €1.0 m

2001 -2009 COFISH: A coastal fisheries component produced rigorous, comparable information on the status and prospects of €7.6 m reef fisheries, provided for the process of developing reef fishery management measures. DEVFISH 2005 -2009 €3 m Support for the development of domestic tuna industries and targeted the improvement and co- 9th EDF ordination of poverty eradication-oriented national fisheries sector policies. DEVFISH complemented PROCFISH, in fulfilling the vision of the Regional Strategy Paper and the RIP for P-ACP/EC cooperation in fisheries. DEVFISH sought to broaden cooperation between the P- ACP countries and the EC in fisheries generally. ACP Fish II 2009 -2014 €30 m - of Supports the development of fisheries policy, and which €1.4 m fostering improved institutional capacity for fisheries 9th EDF reserved for and aquatic resources management in all ACP countries. Pacific activities SCIFISH. 2008 -2011 €4 m (ACP), Support to provide a scientific basis for regional and €2.6 m (OCT) national oceanic fisheries management decision-making 9th EDF. by the WCPFC and by Pacific ACP and OCT Governments. SCICOFISH 2010 -20 14 €9 m Support to provide a reliable and improved scientific basis for management and decision making in oceanic 10 TH EDF and coastal fisheries. Many aspects are extensions of SCIFISH.

DEVFISH 2 2011 -2015 €8.2 m Focus on development of sustainable domestic tuna

TH industries. 10 EDF Note: Refer to acronym sheet for definition of abbreviations. Annex 6 presents a matrix of the accomplishments, gaps, identified needs and activities required to address such needs for interventions funded under EDF8, EDF 9 and EDF10. The methodologies developed by the early tagging interventions as well as PROCFISH and DEVFISH in regard to development of ecosystem models, monitoring and control of fisheries, and tuna tagging were successfully incorporated into the design of SCIFISH.

3 EFFICIENCY

This chapter assesses how well the various activities transformed the resources available to the programme into the intended results. Comparisons are made against what was planned .

3.1 ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

The Contracting Authority for SCIFISH was the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), as Regional Authorising Officer of the European Development Fund. Implementation was achieved through the framework set forth in two decentralised Contribution Agreements: one for the ACP states (signed between the Secretary General of PIFS (as RAO) and the Secretary General of SPC, and one for the OCTs signed between the President of the Government of New Caledonia (as RAO) and the Secretary General of SPC. Both agreements were endorsed by the EU Commission. Funding available through the Contribution Agreements effectively contributed to the core budget of SPC, where it was often utilised in combination with other funding sources for the various activities laid down in the logical framework. SPCs Director General was responsible for overall project supervision, and signed off on Annual Work Plan and Budgets (AWPBs), progress reports and requests for various derogations. Day-to-day operational control was the responsibility of the Project Coordinator, in the person of the OFP Manager / Chief Scientist. This post has been held for many years by Dr John Hampton, who consequently has a long experience with EU rules, procedures and requirements in regard to EDF funding mechanisms. Key elements of SCIFISH that supported efforts relating to VMS and IUU fishing were the responsibility of FFA, under terms set forth in a Subsidiary Agreement between SPC and FFA.

3.2 MONITORING OF ACTIVITIES

Primary responsibility for project monitoring lay with the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC met a total of four times during the course of SCIFISH 9. As discussed in the MTE, a lack of specific ToR for the PSC reduced its effectiveness in terms of executive direction of project activities. Due to the lateness of the MTE, detailed ToR were not developed for the PSC. Meetings of the PSC generally coincided with the regional annual HoF meeting to reduce costs. The HoF meeting takes place in February/March each year. By then the AWP has usually been approved already by the RAOs and the EU . This system appears to have been acceptable for the implementation of SCIFISH. The PSC has, therefore, not played a significant role in monitoring and evaluation of SCIFISH. This did not, however, apparently lead to any problems, probably due to the inherent trust placed by the PICs in the ability of OFP managers to ensure that the AWPs addressed priority needs and concerns, consistent with national and regional priorities. The AWPB was the key document that directed organization and management of SCIFISH on an annual basis. Drafting was primarily a responsibility of the Project Coordinator. The AWPB was presented to and, after consideration, approved by the PSC each year, to ensure compliance with national needs and regional imperatives. The EU presence at the PSC was to ensure that the

9 In May 2008, Feb 2009, May 2010 and Feb 2011.

project’s work plan remained within the sport and intent of the Financing Agreement. Upon approval by the PSC, the AWPB was signed off by the RAO and EU Delegation. Tendering procedures and fund disbursements, governed by the provisions of the FA, were signed off by RAO and approved by EU Delegation. The 2010 MTE considered (a) the level of detail provided in the AWP to be insufficient to allow adequate evaluation of the activities, particularly in regard to a lack of SMART OVIs for results to be achieved during the year; and (b) the format of the AWP, not being consistent for 2008, 2009 and 2010, thus impeding effective monitoring by the PSC and external review. The MTE also found the format and content of technical information within the 6-monthly and annual progress reports varied substantially, with only the financial reporting aspects being consistently well documented. In regard to the activities undertaken by FFA, no formal progress reports were ever produced (despite these being called for under the agreement 10 between the two organisations), although FFA usually provided input into the 6 monthly reports that OFP produced (J. Hampton, Pers. Comm .). The two Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM) exercises conducted during SCIFISH (in Sep 2009 and Sep 2010) ranked SCIFISH as good and very good in all evaluation categories (Table 4). Table 4: Results Orientated Monitoring mission scores Assessment criterion: ROM Mission - Sept 2009 ROM Mission - Sep t 2010 Relevance and quality of design A B Efficiency of implementation to date B B Effectiveness to date B B Impact prospects A B Potential sustainability B B Note: A = Very Good; B = Good; C = Problems; D = Deficiencies. Given the findings of the ROM missions and the 2010 MTE, an attempt was made in the final year of SCIFISH (2011) to improve the OVIs set on the logical framework for Overall Objective, Project Purpose, and results groups. As a result, the SCIFISH annual report for year 3 (2010) 11 is considerably more detailed and informative than the annual reports produced for years 1 (2008) and 2 (2009). The format of the SCIFISH Year 3 report constituted a significant deviation from the practice of previous years, in that the annual progress report was for the first time combined with the indicative AWPB for the succeeding year. This new ‘combined’ format has been successfully continued for the SCICOFISH project, and in the view of the FE Team is a significant improvement on the old system, since it allows stakeholders to both review progress to date , together with proposals for the next year’s work-plan, within the same document.

10 Paragraph (e) of the Subsidiary Agreement signed between and FFA for the joint implementation of SCIFISH states: ‘ FFA will compile six-monthly technical and financial reports detailing its activities against project milestones and indicators as described in the project’s logical framework, and provide this report to SPC, which will consolidate this into a single report for submission to the RAO .’

11 Annual Report 2010 and 2011 Provisional Work Plan and Cost Estimate (SPC 2011).

3.3 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The ACP Component Contribution Agreement was signed on 24 January 2008 between SPC, PIFS and the EU Delegation, for a total value of €4,000,000. The OCT Contribution Agreement was signed between SPC, the Government of New Caledonia and the EU Delegation on 13 March 2008, for a total value of €2,610,000. A total of €53,000 was withheld from the ACP component and €45,000 from the OCT component to fund project evaluations and external audits. The budget was established through the AWPB each year, prepared well in advance of the end of the preceding year by the project coordinators and approved by the PSC, the RAO and the EU Delegation. Financial management formed a core activity of the SPC Secretariat. Spent rates were in general in compliance with the AWPB. All financial reporting and audit requirements were met to the satisfaction of the EU, as one might expect given the long and successful track record SPC has had in previous EU-funded projects and programmes. SCIFISH funding became part of the general budget for SPC. In some cases, funding was complemented with funds from other funding sources, including GEF, AusAID, New Zealand Aid, OFCO (Japan). Of particular note is the contribution that one PIC member state - PNG - made, particularly in support of tuna tagging experiments. Having EDF-10 funds provided through SCIFISH as part of the ‘mix’ of development partner funding sources provided OFP with a high degree of flexibility and complementarity in optimal use of available funding. However, for activities where SCIFISH support was partial, and provided in synergy with other funding sources, it is clearly difficult to evaluate the particular value attached to the contribution made specifically and solely by SCIFISH. The MTE of SCICOFISH discusses in some detail issues surrounding the funding modalities employed by SPC and their consequences for financial accountability, flexibility and sustainability. Activities approved under the AWPBs proceeded promptly at the beginning of each year, due to advance payments being received against formal request for such lodged through the RAO to the EU. Advance of funds were released only upon receipt and acceptance by the EU of the audit report for the previous year’s funds, submitted by SPC via the RAO. End of year expenditures accounts for both ACP and OCT components were broken down by categories: technical assistance, MCS activities, travel, equipment, tagging operations, training, observer and port sampling operations, data processing and IT support administrative support, SPC overhead, contingencies, evaluation and audit. Annual expenditures were duly audited externally in line with EU requirements, and audit reports provided to the RAO with a request for the 80% advance against the approved AWPB for the succeeding year. The Mid-Term Evaluation concluded that the financial aspects of the Six-Monthly and Annual Reports were consistently well-documented. Most draw-down of funds occurred in the first 3 years (2008-2010), with 2011 concerned mostly with winding down of activities (and hand-over to other funding sources, including SCICOFISH). MCS activities were originally allocated a budget of €580,000 in the original Financing Agreement (split €480,000 for ACP states and €100,000 for OCTs) and were primarily the responsibility of FFA to implement, as provided for under an inter-organisational arrangement between SPC and FFA 12 . An

12 Subsidiary Agreement between the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the Forum Fisheries Agency for the joint implementation of the ‘Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH)’ project under Contribution Agreement No. 9.ACP.RPA.013 .

advance of €168,000 was provided to FFA as per the 2008 AWPB (80% of year one budget of €210,000 for MCS activities). This was utilised on co-funding of a study to develop a Regional MCS Strategy. No further expenditure was made by FFA on MCS-related activities in year 2 (2009) or year 3 (2010) due to certain difficulties faced by FFA in implementing MCS-related activities. The balance of €311,962 available for MCS related activities under the ACP Component was transferred to FFA in Jan 2012. The use of these funds is discussed more fully under section 4.1.

3.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES

OFP implemented activities under SCIFISH as an integral part of its work plan, as it has done successfully under preceding EU funded interventions. Stakeholders interviewed in the Region confirmed strong support for the efficient manner in which SCIFISH was implemented. Project staff implemented all activities in an efficient and in some cases exemplary fashion (for example, the staff responsible for observer training, resulting in the achievement of meeting the huge increase in observers required as result of the adoption of CMM 2008-01). SPC scientists have ensured peer review of many of the activities through publication in renowned international journals. Without exception, national stakeholders expressed satisfaction with all activities implemented under SCIFISH, which have led to considerable increases in skills, knowledge and technical capacity in the range of areas supported by SCIFISH. SPC maintained close and regular contact with FFA to ensure harmonisation of activities, particularly in regard to improved data exchange protocols. WCPFC indicated to the FE Team strong support for the mode of implementation of SCIFISH. The quality and timeliness of the scientific information generated by project has been well received and formed a central supporting role informing the decision making process of the Commission and its membership. WCPFC also articulated the view, shared by the FE Team, that there is no alternative strategy to consider for the provision of tuna research and data collection to that currently being pursued. SPC has a 50+ year time series of data and a world-class capability to analyse and provide scientific advice on tuna fisheries in the region covered by the WCPFC. It would make no sense to change the existing arrangement between the Commission and SPC. The system of data collection, research, analysis and management advice formulation supported by SCIFISH, builds on previous activities and ties in directly with the strategy of the Commission. The development of national capacity for data collection, processing and analysis continues to form the basis of regional cooperation through the Commission, and thus it makes perfect sense to utilise existing regional structures to the extent possible.

3.5 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL

The core staff involved in SCIFISH implementation possessed long practical experience in the work expected under the logical framework. Contracted specialist personnel were of high calibre and delivered highly valuable inputs. The FE Team learned of no adverse interactions between OFP- recruited staff and nationals in PICs. Long-term technical assistant staff recruited and funded under SCIFISH are detailed in Table 5 below. Table 5: SPC staff positions supported under SCIFISH (by year) Designation Name Comment 08 09 10 11 ACP Component Observer -Port Peter Full time. 100% funded by SCIFISH. √ √ √ X

Designation Name Comment 08 09 10 11 Sampler Sharples Coordinator Observer -Port Sifa Fukofuka Full time. 100% funded by SCIFISH. √ √ √ √ Sampler Trainer Ecosystem Jesus Jurado 100% SCIFISH funded, recruited later. This √ √ √ √ Modeller Molina position went onto SCICOFISH funding in Feb 2011. Tag Recovery Brian Kumasi 100% funded under SCIFISH. Resigned in √ √ √ √ Officer 2009 to return to his native PNG, where he joined NFA as the key tag recovery officer for tagging cruises in PNG waters. Caroline Replaced Mr Kumasi, using funds √ √ X X Sanchez remaining under his 3 year contract OCT Component National Hugues 100% funded under SCIFISH, then 100% by √ √ √ √ Coordinator (NC) Gossuin NC administration at end of project. National Taiana 100% funded under SCIFISH, then 100% by √ √ √ √ Coordinator (FP) Raoulx FP administration at end of project. Albacore Ashley Was 100% SCIFISH funded until moving to √ √ √ √ Biologist Williams SCICOFISH funding (changed position) in Sep 2010. Remaining funds used to support an Albacore Research Assistant and Albacore Laboratory Assistant. Fisheries Karine 100% funded (OCT component). √ √ X X Oceanographer Briand

Besides these long-term staff, short term TA (as called for and approved under the AWPBs) were recruited in line with AWPs, e.g. Collecte Localisation Satellites (CLS) 13 modelling support for SEAPODYM. All staff recruitments were in accordance with SPCs internal recruitment practices and procedures, and in compliance with the conditions laid down in the FA. Other forms of TA supported by SCIFISH included Data Processing and IT Support (ACP budget line 8.1 – Scientific Programming Support, e.g. Fabrice Bouie, and 8.2 – Data processing support, e.g. Ms Christine N’Guyen. Financial/administrative support included Kay Parry (part-funded under budget line "9. Administrative support/evaluation" in the ACP component, and also from "9. Administrative support" in the OCT component). Ms Parry was later replaced by Mr Paul Judd.

4 EFFECTIVENESS

This chapter examines the extent to which the intended results were attained and thus the Project Purpose achieved.

13 Marine Ecosystem and Monitoring by Satellites, CLS, Space Oceanography Division, Ramonville, 8-10 rue Hermès, 31520, France .

SCIFISH was designed to deliver three specific groups, each to be achieved through a range of results activities. These Results Groups, and their constituent activities, are evaluated below in the same sequence as given in SCIFISH’s original logical framework. A compilation of results and activities undertaken in each year of the Project, from 2008-2011, as described in the various Annual Progress Reports produced by OFP, is presented in Annex 7 (for ACP Component) and Annex 8 (for the OCT Component).

4.1 RESULTS GROUP 1: ENHANCED OCEANIC FISHERIES MONITORING

Activity 1.1 Training programmes for scientific observers & port samplers Results achieved : SCIFISH supported around 37 observer courses, resulting in a total of at least 478 observers trained to the PIRFO Standard (89 in 2008, 239 in 2009 and 150 in 2010, basic and advanced observer courses combined) 14 gaining certification in compliance with the Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Observer (PIRFO) Standard. The total number of observers available for employment increased from around 180 in 2008 to over 600 in 2011. Many (though not all) of these qualified observers entered the regional ‘pool’ of observers available for deployment to meet the requirements of sub-regional or national observer programmes. In addition to observer training, SCIFISH supported substantially, training workshops for Observer De-briefers, Regional Observer Coordinators, and Training-of Trainer courses (in support of in- country observer training programmes), as well as port sampler training courses. Much of the Regional Observer Programme training took place at the Kavieng Maritime College (KMC) in Papua New Guinea. At project close, KMC was at an advanced stage of obtaining ISO accreditation for its training abilities. The training materials for these courses were developed by SPC and FFA staff, in conjunction in more recent years with WCPFC observer staff. These materials are publicly available for use by interested parties in support of such training worldwide 15 . Development of the Competency Based Standard for PIRFO’s was also largely funded under SCIFISH, and represented a successful collaboration between SPC and FFA. SCIFISH support to regional observer and port sampler training facilitated the rapid development of a large cadre of observers required in order for participating ACPs and OCTs to comply with CMM 2008-01 for bigeye and yellowfin (stipulating 100% observer coverage on all purse-seine vessels). Port sampling for long-line vessels has exceeded the WCPFC-set target of 5% by French Polynesia and New Caledonia (coverage in excess of 72% and 20%, respectively each year from 2008-2011). Activity 1.2 Training attachments Results achieved : The purpose of training attachments varied, depending on particular circumstances, but in general aimed to provide hands-on experience on the work of the OFP, its role in data procurement and analysis, and its ultimate role in providing the scientific basis for formulation of conservation and management measures at both national and regional levels. The number of attachments (generally of 1-2 weeks in duration), is summarised in Table 6 below.

14 Source: SCIFISH Year 3 Annual Report and Provisional 2011 Work Plan and Cost Estimate (SPC, Jan 2011). 15 http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/ofpsection/fisheries-monitoring/observer

Table 6: SCIFISH support to training attachments (no. participants by country, 2008-11) Country of Participant 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Cook Island s - 1 - - 1 Samoa 2 - - - 2 Solomon Islands 2 - - - 2 Vanuatu - 1 1 - 2 Kiribati - - 2 - 2 Tuvalu - - 1 - 1 Tokelau - - 1 - 1 Tonga - - 1 - 1 Total 4 2 6 - 12 Source: SCIFISH Annual Reports. These attachments were tailored to the specific interests/abilities of the participant. OFP staff (usually one, sometimes more) were specifically assigned to the attachee, offering unparalleled access to international expertise in a wide range of tuna fisheries related scientific and management skills. Activity 1.3 Operational support for observer/port sampling programmes Results achieved : SCIFISH-support for operational costs was targeted at smaller ACPs and OCTs (i.e. those often faced with budget constraints 16 ). The values of the different forms of support provided included: • Staff salaries (including observers, coordinators, port samplers, national tuna data coordinators) • Equipment for observers/port samplers • Data reporting forms (e.g. observer log-sheets, data recording forms) • Purchase of ICT equipment, data gathering and processing services • OFP advisory services (in-country observer/sampling activities) • Research training and costs (e.g. otolith/muscle isotope analysis, tag seeding, stomach analysis) Upon termination of SCIFISH, participating states faced challenges in continuing to support staff positions and their associated material needs. The OCTs, FP and NC, however, managed to continue funding staff positions through a collaborative arrangement with SPC, using funds provided by national administrations. Other states have variably absorbed such costs into national administrative budgets. Activity 1.4 Quality control of observer/port sampling data Results achieved . Improving the quality of data, primarily that recorded by observers and port samplers, was a main result of training courses run for Observer Coordinators and De-briefers. Another deliverable relating to improving quality control of data to which SCIFISH contributed was the development of Pacific Island Regional Fisheries Observer Programme (PIRFO) standards for Competency-Based Training (CBT) 17 .

16 P-ACP’s supported included Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu, plus OCTs: French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna . 17 http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/ofpsection/fisheries-monitoring/observers

Larger national observer/port sampling programmes were supposed to be audited at least once during the Project. External audits have been undertaken by the Regional Observer Programme Coordinator of the WCPFC, and is in fact an on-going feature of his work. In addition, PICs have been provided with sufficient tools to undertake self-audits (see Activity 1.8 below). The OFP’s annual Tuna Data Workshop (TDW) plays a crucial role in improving the quality and scope of collected data. SCIFISH provided funding support for the TDW together with a range of other sources, particularly JTF, GEF and UN DOALOS. Participants to the TDW include PIC participants, and in recent years also responsible personnel from Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. Activity 1.5 Develop and trial new technologies for enhancing quality of data and timeliness of data collection Results achieved . Comparison of paired grab and spill samples was undertaken for 254 purse-seine sets (spread over 17 fishing trips) by on-board observers. This work provided a scientific evaluation of sampling bias inherent in these two types of catch sampling. Although results show a sampling bias in grab sampling towards larger fish (i.e. yellowfin and bigeye), spill sampling presents certain problems, not least the deployment of the cumbersome apparatus needed into which to ‘spill’ the sample. The production of a Regional Standard for Spill Sampling was planned during SCIFISH, but this has yet to be completed, pending further field work. The work continues with SCICOFISH support. Activity 1.6 Develop harmonised fisheries monitoring / data sharing protocols Results achieved . A total of €480,000 under the ACP Component for MCS related activities was the responsibility of FFA to implement. An agreement was signed between the two organisations at the commencement of SCIFISH 18 that sets forth arrangements for the use of these funds. Two transfers of funds were made to FFA by SPC: (a) an advance of €168,000 was provided in year 1 (2008); and (b) an advance of €312,000 in Dec of year 4 (2011) – i.e. at the time as the Project terminated. As of the end of SCIFISH in Dec 2011, approximately $200,000 (€148,000) of the initial transfer had been expended. The major deliverable was a Regional MCS Strategy consultancy produced in 2009 by MRAG Asia-Pacific, under contract to FFA 19 . The Strategy was adopted by FFC-74 in May 2010. Training of Trainers for MCS in-country support under Activity 1.6 was not implemented. Development of the harmonised regional database templates for dissemination of MCS information, a harmonised Vessel of Interests List, and a rating index to guide surveillance priorities for vessels were partially undertaken. The 2010 MTE noted that a recurring vacancy for the post of Director of MCS Operations between 2008-2010 was largely the cause of FFA’s failure to deliver results under this activity. This problem was rectified with the recruitment of a new Director of Operations in post in December 2010.

18 Subsidiary Agreement between the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and The Forum Fisheries Agency for the joint implementation of the ‘Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH)’ project under Contribution Agreement No. 9.ACP.RPA.013. 19 Safeguarding the Stocks: A report on analytical projects to support the development of a Regional MCS Strategy for Pacific oceanic fisheries. MRAG Asia-Pacific, 14 Sept 2009.

In December 2011, FFA received $427,000 (€312,000) for MCS-related activities under the ACP Component, in compliance with the year 4 (2011) AWPB. FFA earmarked these remaining funds to support the in-country work of FFA in supporting member national IMS development (including MCS information management software), the creation of an MCS data warehouse, and a Regional Strategic Information Technology Plan to support the priorities identified in the MRAG study. The late delivery of these funds from SPC to FFA – coming right at the end of SCIFISH and apparently due to administrative delays in funding distribution) – means that accounting for their disbursement by FFA remains an outstanding issue. Activity 1.7: Undertake compliance audits and IUU risk assessments Results achieved . IUU risk analysis and compliance audits of ACPs were undertaken as part of the MRAG consultancy discussed under 1.6 above. In June 2010, the (then) Director of Operations at FFA advised OFP of their wish to use the residual MCS funds for an information management project, as part of the MCS Strategy. A project description was provided to SPC in 2010, but no further action taken until the appointment of a new director of operations early in 2011. Risk analysis is now being undertaken, in country, as part of the EU funded DevFish II support programme, which is in the process of preparing National Plans of Action (NPOA) for IUU. Activity 1.8: Develop and implement methodologies to verify fisheries data Results achieved . SCIFISH funding supported important aspects of the development of SPC’s Tuna Fisheries Database Management System (TUFMAN), leading to greater possibilities for improved harmonisation/ linkages between national fisheries databases. TUFMAN facilitates national tuna fisheries data entry, data management, data quality control, administration, and reporting. The basic system can be adapted to meet the specific requirements of PICs. By the close of SCIFISH, funding support had assisted SPC in-house experts to develop TUFMAN, which has progressed from version 6.14 at the time of the MTE to version 6.27 at the time of the FE, into a more advanced system, allowing entry, analysis and cross-correlation of data from a wide range of sources. Some of the numerous improvements supported by SCIFISH include:

• Remote access to the system (password controlled). • Increased optimisation of the system, allowing much faster report generation. • Redevelopment of ‘data reconciliation’ functions resulting in faster processing times. • Addition of MapInfo vessel tracking from the log-sheet screen and log-sheet summary screens, and addition of VMS tracking functionality for corresponding fishing trips. • New reporting features for reconciliation of log-sheet data to VMS data, primarily as a tool to calculate log-sheet coverage. • Improved methods of applying updates to the back-end database. • ‘International Authorisation to Fish’ permits, for permits to fish in the high seas. • For Samoa’s Alia fleet, new log-sheet entry form and separation from other long-line vessels. • Log-sheet and unloading data entry support for gillnet gear. • New report capability for licensing and catch and effort. • Added UVI field (universal vessel identifier). • A number of report modifications according to requests from member countries (e.g. addition of specific fields to meet particular national data processing/reporting needs).

The number of SPC-member PICs using TUFMAN increased from 11 to 15 during the course of SCIFISH (14 ACPs plus Tokelau), plus three key collaborating non-SPC states: Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. A main benefit of the TUFMAN system has been to enable WCPFC member states to meet the crucial April 30 deadline of submission of tuna catch data to the WCPFC. Countries that have not adopted TUFMAN include PNG and French Polynesia, preferring to use their own bespoke systems. However PNG reported plans to consider how to integrate TUFMAN into the

national tuna management system. New Caledonia also does not use TUFMAN, and instead contracts SPC for data entry and analysis. SCIFISH-supported new sub-routines allow audit of data to improve quality assurance. These include automatic routines comparing different data sources (e.g. log-sheets, VMS data and unloading data to detect gaps and errors in the data; self-audit workbooks for national use on port sampling and log-sheet data sets. Other data quality improvements have been achieved through the conduct of country-specific data audits conducted by OFP staff. TUFMAN has improved the quality and therefore reliability of tuna fishery data emanating from member states, with obvious concomitant benefits to the accuracy and value of subsequent analyses conducted using the data (e.g. regional and national stock assessments). TUFMAN has significantly assisted PICs to generate reports that meet flag state reporting obligations to WCPFC. Activity 1.9 Develop and trial new technologies, including satellite based technologies for the detection of IUU fishing activities Results achieved . FFA was the responsible agency for development and trials of novel technologies for addressing IUU fishing in the Region, utilising funding provided through the SPC-FFA agreement established under SCIFISH (refer Activity 1.6 and Activity 1.7 above). Table 7: Achievement of Results Group 1 against OVIs OVI Assessment of achievement Observer capacity and Achieved . SCIFISH support to OFP observer training activities, including institutional infrastructure development of the PIRFO standard courses and materials, was established so that P-ACPs instrumental in achieving a sufficiently large pool of observers to meet can achieve 100% of the requirements of CMM 2008-01, calling for 100% coverage of purse- national and regional seine vessels operating within EEZs. Support provided to the observer and port sampling participating OCTs (FP and NC) was instrumental in their achieving coverage and data observer coverage above the target of 5% set for tuna long-liners collection requirements operating within their waters. The target for port sampling exceeded and standards the target of 10%: NC achieved >20%, and FP > 70%. 100% of P-ACPs provided Achieved . Data quality improvement tools effectively disbursed with capacity and tools for through TUFMAN and specific country data audits. The annual Tuna implementing continuous Data Workshop (not supported by SCIFISH) has also built capacity and data auditing to maximise provided practical training to PIC nationals in data handling, analysis data quality for scientific and reporting. The development of the PIRFO standard guides decision making regulates the performance of observers and port samplers, thus ensuring good quality of data. 100% of P-ACPs provided Partially achieved . This is an on -going area of work, involving with capacity, tools and collaboration with FFA. IUU related activities under SCIFISH were not access to information for well implemented, due to internal management issues. The detecting and managing completion of a Regional MCS Strategy addresses inter alia , IUU IUU fishing activities fishing, and provides a framework for future work in this area. 100% of P-OCTs provided Partially Achieved . The New Caledonia authorities were directly with an evaluation of the involved with trial radar – satellite detection of IUU vessels undertaken feasibility of applying by CLS in New Caledonian waters, which proved to be non-viable. existing satellite However, the extent to which these results were communicated to technologies for detecting other P-OCTs or P-ACPs is not known. IUU fishing activities Source of OVI: adjusted Logical framework, 2011 SCIFISH AWPB.

A pilot study undertaken in 2009 on behalf of SPC and the Joint Forces High Command (EMIA) in Nouméa within the EEZ of New Caledonia was executed by CLS (contracted under the OCT contribution) in collaboration with New Caledonia’s Service de la Pêche assessed the acquisition and processing of VMS and RADARSAT image data, and simultaneous analysis of the data sets using custom built software to match VMS records with RADARSAT targets for the detection of IUU fishing activities. The study concluded that under the particular circumstances prevailing at the time of the trial the method was not accurate enough to confidently identify possible IUU fishing activity and no further action appears to have been taken. A second consultancy to evaluate other emerging technologies, such as optical satellite data collection and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for fisheries surveillance, was not undertaken. The FE Team’s summary assessment of achievement of results group 1 against revised OVIs is given in Table 7 above.

4.2 RESULTS GROUP 2: ENHANCED STOCK ASSESSMENTS

Activity 2.1 Large-scale conventional and electronic tagging / biological studies Results achieved : (a) Skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye SCIFISH direct support for tagging continued a trend of support provided through earlier EDFs e.g. PROCFISH (8 th EDF). SCIFISH provided support, together with a range of other donor sources 20 , to phase 2 of the PTTP 21 (May 2008 – Nov 2010), during which the tagging operational area was expanded and the scope of operations broadened to include: (a) three pole-and-line cruises in Western Pacific, ranging from Indonesia/Philippines to Kiribati, (b) four cruises in 2008, 2009 and 2010 using 2 hand-line vessels in the central Pacific, focusing on bigeye tagging. Figure 1: Distribution of released tagged skipjack, bigeye and yellowfin during 2006-2010

Source: http://www.spc.int/tagging/ By the end of SCIFISH, substantial support had been made to a total of 12 tagging experiments for ‘tropical tunas’ (skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye), in close collaboration of the participating PIC members. This work has led crucially to a scientific basis for management of the major tuna stocks of the

20 Collaborating governments that supported OFC tagging during SCIFISH included Australia, France, Korea, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Taiwan. Funding was also provided by WCPFC, University of Hawaii (Pelagic \fisheries Research Programme) and Global Environment Fund. 21 Phase 1 of PTTP, conducted between Aug 2006 and Apr 2008, involved two cruises in PNG waters and 3 in Solomon Island waters.

Region. Around 271,000 tunas were tagged using conventional tags by the end of 2011, with around 35,800 tags recovered (giving a return rate of around 16%). Tag recoveries continue to provide crucial input to the tuna stock assessment work of the OFP, and consequently the WCPFC. In addition to ‘convention’ tags, around 1,300 fish were tagged with either electronic archival tags or sonic tags, to record lateral and vertical movements and water temperature. The recovery rate of archival tagged fish as at end 2011 stood at around 13%. The significance of this work has been to set spatial boundaries within the MULTIFAN-CL stock assessment model (discussed under section 4.2 below). Tagging experiments conducted under the PTTP have been comprehensively documented and peer reviewed, with publication of many reports in respected international scientific journals (refer bibliography – annex 4 - and also the SPC website 22 ). Results achieved : (b) Albacore A 3-year albacore-targeted tagging was undertaken under the OCT component of SCIFISH, since this species supports important industrial long-line fisheries in OCTs in the southern part of the SPC Region, comprising the following cruises: Jan-March 2009 : first albacore tagging cruise, resulting in 2,766 albacore tagged from trolling vessels with conventional tags off west coast of the south island of New Zealand. This provided data on exploitation rates and albacore movements. Albacore age validation was determined by collecting and analysing otoliths and dorsal fin spines, and also using an oxytetracycline injection method (1,457 fish injected). March 2010 : second albacore tagging cruise using troll vessels east of New Zealand. The aim was to spread tagging effort across the south Pacific and thus facilitate the mixing of tagged fish within the entire population. Figure 2: Cruise tracks during Phase 2 of Albacore Tagging Project, 2010

Source: http://www.spc.int/tagging/ . Notes: New Caledonia track = Fishing Vessel ‘Genesis’; New Zealand track = Fishing Vessel ‘Genesis’, and Tonga track = Fishing Vessel ‘Pacific Sunrise’. Tagging was also undertaken in New Caledonia (as part of the New Caledonia Government’s ZoNeCo project), New Zealand and Tonga, using commercial long-line vessels (Figure 2). The focus was on tagging larger albacore than were tagged in earlier cruises, in an attempt to increase tag recapture rates and also to release 30 satellite archival tags (miniPATs) to obtain detailed information on movement patterns. Catch rates and the condition of albacore landed varied significantly between locations, but generally a large proportion of albacore landed were unsuitable for tag and release.

22 www.spc.int/tagging

As a result, only 92 albacore were tagged with conventional tags and 19 with miniPATs. All conventional tag releases were in New Zealand where the proportion of albacore landed in good condition was substantially higher than in other locations. The data obtained from these experiments was subsequently used as input to further develop and improve stock assessment models for southern albacore. Activity 2.2 Analysis of tagging, biological and fishery oceanographic data Results achieved : (a) Skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye Stock assessments for the four key tuna species using the MULTIFAN-CL model rely heavily on tagging data to provide accurate estimates of population age structure and growth rates. Peer review of PTTP conducted in 2010 by a number of world experts concluded that the programme had been highly successful, having tagged a record number of fish, and yielding high quality information that was subsequently used to successfully improve stock assessment models and the veracity of their predictions. Development and improvement of stock assessment models for key tropical tuna species and albacore is on-going. Tagging data has been instrumental to validate model parameters relating to biology, reproduction and movements of these tunas. The main deliverables of this work has been the completion of stock assessments for yellowfin, bigeye and south Pacific albacore. Another key result was the analysis of FAD retention effects on skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye. Results achieved : (b) Albacore The albacore tagging supported under SCIFISH clearly demonstrated the fragility of the species, especially when tagged using long-liners and brought rapidly from depth, tagged and then released, resulting in high mortality of tagged fish. The relatively low number of albacore tagged overall precluded accurate estimates of commercial exploitation rates. A useful result was that conventional tags are not suitable for southern Albacore, which require the fish to be re-caught, suggesting that pop-up archival tags (PSATs) may be a better solution to monitor movements of this species. OFP’s tagging work on southern albacore terminated along with SCIFISH and no further work along these lines is anticipated under SCICOFISH. Owing to the problems encountered with tagging albacore, other methods such as otolith microchemistry for stock structure and movements, and tetracycline injections for age determination, may offer better approaches. Activity 2.3 Incorporate data / analytical results into stock assessment models Results achieved : The main value of the tagging work supported under SCIFISH has been to provide the data required by the primary stock assessment model, MULTIFAN-CL , for parameter estimates used by the model-generated stock assessments for all three tropical tuna species, as well as southern albacore. The assessments made by MULIFAN are then considered by the Science Committee of the WCPFC and ultimately the Commission, to inform the decision making process leading to most of the major CMMs developed and implemented by the Commission. MULTIFAN-CL generated numerous outputs over the course of SCIFISH, assessing for example the impact on stocks resulting from CMM adoption, e.g. the CMM 2008-01, which introduced catch limits and cessation of fishing on FADs, and other CMMs intended to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye. OFP used MULTIFAN-CL to generate a total of 12 stock assessments with SCIFISH support: Skipjack – three assessments; yellowfin – two assessments; bigeye – four assessments; and albacore – three assessments. Technical reports from these assessments were provided to the WCPFC’s Science Committee (SC), and eventually considered at WCPFC plenary sessions. A summary of these various assessments showing stock status of the four major tuna species is indicated in Figure 3 (spawning biomass level plotted against fishing effort), clearly showing the reason for concern for the status of bigeye, compared to the other three species.

Figure 3: Stock status overview for the four major tuna species in 2011

Source: Harley, S. J., and N. Davies (2011) In addition to stock assessment estimates, a range of scientific reports were generated by this work and published in scientific journals (refer Annex 4). Stock assessment results were also provided to national fisheries managers in the form of an annual Tuna Fisheries Assessment Report (TFAR), and succinct Policy Briefs, both of which are available on the SPC website 23 . Another achievement under this Results Group was the production of National Tuna Fisheries Status Reports (NTFSRs). These provide country-specific scientific advice to national administrations on which to base national development plans for domestic fisheries. The contents cover aspects including fishing opportunities by location, tuna biology, environmental and oceanographic influences on fishing, ecological impacts of fishing, issues relating to by-catch of non-target species. The NTFSRs also address specific issues of fisheries management, as may be requested by national administrations. The reports were made available via secure national web pages hosted in the SPC website. A total of nine such NTFSRs were produced with SCIFISH funding for: Cook Islands, FSM, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, RMI, Samoa and Solomon Islands. The OFP’s annual Stock Assessment Preparatory Workshop (SAPW) 24 , held annually at SPC HQ, received some financial support by SCIFISH during its lifetime. The SAPW provides a key opportunity for PIC nationals to understand the science behind and practical value of MULTIFAN and other models developed by OFP.

23 www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/publications/ 24 The Preparatory Stock Assessment Workshop is a meeting convened by SPC-OFP, usually in April each year, to help prepare for the annual stock assessments being conducted by OFP for WCPFC. SAPW is not a formal WCPFC meeting and operates under Terms of Reference developed by OFP. SAPW is a technical meeting of scientists who have a common interest in progressing the stock assessment of fish stocks in the WCPO. The outcomes of the meeting are documented and the report of the meeting and other analyses submitted to the WCPFC Scientific Committee. (source: http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/meetingsworkshops/preparatory- stock-assessment-workshop/ )

In summary, the FE Team’s assessment of achievement of results group 2 against revised OVIs is given in Table 8 below. Table 8: Achievement of Results Group 2 against OVIs OVI Assessment of achievement Establish the most Achieved . The OFPs tagging experiments, taken as a whole, have comprehensive tagging and been the largest in the world in terms of numbers of fish tagged, biological parameter dataset range of operations and the time scale over which tagging for tropical tuna and for south activities have been undertaken. The data and information gained Pacific albacore for inclusion in for all four major tuna species continues to be incorporated into regional stock assessments and various stock assessment models (MULTIFAN-CL, SEAPODYM) in analyses of population support for scientific advice produced for both national fishery dynamics. administrations and the WCPFC. Source of OVI: adjusted Logical framework, 2011 SCIFISH AWPB.

4.3 RESULTS GROUP 3: ENHANCED UNDERSTANDING OF PELAGIC ECOSYSTEMS

Activity 3.1: Develop and enhance models of the pelagic ecosystems supporting oceanic fish stocks targeted by regional tuna fisheries Results achieved : OFP’s Spatial Environment and Population Dynamics Model (SEAPODYM) has been under development since its inception in 1995 as part of the SPRTRMP project. Subsequent EU support was provided through PROCFISH-Oceanic component (between 2002 and 2005). SEAPODYM is a highly specialised model used to investigate spatial tuna population dynamics and the interactions between fishing and environmental factors. SEAPODYM was formally incorporated into the WCPFC 5-year Research Plan by the Scientific Committee session held in 2009. SCIFISH funds were utilised to fund a two-year collaboration, commencing Feb 2008, with French company Collecte Localisation Satellites (CLS), a subsidiary of the French CNES and IFREMER institutes. This resulted in high resolution models on the population dynamics of skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and south Pacific albacore. Each model allows scenarios to be generated within specified EEZs in regard to changes in fisheries polices, environmental impacts (sea surface temperature, ENSO events) and longer-term changes due to climate change. The updated version of the model uses fishing-dependent data (catches, fish size data) to generate realistic parameters for each tuna species, thus improving the confidence of the estimates produced by the model. Enhancements to the model completed during the course of SCIFISH included: • Full documentation for model operation and management; • Supporting software and standard formats for input and output files; • An MSY calculation capability for names tuna species; • Improvements to population dynamics aspect of the model. SEAPODYM remains a ‘work in progress’. Besides the successful collaboration with CLS, direct SCIFISH staff support directly helped in elaboration and improvement of the model (e.g. Ecosystem Modeller, Table 5 above). Publication of papers on the development and products of the model have ensured adequate expert peer review and international recognition and acceptance of its capability (refer Annex 4) A further achievement under Result Group 3 included support for the production of an Ecological Risk Assessment for all highly migratory species and their associated or dependent species. This work included a number of studies during 2008 and 2011 on by-catch species including turtles, seabirds, sharks and cetaceans, taken by fishing vessels that target tuna species. A major outcome of this work was the WCPFC Shark Research Plan, endorsed and funded by WCPFC in December 2010. 3.2 Use of models for research / management applications

Results achieved : MULTIFAN-CL and SEAPODYM are mutually supportive models - the former generates parameters that are used by the latter. Together the models offer a powerful toolbox for the use of fishery managers and policy makers at national and regional levels – a point that was stressed by just about all stakeholders interviewed by the FE Team. The output of MULTIFAN-CL provides crucial input to the Commission’s Scientific Committee, where results are discussed and management implications considered. The SC gives a certain level of scientific review, although the quality of feedback is proportional to the technical capacity of the participants. Each paper has recommendations for further research and management implications. The deliberations of the SC are then passed to the plenary Commission meetings for further discussion and to inform policy formulation and input to the elaboration of Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) of the WCPFC. SEAPODYM has evolved to a stage where it is able to provide higher resolution estimates. Results generated through work to which SCIFISH funding contributed include: • Potential impacts of climate change on fish distribution and therefore availability • Correlations between environmental factors and tuna recruitment for use in tropical tuna and albacore stock assessments • Estimating the impact of closing areas of ocean to fishing as a fisheries conservation measure • EEZ-scale analysis for South Pacific albacore in the New Caledonia EEZ • Within-zone fishing effect on the wider tuna stock • Inter-relationships between variation in oceanographic variation on locally-based fishery performance in specific EEZs • Generation of MSY estimates (regional and in-zone, by nominated species) • Population dynamics of the south pacific albacore SEAPODYM represents cutting edge development of a fine-scale resolution model for fishery- environment interactions. International rigorous peer review and model evaluation has proved its robustness as a management tool (refer Annex 4 for references). The process of improving the complementary of MULTIFAN-CL and SEAPODYM with other models used by OFP but not funded under SCIFISH (e.g. ECOPATH/ECOSYM models for marine food webs) in support of management planning has continued since the cessation of SCIFISH support. The current version of SEAPODY has reached a high degree of sophistication, the main features being (a) ‘forcing’ by environmental data (either observed or modelled); (b) prediction of the temporal and spatial distribution of age-structured tuna populations; (c) prediction of the total catch and size frequency of the catch by fishing fleet; and (d) parameter optimization based on fishing data assimilation techniques. The evolution of the resolution of SEAPODYM over the course of SCIFISH is indicated in the series of three figures below.

Figure 4: SEAPODYM Pre-2009: 2 degree x Figure 5: SEAPODYM 2009-2010: 2 degree x month physical forcing (no data month physical forcing (with data assimilation) assimilation)

Figure 6: SEAPODYM 2010-2012: 1 degree x month physical forcing (with data assimilation)

Source: Paper presented to HoF-8 by Dr. S. Nicol, March 2013. It has taken a number of years for the ‘physical forcing’ data used by SEAPODYM to become available. Resolution at 1 degree level is required f or EEZ level analyses, otherwise the results hardly differ from regional averages, and this is now possible. OFP has achieved optimised 1 degree models for skipjack, bigeye, south pacific albacore and swordfish. It is expected that new data at a resolutio n of ¼ degree will become available in 2013, which will increase the acuity, and therefore value for regional and EEZ -specific analyses. In summary, the FE Team’s assessment of achievement of results group 3 against revised OVIs is given in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Achievement of Results Group 3 against OVIs OVI Assessment of achievement Provide 100% P-ACPs and P- Achieved . SEAPODYM development progressed under SCIFISH OCTs with infrastructure to support to a point where it is now acknowledged as a cutting- evaluate tuna management edge tool for modelling the relationship between tuna fish stocks, policies in the context of the distribution and population dynamics of their prey, and the current and future influence of oceanographic variables such as water temperature, environmental variability at currents and primary productivity. SEAPODYM is endorsed by both the regional and EEZ WCPFC for provision of scientific advice on tuna management scales. policies. All participating states have been provided with tools able to estimate EEZ-scale biomass distributions for skipjack, bigeye and albacore and associated environmental variability estimates. Source of OVI: adjusted Logical framework, 2011 SCIFISH AWPB.

4.4 ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT PURPOSE

The SCIFISH Project Purpose, as stated in the original LFA (Annex 1 of the technical annex to the FA) is: to provide a scientific basis for regional and national oceanic fisheries management decision-making by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and by Pacific ACP and OCT Government. 4.4.1 Support to oceanic tuna fisheries management at the regional level Discussions between the FE Team and managers of the WCPFC confirm the central role that scientific advice plays in the decision making process leading to management of tuna resources in the WCPO. Management is achieved primarily through the design and adoption of CMMs. The scope and content of CMMs is firmly grounded on the scientific advice provided through the Science Committee (SC), comprising scientific and other related technical representatives, which meets in August each year and is charged with ensuring that the Commission has the best available scientific information on which to consider appropriate conservation and management measures. The SC effectively utilises the services of OFP fisheries scientists, who make presentations of scientific papers and presentations to the Committee. The SC also coordinates with the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) which meets in October each year on certain matters to ensure consistent advice is provided to the Commission. Both the TCC and SC met four times during lifetime of SCIFISH (4 th -7th meetings, in both cases). These meetings informed the management process in the 5 th -8th Regular Sessions of the Commission (held in Dec 2008, Dec 2009, Dec 2010 and March 2012, respectively). Specific CMMs developed and agreed by the WCPFC, by year, to which SCIFISH –derived science played a ‘significant’ part are listed in Table 10 below:

Table 10: Key WCPFC management measures supported through SCIFISH CMM Title Issue Date year/no. CMM/2008 -01 Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye and Yellowfin 12 Dec 2008 Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific ocean CMM/2009 -02 Conservation and Management Measure on the application of high 11 Dec 2009 seas FAD closures and catch retention CMM/2009 -03 Conservation and Management of Swordfish 11 Dec 2009 CMM/2009 -04 Conservation and Management of sharks (replaced by 2010 -07) 11 Dec 2009 CMM/2009 -05 Conservation and Management Measure prohibiting fishing on data 11 Dec 2009 buoys CMM/2009 -06 Conservation and Management Measure on regulation of 11 Dec 2009 transhipments CMM/2009 -10 Conservation and Management Measure to monitor landings of 11 Dec 2009 purse-seiners at ports so as to ensure reliable catch data by species CMM 2010 -01 Conservation and management measure North Pacific striped marlin 10 Dec 2010 CMM 2010 -02 Conservation And Management Measure For The Eastern High Seas 10 Dec 2010 Pocket Special Management Area CMM 2010 -03 Conservation and Management Measure for Compliance Monitoring 10 Dec 2010 Scheme (replaced by CMM 2011-06) CMM 2010 -05 Conservation and Management Measure for South Pacific Albacore 10 Dec 2010 CMM 2010 -07 Conservation and Management Measure for Sharks 10 Dec 2010 CMM 2011 -01 Conservation and Management Measure for temporary extension of 30 Mar 2012 CMM 2008-01 CMM 2011 -02 Conservation and Manage ment Measure for the Commission VMS 30 Mar 2012 CMM 2011 -03 Conservation and Management Measure to Address the Impact of 30 Mar 2012 Purse Seine Activity on Cetaceans CMM 2011 -04 Conservation and Management Measure for Oceanic White -tip Sharks 30 Mar 2012 CMM 2011 -06 Conservation and Management Measure for Compliance Monitoring 30 Mar 2012 Scheme CMM 2012 -01 Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and 6 Dec 2012 Skipjack CMM 2012 -02 Conservation and Management Measure for Compliance Monitoring 6 Dec 2012 Scheme CMM 2012 -03 Conservation and Management Measure for Implementation of the 6 Dec 2012 ROP by vessels fishing north of 20N CMM 2012 -04 Conservation and Management Measure on the protection of whale 6 Dec 2012 sharks from purse seine operations CMM 2012 -07 Conservation and Management Measure for Mitigating Impacts of 6 Dec 2012 Fishing on Seabirds Resolution Resolution on the best available science 6 Dec 2012 2012-01 Source: WCFC (http://www.wcpfc.int) The contribution of SCIFISH to the production of high quality science used as the basis for CMM development is undoubted, although it must be noted that due to the plethora of other funding sources supporting OFP activities, the specific contribution to the scientific body of information made by SCIFISH is not quantifiable in specific terms.

In addition to supporting regional fisheries management at the level of the WCPFC, OFP-generated science during SCIFISH was used also to inform the work of FFA in the development of regional policy aimed at increasing economic benefits from tuna fisheries. In this context, OFP scientists were actively engaged in various FFA sub-committees, notably leading to the development of the PNA Vessel Day Scheme, as well as in other preparatory meetings prior to WCPFC plenary sessions. The FE Team finds that PIC officials were clearly well engaged in the gathering, analysis and interpretation of results emanating from SCIFISH-supported activities, as well as subsequent management options/negotiating positions with Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN), CMM formulation and application. 4.4.2 Support to oceanic tuna fisheries management at the national level At the national level, the confidential NTFSRs provided to PICs were used in several cases to inform the process leading to the development of national management plans (Table 11): Table 11: National tuna management plans developed with SCIFISH support Year Country Management Plan drafted 2009 Marshall Islands Marshall Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan, 2009 - 2011 2009 Tonga Tonga National Tuna Fisheries Management And Development Plan (2010 – 2014) 2009 Vanuatu Revised Tuna management plan: a national policy for the management of Vanuatu tuna fisheries 2009 Solomon Islands Solomon Islands National Tuna Management and Development Plan (Part I – Tuna 2000: Towards a Sustainable Fishery for the next millennium; Part II - Strategies and Procedures) 2010 Cook Islands Tuna Fishery Plan 2010 Samoa Samoa Tuna Management and Development Plan, 2011 -2015 Undated Niue Management and Development Plan for the [Tuna] Fishery Source: SCIFISH Annual Reports. Tuna national development plans provide a solid framework for all involved stakeholders to work together towards rational, sustainable exploitation of tuna fisheries within national waters. Crucial to successful implementation of such plans is access to reliable, comprehensive and accurate data and other information, the production of which has been supported by the range of activities supported under SCIFISH. National stakeholders interviewed by the FE Team unanimously attested to the value of national tuna management plans in the context of fisheries sector development planning and monitoring. In summary, the FE Team’s assessment of achievement of the Project Purpose against revised OVIs is given in Table 12 overleaf.

Table 12: Achievement of Project Purpose against OVIs OVI Assessment of achievement 100% of ACP and OCT Achieved . Upgrading of TUFMAN has facilitated improved data participating countries have handling and cross-checking capacity for quality assurance checks access to the most accurate in 15 PICs. TUFMAN is a major tool for many PICs for data storage data on tuna catch and species and interrogation, report generation and analysis, enabling population dynamics for compliance with reporting obligations (e.g. to WCPFC, and FAO) as decision making well as national tuna fisheries management requirements. The current stock status for the Achieved . Stock assessments have in fact been conducted at least four main tuna species assessed twice during the course of SCIFISH for the main tuna species at least once during the (skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye, and albacore). implementation of SCIFISH 100% of these assessments Achieved . OFP has an excellent reputation for producing high level have access to the most science based on reliable and representative data sets. The quality accurate data on tuna catch and scope of such data has been significantly improved through and species population SCIFISH interventions. dynamics 100% of these assessments Achieved . All stock assessments for key tuna species forwarded by accepted by the WCPFC OFP have been subsequently accepted by the Science Committee Scientific Committee and and forwarded to the Commission to inform the decision-making forwarded to the Commission process. A single exception to this was a stock assessment for decision making conducted in 2011 on silky shark, which was rejected due to questions over the veracity of the data used. 100% of National Tuna Achieve d. A total of 9 NTFSRs have been developed for PICs, as a Management Plans developed collaboration between OFP and FFA and national stakeholders with the most comprehensive (particularly private sector interests). In each case, the set of summarized information management plans developed relied heavily on data produced available on tuna fishery and through fishery-dependent (catches, effort), independent population dynamics (tagging) and model (MULIFAN, SEAPODYM) outputs. All PIC stakeholders interviewed expressed satisfaction over such NTFSRs as providing an excellent framework to guide national efforts for tuna industry planning and management. Source of OVI: adjusted Logical framework, 2011 SCIFISH AWPB.

4.5 UNFORESEEN BENEFICIARIES AND CONSEQUENCES

The Financing Agreement clearly and correctly identifies the main beneficiaries for SCIFISH support. Consequences not specifically foreseen in the documentation include: • Employment creation through attainment of training awards (for observers, port samplers, de-briefers) • Enhanced employment potential for all involved in data collection, analysis, including OFP staff, through enhanced work experience gained through SCIFISH activities • Enhancement of SPC’s international image as a cutting edge developer of bespoke models in support of ocean-basic scale fisheries tuna management • Enhancement of the international image of WCPFC as a regional fisheries management body driven by robust science and transparent decision making processes • Significant economic spin-off benefits e.g. through tagging vessel charters and associated support services

• Enhancement of the role of the Kavieng Maritime College as a training centre of excellence, due to its central role in hosting much of the observer-related training courses There were no negative consequences.

4.6 REALISATION OF ASSUMPTIONS

The original logical framework for SCIFISH was amended only in regard to its OVIs (as recommended by the MTE conducted in October 2010). All assumptions originally foreseen have held true throughout the lifetime of SCIFISH.

4.7 USE OF PROJECT RESOURCES

Human resources OFP staff whose positions were supported under SCIFISH were recruited transparently, in compliance with SPC procedures. The FE Team heard no adverse comment about any OFP staff or associated technical experts contracted during the course of SCIFISH. In all cases, such personnel have been of high calibre and well suited to their respective tasks. Equipment All equipment procurement, e.g. in support of tagging experiments, followed standard procedures laid down in the Contribution Agreements and put to the use for which they were intended. No exceptions to this were detected by the FE Team. Financial Financial allocations provided under the Agreement followed Annual Work Plans and Budgets. Any slight deviations were well documented and approved, following the required procedures. Total project resources were €4,000,000 for the ACP component and €2,610,000 for the OCT component. A total of €53,000 from the ACP component and €45,000 from the OCT component were set aside for the Mid-Term and Final Evaluation, and external audits (as called for under the Financing Agreement). The MTE recommended an increase in administrative support costs. Consequently, a request to release contingency funds totalling €26,000 from the ACP component and €30,000 from the OCT component was made by SPC and approved. SCIFISH suffered relatively minor set-backs in utilisation of financial resources. In Year 1 (2008) an over-spend occurred under the ACP component, due to rapid recruitment of TA personnel after project launch in March 2008. Conversely, an underspend occurred under the OCT component due to delays in recruiting TA positions in New Caledonia and French Polynesia, and lower draw-down of funds for training and equipment procurement in those countries. From Year 2 (2009) onwards, however, expenditure for both ACP and OCT components were in line with AWPBs. Financial resources provided to FFA under the MoU drawn up for implementation of MCS/IUU related activities were not fully expended as planned. As discussed elsewhere, this was largely due to a lack of managerial oversight for these activities within the Operations Section in FFA for much of the duration of SCIFISH (until Dec 2010, with the appointment of a new Director of Operations). Due to administrative delays in funding distribution (outside of FFA and beyond FFA’s control) the second (and final) transfer of funds was received by FFA in the same month that SCIFISH ended – December 2011 – rather than at the beginning of the year, as should have been the case. At the time of the FE, FFA had approximately €134,000 still available to spend on MCS-related activities under the ACP Component. Accounting for this expenditure by FFA therefore remains an outstanding issue. The financial situation at the termination of SCIFISH (December 2011), is indicated in the overall independently-audited financial statement provided as Annex 9, the main elements of which are summarised in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Summary expenditure at SCIFISH termination Budget as per Expenditure as at Difference ( €) Difference (%) FA (€) end Dec 2011(€) ACP component 3,947,000 3,945,341 +1,659 0.04 OCT component 2,565,000 2,568,538 -3,538 -0.14 Source: SPC audit report. Total funds advanced under the ACP Component as of Sep 2012 equalled €3,800,512, leaving €144,829 (the difference between the total expenditure and advance) to be claimed. Total funds advanced under the OCT Component as of Sep 2012 equalled €2,451,492, leaving €113,508 (the difference between the total budget and advance) to be claimed. The final payments of €144,829 for the ACP component and €113,508 for the OCT component were received by SPC in December 2012, following finalisation of the final project audit (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2012). SPC absorbed the over-spend of €3,538 on the OCT component into its core funds.

5 IMPACT

This chapter examines the extent to which the SCIFISH Overall Objective was achieved. The term ‘impact’ is used in a broader sense than ‘effectiveness’ discussed above. Impact refers to the effect of SCIFISH on the wider environment, and its contribution to wider policy or sectoral objectives, as intimated in the SFP Overall Objective: the conservation and sustainable use of oceanic fish resources of the western and central Pacific Ocean . The Overall Objective is a largely intangible, high level objective, to which SCIFISH was intended to make a contribution. The logical framework revision in the 4 th year of SCIFISH, nevertheless, introduced three new OVIs by which to evaluate the degree to which the Overall Objective was achieved, and thereby the overall impact of SCIFISH. The OVIs are: • Effort on target species in the western and central Pacific is managed regionally and nationally so it does not exceed the level of F MSY • Catch of target species in the western and central Pacific is managed regionally and nationally so it does not exceed the level of B MSY • Ecosystem impacts of fishing oceanic resources are minimized These three OVIs replaced the single OVI stated in the original Logical framework: • Improved regional/national treaties and agreements promoting sustainable harvest of the fishery The new OVIs are more SMART than the original single OVI in terms of specificity and relevance, and tie the Overall Objective to measurable benchmarks (F MSY and BMSY ).

5.1 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS

The terms of reference call for a comparison (if possible) of the scenario immediately prior to the implementation of SCIFISH with the achievements at project end. This was assessed using a quantitative approach, whereby interviewees were asked to rank changes over time to their ability to perform their functions. Stakeholders in each of the countries visited were asked to make a quantitative assessment of effectiveness of SCIFISH/SCICOFISH-Oceanic for two key elements supported under these Projects and to score the perceived contribution that SCIFISH made to the change:

• Capacity to run fisheries observer schemes in 2011 in comparison to capacity that existed in 2007, and the considered contribution made by SPC to any perceived change • Capacity to comply with WCPFC data submission requirements, again in 2007, in 2011 and what contribution SCIFSH made to any perceived change in circumstances The results of this exercise are indicated in Table 14 below. Table 14: Qualitative assessment of SCIFISH effectiveness Support for: average progress FJ KI SI MI FSM PNG NC FP Capacity to 2007 3.60 4 3 5 3 4.5 3 3.3 3 run fisheries 2013 1.75 1 2 2 3 2 1 1.5 1.5 observer 37% schemes OFP 74% 30% ? 80% 50% 90% 90% 80% 95% contrib. Capacity to 2007 3.83 3 4 5 4 4 3 comply with 2013 1.75 1 1 3 2 2.5 1 WCPFC data 42% submission OFP 66% 50% 75% 60% 70% 90% 50% requirements contrib.

Scores: 1 – very good (80-100%); 2 – good (60-80%); 3 – average (40-60%); 4 – poor (20-40%); 5 – very poor (0-20%). ? = respondent unable to provide a quantitative estimate.

In the table, the two key areas of support examined are in the left hand column. The scores for past and current performance, and SPC contribution to any estimated change, are provided for individual countries (as provided by the countries), and are averaged on the left (in the ‘average’ column). ‘SPC contribution’ indicates the quantitative estimate of OFP’s contribution to the current result. Progress in performance from past to present is averaged under the column ‘progress’, and is computed from the difference arising from the average score between past and present performance – expressed as a percentage value. For ‘Capacity to run fisheries observer schemes’, the French OTCs are included because they benefitted heavily under this activity, and so their feedback was collected. The same territories were not queried for the second domain (‘Capacity to comply with WCPFC data submission requirements’) because they have not adopted the TUFMAN software, and hence their responses would not be appropriate to assess progress. The following conclusions can be drawn from this exercise: • In regard to capacity to run observer schemes, the average score for 2007 was estimated at 3.6 (i.e. a score between average and poor), compared with 1.75 (between very good and good) in 2011. The contribution of SPC to this perceived improvement averaged 74% overall (ranging from 30% in the case of Fiji, to 90% in the case of PNG and FSM). • In regard to building capacity so as to be able to comply with WCPFC data submission requirements (submission of data by 30 April annually), the average 2007 score given was 3.83 (close to poor), but improving to 1.75 (between very good and good) as of end of 2011. SPCs contribution to this improvement was estimated at an average of 66% (ranging from 50% the case of Fiji, to 90% in FSM). This positive trend in regard to the capacity of PICs to meet the WCPFC data submission deadline over the course of SCIFISH is also reflected by data published by SPC (Figure 7 below).

Figure 7: Improvement in data submission to WCPFC by 30 April deadline

Source: FAME 2012 annual report. N/S = ‘not submitted’. Available data indicate that compliance with the 30 April annual deadline rose sharply over the course of SCIFISH, from only 3 out of 13 PICs managing to return the data on time in 2008 at Project commencement, to 14 out of 16 in 2011. These figures suggest a positive perception by stakeholders, of the contribution that support under SCIFISH, which has continued under SCICOFISH, has provided in regard to the development of national monitoring capacities.

5.2 IMPACT ON QUANTITY /QUALITY OF TUNA FISHERIES DATA COLLECTION

Support for observer training, and essential associated specialisations (observer de-briefers, observer coordinators, port samplers, tag recovery officers) has resulted in the creation in the WCPO of a cadre of specialist, well-trained Pacific Island nationals whose role it is to collect the basic data on tuna fishing operations that feed into all subsequent analyses for the creation of science-based high level advice to the WCPFC, as well as to national jurisdictions. This improvement to the Region’s capacity to effectively monitor tuna fisheries is, in the view of the FE Team, the single most decisive and successful impact of SCIFISH. The number of PIC nationals available for deployment under national or sub-regional observer schemes rose from an estimated 180 in 2008 to over 600 at the end of SCIFISH in 2011 (the number constantly fluctuates due to new recruits and losses through natural attrition), which represents a significant increase in employment opportunities in the islands. The creation of the PIRFO Standard during the course of SCIFISH has set a benchmark for excellence in training and deploying fisheries observers, of interest to national fisheries administrations and regional fishery bodies world-wide. For those observers entering the RFO programme, a career path has been set, offering a course for professional career advancement that did not exist in previous years. Stakeholders interviewed by the FE Team reported unequivocally that building national observer programme has without doubt led to their ability to meet regional reporting obligations, for example to the WCPFC on annual catch and effort statistics. At the regional level, the cadre of skilled observers created, it should be noted in a very short period of 1-2 years, enabled member states of the WCPFC to meet the ambitious target of 100% observer coverage on purse-seine vessels, as called for in CMM 2008-01.

The capacity of ACP and participating OCT states to collect, compile, analyse and, crucially, share data and other forms of information, relating to tuna fisheries falling within their jurisdiction has without continued to be strengthened throughout SCIFISH, thus building on the capacity development process initiated under predecessor EU-funded projects. Continued development of the TUFMAN system has, in those cases utilising this software, greatly improved the capability of national authorities to meet annual catch reporting obligations to WCPFC. TUFMAN (currently version 6.27) allows efficient entry, collation and analysis of data from log-sheets and licensing. The major impact is through allowing interrogation to determine how well vessels comply with licence conditions, and identification of gaps (i.e. missing log-sheets, reports etc.). The report generation capability of TUFMAN has been improved since the MTE, and now allows a number of report formats including tables and graphical representation of data. Such outputs provide real-time, up-to-date information for a number of uses, including annual report production, negotiations with the private sector, assessment of progress in regard to national fisheries management plans, briefs for meetings, etc. from the point of view of the WCPFC, TUFMAN has assisted many States to meet their annual data reporting obligations to the national Part I Report (containing information on fisheries, research and statistics during the preceding calendar year), for which the deadline is 30 April each year, and Part II report (a country report on management and compliance issues that have occurred since the last report). Another key impact of improved data collection has been the concomitant improvement in the coverage, quality and reliability of basic data inputs to the various stock assessment and ecosystem models developed by OFP (supported under Results area 2 and 3, respectively). The increase in observer coverage has increased data on catches of non-target species (sharks, turtles) and discarding practices – an issue that is sure to increase in importance in years to come. The impact of the monitoring system that has been built is that it allows gauging the success or otherwise of management and conservation measures established at regional level, or national levels. The observer system so established provides the ‘eyes and ears’ of fisheries policy makers and managers. SCIFISH was reported to have had a major impact on the relationship between SCIFISH-funded data collectors in New Caledonia and French Polynesia, with long-liner skippers targeting albacore. For both these countries, a further positive impact has been the provision of funding from the OCT administrations to support those staff positions that were left high and dry at the time SCIFISH terminated. In the ACP states, the value of an effective observer and port sampling programme has become a realisation for many state administrations, resulting in the allocation of increased budget allocations to continue such efforts as part of the regular work plans of national administrations. Collaboration between OFP, FFA, PNA and WCPFC strengthened through collaborative efforts on observer training, standard setting (PIRFO), software development (TUFMAN TUBS), and establishing/implementing data sharing protocols for VMS, observer and other data forms related to tuna management in the Region. The high degree of interaction between OFP and national fisheries scientists with scientists and staff of institutions such as CLS- IFREMER and the University of Hawaii (in regard to the use and application of SEAPODYM) also had a very positive impact. Finally, SCIFISH certainly has helped to build the capacity and knowledge of PIC officials in regard to WCPFC processes, and in the interpretation and use of scientific information generated by the stock assessment and ecosystem models. The impact of such capacity building, although intangible, is crucial for the continued good stewardship of tuna resources throughout the WCPO Region.

Neutral impacts: The Regional MSC Strategy developed by FFA had a rather neutral impact during the life of SCIFISH, due to FFAs inability to capitalise on the work and move forward on the recommendations. However, the five analytical studies undertaken (a. MCS risk analysis; b. MCS capacity assessment in FFA member states; c. MCS data policy; d. framework for MCS cooperation; and e) use of surface and aerial patrol assets for MCS fisheries purposes) provide a platform for future developments. FFA has continued to work closely with SPC on Information Management Systems to combat IUU fishing, in line with recommendations made in the Regional Strategy document. The satellite-imagery anti-IUU work conducted in New Caledonian waters by CLS could also be considered to have had neutral impact, since nothing positive in terms of new technology application came out of it. On the other hand, the work showed the technology to be not suitable at present in New Caledonian waters, thus ensuring no further development funds were diverted to this area. A further somewhat neutral impact of SCIFISH has been the development of national capacity for analysis of data. OFP continues to be responsible for the bulk of such analytical work – despite the provision of improved tool for analysis. Whilst this is acceptable and inevitable for applied tuna research at the regional level, a priority must be to increase national capacity for continuing the work commenced under the Project. This is very much in the hands of national administrations to address – regional bodies such as SPC can only assist those put in place.

5.3 IMPACT ON KNOWLEDGE OF STATUS OF TUNA STOCKS AND FISHERY INTERACTION

Providing high quality science as the basis upon which management decisions at both national and regional levels was fundamental to the achievement of the SCIFISH Project Purpose. The number of stock assessments supported by SCIFISH exceeded the OVIs set. The near 100% acceptance of such assessments by the SC, after due deliberation at TCC level, and peer review by world experts of such work, attests to the high quality of the science. The level of understanding of status of stocks of the main target tuna species and the effects of fishing upon them have progressed significantly as a result of inputs supported by SCIFISH. Further development of MULTIFAN-CL during the course of SCIFISH, aided by data inflows generated by tagging experiments, has led to a definite enhancement of capacity within the region to undertake stock assessments for the major commercially important tuna species. MULTIFAN-CL outputs form the scientific basis of CMMs developed through the WCPFC. Tagging experiments supported under SCIFISH have provided fishery-independent biological information, as well as information on tuna movements and growth. OFP has developed one of the most extensive time series of tagging-related information in the world by which to improve tuna stock assessments and inform management decisions - the impact of which will be felt for decades to come. OFP has generated numerous scientific papers, many of them in peer-reviewed respected international publications, which has highlighted the impact of the support provided through the wider international community. Knowledge of the status of bigeye has increased as a direct result of tag returns and subsequent modelling of the population, confirming concerns over the level of fishing mortality for this species. At the conclusion of SCIFISH, three of the four main target species (Skipjack, yellowfin and albacore) were estimated to be below level of B MSY, while efforts continue to improve the level of the bigeye stock (the restriction of fishing around floating FADs is one example where the science has formed the basis of a decision to reduce fishing mortality for juvenile bigeye). However, as one OFP scientist told the FE Team: “we may be over-optimistic for yellowfin, and over pessimistic for bigeye”.

A major impact of the knowledge of stock status generated through OFPs stock assessment work is that every major CMM emanating from the WCPFC plenary sessions has been informed by such information. As one senior officer in the Commission put it to the Review Team: “The science drives everything we do – without it we are lost”. OFPs stock assessment work now provides a solid basis for developing a management framework for tuna in the Region, including target and reference limit points for the tuna stocks, as well as harvest control rules (i.e. agreement between the nations on what to do when these targets are approached or exceeded). The complexity of the stock assessment models would indicate the need for continuing support from specialist scientists within OFP for their continued development and maintenance. National fisheries staff members have the opportunity to learn the mechanics of these models and, perhaps most importantly, how to understand and apply the information generated to formulate management measures, through the OFPs annual Stock Assessment Preparatory Workshop. The provision of scientific and economic advice at the national level through National Tuna Fishery Status Reports has had a positive impact in allowing countries to consider various ‘what-if’ scenarios and to identify management measures that will likely yield the best results for nationally-based tuna- related industries. NTFSRs, together with the National Tuna Management Plans to which they have contributed, were reported to the FE mission as providing a solid foundation upon which to base plans aimed at ensuring maximum economic benefits on a sustainable basis from regionally-shared tuna resources. Tuna fishing industries provide the major, and in some PICs perhaps the only, opportunity for sustainable economic activity, hence the impact of such support is very high indeed. SCIFISH has also had a significant impact through the development of measures to reduce by-catches of non-target species, including turtles, cetaceans and other threatened and/or protected marine species in tuna fisheries in the WCPO. Such incidental catches pose a real threat to marine biodiversity, and thus any positive impact is to be welcomed.

5.4 IMPACT ON SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE WCPO PELAGIC ECOSYSTEM

Scientific understanding of the western tropical Pacific pelagic ecosystem and the tuna species that support the highly valuable fisheries of the region have been a major impact of SCIFISH. As one PNA member state put it to the Review Mission: “SEAPODYM represents the most crucial tool available to us to inform on the impact of long term changes in the oceanographic environment due to factors such as climate change and El Nino, and is crucial for us to know how to deal with such likely changes at both national and regional levels”. SEAPODYM complements MULTIFAN-CL and other models that use a single-species approach to regional stock assessments. It also complements models such as ECOPATH/ECOSYM, which models marine food webs and allows estimates of how catches of by-catch species change over time under different tuna-targeting harvest strategies. Although, as noted above, SEAPODYM remains a ‘work in progress’, by the end of SCIFISH the model had made important projections on the longer-term effect of climate change on commercial tuna distribution in the WCPO. The ability of the model since 2011 to produce fine-scale assessments has allowed finer predictions of tuna abundance and distribution within EEZs, thus having great value to management processes such as fishing rights allocations. The model will surely continue to be further refined, further enhancing its impact on the Region.

5.5 IMPACT OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION MEASURES

The 2010 MTE highlighted the fact that SCIFISH suffered from relatively poor visibility. The acronym itself was virtually unknown to PIC stakeholders, perhaps not surprisingly, given the plethora of project acronyms circulating within the fisheries world of the Region at any one time. In addition, SCIFSH support for particular activities was often combined with a range of funding sources, thus tending to reduce specific attention to the EU in such cases. Recognition for the EU’s role as the source of SCIFISH funding was not well known, thus diminishing (in the eyes if the EU) an appreciation for the support European tax-payers had provided to support the management of tuna fisheries through the project. A number of measures were taken by the OFP in response to MTE to increase the visibility of SCIFISH. Prominent acknowledgement of the EU as a funding source was made on training and presentational materials, as well as major publications, produced under the Project. Considerable publicity was also generated through a specific website link on the SPC website 25 . Publications in peer-reviewed papers also raised the international reputation of the OFP and its work, particularly for cutting edge model development and application in the world’s most significant tuna fishing region. The role of the EU in supporting such work is clearly indicated. It should be noted, however, that despite repeated concerns by the EU over poor visibility, the EU decided to withdraw funding for a regional focus to The Courier – the EUs’ publication concerning EU cooperation 26 - that had served as a good vehicle for communicating activities and benefits of SCIFISH to a wide audience. It should further be noted that the website for the Fiji-based Delegation for the Pacific’s ‘projects’ page does not list either the SCIFISH project or the current SCICOFISH project 27 . Recognising the need to increase the visibility and level of information available on the role of the EU, post-SCIFISH, as an active and important contributor to the work of FAME and its constituent OFP and CFP programmes in fisheries, SPC has assigned responsibility for communications on projects to a professional staff under the successor SCICOFISH project. In addition, senior FAME staff members have undergone media and communications training. A communications strategy has been developed and the number of articles / broadcasts in regional media has increased the awareness of donor support – including EU – to the work of FAME. The development and distribution of SCICOFISH merchandise, including T-shirts, stationary, folders, memory sticks, each bearing the very eye-catching SCICIFISH logo (discussed in Part II of this report) and a dedicated section of the SPC Newsletter dedicated to reporting on SCICOFISH activities represents a quantum leap in visibility for this successor project to SCIFISH. In summary, the FE Team’s assessment of achievement of the Overall Objective against revised OVIs is given in Table 15 overleaf.

25 http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/major-projects/scifish 26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Courier_(ACP-EU) 27 http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/fiji/projects/list_of_projects/projects_en.htm

Table 15: Achievement of Overall Objective against OVIs OVI Assessment of achievement Effort on target species in the Partially achieved . A primary aim of CMM 2008 -01 was to ensure western and central Pacific is bigeye and yellowfin tuna are not overfished (i.e. F < F MSY ). OFP managed regionally and stock assessments indicate that skipjack, yellowfin and albacore nationally so it does not exceed are not currently overfished, nor is overfishing taking place (i.e. the level of F MSY effort is < F MSY ). Since its inception, CMM 2008-01 has undergone several amendments to reduce the potential for overfishing on bigeye. However, the science has been provided upon which WCPFC members can develop effective CMMs. Catch of target species in the Partially achieved . Another aim of CMM 2008 -01 was to ensure western and central Pacific is that tuna stocks are not overfished (i.e. B > B MSY ). While stocks are managed regionally and believed to be healthy for skipjack, yellowfin and albacore, nationally so it does not exceed concern continues for bigeye. Ensuring that B>BMSY requires the the level of B MSY members of WCPFC to agree on rules for control measures to ensure compliance with reference points set in relation to biomass estimates. Ecosystem impacts of fishing Partially achieved . Ecological Risk Assessments contributed to oceanic resources are formulation of CMM 2008-03 (for sea turtles), and CMM 2008-06, minimised 2009-04 and 2010-06 (concerning sharks as key indicator species for monitoring and assessment), and CMM 2011-03 (ban on intentional purse-seining on cetaceans). SCIFISH inputs helped develop the WCPFC Shark Research Plan, comprising a detailed assessment of shark stocks. However, this OVI is not SMART and it is thus not possible to accurately rate progress made against it. Source of OVI: adjusted Logical framework, 2011 SCIFISH AWPB.

6 SUSTAINABILITY

This chapter examines the extent to which the positive effects of the various interventions made under SCIFISH have continued after termination of EU support.

6.1 POLICY SUPPORT

Strong policy support for SCIFISH is clearly indicated by the fact that SCIFISH to a large extent simply continued many of the activities, with similar intended results and objectives, as earlier EU funded interventions in three key inter-related fields: improved monitoring, stock assessment and modelling of environmental interactions for the oceanic tuna fisheries of the WCPO. SCIFISH was succeeded by SCICOFISH, which is itself a further extension of these key themes, but with a coastal element added on (thus making it similar to PROFISH – refer Annex 6). The Review Team notes that SCICOFISH 28 was in fact already a reality prior to the conclusion of the MTE of SCIFISH. The Financing Agreement was signed 17 April 2010 and activities effectively commenced in July 2010 (after securing the first transfer of funds and recruitment of staff), i.e. some 17 months prior to the termination of SCIFISH, and in fact 4 months prior to the conduct of the SCIFISH MTE mission. This could be interpreted as being an indication of the high regard for the support provided through SCIFISH by both the beneficiary PICs, as well as the EU who were content to agree to funding SCICOFISH even before SCIFISH had concluded. Sustainability is required in two key aspects if the benefits achieved to date are to be effectively further capitalised on: continued support to provide high quality scientific advice to the WCPFC member states and their secretariat to inform the decision making process leading to CMM development, implementation and review; and building national capacity within the member states so that key responsibilities relating to tuna fishery data gathering/quality assurance, analysis and dissemination becomes more the responsibility of members states and less the work of SPC. Underlining this is the need for adequate funding. The EU has been a long-time donor to SPC’s fisheries-related programmes. Concern was raised during the FE that if further funding would not to be forthcoming under the successor EDF-11, SPC would become unable to maintain historic levels of support to its members States. The most direct problem would be the probable loss of key SPC personnel positions e.g. those involved in the development of observer and de-briefer training programmes. The degree to which PICs have allocated human, material and financial resources to national fisheries administrations varies. In many PICs, there is a prevalent view that the EU (and other donors) should continue to support regional bodies, so that they can continue to support regional fisheries management since this generates global benefits. This position has to be reconciled with the fact of the very high value of the tuna fishery, particularly to some states, and the considerable economic benefits directly derived by those states. It should be noted that the OCTs that participated in SCIFISH (French Polynesia and New Caledonia) have been able to find funding to pay for the staff costs of those staff essential to continue monitoring and assessment activities, so as to meet national and regional reporting and compliance obligations. Amongst the OCTs, PNG is a leading example in terms of allocating from national

28 The SCICOFISH project (Scientific support, for the management of coastal and oceanic fisheries in the Pacific Islands region) is being implemented through a Contribution Agreement signed between the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and European Union, with a planned duration spanning 17 th April 2010 to the 3 rd March 2014 and a budget of €8,655,765.

budgets adequate resources to ensure effective management and responsible development of tuna fisheries sector. The trend away from donor dependency for crucial support of the kind provided by SCIFISH should clearly be a regional goal. Passing the costs of monitoring control and management to the primary users of the resource – the industrial fishing operations – has been successfully pursued by FFA in some respects, e.g. full cost recovery of the observers under the FFA-operated US Treaty Arrangement, operation of the Regional Register of Fishing Vessels, and the FFA Regional VMS system. These costs are 100% recovered from vessel operators. It should be noted that SPC derives income through its MoU with WCPFC for services rendered in provision of scientific support on a full cost basis. WCPFC, in turn, derives its income from member state subscriptions. SPC’s work is therefore subsidised by donors, the results of which are sold to consumers of its services i.e. the WCPFC. The level of scientific services provision by SPC is set to increase very significantly over the course of the next decade. The number of observers required will need to increase, as a result of impending requirements to expand observer coverage on long-liners. Training needs for observers and crucially observer de-briefers, as well as port samplers, data analysts (etc.) will increase, as will the need to continue to support national capacity building through key workshop activities such as the TDW and SAPW, and attachments of national staff to OFC (and CFC) in Noumea. Besides this, the further development and maintenance of stock assessment work and ecosystem modelling, in the form of MULTIFAN-CL and SEAPODYM, respectively, requires those staff positions currently partially or wholly supported by EDF to be continued in some shape or form. There is therefore a clear necessity to ensure SPC is adequately resourced to meet these needs. The FE Team finds that a move towards more sustainable mechanisms for budget support would be preferential to constant project renewals. This is discussed more fully in Part II of this report (MTE of the SCICOFISH project).

6.2 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Due to the fact that SCIFISH has been one of several funding sources utilised by OFP for many of the activities undertaken, any attempt to determine the economic benefit to the PICs resulting specifically from SCIFISH is not straightforward. In addition, no baseline survey was undertaken immediately prior of Project commencement against which to judge change. Thus, an updated version of the simplistic approach provided in the SCIFISH MTE is given below, to provide some feel for the relative benefits derived in comparison to total costs. • Total economic value of the WCPFC tuna fishery at the end of SCIFISH (in 2011): US$ 5.5 billion (€4.125 billion) - Purse-seine - USD 3.09 billion (€2.32 billion) - Long-line USD 1.85 billion (€1.39 billion) - Pole-and-line USD 0.37 billion (€0.28 billion) • Access fee (vessel days): probably around US$120,000, (€90,000) • Direct jobs for Pacific islanders in commercial tuna industry: 12,000 • Annual contribution to GDP of Pacific Island Countries in 2011: US$258 million (€194 million) The total cost of SCIFISH was €6,610,000 (US$8,741,725) over for years, or €1,652,500 ($2,185,000) per year. The annual cost of SCIFISH therefore accounted for 0.4% of the total economic value of the fishery in WCPFC waters in 2011. Less tangible social and economic benefits have included the economic multiplier effects of national tuna fisheries developments throughout the region:

• In the PNA member countries, in particular, in regard to locally-based tuna vessel operations and trans-shipment activities for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye, and the southern PIC states in regard to albacore-based fisheries • Direct and indirect employment (crew on fishing vessels, ROP employment, on-shore processing, distribution and marketing) as well as in upstream and downstream support industries (supplies, insurance, financial services, transport, cold storage, etc.). • Contribution to GDP from tuna fishing and related activities, import substitution, foreign exchange earnings • Cost recovery of observers on US Treaty purse-seiners (US$6,000 per trip), which covers all observer emplacements, plus training and management-associated costs. • Some national observer programme are also operating on a full (or near-full) cost-recovery basis. Viewed in these terms, the relative cost of SCIFISH is negligible in comparison to the benefits derived as a result of the establishment of effective monitoring, control and management structures, resulting in sustainable, high value and profitable fisheries.

6.3 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP

The target beneficiaries – ACP States, OCT states and the WCPTC – without exception confirmed strong acceptance of the activities performed and results generated under SCIFISH. There is unanimous acceptance of the need for maintaining – and continuing to build - a reliable monitoring system for basic data collection (Result 1), to inform stock assessment research (Result 2) and advanced computer modelling (Result 3). Regarding ownership, discussions with nationals and examination of the PSC minutes leave the FE Team with the impression that design of AWPs for SCIFISH, in each year of implementation, was very much left to SPC to undertake, with the PICs (through the PSC) left with effectively a rubber- stamping function, rather than one of executive responsibility. PIC ownership cannot therefore be considered to have been high in terms of input to the AWPBs. This may simply reflect the faith the PICs have in the experience of SPC managers in knowing how best to utilise the available assistance provided through SCIFISH. Recognising the relatively low executive input to Project management, which may have been due to the PSC not having detailed ToR by to guide its work, the MTE recommended that detailed ToR be developed, especially for the successor SCICOFISH project.

6.4 APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY

The technological approach of SCIFISH was appropriate to the realities of working within the WCPO region. Basic items essential for monitoring aspects (on-board observers and port samplers) were sourced locally, and have been well tried and tested in the field. A problem at the start of SCIFISH concerning fish length measuring callipers was reported, but this was duly rectified. The technological approach applied to the tagging experiments was appropriate and guided by the considerable experience already amassed on the conduct of such cruises by OFP personnel. The use of electronic (archival and sonic) tags was not as successful as expected, but this is in the nature of experimental work: a negative result may be regarded as valuable as a positive. A significant technological barrier that has continued under SCICOFISH is ICT infrastructure, particularly the linkages between PIC administrations and regional bodies such both SPC and FFA, in their attempts to coordinate data sharing and maintenance of regional databases. Availability and maintenance of hardware and software at PIC level continues to improve, but some PICs clearly still face problems relating to availability of in-country service provision. Funding and man-power numbers and capacity still remain as constraints to the majority of the PICs.

6.5 INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT CAPACITY

The FE Team concurs with the conclusion of the MTE that OFP management of SCIFISH overall was exemplary. This is not perhaps surprising, given the long history of implementation of consecutive projects funded by the EU: OFP managers know very well the procedural requirements set forth in Financing Agreements and how to ensure that these are fully complied with. The quality of OFPs six-monthly and annual progress reports (discussed in section 3.2 above) is considered by the FE Team to have been insufficient to adequately inform the EU and the PIC beneficiaries of real progress in implementation. However, no complaints were apparently raised regarding quality and content, thus they were considered adequate by the project beneficiaries. OFP and FFA cooperated efficiently in delivering SCIFISH. FFA’s involvement was negatively impacted by the lack of an Operations Manager for much of the Project’s duration. The main result achieved – development of a Regional MCS Strategy – is well known by PIC officials and was reported to the FE Team to represent a basic framework for addressing IUU and further developing national and regional MCS capacities in the Region. All PIC stakeholders interviewed expressed satisfaction with institutional linkages and the level of contact with OFP. The PICs without exception possess suitably qualified and experienced personnel, who were able to ensure full engagement with SCIFISH activities. The foundation of SCIFISH is the observer programme. The ROP depends entirely on the success of the various national observer programmes, implemented by the various PICs. It is a credit to the management capacity of the PICs that, despite severe domestic and human resource constraints in some cases, they have without exception been able to work well with OFP to utilise the support provided through SCIFISH. As mentioned above, cost recovery schemes need to be pursued, whereby the costs of MCS in support management are passed on to the resource user – the fishing industry. This fact is well recognised by all PIC stakeholders, who have already made headway in cost recovery arrangements in, for example, passing all costs to the fishing industry in regard to the Regional Register of Fishing Vessels, the Regional VMS system, and all costs of observers on the US Treaty purse-seine vessels. The issue is how to accelerate this change to cover all other monitoring, research, control and management costs.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The FE concludes that: SCIFISH was implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community in close cooperation with the SPC member states, and with the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency. The design of the Project aimed to support activities to provide high quality scientific data and information to inform the decision making process leading to oceanic fisheries policy and management decisions by national administrations and the main regional fisheries management body, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. SCIFISH supported activities in fourteen Pacific-ACP States: Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu; and three OCTs: New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna and French Polynesia). SCIFISH was funded under the 9th European Development Fund, with an ACP Contribution Agreement totalling €4,000,000, and an OCT Contribution Agreement totalling €2,610,000. Draw- down of funds commenced in March 2008. A total of €53,000 was withheld from the ACP component and €45,000 from the OCT component to fund project evaluations and external audits. The Project formally terminated in December 2011, at which point expenditure totalled €6,513,879 against an allocation total of €6,512,000. SCIFISH was highly relevant to the region served by SPC, following a long pedigree of EU-funded projects that each had similar objectives, purpose and intended results in support of enhanced tuna management in the western and Central Pacific Region. The main conclusion drawn from this review is that SCIFISH’s stated Overall Objective, the conservation and sustainable use of oceanic fish resources of the western and central Pacific Ocean, was promoted by the project in meaningful terms, given the clear evidence that regional cooperation in tuna fisheries management has been successfully furthered through the WCPFC. The Project Purpose of SCIFISH, to provide a scientific basis for regional and national oceanic fisheries management decision-making by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and by Pacific ACP and OCT Governments, was achieved. This is indicated by the quantity and quality of scientific information that has been generated through the three inter-related results groups under the Project, and which was effectively utilised by national governments and regional bodies such as the WCPFC and the FFA in pursuit of sustainable management of tuna resources within the Region. SCIFISH’s three main results groups concerned: (a) enhancement of oceanic fishery monitoring; (b) enhanced stock assessment of main tuna species; and (c) enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystem. These were logical in their design and complementary in their implementation. The soundness of the design of the results group is attested to by the fact that no changes were made to the intended results or their constituent activities during the course of SCIFISH: they remained relevant to attaining the stated Project Purpose throughout the Project’s life-span. All assumptions and pre-conditions set forth in the Project’s Logical Framework also remained pertinent and relevant throughout its life-span. Two ROMs were conducted, in September 2009 and September 2010, as well as a Mid-Term Evaluation in October 2010. All recommendations emanating from these evaluations were fully addressed and implemented by OFP, resulting in a strengthened and less ambiguous logical framework, as well as improvements in the format and content of the semi- and annual reports produced by OFP. However, although changes were made to improve the utility of the Project’s Log- Frame, Objectively Verifiable Indicators for monitoring implementation, these were introduced at the end in Year 3 (2010), and thus came too late to be of practical benefit in terms of measuring progress in implementation. The visibility of SCIFISH (i.e. recognition of the acronym, and the EU as the funding source) was found to be low, although this factor has been addressed in the design of the successor SCICOFISH Project.

In regard to the efficiency of Project delivery, SPC’s OFP, in the role of lead agency for SCIFISH implementation, performed in an exemplary fashion, creating synergies and complementarity between various funding sources available to OFP. The efficient manner in which the project was delivered is attested to by the fact that it operated within budget and in accordance with the approved annual work-plans and budgets. The main associate technical partner organisation was FFA, to which funding was provided for the MCS-related activities built into the Project design. FFA was less successful at implementing the tasks allocated to it, due in large part by the lack of managerial presence in the key portfolio of Operations Manager, at least until the appointment of the current Operations Manager in December 2010, after which implementation of MCS-related activities markedly improved. Between commencement of activities in 2008 and 2010, the structure and content of 6-monthly and annual reports produced by OFP managers varied considerably, and in the view of the Evaluation Mission did not provide adequate information to the EU. However, after completion of the MTE in Oct 2010, the scope and content of progress reports improved significantly. The Project Steering Committee met a total of four times, but performed marginally in in terms of providing executive oversight of the Project. The PSC did not have specific Terms of Reference, and this simple fact may have contributed to its role being restricted to little more than rubber stamping off work plans and implementation reports prepared by SPC’s OFP. Financial management of the Project was highly efficient and in compliance with the Financing Agreement and both Contribution Agreements. Although all funds expended by SPC have been audited, funds passed by SPC to FFA for MCS-related activities appear only as transfers, and have yet to be properly audited. The recruitment process for the various staff positions funded under the Project followed standard SPC staff recruitment practices and procedures. All recruited staff were held in high regard by regional stakeholders, and were clearly of high calibre. In conclusion, SPC’s long experience in implementing EU-funded projects is considered by the Mission Team to have been a major positive factor in the efficient management of the Project. In terms of SCIFISH effectiveness, Results Group 1 (Enhanced Oceanic Fishery Monitoring ) provided significant support to fisheries monitoring throughout the Region. Main deliverables included data quality management tools, training programmes for fisheries observers, de-briefers and port samplers, and assessed technologies to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. A crucial achievement was in strengthening the cadre of regional fisheries observers through SCIFISH, which supported training for at least 478 observers. In addition to at-sea observers, a large number of workshops were supported for observer de-briefers (who play a crucial role in ensuring the quality and coverage of observer data), regional observer coordinators and training-of-trainers. The rapid development of a cadre of fisheries observers in order to meet the requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse-seiners from 1 January 2010, as required by CMM 2008-01, was an outstanding achievement of SCIFISH. In addition to the support for practical training, a Competency-Based Standard for Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Observers (PIRFO) was substantially supported through SCIFISH. This standard, widely referenced and respected world-wide, represents a high degree of successful collaboration between SPC and FFA during the course of SCIFISH. An important aspect of capacity development in Pacific Island fisheries administrations concerned the attachment of Pacific Island nationals to the OFP, thus providing them with unparalleled access to international expertise in a wide range of tuna fisheries related scientific and management skills. A total of 12 Pacific Island nationals undertook training attachments to OFP with funding support under the Project. National observer and port sampling programmes, notably in Papua New Guinea, and also the OCTs of New Caledonia and French Polynesia, benefitted from direct material and financial support provided under the Project, as well as training and technical assistance. Since termination of SCIFISH, these States have made significant progress towards full institutionalisation of monitoring staff costs into national establishments and provision of adequate financial and material support. Important research into sampling bias was conducted through comparisons of fish taken by grab and spill samples, but a Regional Standard for Spill Sampling was not completed during

the life-time of the Project, pending further field work. MCS related activities under FFA’s responsibility did not proceed precisely according to plan, due largely to lack of managerial oversight, although a Regional MCS Strategy was successfully completed, as was a feasibility study into the use of satellite tracking as an IUU deterrent undertaken in New Caledonian waters . The development of standardised indexes and templates to enhance MCS and fisheries management, undertaken by FFA as part of the MCS Strategy, has continued to be a central aspect of FFA’s work in regard to curtailing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the Region. FFA has earmarked the funds remaining under SCIFISH to support in-country development of Information Management Systems (including MCS information management software), as well as the creation of an MCS data warehouse, and a Regional Strategic Information Technology Plan to support the priorities identified in the regional MCS study. TUFMAN evolved to version 6.27 with SCIFISH support, and became more widely used by participating ACPs to enter, store and manage the data collected through national monitoring programme, enhancing their capacity to inform both national and regional decision-making processes. The number of WCPFC member countries submitting Part-1 reports to WCPFC by the 30 April deadline improved from 3 out of 13 in 2008 to 14 out of 16 in 2011. A pilot study undertaken in the New Caledonia EEZ to assess the simultaneous analysis of VMS records with RADARSAT targets for the detection of IUU fishing indicated that this new approach to combatting IUU fishing was not viable for that particular EEZ. Trials of other emerging technologies, such as optical satellite data collection and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for fisheries surveillance were was not undertaken. Results Group 2 (Enhanced stock assessments) produced stock assessments for each of the four main tropical tuna species (bigeye, yellowfin, albacore and skipjack) at least twice during the course of SCIFISH. The quality of the stock assessments produced by OFP is attested to by the fact that all were accepted by the WCPFC Scientific Committee and duly utilised during plenary sessions of the Commission to inform the decision-making process for CMM formulation. At the national level, OFP (together with FFA) prepared nine National Tuna Fisheries Status Reports, many of which directly informed the process leading to national tuna management and development plans. In addition, SPC kept its commitments under SCIFISH and other programmes to provide comprehensive technical support to ACP/OCT participating countries for tuna fishery management, including preparing nine National Tuna Fisheries Status Reports as well as numerous other ad hoc technical deliverables. A total of twelve tagging cruises were undertaken under the ACP Component for tropical tunas (bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack), resulting in at least 271,000 fish were tagged using conventional tags and least 1,300 fish were tagged using archival tags. Under the OCT Component, approx. 3,000 albacore were tagged with conventional tags and 19 electronic tags (pop-up satellite tags). A wide range of biological material was collected, including otoliths and muscle tissue was successfully used in developing new (non-tagging) techniques for assessing tuna population dynamics in the WCPO. The large amount data from tagging cruises and biological sample analysis provided crucial input to MULTIFAN-C stock assessments provided to the WCPFC via the SC and TCC, and will continue to form part of on-going analyses for years to come. The scientific outputs of the OFP have been well publicised, with a large number of peer-reviewed scientific publications in numerous scientific journals. Results Group 3 (Enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystem ) supported the further development of SEAPODYM, which has developed to become cutting-edge tool for investigating the relationship between the distribution and abundance of tunas, their prey, and environmental / oceanic conditions. The development of the model and its application has been well documented, with at least 18 publications in peer-reviewed scientific media. SEAPODYM was also endorsed by the WCPFC for provision of scientific advice on tuna management policies, and has provided access to all participating ACP and OCT countries to estimates of EEZ-scale biomass distribution and associated environmental variability for skipjack, bigeye and albacore tuna. An ecological risk assessment of all highly migratory and associated/dependent species contributed to new WCPFC CMM for sea turtles,

the listing of thirteen species of sharks as “key” species for monitoring and assessment, and a ban on intentional setting of purse seines on cetaceans. The scope and content of CMMs is firmly grounded on the scientific advice provided through the Science Committee. Between 2008 and 2011, much of this advice was generated through activities supported, at least to some extent, by SCIFISH. The contribution to the science by SCIFISH is undoubted, although it must be noted that due to the plethora of other funding sources supporting OFP activities, the specific contribution to the overall body of scientific made by SCIFISH is not quantifiable in specific terms. PIC officials were clearly well engaged in the gathering, analysis and interpretation of results emanating from SCIFISH supported activities, as well as subsequent management options/negotiating positions with DWFNs, CMM formulation and application. A major impact of SCIFISH was its contribution to the training of a cadre of 600+ dedicated on-board observers capable of monitoring key aspects of the region’s tuna fishing activities. The creation of this pool of technically-capable Pacific Island nationals has resulted in a significant improvement in the scope, quality and availability of biological and fishery-related data, and has formed the basis to informing national and regional scientific, policy and management decision-making processes. Stakeholders reported unequivocally that building national observer programmes has markedly improved their ability to meet regional reporting obligations, for example to the WCPFC on annual catch and effort statistics. At the regional level, the cadre of skilled observers (created in a period of <2 years) enabled member States of the WCPFC to meet the ambitious target of 100% observer coverage on purse-seine vessels, as called for in CMM 2008-01. The PIRFO Standard and associated training syllabi and materials represents a world-class system for fisheries observers, much referred to in other parts of the world. The capacity of ACP and participating OCT states to collect, compile, analyse and, crucially, share data and other forms of information, relating to tuna fisheries falling within their jurisdiction has without doubt continued to be strengthened throughout SCIFISH, thus building on the capacity development process initiated under predecessor EU-funded projects. Data emanating from the Project has had direct positive impact on the deliberations of various technical meetings held at FFA to formulate management options and PIC positions prior to the conduct of annual meetings of the WCPFC Preparatory Meetings, SC and TCC. SCIFISH derived data fed directly into numerous keystone developments, e.g. the PNA Vessel Day Scheme. Collaboration between OFP, FFA, PNA and WCPFC was strengthened through the numerous collaborative efforts on observer training, standard setting (PIRFO), software development (TUFMAN TUBS), and establishing/implementing data sharing protocols for VMS, observer and other data forms related to tuna management in the Region. TUFMAN has continually evolved and now provides national administrations with a viable tool for ensuring the high quality of data, as well as the capability to store and analyse the data to meet a wide range of management needs. The tagging experiments supported by SCIFISH are the largest undertaken anywhere, in terms of range, scope and numbers of tagged fish. The biological and population dynamic parameters produced through this work have provided key inputs to the MULTIFAN-CL stock assessment model. SEAPODYM has also continually evolved, and is now able to inform on the impact of long term changes in the oceanographic environment due to factors such as climate change and El Nino. It is viewed by many PIC stakeholders as a crucial tool in order to determine options on how to deal with such likely changes at both national and regional levels. The MCS-related activities implemented by FFA had less direct impact, although the Regional MCS Strategy developed established a framework for improved integrated MCS including Integrated Management Systems. With regard to sustainability , it should be noted that the shared/straddling nature of tuna stocks in the Region demands a regional approach and a high level of scientific and technical capacity in support to their management. Thus the type of services provided by SPC is likely to remain, or more

likely increase in the face of increasing pressure to increase catches, in the foreseeable future. With this, the cost of providing such support will inevitably increase as well. The level of dependence on donors to support the OFP has increased, over the past decade (see this report, Part II). Countries such as Papua New Guinea, French Polynesia and New Caledonia managed to find national funding support for their domestic observer programmes. For many other states, internalising the costs of related fisheries staff and operations will continue to be problematic. A good model for cost recovery in the Region already exists in the form of the Multi-Lateral Treaty on Fishing, managed by the FFA, whereby full cost recovery is in place and the industry pays for all observer and associated management costs. In regard to the sustainability of the Pacific Islands fisheries observer training achieved under the Project, the bottleneck now lies in the availability of Observer de-briefers and Observer trainers. This reality is being addressed through activities funded under SCICOFISH. The role of certain national fisheries training schools needs to be expanded (e.g. KMC in PNG), to reduce direct dependence on SPC-organised and implemented training courses, which are currently unable to meet demand due to shortage of staff availability. The fact that the SPC observer training system is totally reliant on three key staff positions is itself a matter of concern in regard to the sustainability of the system – if funding support from new donors ceases, this would spell disaster for the region’s observer programme. In regard to the sustainability of regional stock assessments supported under SCIFISH, such costs are now largely met by the WCPFC, under the terms of its 3-year rolling agreement with SPC for the provision of scientific services. Regional tagging experiments have proved to be instrumental in the development of scientific advice on fish stocks and their capacity to support oceanic fisheries. However, such experiments are expensive undertakings. Although the SCICOFISH project has supported some continuing tagging operations, PNG has taken the lead in the Region in providing direct funding and management support of tagging, providing a healthy sign that given sustainability concerns are being addressed, and that things are moving into the right direction.

8 LESSONS LEARNED

SciFish’s ambitious Overall Objective and Project Purpose calls into question whether it is plausible to have strict time limits for the delivery of results, since the underlying activities that achieve the results are largely open-ended. In particular, the development of national capacity through training and upgrading of skills of Pacific Island nationals, through applied courses, attachments to OFP, etc., is a continuous process, but the inclusion of SMART OVIs in the original log-frame, and annual SMART indicators in annual work plans, would have assisted in better assessing project progress. Although the notion of including activities aimed at strengthening MCS capacities in order to address IUU fishing in the region (primarily the remit of FFA) with the main scientific focus of the OFP appeared to be perfectly rational during the design phase of SCIFISH, the reality was that the MCS activities were not delivered as intended, despite the close cooperation that exists between the two organisations. It appears to be more appropriate to keep science and compliance/ enforcement issues separate rather than having them bundled into a single project. SPC uses funds at its disposal in an integrated manner. The funding provided by SCIFISH became part of the general budget for SPC, and as such was complemented with funds from a range of other funding sources. Although this provided OFP with a high degree of flexibility and complementarity in using available funding optimally, it makes difficult the task of evaluating the contribution made specifically and solely by SCIFISH. The MTE of SCICOFISH discusses in some detail issues surrounding the funding modalities employed by SPC and their consequences for financial accountability, flexibility and sustainability.

The need to make provision for dedicated administrative support for projects such as SCIFISH, as recommended in the MTE because the high level of support needed is too onerous to add on to the responsibilities of existing establishment staff, has been well demonstrated in the case of SCICOFISH, where financial support built into the project for dedicated support staff is already yielding benefits through improved visibility of the project (web site, newsletter etc.). The project approach has left the Region to ransom in terms of continuation of key posts (e.g. those administering the highly successful regional observer programme) with the perennial question as to how to find new project support in order to maintain the level of services to PICs. Project funding engenders serious inefficiencies due to the need for repeated project and contract preparations, project monitoring and reporting, and ineffective evaluation. It would be preferable to move away from ‘projects’ which in reality are a continuous stream of programmatic core support activities to the PICs, and towards a more sustainable mechanism for supporting the OFP budget.

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. PICs need to make provision for adequate human, financial and material resources in national establishments and recurrent budgets for long-term sustainability of the monitoring programmes. 2. PICs should progress the user-pays principle and recover all monitoring, management and equipment costs from the fishing industry. The Multi-lateral Treaty on Fishing provides a good model. 3. WCPFC needs to capitalise on the science flowing from the OFP and develop a well-structured management strategy, including target/limit reference points for major tuna and shark species, with limits on fishing capacity. 4. SPC needs to move away from the old project approach and towards a more sustainable, programme support mechanism with the EU. Recommendations pertinent to the EU’s continued support of oceanic and coastal fisheries are presented in full in Part II of this document (SCICOFISH Mid-Term Evaluation).

Annex 1: Terms of Reference FINAL EVALUATION Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the western and central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) 2007 - 2010 FED/2006/018-725 - 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8 and MID-TERM EVALUATION Scientific Support for the Management of Coastal and Oceanic Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH) 2010-2012 FED/2010/235-690 - 10 ACP.RPA 01

1. BACKGROUND

The specific objective of the Fisheries Focal Sector under the 9th EDF Regional Indicative Programme (RIP) for the Pacific was the conservation and optimum exploitation of fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific by promoting regional cooperation and coordination of policies aimed at eradicating poverty and securing maximum benefits for the people of the Region. The overall objective and purpose of the SCIFISH project directly addressed this regional strategy. The measures taken by the project were designed to enhance scientific information on oceanic marine resources and their ecosystem.

SCIFISH has contributed to the effectiveness of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) both through direct support of the Commission’s science programme and by assisting Pacific ACPs and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) to meet their obligations to collect and provide relevant fisheries data and biological information. SCIFISH ensured continuity of scientific data collection, analysis, scientific advice generation and capacity building until the Tuna Commission was fully functional and has now taken over financial responsibility for some of these programmes. It also contributed regional and national capacity in Monitoring Control and Surveillance of regional tuna fisheries with the overall aim of eliminating illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing. The project covered both Pacific ACP countries and the three French OCT territories.

Under the 10 th EDF Regional Strategy and Regional Indicative Programme, ‘Sustainable management of natural resources and the environment’ formed one of two focal sectors. In line with the priorities of the Pacific Plan, fisheries resources received considerable attention in the programming. The SCICOFISH project purpose is to provide a reliable and improved scientific basis for management and decision making in oceanic and coastal fisheries. SCIFISH focuses solely on meeting the needs of Pacific ACP countries for scientific support and advice – there are no activities in the OCTs. The oceanic fisheries component includes the development of national observer programmes, tuna fishery databases, bio-economic modelling to support management advice, ecosystem modelling to forecast impacts of climate change, and a small tuna tagging project. The coastal component aims to develop national capacity for field monitoring of coastal resources, develop other coastal fisheries data collection systems, and assist countries use this data to develop coastal fishery management measures.

Both projects build upon previous EU-funded projects implemented by the Fisheries Programmes of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), which is the regional focal point for fisheries science. These projects include the Pacific ACP and French Pacific OCT Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Development Project (PROCFISH – 8th EDF), the South Pacific Regional Tuna Resource Assessment and Monitoring Project (SPRTRAMP – 7th EDF) and the Regional Tuna

Tagging Project (RTTP 6th EDF) which have developed methodologies in various technical areas, including ecosystem modelling, fishery monitoring, tuna tagging, and underwater visual census (for coastal resources) which are highly relevant. A Mid-Term Evaluation of the SCIFISH project was carried out in November 2010. Since this was near the end of the period of project execution, and the SCICOFISH project was already approved, recommendations included combining the final evaluation of SCIFISH with the mid-term evaluation of SCICOFISH.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

The objectives of the evaluation are to:

1. determine the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of SCIFISH and SCICOFISH in meeting their objectives and the sustainability of the outcomes; 2. identify the possible scope of future projects or programmes to meet the needs of the Pacific ACP countries for regionally delivered scientific services in the Fishery area. 3. ascertain the need for an extension in time and other resources for SCICOFISH;

Specifically the evaluation will:

1. Assess the degree to which project activities have achieved the defined goals, objectives and targets of SCIFISH and SCICOFISH 2. Assess the complementarity between SCIFISH and SCICOFISH 3. Review the problems faced, lessons learnt and successes achieved which could strengthen institutional capacity and future planning. 4. Review and assess the relevance of the original project design, Financing Agreements and ToRs of the Technical Assistance contracts in light of achievements or failures to achieve the expected objectives 5. Conduct cost benefit analysis of the projects, as far as possible 6. Assess the issue of sustainability 7. Assess the project’s sensitivity to environmental and gender issues, specifically whether these issues are addressed. 8. Assess the complementary of Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission funding to SPC and the 9 th and 10 th EDF funding for similar activities

One report covering distinctly both projects will have to be produced. However two separate invoices (one for each project) will have to be submitted.

3. MAIN ISSUES TO BE STUDIED

When undertaking the evaluation, the Consultant should address the following issues:

Project Design

Assess the project design based on the original Financing Agreements. Also assess the internal coherence of the project with due consideration to:

• The overall objective • Project purpose • Results • Activities • Assumptions / preconditions • Comment on the Logical Framework

Relevance

The consultant will, amongst others, assess the following:

• In what way did the projects address regional and national priorities? • The relevance of the strategies, methodologies and overall approach to address the problems • Other interventions of the governments, SPC, EU and other donors which are directly or indirectly related to the projects.

More specifically, the Consultant should make an assessment of the contribution of SCIFISH to:

• Fulfilling the data and scientific information needs of the WCPFC and sub-regional tuna fisheries management arrangements administered by FFA; and • Enhancing the capacity of Pacific ACP States and OCTs to fulfil their scientific data obligations under the WCPF Convention. • Measurable benefits of participating countries and territories (ACP, OCT) • Similarly the Consultant should assess the contribution to date of SCICOFISH in: • Providing P-ACP governments, the FFA and the WCPFC with scientific data, modelling and advice to underpin their tuna fisheries management decision making; and • Equipping P-ACP governments and communities with the tools to monitor coastal fisheries resources and develop appropriate management measures.

Efficiency

Evaluate the efficiency with which the activities of SCIFISH and SCICOFISH have been undertaken in order to yield project results. The following aspects should be considered:

• Organisation and management, analyses of the organisational arrangements (structures, responsibilities and contractual arrangements) relating to the project (SPC, TA, national ministries, regional organizations, etc.). This includes an assessment of the management capabilities of SPC and the mechanisms put in place to monitor and manage national activities The issues include the plans of operation and timetables, financial management and budgeting, application of Contribution Agreements rules and procedures, terms and conditions, phasing of activities, internal monitoring arrangements, management of TA under the projects, coordination with donors and institutional capacities of national ministries. • Implementation and measurable impacts of activities, including the quality, quantity and timing of technical assistance, training and other project outputs at the regional and national/territorial levels; • Monitoring of SCIFISH and SCICOFISH carried out by SPC, the Regional Authorising Officers (RAO) for the ACPs and OCTs and EU Delegation.

Effectiveness

The evaluation will analyse the relationship between the purpose of each project and results achieved. The following questions should assist with the assessment of the effectiveness of each project:

• What are the relationship between the purpose of each project and results achieved beneficiaries (compare actual vs. planned)?

• To what extent have the purposes of the project been achieved, or can be expected to be achieved in the current project duration? • Have there been unforeseen beneficiaries or unintended consequences, and if yes, explain why, the extent, impact and implications for all stakeholders? • Have the assumptions required to translate project results into the project purpose been realised? If not, why and how did this affect the project? • Have the projects’ resources (TA and personnel, equipment, training, research etc.) been directly related to projects’ results? • Have appropriately qualified and experienced staff been recruited to implement the projects and contribute to planned project outputs. • What communication and information strategies have been developed and implemented in terms of visibility, dissemination and access to information acquired by the projects?

Impact

Consultants will analyse the foreseen and unforeseen project impacts, whether they be positive or negative. The Consultant will, if possible, compare the scenario immediately prior to the implementation of the project with the achievements of the project to date.

Based on the results of the projects to date, the Consultant will assess the impact and predict the potential impact of the projects in the following areas:

• Impact on scientific understanding of the western tropical Pacific pelagic ecosystem and its constituent species; • Impact on knowledge of status of stocks of the main target tuna species and the effects of fishing upon them • Impact on the quantity, quality and scope of data being collected from regional tuna fisheries • Impact on the capacity of ACP States and OCTs to collect and compile data on tuna fisheries under their jurisdiction, consistent with their obligations under the WCPF Convention and the benefit for improved fisheries management at the regional, national/territorial levels; • Impact on the capacity of Pacific ACP States to collect and analyse data and develop • management measures for coastal fisheries. • Impact of communication and information measures undertaken by the projects.

Sustainability

The Consultant will assess the potential for the overall sustainability of both projects beyond project life-time, in particular in view of the extent to which the activities of SCIFISH that were not continued under SCICOFISH (for example stock assessments for the WCPFC scientific committee and support to the observer programmes of New Caledonia and French Polynesia) have been sustained since the end of the project. The evaluation should specifically consider the timing of SCIFISH in relation to the state of development of the WCPFC and the capacity of ACP States and OCTs to meet their obligations to it.

In terms of sustainability particular emphasis should be given to:

Policy Support

• Extent to which project has had support in the recipient countries. • Degree of agreement on the project purpose

• Support from relevant organizations and national institutions (technical, political, business etc.) • Willingness to provide resources (financial and personnel) by ACPs, OCTs and others.

Economic and Financial Analysis

This part will be based on a cost effectiveness analysis, and should lead to conclusions and recommendations to improve and ensure the sustainability of the SCICOFISH project and its results.

Community Acceptance and Ownership

This important component of sustainability needs to be assessed in all relevant target groups. Do the target groups feel the outputs of the project are relevant to their needs?

Appropriate Technology

Does the technology offered correspond to the capacity and needs of the target groups. Will the intended beneficiaries be able to adopt and maintain the technology acquired?

Institutional and Management Capacity

Assess the commitment of all parties involved such as governments, (e.g. through policy and budgetary support) other institutions and potential donors in contributing towards sustainability.

The Consultant should make specific recommendations regarding:

• whether the SCICOFISH project needs to be extended in order to effect a smooth transfer to any future arrangements to provide fisheries scientific services to Pacific ACP countries; and if so: • the duration of the extension and any changes to the current project objectives and activities during this period; and • the additional financial resources that would be required to fund any extension that might be recommended.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Having evaluated the project in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability the Consultant will summarise the outcomes and draw conclusions. Additionally the Consultant will identify what policy, organisational and operational lessons are to be learnt by stakeholders, as well as ensure that all substantiated conclusions are followed by corresponding operational recommendations that could be adopted to overcome identified constraints and seize opportunities.

Conclusions should cover all areas of efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Each conclusion should lead to a corresponding operational recommendation that could be adopted to overcome constraints. The following points merit particular attention:

Overall outcome

What are the main achievements of the projects to date and to be expected? Elaborate on the possible impact of the outcomes and their efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability.

Elaborate also on the remaining needs at the regional and national levels and how these would be best met.

Sustainability

Conclusions should be drawn and recommendations made regarding the key sustainability factors relevant to the project. (i.e. is the policy environment likely to ensure the sustainability of the project’s benefits) and the conditions and likelihood that these factors will be taken into account by SPC and/or the States covered by the project.

Management Capabilities

Comment on the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisational and supporting management arrangements.

4. EXPERTS REQUIRED

The evaluation will be undertaken by two experts with the following profile: Fisheries experts (senior)

Minimum requirements:

• A higher-level university degree related to the fisheries sector (tropical fisheries preferably) • At least 10 years of professional experience in the fisheries sector (fisheries biology, fishery monitoring, fishery management, statistics and stock assessment, tuna fisheries) with extensive knowledge of and experience of working with governments in Small Island Developing States • Professional experience in the evaluation of development projects for international aid donors, knowledge of principles and working methods of project cycle management and use of logical framework for project management. • Excellent computer and communication skills • Fluency (oral and written) in English and French

The following experience would be a strong asset:

• Professional experience in the Pacific region or in other small island developing states. • Professional experience with the European Commission • Knowledge of the European Commission's procurement procedures and project cycle management.

5. LOCATION AND DURATION

The evaluation will be undertaken as follows:

• Briefing with the Regional Authorising Officer for the Pacific ACP countries, i.e. the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, and with the EU Delegation, Suva, Fiji, • Briefing with the Regional Authorising Officer for the Overseas Countries and Territories, with the EU Chargé d'affaires and with SPC, Nouméa, New Caledonia, Consultations with SPC staff and analysis of project documentation at SPC headquarters in Nouméa, and FFA, • Individual country consultations Fiji, Solomon Islands (SI), PNG, Kiribati, Marshall Is. • RMI), Federated State of Micronesia (FSM), • Individual country consultations New Caledonia, French Polynesia,

• De-briefing with RAO/SPC/EU in Suva.

The total personnel input to be provided is estimated to be 78 man-days. An indicative time schedule per study phase and projects is broken down as follows:

• Briefings with RAO and EU Delegation, in Suva – 1 day • Consultations with Fiji Government Head of Fisheries (HoF) – 1 day • Briefing with RAO/OCT, EU Representative, SPC Nouméa, and New Caledonia Government – 1 day • Consultations with SPC/OFP staff and others – 3 days Consultations with HoF and staff, Nouméa – 1 day • Consultations with HoF French Polynesia – 3 days • Consultations with HoF SI, PNG, Kiribati, FSM, RMI, Kiribati + EU Delegations when present on the ground (SI, PNG) – 16 days. • During consultations in FSM, RMI and SI, the WCPFC (in FSM), the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Secretariat (RMI), the Fisheries Forum Agency (SI) respectively will have to be visited. • Draft outcomes/conclusions of the draft reports will be presented during the SCICOFISH steering committee tentatively scheduled on 4 March 2012, at SPC, Nouméa – 2 days De- briefing with RAO/EU/SPC (Suva) – 1 day • Report preparation/finalisation – 10 days

Please note that:

• Both experts will have to come to Fiji and to New Caledonia. • Experts will have to divide the country visits in order to cover all countries required.

The indicative starting date of the assignment is 14 January 2013, upon availability of the experts. The above indications may be changed with the agreement of all parties concerned.

6. REPORTING

Consultants will prepare the following reports:

• A brief end-of-mission note (aide mémoire ), incorporating the preliminary conclusions of the field mission at the end of field work. • A draft final report covering distinctly both projects, within one month after the return of the field mission. Each final report should include an executive summary, approximately 10% of the text, in no case more than 5 pages. • A final evaluation report covering distinctly both projects within one month after receiving comments related to the draft reports.

NB. All reports should be addressed to the RAOs and the EU Delegation for the Pacific.

The reports, including synthesis and the summary where appropriate will be transmitted in 20 copies in English and 10 copies for the SCIFISH report translated in French to the RAOs and EU Delegation for the Pacific. Regional, national and Commission authorities will comment upon the draft final report within 30 days of receipt. An electronic copy in MS Word containing the text of the final evaluation reports should also be provided to the RAOs and EU Delegation.

Quality of the Final Evaluation Report

The quality of the final report will be assessed by the evaluation manager (in the delegation) using a quality assessment grid. The explanation on how to fill this grid is available on the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/egeval/guidelines/gba en.htm

7. TIME SCHEDULE

Services rendered between the beginning of the evaluation and the acceptance of the final report should span no more than a period of four calendar months.

8. IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Flights to RMI, FSM are serviced regularly by Continental Airlines. There is no direct flight between Fiji and the North Pacific; however, Air Pacific operates twice weekly Nadi-Honolulu.

From Honolulu Continental Airlines flies to Majuro, Pohnpei. FSM or RMI to Fiji is notably possible via Guam/Cairns/Honolulu.

Flights to Kiribati from Fiji are serviced by Air Pacific twice a week usually on Mondays and Thursdays.

Flights to New Caledonia from Fiji (direct ones) are serviced by Air Calin twice a week.

Annex 2: Time schedule of the mission Date Meetings - Gilles Hosch Meetings - Paul Nichols Thu 07 Feb 2013 10.00 am, EU Del Fri 08 Feb 2013 Jope Temani Fisheries dept, pm Sat 09 Feb 2013 Hugh Govan Sun 10 Feb 2013 Mon 11 Feb 2013 Depart Suva -Nadi -Noumea Tue 12 Feb 2013 08.00 EU Delegation Mike Batty Peter Williams, Bruno Simon Nicol Wed 13 Feb 2013 Lindsay Chapman, Kalo Pakoa, Franck Magron Tim Lawson Thu 14 Feb 2013 Shelton Harley Fri 15 Feb 2013 Hugues Gossuin, Regis Etaix -Bonnin Mike Batty (debrief) Sat 16 Feb 2013 Depart Noumea -Brisbane Mike King Sun 17 Feb 2013 Depart Noumea, arrive Nadi Depart Brisbane -Port Moresby Mon 18 Feb 2013 Depart Nadi, arrive Tarawa 09.00 meeting with EU Delegation 10.30 meetings with NFA 2.00 meetings with NFA Tue 19 Feb 2013 Meetings with NFA Wed 20 Feb 2013 Meetings with NFA Thu 21 Feb 2013 Depart Tarawa, arrive Aukland Depart Port Moresby -Cairns Fri 22 Feb 2013 Depart Aukland, arrive Papeete Depart Cairns, arrive Palau Sat 23 Feb 2013 Meetings with PNA officials Sun 24 Feb 2013 Depart Papeete, arrive Aukland Meetings with PNA member states Mon 25 Feb 2013 Depart Palau, arrive Pohnpei Meetings with WCPFC staff Tue 26 Feb 2013 Depart Aukland, arrive Honiara Meetings with NORMA 15.30 on 26/2. Gilles meeting Meetings with WCPFC with EU Del. Wed 27 Feb 2013 Depart Pohnpei, arrive Majuro Thu 28 Feb 2013 Meetings with MIMRA Fri 01 March 2013 Depart Honiara, arrive Apia National holiday – report writing Depart Majuro-Honolulu Sat 02 March 2013 Depart Apia, arrive Noumea Depart Honolulu Sun 03 March 2013 Arrive Noumea (via Brisbane) Mon 04 March 2013 Report preparation Tue 05 March 2013 Attending HoF -8 meeting Report preparation Wed 06 March 2013 Report preparation Thu 07 March 2013 Presentation of initial results to HoF -8 meeting Fri 08 March 2013 Report preparation Sat 09 March 2013 Depart Noumea Depart Noumea Sun 10 March 2013 Arrive Rome Arrive London

Annex 3: List of Persons met Name Title/Organisation Email Meetings in Fiji, 7 th to 11 th February, 2013 Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Jean-Yves Hansart Technical Assistant to the RAO [email protected] Jerry Huekwahin Aid for Trade Officer [email protected] Delegation of the European Union Annick Villarosa Head of Section, Environment and Natural [email protected] Resources Thierry Catteau Attaché, Environment & Natural Resources [email protected] Fisheries Department Suresh Chand Deputy Director of Fisheries [email protected] Anare Raiwalui Principal Fisheries Officer, Management [email protected] ; [email protected] George Madden Principal Fisheries Officer [email protected] Jone Amoe OIC, national fisheries database [email protected] Jope Temani Ex-head of Fijian CA [email protected] NGOs Hugh Govan Adviser Policy and Advocacy, LMMA [email protected] network, Suva, Fiji Meetings in New Caledonia, 12 th February to 15 th February; and 3 rd March to 9 th March, 2013 Secretariat of the Pacific Community Anne Lefeuvre SCICOFISH Administration and [email protected] Communications Officer, FAME Bruno Deprez Data Audit Officer, OFP [email protected] Franck Magron Reef Fisheries Information Manager, CFP [email protected] Helene Lacomte Secretary, FAME [email protected] Kalo Pakoa Fisheries Scientist (Invertebrates), CFP [email protected] Lindsay Chapman Manager, CFP [email protected] Mike Batty Director, FAME [email protected] Peter Williams Data Manager, OFP [email protected] Shelton Harley Head, Stock Assessment and Modelling [email protected] Section Simon Nicol Principal Fisheries Scientist (Ecosystem [email protected] Monitoring & Assessment), OFP Tim Lawson Manager, Fisheries Monitoring, OFP [email protected] Mike King Consultant to SPC [email protected] Service de la Marine Marchande et des Peche Maritimes Hugues Gossuin Tuna Coordinator [email protected] Regis Etaix-Bonnin Fisheries officer [email protected] Delegation of the European Union Mechthild Kronen Gestionnaire programmes de coopération [email protected] Others (attending HoF-8) Mark Young Operations Manager, FFA [email protected] Hugh Walton Fisheries Development Adviser [email protected] Meetings in Papua New Guinea, 17 th to 21 st February, 2013 National Fisheries Authority Andrew Taunega Projects Planner, Fisheries [email protected] Brian Kumasi Tuna Fisheries Management Officer [email protected] John Kasu Executive Manager, Corporate Services [email protected] Leban Gisawa Manager, Inshore Fisheries [email protected] Philip Lens Observer Manager [email protected] [email protected]

Name Title/Organisation Email Presley Kokwaiye Provincial Support Officer [email protected] Rodney Kirarock Trade & Investment Officer [email protected] Sylvester Pokajam Managing Director [email protected] Ludwig Kumoru Executive Manager, Tuna Fishery, NFA, Port [email protected] Moresby Delegation of the European Union Thomas Viot Attaché, Economics and Trade [email protected] Meetings in Palau, 22 nd to 25 th February, 2013 Attending PNA Special Meeting Anton Jimwereiy PNA Coordinator, PNA [email protected] Gary Preston Fisheries Adviser to the Government of [email protected] Tuvalu Les Clark Consultant to PNA [email protected] Eugene Pangelinan Exec Director, NORMA [email protected] Maurice Brownjohn Commercial Manager, PNA [email protected] OBE Richard Banks Consultant to PNA [email protected] Transform Aqorau Director, PNA [email protected] Meetings in Federated States of Micronesia, 25 th to 27 th February, 2013 National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) Alfred Lebehn Jr. Statistics & Info-Tech Manager. [email protected] Justino-Helgen VMS Compliance Manager [email protected] Naiten Bradley Phillip Chief, Research Division. [email protected] WCPFC Glenn Hurry Executive Director, WCPFC, Pohnpei [email protected] Karl Staisch Regional Observer Programme Coordinator, [email protected] WCPFC, Pohnpei Albert Carlot Vessel Monitoring System Manager [email protected] Lara Manarangi-Trott Compliance Manager, WCPFC. [email protected] Sam Taufaoa ICT Manager, WCPFC, Pohnpei. [email protected] SungKwon Soh Science Manager, WCPFC. [email protected] Tony Beeching Assistant Science Programme Manager, [email protected] WCPFC, Pohnpei Pohnpei State Government Eugene Joseph Executive Director, Conservation Society of [email protected] Pohnpei. Itaia Richard Fred Fisheries Specialist [email protected] [email protected] Meetings in Republic of Marshall Islands, 27 th February – 1st March, 2013 Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) Bernard Fiubala Observer Programme Adviser [email protected] Candice M. Guavis Assistant Chief, Policy Planning and Stats [email protected] Section [email protected] Dike Poznanski Observer Supervisor [email protected] Florence Edwards Chief, Policy Planning and Stats Section [email protected] [email protected] Glen Joseph Director [email protected] Meetings in Kiribati, 18 th to 20 th February, 2013 Ministry of Marine Fisheries and Resources Development Raikaon Tumoa Director of Fisheries (Act.) [email protected] Mbwenea Teioki Senior Fisheries Officer (MCS unit) [email protected] Kaon Tiamere Fisheries Officer (Offshore Dept.) [email protected]

Name Title/Organisation Email Karibanang Tamuera Principal Fisheries Officer (Aquaculture [email protected] branch) Meetings in French Polynesia, 22 nd February, 2013 Direction des Ressources Marines Stéphen Yen Kai Sun Directeur des Ressources Marines [email protected] Christophe Missélis Conseiller Technique (Ministère) [email protected]. pf Taiana Raoulx Coordinatrice Programme Observateurs [email protected] Cédric Ponsonnet Chargé Suivi & Evaluation [email protected] Meetings in Solomon Islands, 26 th to 28 th February, 2013 Delegation of the European Union Elisabeth Gotschi Rural Development Adviser [email protected] Forum Fisheries Agency Timothy Park Observer Programmes Manager [email protected] Ramesh Chand VMS Manager [email protected] Apolosi Turaganivalu Compliance Policy Officer [email protected] Nicholas Reese IT Manager [email protected] Kenneth Katafono Database Administrator [email protected] Roseti Imo Fisheries Economist Adviser [email protected] Christopher Reid Fisheries Economist Adviser [email protected] Ministry of Fisheries James Teri Deputy Director [email protected] Charles Tobasala Principal Fisheries Officer – Compliance [email protected] John Still Villi Senior Observer / Debriefer / Trainer [email protected] Derek Suimae Observer Coordinator [email protected] Selina Lipa Principal Fisheries Officer - Licensing [email protected] Francis Tofuakalo Deputy Director – Provincial Fisheries [email protected] Peter Kenilorea Senior Fisheries Officer [email protected] Rosalie Masu Deputy Director - Inshore [email protected] Robert Maneiria Chief Fisheries Officer – Statistics & IT [email protected] Simon Diffey Team Leader [email protected]

Annex 4: List of Project documents consulted

Data collection

Farley, J., A. Williams, C. Davies, and S. Nicol. (2009). WCPFC Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session, 10-21 August 2009, Port Vila, Vanuatu, Regional study of South Pacific albacore population biology: Year 1 - biological sample collection. WCPFC-SC5-2009/BI-WP-05.

J. Hampton. (2009). WCPFC Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session 10–21 August 2009 Port Vila, Vanuatu. Implications for Scientific Data Collection By Observers Of New Requirements for 100% Observer Coverage of Purse-seiners. WCPFC-SC5-2009/ST-WP-6.

Lawson, T. 2008. Factors affecting the use of species composition data collected by observers and port samplers from purse seiners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC–SC4–2008/ST– WP–3.

The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Third Regular Session, 13-24 August 2007. Honolulu, United States of America. Scientific data to be provided to the Commission. ST-SWG Report, Appendix IV.

Lawson, T. 2009. Selectivity bias in grab samples and other factors affecting the analysis of species composition data collected by observers on purse seiners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC5-2009/ST-WP-03.

Lawson, T. 2010. Update on the estimation of selectivity bias based on paired spill and grab samples collected by observers on purse seiners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC– SC6–2010/ST–WP-02.

Lawson, T. 2011. Purse-Seine Length Frequencies Corrected for Selectivity Bias in Grab Samples Collected by Observers. WCPFC–SC7–2011 / ST–IP–02.

Lawson, T. and P. Sharples. 2011. Report on Project 60: Collection and Evaluation of Purse-Seine Species Composition Data. WCPFC–SC7–2011 / ST–WP–03.

Williams, P. 2011. Status of observer data management. WCPFC-SC7-2011/ST IP-06.

Data management

Report on the First Tuna Data Workshop (TDW–1), 23rd – 27th October 2006, SPC Headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia

Report on the Second Tuna Data Workshop (TDW–2), 7th – 11th April 2008, SPC Headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia.

Report on the Third Tuna Data Workshop (TDW–3), 22–25 June 2009, Waipuna Hotel, Auckland, New Zealand.

Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Tuna Fishery Data Collection Committee 12–16 November 2007. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Oceanic Fisheries Programme Secretariat of the Pacific Community Noumea, New Caledonia and Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands.

SPC. 2008. Scientific data available to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC4-2008/ST IP-2.

SPC. 2009. Scientific data available to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC5-2009/ST IP-1.

SPC. 2009. Tuna Fisheries Data Logsheet Systems Audit Workbook for Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fisheries. Version 1.0.

SPC. 2009. Tuna Fisheries Data Port Sampling Systems Audit Workbook for Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fisheries. Version 1.0.

SPC. 2009. Tuna Fisheries Data Management System (TUFMAN) – Video training tool. Version 1.0.

Williams, P. 2010. Scientific data available to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC6-2010/ST IP-1.

Williams, P. 2011. Scientific data available to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC7-2011/ST IP-1.

Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme

S. Nicol, A. Lewis, D. Itano, T. Usu, B. Kumasi, B. Leroy, S. Caillot, C. Sanchez, J. Hampton. 2010. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Sixth Regular Session, Nuku’alofa, Tonga, 10-19 August 2010. Pacific Tuna Tagging Project Progress Report and Workplan for 2010. WCPFC-SC6-2010/GN IP-04.

B. Leroy, J. Hampton, B. Kumasi, A. Lewis, D. Itano, T. Usu, S. Nicol, V. Allain, Sylvain Caillot. 2009. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Fifth Regular Session, 10-22 August 2009, Port Vila, Vanuatu. PTTP Summary Report: Review Phase 2. WCPFC-SC5-2009/ GN-IP-13.

B. Leroy, B. Kumasi, A. Lewis, D. Itano, T. Usu, J. Hampton, S. Nicol, V. Allain. 2008. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Fourth Regular Session, 11-22 August 2008, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. PTTP Summary Report: Review Phase 1. WCPFC-SC4-2008/ GN-IP-3.

Stock Assessment

Davies, N., S. Hoyle, S. Harley, A. Langley, P. Kleiber, J. Hampton. 2011. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean.

Harley, S., S. Hoyle, A. Langley, J. Hampton and P. Kleiber. 2009. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC5-2009/SA-WP-4.

Harley, S., S. Hoyle, P. Williams, J. Hampton, P. Kleiber. 2010. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC6-2010/SA-WP-4.

Hoyle, S. 2011. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the south Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA- WP-6.

Hoyle, S. and N. Davies. 2009. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the south Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC5-2009/SA-WP-6.

Hoyle, S., A. Langley, and J. Hampton. 2008. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the south Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC4-2008/SA-WP-8.

Hoyle, S., P. Kleiber, N. Davies, S.J. Harley, J. Hampton 2010. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC6-2010/SA-WP-10.

Hoyle, S., P. Kleiber, N. Davies, A. Langley, J. Hampton. 2011. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-4.

Langley, A. and J. Hampton. 2008. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC4-2008/SA-WP-4.

Langley, A., J. Hampton, P. Kleiber and S. Hoyle. 2008. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean, including an analysis of management options. WCPFC-SC4- 2008/SA-WP-1.

Langley, A., S. Harley, S. Hoyle, N. Davies, J. Hampton and P. Kleiber. 2009. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC5-2009/SA-WP-3.

Langley, A., S. Hoyle, J. Hampton. 2011. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-3.

SEAPODYM

Abecassis, M., P. Lehodey, I. Senina, J. Polovina, B. Calmettes, P. Williams. 2011. Application of the SEAPODYM model to swordfish in the Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-IP-07.

Allain, V., E. Fernandez, S.D. Hoyle, S. Caillot, J. Jurado-Molina, S. Andréfouët and S.J. Nicol. 2012. Interaction between Coastal and Oceanic Ecosystems of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean through Predator-Prey Relationship Studies. PLoS One 7(5): e36701.

Allain, V., S. Nicol, J. Polovina, M. Coll, R. Olson, S. Griffiths, J. Dambacher, J. Young, J. Jurado-Molina, S. Hoyle, T. Lawson. 2012. International workshop on opportunities for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 22:29-33.

K. Briand, J.J. Molina, X. Couvelard, V. Faure, P. Marchesiello, C. Menkes, S. Nicol, P. Lehodey, I. Senina, R. Leborgne, M. Rodier. 2009. Implementation of SEAPODYM model for the South Pacific albacore stock; focus on the New Caledonia EEZ. WCPFC-SC5-2005/EB- IP-06.

Briand, K, B. Molony, P. Lehodey. 2011. A study on the variability of albacore (Thunnus alalunga) long-line catch rates in the southwest Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 20: 517–529.

Karine Briand, Jesus Jurado Molina. (2009). WCPFC Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session, 10-21 August 2009, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Implementation of SEAPODYM model for the South Pacific albacore stock; focus on the New Caledonia EEZ. WCPFC-SC5-2005/EB- IP-06.

Jurado-Molina, J., P. Lehodey, I. Senina, S. Nicol. 2011. SEAPODYM perspectives as management tool for albacore (Thunnus alalunga) in the South Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB- IP-06.

Langley A., K. Briand, D.S. Kirby, R Murtugudde. 2009. Influence of oceanographic variability on recruitment of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66: 1462-1477.

Lehodey, P., I. Senina, J. Sibert and J. Hampton. 2008. SEAPODYM. V2: A Spatial ecosystem and Population dynamics model with parameter optimization providing a new tool for tuna management. WCPFC-SC4-2008/EB-WP-10.

Lehodey, P. and Inna Senina. (2009). WCPFC Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session 10-21 August 2009 Port Vila, Vanuatu. A User Manual for SEAPODYM Version 2.0: Application with data assimilation (draft version). WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-IP-13.

Lehodey, P. and Inna Senina. (2009). WCPFC Scientific Committee Fifth Regular Session 10-21 August 2009 Port Vila, Vanuatu. An Update of Recent Developments and Applications of the SEAPODYM Model WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-10.

Lehodey, P. and I. Senina. 2009. An update of recent developments and application of the SEAPODYM model. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-10.

Lehodey, P. I. Senina1, B. Calmettes, M. Abecassis, J. Jurado Molina, K. Briand, J. Hampton, J. Polovina, P. Williams, S. Nicol (2010). WCPFC Scientific Committee, Sixth Regular Session, 10-19 August 2010, Nukualofa, Tonga. Project 62: SEAPODYM Applications in WCPO – Progress Report. WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB- IP 02 Rev 1. 5 August 2010.

Lehodey, P., R. Murtugudde, I. Senina. 2010b. Bridging the gap from ocean models to population dynamics of large marine predators: A model of mid-trophic functional groups. Progress in Oceanography 84: 69-84.

Lehodey, P., I. Senina, J. Sibert, L. Bopp, B. Calmettes, J. Hampton and R. Murtugudde. 2010c. Preliminary forecasts of Pacific bigeye tuna population trends under the A2 IPCC scenario. Progress in Oceanography, 86: 302-315.

Lehodey, P. Inna Senina, Raghu Murtugudde. (2008) A spatial ecosystem and populations dynamics model (SEAPODYM) – modelling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Progress in Oceanography, vol. 78, no.4. Sept 2008.

Lehodey, P., I. Senina, B. Calmettes, John Hampton, Simon Nicol, Peter Williams, J. Jurado Molina, M. Ogura, H. Kiyofuji, and S. Okamoto. 2011. SEAPODYM working progress and applications to Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP 06.

Lehodey P, J. Hampton, R.W. Brill, S. Nicol, I. Senina, B. Calmettes, H.O. Pörtner, L. Bopp, T. Ilyina, J.D. Bell, J. Sibert. 2011. Vulnerability of oceanic fisheries in the tropical Pacific to climate change. pp. 433-492 IN: J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson and A.J. Hobday (eds). Vulnerability of Tropical Pacific Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, New Caledonia.

Lehodey P., I. Senina, B. Calmettes, J. Hampton, S. Nicol. In revision. Modelling the impact of climate change on Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. Climatic Change.

Leroy, B., J. Scott Phillips, S. Nicol, G.M. Pilling, S. Harley, D. Bromhead, S. Hoyle, S. Caillot, V. Allain, J. Hampton. Submitted. A Critique of the Ecosystem Impacts of Drifting and Anchored FADs on Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Aquatic Living Resources.

Leroy, B., D. Itano, T. Usu, S. Nicol, K. Holland, and J. Hampton, (2009). Vertical Behaviour and the Observation of FAD Effects on Tropical Tuna in the Warm-Pool of the Western Pacific Ocean.

Nicol, S.J, V. Allain, G.M. Pilling, J. Polovina, M. Coll, J. Bell, P. Dalzell, P. Sharples, R. Olson, S. Griffiths, J. Dambacher, J. Young, A. Lewis, J. Hampton, J. Jurado-Molina, S. Hoyle, K. Briand, N. Bax,

P. Lehodey, P. Williams. In revision. An ocean observation system for monitoring the effects of climate change on the ecology and sustainability of pelagic fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. Climatic Change.

Senina, I., J. Sibert and P. Lehodey. 2008. Parameter estimation for basin-scale ecosystem-linked population models of large pelagic predators: Application to skipjack tuna. Progress in Oceanography 78: 319-335.

Tropical Tuna Tagging (ACP)

Hampton, J., S. Nicol, B. Leroy, B. Kumasi, A. Lewis and D. Itano. 2008. PTTP Operational Plans 2008- 11. WCPFC-SC4-2008/ GN-IP-4.

Kumasi, P., B. Leroy, J. Hampton, S. Nicol, A. Lewis and D. Itano. 2008. Issues Relating to the Recovery of Tags as part of the Pacific Tuna Tagging Project. WCPFC-SC4-2008/ GN-IP-5.

Leroy, B., J. Hampton, B. Kumasi, A. Lewis, D. Itano, T. Usu, S. Nicol, V. Allain, S. Caillot. 2009. PTTP Summary Report: Review Phase 2. WCPFC-SC5-2009/ GN-IP-13.

WCPFC Scientific Committee Sixth Regular Session Nuku’alofa, Tonga 10-19 August 2010 Pacific Tuna Tagging Project Progress Report and Workplan for 2010: WCPFC-SC6-2010/GN IP-04

Leroy, B., D. G. Itano, T. Usu, S. J. Nicol, K. N. Holland, and J. Hampton. 2009. Vertical behaviour and the observation of FAD effects on tropical tuna in the warm-pool of the Western Pacific Ocean. pp. 161-180 IN: Nielsen, J.L., H. Arrizabalaga, N. Fragoso, A. Hobday, M. Lutcavage, and J.Sibert (eds.), Tagging and Tracking Marine Animals with Electronic Devices. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Nicol, S., J. Hampton, B. Leroy, B. Kumasi, A. Lewis, and D. Itano. 2009. PTTP Work Plan 2009-10. WCPFC-SC5-2009/ GN-IP-15.

Nicol, S., A. Lewis, D. Itano, T. Usu, B. Kumasi, B. Leroy, S. Caillot, C. Sanchez and J. Hampton. 2010. Pacific Tuna Tagging Project Progress Report and Workplan for 2010. WCPFC-SC6-2010/GN IP-04.

Nicol, S., B. Leroy, S. Caillot, J. Hampton, A. Lewis, A. Williams, T. Usu, B. Kumasi and L. Kumoru. 2011. Pacific Tuna Tagging and PNG Tagging Project Progress Report and Workplan for 2011-2012. WCPFC-SC7-2011/ST IP-05.

PTTP Steering Committee. 2008. Report of the PTTP Steering Committee. WCPFC-SC4-2008/GN- WP-7.

PTTP Steering Committee. 2010. Report of the Fourth PTTP Steering Committee. WCPFC-SC6- 2010/GN WP-05.

PTTP Steering Committee. 2011. Report of the Fifth PTTP Steering Committee. WCPFC-SC7- 2011/ST-WP-04.

Sibert, J., A. Nielsen, M. Musyl, B. Leroy, K. Evans. 2009. Removing Bias in Latitude Estimated from Solar Irradiance Time Series. pp. 311-322 IN: Nielsen, J.L., H. Arrizabalaga, N. Fragoso, A. Hobday, M. Lutcavage, and J.Sibert (eds.), Tagging and Tracking Marine Animals with Electronic Devices. 9:311-322. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Albacore biology/tagging

A. Williams, S. Nicol, B. Leroy. WCPFC Scientific Committee Sixth Regular Session Nuku’alofa, Tonga, 10-19 August 2010. South Pacific Albacore Tagging Project: 2010 Summary Report. WCPFC-SC6- 2010/GN IP-06-Rev1. (Date: 10 August 2010).

WCPFC Scientific committee, Fifth regular session, 10-21 August 2009, Port Vila, Vanuatu. South Pacific Albacore Tagging Project: 2009 Summary Report. WCPFC-SC5-2009/GN-IP-16.

Farley, J., A. Williams, C. Davies and S. Nicol. 2009. Regional study of South Pacific albacore population biology: Year 1 - biological sample collection. WCPFC5-BI-WP-05.

Farley, J., A. Williams, C. Davies, S. Nicol. (2010). WCPFC Scientific Committee Sixth Regular Session 10-19 August 2010, Nuku’alofa, Tonga. Regional Study of South Pacific Albacore population biology: Year 2 – biological sampling and analysis. WCPFC-SC6-2010/BI- WP-01.

Farley, J., A. Williams, C. Davies and S. Nicol. 2011. Regional Study of South Pacific Albacore Population Biology: Year 3 – Biological Sampling and Analysis. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA- WP -05.

Farley, J.H., A.J. Williams, C.R. Davies, N.P. Clear, J.P. Eveson, S.D. Hoyle, S.J. Nicol. 2012. Population biology of Albacore in the Australian Region. FRDC Project Number 2009/012. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

Williams, A., S. Nicol, J. Hampton, S. Harley, S. Hoyle. 2009. South Pacific Albacore Tagging Project: 2009 Summary Report WCPFC-SC5-2009/GN-IP-16.

Williams, A.J., S. Nicol and B. Leroy. 2010. South Pacific Albacore Tagging Project: 2010 Summary Report. WCPFC-SC6-2010/GN IP-06-Rev1.

Williams, A.J., J.H. Farley, S.D. Hoyle, C.R. Davies, S.J. Nicol. 2012. Spatial and sex-specific variation in growth of albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) across the South Pacific Ocean. PLoS ONE 7: e39318.

MCS/IUU Fishing

CLS (Collecte Localisation Satellites). 2009. Radar Satellite Surveillance of Fisheries New Caledonian Campaign Report. Technical Memorandum to Contract PRO 93/27/2 WP 11/8/1. 15 July 2009.

MRAG Asia Pacific. 2009. Safeguarding the Stocks: A report on analytical projects to support the development of a Regional MCS Strategy for Pacific oceanic fisheries. Brisbane, Australia.

Collecte Localisation Satellites (CLS): Surveillance de la pêche par radar satellite: Faisabilité Opérationnelle en Nouvelle Calédonie. Note Technique – Contrat PRO 93/27/2 WP 11/8/1. Référence: CLS-DAR-NT-0906-008. 15 juillet 2009

Contract SPC Ref.: PRO 93/27/2 WP 11/8/1 Ecosystem Modelling Services for the Secretariat of the Pacific Community in support of the EU funded SCIFISH project. Marine Ecosystem and Monitoring by Satellites. CLS, Space Oceanography Division, Ramonville, 8-10 rue Hermès, 31520, France. June 2010.

Resource Status Hampton, J., and Harley, S. 2009. Assessment of the potential implications of application of CMM- 2008-01 for bigeye and yellowfin tuna. WCPFC-SC5-GN-WP-17. Hampton, J. and S.J. Harley. 2010. Further Analysis of CMM-2008-01. WCPFC-SC6-2010/SA-WP-5.

Bromhead, D., Brett Molony, Adam Langley and Simon Nicol.WCPFC Scientific Committee Third Regular Session, 13–24 August 2006, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Report on the 2007 stock assessment workshops for the oceanic fisheries management project. WCPFC-SC3-2007/GN WP-14.

Don Bromhead, Brett Molony and Simon Hoyle. (2008). WCPFC Scientific Committee Fourth Regular Session 11–22 August 2008. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Report on the 2008 stock assessment training workshops, WCPFC-SC4-2008/GN WP-6.

Harley, S. J., and N. Davies. 2011. Evaluation of stock status of bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tunas against potential limit reference points. WCPFC-SC7-MI-WP-04. Harley, S.J., J. Hampton and P. Williams. 2010. Characterization of Purse Seine Fishing Activities during the 2009 FAD Closure. WCPFC-SC6-2010/MI-WP-03. SPC. 2009a. Assessment of the Potential Implication of Application of CMM 2008-01 for Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna. WCPFC6-2009/IP17. SPC. 2009b. Further consideration of CMM 2008-01 with respect to bigeye tuna. WCPFC6- 2009/IP18. http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/wcpfc6-2009ip18/further-consideration-cmm-2008-01-with- respect-bigeye-tunaSPC. 2010. Review of the Implementation and Effectiveness of CMM 2008-01. WCPFC7 -2010/15. SPC. 2011a. Projections based on 2011 stock assessments. WCPFC-SC7-2011/MI-WP-02. SPC. 2011b. Projections based on the 2011 stock assessments. WCPFC-TCC7-2011/31. SPC. 2011c. Review of the Implementation and Effectiveness of CMM 2008-01. WCPFC8 ‐2011 ‐43. Langley, A., A. Wright, G. Hurry, J. Hampton, T. Aqorua, L. Rodwell. 2009. Slow steps towards management of the world's largest tuna fishery. Marine Policy 33: 271-279. Understanding of the Pelagic Ecosystem Clarke, S. 2009. An Alternative Estimate of Catches of Five Species of Sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean based on Shark Fin Trade Data. WCPFC-SC5-2005/EB-WP-02. Clarke, S. and S.J. Harley. 2010. Proposal for a Research Plan to Determine the Status of the Key Shark Species. WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB-WP-01. Clarke, S., T. Lawson, D. Bromhead and S. Harley. 2010. SPC-Progress Toward Shark Assessments. WCPFC7-2010/16. Kirby, D. 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) Progress Report (2007/8) & Work Plan (2008/9). WCPFC-SC4-2008/EBSWG-WP-1. Kirby, D. 2009. Ecological Risk Assessment Implementation Report. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-05. Kirby, D. 2009. Monitoring the effectiveness of Conservation and Management Measures for by- catch. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-09. Kirby, D., S. Waugh, D. Filippi. 2009. Spatial risk indicators for seabird interactions with long-line fisheries in the western and central Pacific. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-06.

Manning, M., D.B. Bromhead, S.J. Harley, S.D. Hoyle, and D.S. Kirby. 2009. The feasibility of conducting quantitative stock assessments for key shark species and recommendations for providing preliminary advice on stock status in 2010. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-08. SPC. 2010. Summary Information on Whale Shark and Cetacean Interaction in the Tropical WCPFC Purse Seine Fishery. WCPFC7-2010-IP/01. SPC. 2011. Summary Information on Whale Shark and Cetacean Interaction in the Tropical WCPFC Purse Seine Fishery. WCPFC8-2011-IP/01. Waugh, S.M., Filippi, D.P., Kirby, D.S., Abraham, E. & Walker, N. 2012. Ecological Risk Assessment for seabird interactions in Western and Central Pacific long-line fisheries. Marine Policy doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.005. Williams, P, D. Kirby and S. Beverly. 2009. Encounter rates and life status for marine turtles in WCPO long-line and purse seine fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-07.

Heads of Fisheries Meetings Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Background Paper 1. The SCICOFISH Project. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Background Paper 7. The Ecosystem Approach to Coastal Fisheries and Aquaculture in Pacific Island Countries. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Working Paper 4. The impact of climate change on Pacific fisheries. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Working Paper 7. Implementing the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Working Paper 8. Increased demands for tuna fisheries data management in Pacific Island member countries. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Working Paper 3. Oceanic Fisheries Programme. Annual Report 2008 and Work Plan 2009. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Information Paper 2. Outcomes of the Heads of Fisheries Meeting #5 April 2006. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia.

Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Background Paper 5. WCPFC AND SPC-OFP: A key partnership. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Working Paper 9. Increasing understanding of regional tuna stock assessments and their implications at the national level. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Working Paper 10. Current Status and Future Direction of Tuna Fishery Observer Programmes in Pacific Island Member Countries and Territories. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Information Paper 3. Terms of Reference for the Review of the Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Programmes. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 6th SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting, (9–13 February 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia) Information Paper 1. Draft Identification Document for SCICOFISH Project. Marine Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. Memoranda of Understanding SPC (2010). Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Signed March 2010. 14pp. Subsidiary Agreement between the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the Forum Fisheries Agency for the Joint Implementation of the ‘Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH)’ Project Under Contribution Agreement No. 9.ACP.RPA.013. FFA technical reports Safeguarding the Stocks. A report on analytical projects to support the development of a Regional MCS Strategy for Pacific oceanic fisheries. MRAG-Asia/Pacific. Project ZN1097. 14 Sep 2009. Tuna Management Plans developed for Vanuatu, Cook Islands, New Caledonia, Niue, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga. Sectoral reports Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme, 2008-2013. EC – Pacific Region. Dated 15 Nov 2008. SCIFISH finance and management Contribution Agreement between the Regional Authorising Officer, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, and the Secretariat of Pacific Community. Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH). Contribution Agreement between the Regional Authorising Officer, Government of New Caledonia and the Secretariat of Pacific Community. Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH). (in French).

Financing Agreement between the EC and Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the Territory of French Polynesia, The Territory of Wallis and Futuna, and New Caledonia. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors, 2008. SCIFISH- 9 ACP-RPA-013 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors, 2009. SCIFISH- 9 ACP-RPA-013 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors, 2010. SCIFISH- 9 ACP-RPA-013 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors, 2011. SCIFISH- 9 ACP-RPA-013 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors. 2008. SCIFISH- 9 PTO-REG-008 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors. 2009. SCIFISH- 9 PTO-REG-008 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors. 2010. SCIFISH- 9 PTO-REG-008 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Report of the Independent Auditors. 2011. SCIFISH- 9 PTO-REG-008 PWC (2012). Price Waterhouse Coopers , Final Audit of SCIFISH- 9 ACP-RPA-013 & 9 PTO-REG-008 SCIFISH Annual Work Plans and Budgets EU EDF 9 B Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH). Provisional 2008 Work Plan and Cost Estimate (1st January 2008 – 31st December 2008). Implemented by: Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Funded by: 9th European Development Fund B Envelope. EU EDF 9 B Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) Provisional 2009 Work Plan and Cost Estimate. (1 January 2009 – 31 December 2009). Implemented by: Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Funded by: 9th European Development Fund B Envelope. SCIFISH Provisional Work Plan and Cost Estimate 2008. SCIFISH Provisional Work Plan and Cost Estimate 2009. SCIFISH Provisional Work Plan and Cost Estimate 2010. SPC (2011). SCIFISH Year 3 Annual Report (2010) and Provisional 2011 Work Plan and Cost Estimate (1 Jan – 31 Dec 2011). SPC (2012). SCIFISH Annual Report Year 4 (2011). Jan 2012. SCIFISH Monitoring and Evaluation SCIFISH: Six Monthly Report : 1 January– 30 June 2008. SCIFISH: Six Monthly Report : 1 January– 30 June 2009. SCIFISH: Six Monthly Report : 1 January– 30 June 2010. SCIFISH: Annual Report : 2008. SCIFISH: Annual Report : 2009. SCIFISH: Annual Report : 2010. SCIFISH: Annual Report : 2011. SCIFISH Project Steering Committee Meeting, Saturday 10 May 2008 (Afternoon), Ngara Mamyong Cultural Centre, Koror, Palau. Summary Report. ( First SCM report ). SCIFISH Project Steering Committee Meeting Monday 9 February 2009 (evening) Secretariat of the pacific Community Noumea, New Caledonia Summary Report ( Second SCM report ).

SCIFISH Project Steering Committee Meeting, Saturday 9 May 2009, Forum Fisheries Agency Conference Centre, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Summary Report ( Third SCM report ). SCIFISH Project Steering Committee Meeting, Monday 28 February 2011, Secretariat of the Pacific Community Conference Centre, Noumea, New Caledonia. Summary Report ( Fourth SCM report ). SPC (2012). Terminal Report of the Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management In The Western And Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) Project. SPC Secretariat, June 2012. 9.ACP.RPA.013 & 9.PTO.REG.008 Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM) mission, Sep 2009 Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM) mission Sep 2010 Mid-Term Evaluation: Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the western and central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH). FED/2006/018-725. 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8. Final Report. November 2010. Duty Travel Reports Various reports produced by SCIFISH-supported technical assistance staff: Brian Kumasi, Bruno Leroy, Caroline Sanchez, Jesus Jurado Molina, Kaine Briand, Peter Sharples, Sifa Fukofuka.

Annex 5: Original SCIFISH Logical Framework (with original and amended OVIs) INTERVENTION OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS SOURCES OF ASSUMPTIONS LOGIC (ORIGINAL ) (AMENDED ) VERIFICATION

Overall Objective: Improved regional/national treaties and • Effort on target species in the western and • Treaties and World demand for tuna agreements promoting sustainable harvest Agreements. and related products of Conservation and central Pacific is managed regionally and of the fishery. the Central and Western sustainable use of nationally so it does not exceed the level of • National/Regional Pacific maintained at oceanic fish FMSY Sector Plans. high levels. resources of the • Catch of target species in the western and • Regional and National western and central central Pacific is managed regionally and reports and database. Pacific nationally so it does not exceed the level of BMSY • Ecosystem impacts of fishing oceanic resources are minimized Project Purpose: Improved management plans and policy • 100% of ACP and OCT participating • Management Plans. The tuna fishery remains frameworks through enhanced scientific a priority area for Improved policy and countries have access to the most accurate • National and Regional and monitoring information for better reports. management and scientific information data on tuna catch and species population management of the fishery. conservation by regional for better dynamics for decision making • Project reports. and national management of the • The current stock status for the 4 main tuna • Policy papers administrations. regional and national species assessed at least once during the oceanic fisheries. implementation of SCIFISH • 100% of these assessments have access to the most accurate data on tuna catch and species population dynamics • 100% of these assessments accepted by the WCPFC Scientific Committee and forwarded to the Commission for decision making • 100% of National Tuna Management Plans developed with the most comprehensive set of summarized information available on tuna fishery and population dynamics Result 1: Enhanced 1.1 Improvement in the observer and port • Observer capacity and institutional • Observer reports & Appropriate and oceanic fisheries sampling coverage and quality of data to infrastructure established so that P-ACPs training reports. compatible technologies monitoring. meet the required regional standards. can achieve 100% of national and regional • Regional and national available to strengthen existing monitoring, 1.2 More comprehensive IUU compliance observer and port sampling coverage and databases. data collection requirements and standards control and surveillance

INTERVENTION OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS SOURCES OF ASSUMPTIONS LOGIC (ORIGINAL ) (AMENDED ) VERIFICATION assessments undertaken. • 100% of P-ACPs provided with capacity and • MOUs signed. infrastructure. tools for implementing continuous data 1.3 Improved regional coordination of • IUU compliance audits. Sufficient number of auditing to maximise data quality for national databases to track and monitor • FFA and SPC reports. observers available for scientific decision making fisheries data for compliance with • Evaluation reports. observer and port 100% of P-ACPs provided with capacity, management requirements. • • Stock assessment data sampling missions. tools and access to information for and reports. 1.4 Improve detection of IUU fishing detecting and managing IUU fishing • Stock assessment Commitment by through strengthening existing technologies activities models. governments to and trial of new technologies. • 100% of P-OCTs provided with an • Tagging data. seriously address IUU evaluation of the feasibility of applying • WCPFC reports. fishing. existing satellite technologies for detecting • Publications. ACO and OCT IUU fishing activities • Update SEAPODYM. governments will Result 2: Enhanced 2.1 Tagging of tropical tunas using • Establish the most comprehensive tagging • Project reports. commit to implementing stock assessments. conventional and electronic archival tags. and biological parameter dataset for fishery monitoring tropical tuna and for south Pacific albacore 2.2 Improved assessment on status of tuna methods as for inclusion in regional stock assessments stocks by developing more accurate stock recommended by the and analyses of population dynamics assessment models. project.

Result 3: Enhanced 3.1 Produce better management policies • Provide 100% P-ACPs and P-OCTs with Availability of vessel to understanding of the through further development and infrastructure to evaluate tuna be chartered for tuna pelagic ecosystems. application of the Spatial Ecosystem and management policies in the context of tagging exercise. Population Dynamics Model (SEAPODYM). current and future environmental variability at both the regional and EEZ 3.2 More accurate estimates and scales assessment of impact of exploitation in EEZs.

Activities: Cost Estimate (Euro) Pre-conditions 1.1 Training programmes for 2.1 Conduct large-scale scientific observers & port conventional and electronic tagging ACP OCT Total Availability of samplers and associated biological studies of technical expertise Technical Assistance 1,080,000 853,000 1,933,000 tuna. for long and short 1.2 Training attachments MCS Activities 480,000 100,000 580,000 term engagement. 2.2 Conduct analyses of tagging, 1.3 Operational support for biological and fishery Travel 150,000 112,000 337,000 observer/port sampling oceanographic data to better programmes Equipment 134,000 138,000 288,000 New technologies for understand population dynamics, surveillance and data 1.4 Quality control of behaviour & biology of tuna. Tagging Operations 1,200,000 350,000 1,616,000 management observer/port sampling data 2.3 Develop models to assess Training 90,000 24,000 114,000 affordable. 1.5 Develop and trial new status of targeted tuna stocks and Observer & Port Sampling 90,000 714,000 804,000 technologies for enhancing impacts of fishing. quality of data and timeliness of Data Processing and IT 330,000 60,000 390,000 Commitment from 3.1 Develop and enhance models data collection Support the countries to trial of the pelagic ecosystem new technologies. 1.6 Develop harmonised fisheries supporting targeted oceanic fish Administration / Audit 129,000 42,000 204,000

monitoring systems & data stocks. Indirect Costs 258,000 157,000 417,000 sharing protocols Status of tuna stocks 3.2 Provide scientific advice on Contingencies 26,000 30,000 57,000 1.7 Undertake compliance audits ecosystems aspects of fishery at good levels to and IUU risk assessments. management including: Evaluation 33,000 30,000 70,000 undertake scientific work covering 1.8 Develop and implement i) impacts of environment TOTAL 4,000,000 2,610,000 6,610,000

targeted species. variability on oceanic fish stocks methodologies to verify fisheries data and fisheries; 1.9 Develop and trial new ii) the effects of fishing on the technologies including satellite pelagic ecosystem; and based technologies for detection iii) potential benefits and of IUU fishing activities. effectiveness of specific ecosystem

management measures such as marine protected areas

Annex 6: Relationship matrix between EDF-funded fisheries projects Type of Activity Accomplishments of Past Projects Current Gaps and Needs Proposed Activities to Address Gaps and Needs Fishery Dependent Data ProcFish -O: ProcFish-O mid-term review SCICOFISH : Collection National observer programmes recommended continued observer Observer Training and Systems (Activity 1-1) will further developed and observers trained training and systems development. develop the programmes and meet new staffing requirements and standards. SCIFISH: Newly implemented management Further observer program measures (2009) require 100% SCICOFISH : development focused on data coverage of purse-seine fisheries Secondary (Coastal) Data Collection (Activity 2-3) will quality, training standards and equating to a need for 300-400 capture fisheries data from other sources, such as certification new observers by 2012. fishermen interview and market survey data, landings and export volumes, to improve understanding of coastal Coastal data collection under resource utilization. ProcFish-C should be expanded to include readily available market ACP Fish 2: and trade statistics (etc.). “Research strategies” (TBD)

Fishery Independent ProcFish -O: ProcFish-O mid-term review SCICOFISH : Data Collection Large-scale Pacific Tuna Tagging recommended further large-scale Validating Models through Tagging (Activity 1-5) will Programme (PTTP) implemented tuna tagging. increase the accuracy and predictive power of all the modelling tools (previous and new). ProcFish -C/COFish: There is general consensus that not Baseline invertebrates, finfish and enough effort has been devoted to SCICOFISH : socio-economic data collected and coastal resource evaluation in the Stakeholder Consultation (Activity 2-1) and Field reported in site (65) and country past, and sustainability of these Monitoring Protocols (Activity 2-2) will assess the needs (P-ACPs + 3 OCTs) reports resources is threatened by over- and capabilities of individual P-ACP countries and prioritise exploitation. at least five specific projects to introduce specific field SCIFISH: monitoring techniques to local stakeholders. Implementation of PTTP (tagging) Phase 2 ACP Fish 2: “Research strategies” (TBD)

Data Management ProcFish -O: Databases need to continue to SCICOFISH : Regional database augmented expand to accommodate more Integrated Tuna Fisheries Databases (Activity 1-2) will with observer, port sampling, advanced observer programmes enhance database functionality in 14 P-ACP countries, biological and catch-effort data and new types of coastal providing new ways of integrating data and providing tools

Type of Activity Accomplishments of Past Projects Current Gaps and Needs Proposed Activities to Address Gaps and Needs ProcFish -C/COFish: monitoring data. to assess data quality. Database developed to hold invertebrates, finfish and socio- Currently a lack of data SCICOFISH: economic data management capacity contributes Coastal data collected under Activities 2-2 and 2-3 will be to a poor record of fishing activity in compatible formats with oceanic data. reporting by some P-ACPs, as well as difficulties in understanding and ACP Fish 2: identifying IUU fishing activities. “Knowledge exchange system” (TBD) Data Analysis and ProcFish -O: ProcFish-O mid-term review SCICOFISH : Modelling Regional stock assessments of recommended further Bio economic modelling (Activity 1-3) will allow estimates skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and S. development of the SEAPODYM of the economic impacts on Pacific P-ACPs of alternative Pacific albacore model for EEZ-level application. tuna fisheries management measures.

ProcFish -O: P-ACPs have called for the SCICOFISH: Ecological risk assessment development of tools and Ecosystem modelling (Activity 1-4) will show the impact of methodology developed and strategies to evaluate national measures at the national level, help develop national tuna preliminary results accepted by impacts from management management plans, and assess impacts due to climate WCPFC measures and mitigate the effects change. of climate change. ProcFish -C/COFish: ACP Fish 2: Indicator invertebrate and finfish “Research strategies” (TBD) species identified

SCIFISH: Further development of SEAPODYM for fine-scale (national EEZ) assessment and climate change

Type of Activity Accomplishments of Past Projects Current Gaps and Needs Proposed Activities to Address Gaps and Needs Public Sector Capacity ProcFish -O: The ProcFish-C mid-term review SCICOFISH : Building Support to MHLC/PrepCon noted that the greatest impact on Scientific advice for development of management of (forerunner to WCPFC) sustainable management of coastal coastal resources (Activity 2-4) will develop five new ProcFish -C/COFish: resources will come from country fishery management plans/measures in consultation with Training, manuals, and data reports and other national inputs. local stakeholders. analysis workshops for Encouraging local uptake of these invertebrates, finfish and socio- recommendations is therefore DevFish2: economic data in 14 P-ACPs + 3 essential. Several activities (Fishery Development Strategies (Activity OCTs 1-1); Transparency in Systems and Procedures (Activity 1- DevFish: The DevFish mid-term review 2); and Technical Assistance to Competent Authorities Numerous Economic and industry reported that substantial progress (Activity 1-3)) will continue the long-term efforts of development studies covering had been made but that the DevFish to advance poverty alleviation, promote regional most P-ACPs ambitious goals of the project economic integration, and achieve compliance with DevFish: would require a longer-term effort international trade rules through public sector capacity National Action Plans with to achieve. building. improved policies in some countries ACP Fish 2: DevFish: “Sectoral policy development” (TBD) and “Capacity for Interventions facilitating EU policy making and management” (TBD) market access in some P-ACPs Private Sector Capacity DevFish: The DevFish mid-term review DevFish2: Building Development Action Plans reported that substantial progress Several activities (Training to Industry for Export Expansion produced or in progress for 3 P- had been made but that the (Activity 1-4); Technical Assistance to Fishing Companies ACPs ambitious goals of the project (Activity 1-5); and Pilot Projects for New Technologies DevFish: would require a longer-term effort (Activity 1-6)) will continue the long-term efforts of Improved private sector to achieve. DevFish to advance poverty alleviation, promote regional participation via industry economic integration, and achieve compliance with association strengthening international trade rules through private sector capacity building.

ACP Fish 2: “Supportive framework for private sector” (TBD) Combating IUU Fishing SCIFISH: Some stakeholders believe that SCICOFISH: Some monitoring, control and deterrence of IUU fishing activities Observer training (Activity 1-1) and integrated databases surveillance activities by FFA is a priority. (Activity 1-2) will assist in combating IUU fishing activities.

Type of Activity Accomplishments of Past Projects Current Gaps and Needs Proposed Activities to Address Gaps and Needs

DevFish2: Regional Strategy to Combat IUU Fishing (Activity 2-1) , Identify and Remedy Technical and Capacity Shortfalls (Activities 2-2) , and Integrated Assessment of Enforcement and Fisheries Databases (Activity 2-3) will contribute significantly to detecting and prosecuting IUU fishing operations.

Notes:

PROC FISH OCEANIC - €3.9 m (ACP), €1.0 m (OCT) – 2002-2007: Scientific support to P-ACPs, P-OCTs and the fledgling WCPFC for the sustainable management of the region’s oceanic fisheries resources

PROCFISH COASTAL / COF ISH - €7.6 m – 2001-2009: Rigorous, comparable information about the status and prospects of reef fisheries, provided for process of developing reef fishery management measures.

DEV FISH - €3 m – 2005-2009: Support for development of domestic tuna industries SCIFISH - €4 m (ACP), €2.6 m (OCT) - 2008-2012: Provide a scientific basis for regional and national oceanic fisheries management decision-making by the WCPFC and by Pacific ACP and OCT Governments

ACP FISH 2 - €30 m of which €1.4 m reserved for Pacific activities – 2009-2014: Sustainable management of fisheries in all ACP countries SCICOFISH - €9 m – 2010-14: Provide a reliable and improved scientific basis for management and decision making in oceanic and coastal fisheries

DEVFISH 2 - €8.2 m – 2011-2014: Two Components: tuna industry development and deterring illegal fishing. Activities under these components are designed to sustainably develop tuna and to control fishing in Pacific Island waters through good governance, capacity building, industry assistance, and information sharing.

Annex 7: Compendium of achievements by Results Group and activity, 2008-2011 (ACP Component) Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities Result 1: Enhanced oceanic fisheries monitoring.

Act 1.1 Training Two national observer training courses National Observer Training Courses held: 9 Observer training courses completed: Report on future training needs for programmes for for PNG in the month of February and SB (1), FSM (2), RMI (1), KI (2), PNG (2), Observer/Port Sampling Programmes January – June 2009 Courses: FSM scientific observers & June completed with 22 trainees trained. VU (1). provided to FFC port samplers. A third course in PNG (16 trainees) was (Pohnpei)-cadet PNG-National / all gears underway at the time of report Solomon Is-cadet (two courses) Kiribati- 150 new observers certified or upgraded. 1 Observer Coordinators workshop. National refresher Kiribati-cadet (two preparation. Observer training course for Mini-observer coordinators workshop courses) Vanuatu-cadet (two courses) Tag seeding, biological sampling and spill Solomon Islands carried out during the convened sampling training included in 50% of month of April. 15 new observers were July-December 2009 Courses: PNG- PIRFO training courses trained. Fiji Observer Refresher Course National / all gears 3 Trainee-trainers attended each of 6 carried out in August. 9 current courses. Nine P-ACP trainers certified. observers were trained. Assessment of Sub-regional observer training courses: July-December 2009 Courses Vanuatu - 2 PNG nationally-run courses run, with Republic of Marshall Islands Observer oversight by SPC Observer Coordinator. training scheduled for January 2009. Vanuatu, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu Fiji:- Fiji, Tuvalu and New Caledonia Sub-regional course for Micronesia (Federated States of Micronesia and 9th Observer Coordinators Workshop and Palau) carried out in July/August. 3 new Observer Data management Workshop observers from FSM and 6 from Palau held in Noumea (16th - 23rd September). were trained.

Vanuatu sub-regional basic training course carried out in October (Tuvalu, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa participation). 14 new observers were trained

8th Regional Observer Coordinator’s workshop held in Palau in July Act 1.2 Training 2 week attachments to SPC by Solomon 2 Fishery monitoring attachments to SPC 6 fishery monitoring attachments: KI (2), No activity planned attachments Islands and Samoa fisheries staff (Vanuatu and Cook Islands) TV (1), TK (1) VU (1), TO (1).

completed. Cook Islands and Vanuatu Samoa planned before the 31 Dec 2008. Act 1.3 Operational Renewed and extended MOU for Samoa Review/development of fishery KI – artisanal data workshop conducted MOUs established with FSM, RMI. SB and support for and Tonga (observer and port sampling monitoring support MOUs with ACPs: KI TV – NTDC position established. observer/port support). MOUs finalized with FSM, Kiribati, Tuvalu,

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities sampling programmes MOUs. Vanuatu, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Network servers established in PA, KI, NU, Islands, Niue. TV Funds allocated and transferred as Provision of operational support as per Observer and data collection forms – in agreed both MOUs. Observer and data MOUs. all ACP states (workbooks and 250 collection forms/equipment provided to waterproof sampling pads) countries. Funds were allocated and transferred as per MOUs. Act 1.4 Quality control Endorsement of the Pacific Island Development of Competency-Based CBTs available in-line No activity planned of observer/port Regional Fisheries Observer Programme Observer Training (CBT) documentation: http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/ofpsect sampling data (PIRFO) standards (CBT) by FFC 67. These Task completed and available online ion/fisheries-monitroring/observers standards are currently being trialled in http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/Html/Stat Observer de-briefer workshop held 15-21 the recent observer training courses. istics/Observer/PIRFO/index.htm July. French version currently being translated

and will be available online in 2010 No Observer de-briefer training activities undertaken in 2009 however debriefing standards included in CBT and standards moderator manual. Act 1.5 Develop and No activity TUFMAN version 5 completed. Only 18 trial paired spill/grab trips Analyses completed and results trial new technologies Development work on version 6.0 (MS completed by end of 2010. A number of presented to WCPFC SC8 for enhancing quality SQL back-end) has begun. TUBS (observer logistical challenges and general vessel of data and timeliness management system) and Observer Trip cooperation limited success in this area. of data collection. Viewer System and CES updated. Analyses completed for 2009-10 data. Some remaining 2010 data still to be All Countries issued with TUFMAN submitted to SPC. Version 5.0 with the exception of PNG and Samoa (who operate their own Time-depth Recorder deployment on database) and Tokelau (deployment long-liners redirected to application of scheduled for 2010). archival tags. Act 1.6 Develop No activity No activity Activities deferred to 2011. Harmonised regional database templates harmonised fisheries for the dissemination of MCS monitoring systems information, harmonized Vessel of and data sharing Interests List, and rating index system to protocols. indicate surveillance priority of vessels. Completed with consultant’s report

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities under review by FFA. Act 1.7 Undertake Resources have been provided to FFA as Resources have been provided to FFA as No activity – completed in 2009. No activity planned compliance audits and per SCIFISH contractual arrangements per SCIFISH contractual arrangements. IUU risk assessments. and tasks are expected to be completed Consultancies undertaken and reports in year 2 of the project. will be available in the near future. Act 1.8 Develop and On -vessel spill sampling methodology Development of TUFMAN computer TUFMAN developed to include exception No activity planned implement trialled in PNG to remove bias associated package to generate exception reports by reports using log-sheet and VMS and methodologies to with observer length measurement data. comparing log-sheet, VMS and unloading unloading data. verify fisheries data. Preliminary results of trial to be analysed data TUFMAN version 5.04 released to FSM by February 2009. The WCPFC Reporting module for and Niue. Four installations of TUFMAN TUFMAN, which specifically addresses the v6.00 and 6.02 to Niue RMI, SB and NA reporting obligations by ACP countries to completed. the WCPFC completed. The Catch and Effort Query System (CES) and the latest log-sheet data was provided Act 1.9 Develop and Resources provided to FFA as per SCIFISH Pilot study prepared and contracting No activity – completed in 2009. No activity planned trial new technologies contractual arrangements and tasks completed. including satellite expected to be completed in year 2 of the Acquisition, interpretation of satellite based technologies for project (i.e. pilot study images. detection of IUU prepared/contracting completed; fishing activities. Acquisition, interpretation of satellite Analysis of targets against VMS and other images; Analysis of targets against VMS reports and other reports; & Written report documenting pilot results. Written report documenting pilot results Result 2: Enhanced stock assessments. 2.1 Conduct large-scale 4 week cruise in Solomon Islands EEZ Jan-June 2009: The second cruise (WP-2) Operational plans for 2010 completed. PNG tagging cruise completed conventional and completed. 17,037 fish tagged with was completed on 13 June 2009. Tuna Western Pacific cruise no.4 postponed 2 Central Pacific cruises completed electronic tagging and conventional external dart tags (6,207 were tagged in the EEZs of PNG, FSM, due to insufficient funds. associated biological skipjack, 36.4%; 10,431 yellowfin, 61.3%; Marshall Islands, Kiribati/Gilberts, Tuvalu Tag reporting rate estimated. Report studies of tuna. and 387 bigeye, 2.3%). Archival tagging and Solomon. The total releases for WP-2 Central Pacific Cruise no.4 completed. provided to WCPFC SC7 comprised 11 yellowfin 63-81cm with was 51,254 tuna including 176 archival Reported to WCPFC-SC6. MK9 tags, and one bigeye (60cm) with tags. Database 100% up to date. Processing the single LTD 2310 tag. Central Pacific Cruise no.5 completed. conducted. Report provided to WCPFC Regional Tagging Cruise CP 2 completed.

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities A total of 2699 tuna tagged on the TAO Reported to WCPFC -SC6. SC7 A 2 nd two-week cruise also conducted in buoy along 155W and 140W longitude. A 60 tag seeding kits deployed. Tag Recovery officers established in FSM, Solomon Islands EEZ to trial a new larger total of 90 tuna tagged with archival tags. Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Marshall vessel (Soltai 105), to assess its suitability Tag recovery operations in place. July-December 2009 The third cruise Islands, PNG and Ecuador. for the Phase 2 activities of the Pacific. (WP-3) was completed in mid-October.

Tuna were tagged in the EEZs of PNG, Tuna Tagging Programme (PTTP) (SCIFISH Nauru, FSM, Indonesia and the high seas activities) throughout the wider western areas adjacent to these EEZs. WP-3 and central Pacific. The trial of the vessel deployed 38,789 conventional tags and proved highly successful. An additional 70 archival tags. 12,944 fish were conventionally tagged during this trial. The third tagging cruise in the Central Pacific (CP3) was completed in Operational plan drafted and endorsed by November. This cruise, like earlier cruises, SCIFISH Project Steering Committee and targeted primarily bigeye tuna PTTP Steering Committee. See aggregated beneath the TAO http://www.wcpfc.int/sc4/pdf/SC4-GN- oceanographic buoys moored between IP4%20[PTTP%20Operational%20Plan].pd 5⁰N and 5⁰S along 155⁰W and 140⁰W. f During CP3, 5,105 conventional and 135 archival tags were deployed. All Regional Tagging logistics planned, approvals obtained and vessel charter This brings the total tag release numbers and staffing agreements finalized. for the overall PTTP to 259,663 conventional and 886 archival tags. Regional Tagging Cruise 1 (5 month) Specific visits to promote and facilitate commenced in June 2008. Tagging was tag recovery have been undertaken in the carried out in Federated States of Korea, Federated States of Micronesia, Micronesia (11,721), Palau (7,285), Solomon Islands, Palau, Marshall Islands, Philippines (1,914), Indonesia (25,197) Indonesia, Philippines and Papua New and Papua New Guinea (10550). The Guinea, American Samoa, Japan, total tag releases for WTP cruise 1 to Indonesia, Philippines. more than 56,680. Recent releases have included the deployment of an additional 24 small and 25 large sized electronic tags.

Tag recovery officer appointed (Brian Kumasi) and Pacific-wide recovery

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities procedures implemented. Tag lotteries in association with Infofish Tuna 2008 conference in Bangkok and in Papua New Guinea (Madang and Wewak) completed.

Further lotteries are planned for Lae (PNG, 2 December) and Solomon Islands (Noro, 28 November to coincide with the return to home port of the tagging vessel). Specific visits to promote and facilitate tag recovery have been undertaken in the Thailand, Solomon Islands, Palau, Marshall Islands, Indonesia, Philippines and Papua New Guinea. Recovery arrangements formalized for Indonesia (4 agents).

Tag data processing activities commenced. Recovery issues documented in http://www.wcpfc.int/sc4/pdf/SC4-GN- IP5%20[PTTP%20Tag%20Recovery%20iss ues].pdf and the results of PTTP Phase 1 reviewed in http://www.wcpfc.int/sc4/pdf/SC4-GN- IP3%20[Review%20PTTP%20Phase%201]. pdf

Preliminary analysis on electronic tagging completed and accepted for publication (Leroy et al. 2008) in Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

Preliminary analysis of horizontal movement to be completed by February 2009.

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities 2.2 Conduct analyses of No activity. Biological parameters and spawning Preliminary data analysis of population 3 Sub -regional reports documenting tagging, biological and biomass calculations for yellowfin tuna in dynamics of yellowfin, skipjack and tagging activities provided to ACP fishery oceanographic the WCPO have been adjusted. bigeye from conventional and electronic countries via web- based access. Report data to better tags regarding horizontal movements and available (www.spc.int/tagging). Analysis of vertical movement understand population exploitation rates completed. undertaken 1 Report documenting analysis of dynamics, behaviour & Preliminary data analysis of FAD effects population dynamics of yellowfin, biology of tuna. Summary of PTTP Phase 2 reviewed from PNG tagging data completed. skipjack and bigeye from conventional Analysis of horizontal movement and electronic tags provided to WCPFC. Tagging reports prepared for PNG, SI, undertaken Report provided to WCPFC SC7 FSM, Palau, KIR, RMI and Tuvalu. (http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/st-ip-05/pttp- progress-report-and-work-plan-2011- 2012) 2.3 Develop models to No activity. Preliminary stock models for south pacific PTTP skipjack tagging data included in New tagging data incorporated into 2011 assess status of albacore, yellowfin and bigeye drafted for 2010 stock assessment. assessments for bigeye, skipjack and targeted tuna stocks 2009. yellowfin tuna and impacts of fishing. Result 3: Enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystems.

3.1 Develop and Contract finalized with Collecte Applications of SEAPODYM to South Mixed resolution forcing data sets No activities planned for Year 4 enhance models of the Localization Satellite (CLS), based in Pacific albacore, yellowfin and climate compiled for SPC member states. pelagic ecosystem Toulouse, France. Ecosystem modeller change forecasting. Multiple cohort tagging data supporting targeted position at SPC advertised. incorporated into SEAPODYM model. oceanic fish stocks. Technical documentation of revised MSY extraction code for developed for SEAPODYM Model completed. SEAPODM Optimisation documented in Senina et al. in press, Progress in Oceanography, and SEAPODYM mixed resolution models general developments documented in completed for PNG and Kiribati. Lehodey et al. 2008 WCPFC Scientific Goodness of fit statistic for SEAPODYM Committee EB-WP-10 - reference fits developed. http://www.wcpfc.int/sc4/pdf/SC4- EB- WP10%20[SEAPODYM-V2].pdf First optimization model for swordfish completed. Parameterisation and initial simulations completed for skipjack (Senina et al. 2008, Progress in Oceanography) and bigeye Lehodey et al. 2008, Progress in

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities Oceanography. Catch and length data prepared for yellowfin and parameterization of yellowfin model scheduled to be completed by February 2009. 3.2 Provide scientific No activity. Application of SEAPODYM to South Pacific Evaluation of time-area closures for 1 report evaluating time-area closures for advice on ecosystems albacore in the New Caledonia EEZ. tropical tuna management undertaken. tropical tuna management Report aspects of fishery provided to WCPFC SC7 Reports produced on EEZ-scale management including: (http://www.wcpfc.int/node/3633) evaluations of tuna fisheries for selected i) impacts of ACPs using SEAPODYM (provision of 2 reports documenting EEZ scale environment variability changes in EEZ tuna biomass for skipjack oceanographic effects for Kiribati and on oceanic fish stocks and bigeye). PNG. EEZ scale analyses completed and and fisheries; reports provided to Kiribati and PNG ii) the effects of fishing on the pelagic ecosystem; and iii) potential benefits and effectiveness of specific ecosystem management measures such as marine protected areas

Annex 8: Compendium of achievements by Results Group and activity, 2008-2011 (OCT Component) Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities Result 1: Enhanced oceanic fisheries monitoring.

Act 1.1 Training Observer training course for New French Polynesia No activities planned. 1 LL observer training course provided to programmes for Caledonia and French Polynesia carried FP. 6 FP observers certified for long-line. 3 observers trained in May 2009, and one scientific observers & out during in September. 4 trainees former observer has been refreshed. One port samplers. attended. National coordinators trained in observer left in November 2009. In biological sampling December 2009, 5 observers, 2 port Participation of FP and NC Observer sampler and 1 coordinator belong to SCIFISH Programme. Coordinators in workshop in Honiara (June 2011) Since commencement, 64 observer trips (51 in 2009) have been conducted on Report documenting the improvements board domestic long-liners (1042 days at in fishery monitoring information due to sea and 763 sets observed). increased observer and port sampling coverage in NC and FP provided to each 807 port sampling operations have been OCT. conducted during fish unloading. Sampling coverage was 75%. All observer data and port sampling data have been provided to SPC to be entered into the observer database. New Caledonia 2 observers conducted 28 trips on 12 different domestic long-liners (307 days at sea, 224 set and 423844 hooks observed). 169 port sampling operations have been conducted during fish unloading. A sampler has been replaced, totalling 2 in Noumea and 2 in Koumac now. Observer trips represent coverage of 8.4% (Objective was 5%). Port Sampling

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities coverage is 41% (Objective was 10%). Reports have been produced for each trip and given to fishers and ship owners. Data used to estimate shark catch (sold for fins) by the Caledonian fleet and estimate on non-commercial species catch and rejections at sea. Act 1.2 Training Wallis & Futuna (WF) training attachment No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. attachments to SPC put on hold until WF establishes oceanic fishery Act 1.3 Operational French Polynesia : Scifish Observer No activities planned. Observer coverage on long-line vessels: The 5% observer coverage target was support for Programme in French Polynesia began in exceeded for both FP and NC long-line NC: 10.3% observer/port April 2008 with 2 observers, 2 port fleets: sampling programmes samplers and 1 coordinator. One FP: 5% observer left the programme in August NC: 348 trips, 22 observed (7%), 172 port- 2008. Training was conducted in October Port sampling coverage sampled (50% 2008 and 2 more observers have been NC: 42.55 FP: 521 trips, 33 (6%) observed, 446 recruited. Since commencement, 13 (86%) port-sampled.. observer trips have been conducted on FP: 75% board domestic long-liners (242 days at 100% of observer and port sampling data sea, 171 sets and more than 425,000 collected ion NC and FP submitted to SPC. hooks observed). Over the same period, the long-line fleet in French Polynesia undertook a total 6,026 sets (more than 14,000,000 hooks). Observer trips represent coverage of 2.8% (percentage of fishing days). The target observer coverage is 10%. 330 port sampling operations have been conducted during fish unloading. Sampling coverage was 72%. This coverage is lower than 2005 but the data are considered better as the boats are completely sampled. All observers' data have been sent to SPC to be entered to the observer database.

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities The French Polynesia Obs erver/Port Sampling Programme will also participate in the tagging activities and albacore sampling activities for SCIFISH (see 2.1).

New Caledonia : Activities commenced in June 2008 with the appointment of an observer coordinator in New Caledonia. Since commencement, 3 observer trips have been conducted on board domestic long-liners (37 days at sea, 24 sets and more than 45,000 hooks observed). Over the same period, the long-line fleet in New Caledonia was at sea for 651 days. Observer trips represent coverage of 6%. The target observer coverage is 10%. Forty-two port sampling operations have also been conducted during fish unloading. Sampling coverage is 42% which is well above our objective of 10% for this year. All observer and port sampler data have been entered into the database. In addition, a mini report has been produced for each trip and given to fishers and ship owners. Updated coverage statistics will be available in January 2009. New Caledonia would like to recruit 1 more observer and port sampler before the end of the year. The coordinator will also undergo observer training and participate in observer trips. Act 1.4 Quality control Development of French version of CBT No activities planned. French version of CBT documentation No activities planned. of observer/port documentation. Awaiting completion of being translated – available online early sampling data English version. Translation to French 2011. scheduled for February 2009.

Observer debriefing and debriefing training conducted. Scheduled for

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities January 2009. Act 1.5 Develop and No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. trial new technologies for enhancing quality of data and timeliness of data collection. Act 1.6 Develop No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. harmonised fisheries monitoring systems and data sharing protocols. Act 1.7 Undertake No activities planned. Contract PRO 93/27/2 WP 11/8/1 No activities planned. No activities planned. compliance audits and between SPC and CLS signed on 16 April IUU risk assessments. 2009 Three periods of acquisition of images interpreted and provided to French Navy in New Caledonia for ground check: (a) 11 to 15 March 2009 (New Caledonia); (b) 16 to 23 April 2009 (New Caledonia); and (c) 6 to 11 May 2009 (Wallis et Futuna). Periodic reports including an assessment of radar capacity for detection as well as vessel size, heading and speed. Final results in a 2-part report dated 15 July 2009, presented and discussed during a meeting with participants from New Caledonia and Wallis et Futuna fisheries departments + French Navy services (28 - 29 July 2009) Report also provided to French Polynesia

Act 1.8 Develop and No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. implement methodologies to

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities verify fisheries data. Act 1.9 Develop and A call for Expressions of Interest by No activities planned. No activities planned. No activities planned. trial new technologies contractors to undertake this work in including satellite New Caledonia has been prepared and based technologies for was advertised in September. Contractual detection of IUU arrangements are expected to be fishing activities. completed by 31 December 2008 with tasks to be completed during year 2 of the project. Result 2: Enhanced stock assessments.

2.1 Conduct large-scale Albacore biologist appointed and The first albacore tagging cruise Albacore tagging cruise 2 (NZ) completed. Albacore tagging cruise not completed conventional and commenced in May 2008. Feasibility completed. Overall, a total of 2766 due to poor performance of electronic Albacore tagging cruise 3 (Tonga/Fiji) electronic tagging and study and operational plan drafted and albacore were tagged and released with tags from previous tagging cruises. completed. associated biological presented to SCIFISH Steering Committee 1457 of these fish also receiving an Resources redirected to central Pacific studies of tuna. meeting. Documents expected to be injection of oxytetracycline (OTC) for the Data processing undertaken. bigeye tagging. finalized by December 2008 age validation experiments. Gonad and otolith sampling completed Tag recovery and biological sampling Planning for second albacore cruise Feasibility study examined the geographic training implemented. with 3,293 gonads, 2122 otoliths and 277 complete. dorsal fin spines collected across the location of catch in conjunction with the South Pacific likelihood of captured fish being Collection of otoliths & gonad from sufficiently healthy for tagging. PNG albacore proceeding. A total of 473 30 otoliths were analysed for pump boat fishery not considered cost albacore sampled (177 French Polynesia, microchemistry content and a draft effective based upon this assessment. 226 New Caledonia, 70 New Zealand). scientific manuscript has been prepared Procedures for analysis and collaboration New Zealand tagging cruise scheduled for established with CSIRO in Australia 18 stomachs were collected in 2011, 68 February and March 2009. Expression of were examined, 18 muscles were Interest for suitable charter vessels Standardized CPUE for distant–water collected, isotope analysis postponed to closed on 31 October and a contract fleets targeting south Pacific albacore 2012 on alternative funding awarded. Final Cruise plans to be finalized by December 2008. Tag recovery arrangements currently being sought for New Zealand and American Samoa. Australian arrangements have been established through CSIRO. Recovery arrangements have been organized in New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Samoa, Fiji, Vanuatu and Cook

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities Islands. Sampling design established for age/growth, reproductive biology and vertical habitat utilization studies: Final sampling plan to be completed in December 2008. Joint meeting with CSIRO scheduled for January 2009 to develop collaborative timeline and sampling regime between CSIRO East Australian Zone albacore study and broader SCIFISH study. Sampling programmes to commence in December 2008. Preliminary sampling commenced in New Zealand. Preliminary analysis of albacore otoliths microchemistry undertaken to assess feasibility of further more extensive trial to assess large-scale movement dynamics. The outcomes from this analysis indicate potential for this approach to collect information of larger movements. A more extensive trial planned for February – March 2009. 2.2 Conduct analyses of No activities planned. No activities planned. Analysis of population productive and 1 report documenting the reproductive & tagging, biological and growth of albacore undertaken. growth biology of albacore provided to fishery oceanographic WCPFC SC7 Data analysis commenced, reported to data to better (http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/sa-wp- WCPFC-SC6. understand population 05/south- pacific-albacore-age-and- dynamics, behaviour & Tagging reports completed for NC and FP. reproductive-biology- %E2%80%93- biology of tuna. progress-report) and scientific papers are in preparation Papers on vertical movement, otolith microchemistry and isotope diet/movement study scheduled for completion in first half of 2012. 2.3 Develop models to No activities planned. No activities planned. Albacore reproductive ogive and growth Albacore reproductive ogive and growth assess status of curves estimated. Reported to WCPFC- curves included in 2011 stock assessment

Results Group/ Achievements in 2008 Achievements in 2009 Achievements in 2010 Achievements in 2011 Activities targeted tuna stocks SC6 as appropriate deferred to 2012 albacore and impacts of fishing. assessment. Result 3: Enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystems. 3.1 Develop and Fisheries Oceanographer appointed. No activities planned. Report produced documenting South No activities planned. enhance models of the Pacific albacore SEAPODYM model. pelagic ecosystem Initial SEAPODYM albacore model for Reported to WCPFC-SC6. Includes supporting targeted South Pacific parameterized. CPUE and reference fits for skipjack, albacore, and oceanic fish stocks. length frequency data currently being bigeye at higher resolutions. recompiled for final parameterization. First optimization model of swordfish Expect to complete by December 2008. completed.

Fine resolution grid of oceanographic data generated for New Caledonia EEZ to trial mixed resolution version. 3.2 Provide scientific No activities planned. No activities planned. Report produced documenting EEZ scale No activities planned. advice on ecosystems oceanographic effects evaluated in the aspects of fishery context of current South Pacific albacore management including: management. Reported to WCPFC-SC6. i) impacts of environment variability on oceanic fish stocks and fisheries; ii) the effects of fishing on the pelagic ecosystem; and iii) potential benefits and effectiveness of specific ecosystem management measures such as marine protected areas

Annex 9: SCIFISH Audited accounts summary (2008-2011)

Source: Final Audit of SCIFISH, dated 30 th July 2012 (PWC, 2012).

Annex 10: Actions taken in response to SCIFISH MTE recommendations MTE Recommendation Action taken Project design/Relevance The AWP should include a revised logical framework, with target SMART Logical framework revision undertaken, and SMART indictors developed, for objectively verifiable indicators for results and target indicators for activities. final year (year 4) of the Project . However, some indicators still not amenable to measuring progress. The PSC should thoroughly examine the validity of the logical framework PSC for SCICOFISH now undertakes as part of its work load. and provide real feed-back during the annual PSC meeting. The assumptions and preconditions given in the logical framework should be PSC for SCICOFISH now undertakes as part of its work load. subject to regular appraisal and reassessment by the PSC, to ensure that such factors that impact on Project success are given adequate consideration in work plan formulation, and necessary amendments made. To increase project visibility, SP C should consider developing specific Dedicated web pages established in year 4 (final year of SCIFISH). information on SCIFISH on the SPC OFP website. Given that a number of activities will be concluded between before the FE of SCIFISH and MTE of SCICOFISH undertaken concurrently in Feb/March programmed end of the Project in mid-2011, it is recommended that a final 2013 (this document). evaluation of SCIFISH be undertaken as part of the SCICOFISH Mid-Term Evaluation (presumably mid-2012). Dedicated admin istration / support staff should be considered for funding The need for dedicated admin support was taken into account by FAME EU support, whose role it would be to ensure that progress reports are in the of SCICOFISH. comprehensive and adequately report on developments against the OVIs and targets, and to improve visibility of future projects. Efficiency Develop specific Terms of Reference for the Project Steering Committee Formal ToR were not developed for the SCIFISH Steering Committee, given (probably not useful for SCIFISH, but more for successor projects), to ensure that the project had only the 4th and final year (2011) to run at the time of effective on-going monitoring and evaluation as well as oversight of the the MTE. ‘Formal’ ToR have not been developed for the SCICOFISH Steering direction of the project. Committee either. However, first agenda of the first meeting of the SCICOFISH Steering Committee, held Feb 2011, considered detailed

MTE Recommendation Action taken objectives for the meeting, which may be considered tantamount to Terms of Reference. The SCICOFISH Steering Committee Otherwise also follows the followed the terms set out in Annex 1: 3.1. of the Contribution Agreement. Increase visibility of project achievements by developing specific information Dedicated web pages established in year 4. on SCIFISH on the SPC OFP website. Include dedicated administratio n support budget line into future projects. Actioned (refer project support line items in Financing Agreement) Effectiveness Recommendations – result 1 For each PIC (ACPs and OCTs) assess the level of support for continued data Undertaken as part of the regular work of the annual TDW, which was collection (human resources, operational costs) and identify appropriate partially funded by SCIFISH and now SCICOFISH. Participants are required to measures for continued support (SCICOFISH, WCPFC, donors). This could be make presentations on key elements of support to national data conducted as part of the annual Tuna Data Workshop. collection/analysis efforts. Produce own estimates of costs involved. TDW Annual Report (Part 1) contains data summaries and highlights data management issues. Report is provided to the Science Committee and thereafter to the WCPFC. Include tag seeding training in recognised observer training courses. Tag seeding training duly incorporated and forms part of the observer training course content. Direct donor funding of national posts and running costs is contrary to the This recommendation is well understood by the beneficiaries, and progress Paris Declaration and should gradually be phased out and these costs is being made – an example being the Multilateral Treaty on Fishing. incorporated into national establishments. Future project design should consider the ‘use-pays’ principle and move towards cost recovery from the industry. In the meantime, given the very real constrain ts facing New Caledonia and Actioned in full. SCIFISH funding for fishery monitoring support ended mid - French Polynesia, fishery monitoring support should be extended into 2011 2011. Supplementary funds for FP and NC were obtained to extend support as far as funding allows, at least until June 2011. up until the end of 2011. In 2012, NC and FP have each secured national budgets for the relevant staff, and since 2012 have had a contractual arrangement in place with SPC, whereby SPC is paid for providing the required staff to the OCTs. This avoids labour law difficulties that would

MTE Recommendation Action taken otherwise be incurred through direct recruitment. National Sampling Coordinators and the National Observer Coordinators in Actioned (see point above). New Caledonia and French Polynesia will not be supported after June 2011. The OCTs have opted not to be part of SCICOFISH, and thus the OCTs should be encouraged to institutionalise these posts and their associated recurrent costs as soon as is practicable. In the meantime, extend National Sampling Coordinators in New Caledonia Actioned (see point above). and French Polynesia as far into 2011 as possible. Increase cooperation with Indonesia and Philippines on fisheries monitoring, Participants from Indonesia and Philippines (and also Vietnam) have been particularly in regard to catch and effort, due to the impact of those fisheries invited to TDW. This has raised motivation to work closely with OFP on tuna on yellowfin and bigeye. fisheries monitoring. Two workshops (Annual Catch Estimate Workshop and Data Review Workshop) have been held in each country each year (Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam), ensuring the production of annual catch estimates, which are submitted to WCPFC. These levels of cooperation were not in evidence prior to SCIFISH (particularly in the case of Vietnam). To improve local sustainability for the initiatives supported by SCIFISH, the Primarily achieved through TUFMAN, which is able to extract data, analysed data collected from the various activities should be used locally for rapid at annual TDW. At least 4 national staff attachments are arranged per year reporting and decision-making by increased emphasis on developing local (as requested by countries), as well as numerous in-country training courses. capacity for conducting analysis. Develop a regional standard for spill sampling, for the guidance of on -board Research is on -going to compare results of grab sampling and spill sampling observers, and include in observer training curriculum. on the same purse-seine set. At the 2012 Science Committee, a first draft of a spill sampling protocol was presented. Further funding support for research into grab sampling and spill sampling was proposed by the Science Committee under ‘Project 60’ (WCPFC funded), which ends in 2013. Longer term support for this crucial area of research into sampling bias is needed. Recommendations result 2 Identify ways to fund the establishment of national and/or sub -regional Tag Actioned. Tag Return Officers were established in Honiara (Solomon Islands), Return Officers in all unloading/processing points, especially in regard to General Santos City (Philippines), Pohnpei (FSM), Majuro (Marshall Islands)

MTE Recommendation Action taken transhipment and long -line. and Tarawa (Kiribati) and supported by SCIFISH. Funding support for these positions after termination of SCIFISH has continued through a range of sources, including WCPFC and PNG. Continue Tag Recovery Officer position within OFP for as long as possible Actioned. The Tag Recovery Officer position continued to be supported by into 2011. With considerable numbers of tags still being received, and SCIFISH through to the termination of the Project in 2011, and was then important tag seeding work on-going, support for this position is critical and supported by a combination of funds including PNG, Korea and New there is no equivalent position funded by SCICOFISH. Beyond 2011, SPC Zealand. should locate other resources to support this position. Recommendations result 3 Extend Fisheries Oceanographer position as far into 2011 as possible. Actioned. Support targeted additional in -port biological sampling of albacore Action ed. otoliths/gonads in French Polynesia and Cook Islands (where observer sampling has proved difficult), for micro-chemistry analysis. Contract out laboratory analysis of gonads and otoliths (for specific things Actioned. Otolith experiments indicated movements of albacore. Systematic that OFP is not equipped to do). research programme on albacore movements now being implemented, funded by WCPFC. This work has led to a reassessment of stock assessments conducted for albacore (as documented in Annex 4). Albacore tagging was proven to be non-cost effective (cost of tagging vs. value of fishery). Research on otolith chemistry is a very cost-effective alternative (allows classification of fish by region, hence movements. The same approach is also being used for Bigeye and Yellowfin. Support further diet and muscle isotope analysis. Actioned. Isotope analysis provided validation of the otolith chemistry results. Good collaboration with the University of Southampton (UK) has been developed. PIRFO Observers collect otoliths as well as liver and muscle tissue for isotope analyses as part of their duties. Support a tagging cruise of short duration (1 -2 weeks) to deploy additional Actioned. Conventional tags proved to be ineffective for albacore, due to PSAT tags on albacore. the small size of the Region’s albacore fisheries, thus satellite tags were used for migration studies. Although the survey was under-taken, it was found

MTE Recommendation Action taken that found that the albacore died as a result of pressure changes (brought up from depth for tagging), even from long-lines sets at <50m depth. Publish national -level tagging reports on OFP website (password controlled). Actioned. Publish results of tagging cruises/data analysis in peer -reviewed journals to Actioned. ensure international recognition and validity. Ensure all scientific publications also translate to readily identified Actioned. The science generated by OFP (with the support of SCIFISH and policy/management actions for consideration at Science Committee and other sources) informs the process for policy and management decision Commission level. making at WCFP level.

Publish results of SEAPODYM model development in peer reviewed journals, Actioned. Refer Annex 4. to ensure international recognition and validity.

A non -technical summary of project outputs should be included in reports Non -tech summaries subsequently produced for web released for wider distribution to fishery managers. documentation (3-5 pages). Efforts should be focused on how to ensure that national fishery managers Addressed through the conduct of the Prep Com meeting, in-country can best understand how to translate the scientific results into practical use support visits by OFP staff, HoF meetings, WCPFC meetings, production of for formulating policy and management options. national reports [acronyms] Impact No recommendations. Sustainability Although most activities continuing under SCIFISH, PICs ultimately need to PNG, New Caledonia and French Polynesia have all institutionalised these ensure institutionalisation key positions such as on-board observers and key positions observer de-briefers. PICs need to make provision for adequate human, financial and material Some states are more advanced than others in this regard, with PNG leading resources by PICs in national establishments and recurrent budgets for long- the way in terms of national support not only for fisheries monitoring in support of improved planning and management, but contributing to regional

100

MTE Recommendation Action taken term sustainability of the monitoring programmes. initiatives (e.g. tagging experiments, tag recovery personnel positions at key landing sites, etc.). In the longer term, such costs need to be passed on to the resource users Apart from the vessels operating under the Multilateral Treaty on Fishing, (fishing industry) and the ‘user-pays’ principle applied. progress has been slow.

101

Annex 11: DAC Summary Evaluation Title (and Reference) Final Evaluation of Project: Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) - EuropeAid/ 127054/C/SER/multi) BENF 2009 LOT N° 1: Rural Development, Specific Contract Nr 2012/308477. Abstract The report contains the final evaluation of the EC funded: Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) project. The report contents include an assessment of SCIFISH’s performance at result level, and against evaluation criteria, including effectiveness, efficiency, and impact. Subject of the Evaluation SCIFISH assisted Pacific Island States and the French OCTs (French Polynesia and New Caledonia) to strengthen national frameworks for the collection, analysis and sharing of data and information relating to commercial tuna fisheries, in order to provide a scientific basis for regional and national oceanic fisheries management decision-making by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and by Pacific ACP and OCT Governments. SCIFISH comprised three Results groups: 1. Enhanced Oceanic Fishery Monitoring; 2. Enhanced stock assessment; and 3. Enhanced understanding of the pelagic ecosystem. Evaluation Description The final evaluation assesses performance against expected outcomes, using EuropeAid's standard evaluation methodology. The evaluation was undertaken from a review of documentation, an assessment of outputs against the original and revised log frame, rapid appraisal through field visit discussions with national public and private sector stakeholders and beneficiaries in seven representative participating ACP States and two OCTs, and discussions with SPC and FFA programme managers, the contracting authority, and RAO (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat). Main Findings SCIFISH was highly relevant, and successfully achieved its defined results, Project Purpose and Overall Objective. The project log-frame was consistent. Programme design was appropriate successfully build on past experience and the lessons learnt from numerous past EU support to SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme. The Project Steering Committee had a marginal role in regard to oversight to management and operational arrangements. The means afforded to the project were commensurate with the project’s ambition of working with PICs countries across the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Region. The Technical Assistance and training inputs were sufficiently tailored to the specific needs of individual countries and the region as a whole. The experience of the OFP in implementing past projects of similar scope and aims was a fundamental factor in the efficient implementation of the Project. The Project was implemented through annual work-plans and cost estimates, as foreseen in the Financing Agreement. Under Results Group 1, SPC developed data tools, delivered observer training programmes, and explored techniques for combatting illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Over 600 observers were trained, and de-briefer workshops, regional observer coordinator workshops and train-the-trainer workshops held. Improving fisheries monitoring and data quality was a major impact of the project. Studies on satellite tracking feasibility and tools to support a regional Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) strategy were less successful. Under Results Group 2, each of the four main tuna species (bigeye, yellowfin, albacore and skipjack) were assessed at least twice during SCIFISH, and after consideration by the WCPFC Scientific Committee, forwarded to the Commission for decision-making. SPC kept pace with its commitments

102

under SCIFISH and other programmes to provide comprehensive technical support to ACP/OCT participating countries for tuna fishery management, including preparing nine National Tuna Fisheries Status Reports as well as numerous other ad hoc technical deliverables. Under Results Group 3, SPC conducted twelve tagging cruises under the ACP component for tropical tunas (bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack), conventionally tagging a total of >271,000 fish of which >35,800 were recovered (approx. 16%). Tagging studies for albacore conducted under the OCP component attached nearly 3,000 conventional tags and 19 pop-up satellite tags, and collected other biological data which has led to the testing of new hypotheses about population dynamics in the eastern and western Pacific. Development of the SEAPODYM model was supported, and is now recognized as one of the world’s leading tools for understanding the relationship between oceanic conditions, the productivity of prey populations, and the distribution and abundance of predatory fish such as tunas. Key lessons learned include the need to keep science-orientated and economic-oriented projects separate; the need to move away from project-type support to SPC’s OFP in favour of systematic, long-term budget support; and the need for adoption of the ‘user-pays’ principle, whereby users of the resource (the fishing industry) pay for all monitoring and management costs. Recommendations • PICs need to make provision for adequate human, financial and material resources in national establishments and recurrent budgets for long-term sustainability of the monitoring programmes. • PICs should progress the user-pays principle and include all monitoring, management and equipment costs from the fishing industry. The Multi-lateral Treaty on Fishing provides a good model. • WCPFC needs to capitalize on the science flowing from OFP and develop a well-structured management strategy, including target/limit reference points for major tuna and shark species, with limits on fishing capacity. • SPC needs to move away from project approach and towards a more sustainable, programme support funding mechanism with the EU. Recommendations pertinent to the EU’s continued support of oceanic, and coastal, fisheries described fully in Part II of this document (SCICOFISH Mid-Term Evaluation). Feedback Donor: European Commission Region: ACP and DAC sector : Fisheries certain OCT States Evaluation type: Efficiency, Date of report: 17 Subject of evaluation: Scientific effectiveness and impact. May, 2013 Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH). Language : English N° vol./pages : 1/10 3 Author : Gilles HOSCH, Paul NICHOLS

Programme and budget line concerned : FED/2006/018 -725 - 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8 Type of evaluation : () ex ante () intermediate / on -going (x) ex post Timing : Start date: February 2013 Completion date: May 2013 Contact person : Richard BANKS Authors : Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. Cost : Euro 109,085 Steering group : Yes

103

3 PART II – MID-TERM REVIEW OF SCICOFISH

104

EUROPEAID/127054/C/SV/multi LOT N° 1: Rural Development REQUEST N°: 2012 /308477/1

Mid-Term Evaluation

Scientific Support for the Management of Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH)

2010 – 2014

FED/2010/235-690 10 ACP.RPA 01

Gilles HOSCH & Paul NICHOLS

Final Report May 2013

105

Mid Term Evaluation SCICOFISH

CONDUCTED BY:

Member of COWI consortium

Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd Windrush, Warborne Lane, Portmore, Nr. Lymington Hampshire S041 5RJ (UK) http://www.consult-poseidon.com

May 2013

106

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 SCICOFISH Summary Project Features ...... 1 1.2 Evaluation Activities ...... 2 1.3 Evaluation Methodology ...... 2 2 SCICOFISH PROJECT DESIGN ...... 3 2.1 Logical Framework Analysis ...... 3 2.1.1 Coherence of the LFA...... 3 2.1.2 Risk analysis, Assumptions, and OVIs ...... 6 2.2 Project Resources ...... 12 2.2.1 Funding density...... 12 2.2.2 Allocation of project resources between components ...... 13 2.2.3 Allocation of budgetary resources within components ...... 15 2.2.4 Project staff ...... 16 3 RELEVANCE ...... 16 3.1 Overall objective ...... 17 3.2 Project Purpose ...... 17 3.3 Results ...... 18 3.3.1 Result 1 - Oceanic Fisheries ...... 18 3.3.2 Result 2 - Coastal Fisheries ...... 18 3.4 Choice of participating countries ...... 19 4 EFFICIENCY ...... 20 4.1 Organisation and management ...... 20 4.2 Monitoring of activities ...... 21 4.3 Financial management and budgeting ...... 22 4.4 Technical Personnel and HR management ...... 23 4.5 Implementation of activities ...... 25 4.5.1 Component 1 – Oceanic Fisheries ...... 25 4.5.2 Component 2 – Coastal Fisheries ...... 31 4.5.3 Summary of outcomes ...... 37 5 EFFECTIVENESS...... 37 5.1 Results in the context of the Project Purpose ...... 38 5.2 Realisation of assumptions ...... 40 5.3 Visibility and Complementarity ...... 41 6 IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY ...... 42 6.1 Conservation and Sustainable Management of WCPO Tuna Resources ...... 42

6.2 Conservation & Sustainable Management of Coastal Fisheries Resources ...... 42 6.3 Policy Support ...... 43 6.4 Community Acceptance and Ownership ...... 43 6.5 Appropriate Technology ...... 43 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 44 7.1 Regarding SCICOFISH ...... 44 7.2 Immediate (2014-2015) and longer term EU support to SPC/FAME ...... 46 7.2.1 Short-term support (2014-2015) ...... 46 7.2.2 Long-term support ...... 46

TABLES

TABLE 1: LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS AGAINST PROJECT OBJECTIVE , PURPOSE , RESULTS AND ACTIVITIES ...... 6 TABLE 2: LIST OF OVI S AGAINST PROJECT OBJECTIVE , PURPOSE , AND RESULTS ...... 9 TABLE 3: “K EY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ” FROM SECTION 4.2 OF ANNEX I OF THE CA ...... 10 TABLE 4: SCICOFISH TECHNICAL STAFF POSITIONS ...... 16 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF SCICOFISH BUDGET EXPENDITURE ...... 22 TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF SCICOFISH FIELD MONITORING -RELATED ACTIVITIES ...... 32 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF SPC-INSTALLED COASTAL FISHERIES DATABASES AND DATA POPULATION ...... 34 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF SCICOFISH MANAGEMENT ADVICE OUTCOMES BY END 2012 ...... 36 TABLE 9: SCICOFISH EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPROVING NATIONAL CAPACITY IN FOUR SELECTED DOMAINS ..... 38 TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ASSUMPTIONS AND DEGREE OF REALISATION ...... 40

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: ALLOCATION OF SCICOFISH RESOURCES BETWEEN COMPONENTS ...... 13 FIGURE 2: SPC RELATIVE FAME BUDGET ALLOCATION BETWEEN OFP AND CFP ...... 14 FIGURE 3: RELATIVE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR ACTIVITIES UNDER COMPONENT 1 ...... 15 FIGURE 4: RELATIVE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR ACTIVITIES UNDER COMPONENT 2 ...... 15 FIGURE 5: 2012 BUDGET EXPENDITURE (PLANNED VS . ACTUAL ) (BY 31 DECEMBER 2012) ...... 23 FIGURE 6: SCICOFISH STAFF COMPLEMENT OVER PROJECT LIFETIME ...... 24 FIGURE 7: SUBMISSION OF CATCH / EFFORT DATA TO WCPFC ...... 28 FIGURE 8: 2012 TAG RELEASES OF THE TWO SCICOFISH-FUNDED TAGGING CRUISES ...... 31 FIGURE 9: TREND ANALYSIS OF FAME BUDGET AND EU-FUNDED PORTION - 2003 TO 2013 (X100CFP) .. 47 FIGURE 10: FUNDING SOURCES OF FAME PROGRAMMES (X100CFP) ...... 48

BOXES

BOX 1: SUMMARY PROJECT FEATURES OF SCICOFISH ...... 1 BOX 2: SCICOFISH LOGO ...... 20 BOX 3: ROM GRADING OF SCICOFISH ...... 21 BOX 4: SUMMARY PROJECT FEATURES OF SCICOFISH ...... 50

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 51 ANNEX 2: TIME SCHEDULE OF THE MISSION ...... 59 ANNEX 3: LIST OF PERSONS MET ...... 60 ANNEX 4: IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF SCICOFISH ACTIVITIES AT THE TIME OF THE MTE ...... 63 ANNEX 5: LIST OF KEY PROJECT DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ...... 66 ANNEX 6: SCICOFISH LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 67 ANNEX 7: DAC SUMMARY ...... 70

iii

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT

ACP Africa, Caribbean, Pacific (States) ALB Albacore tuna AusAID Australian Agency for International Development AWPB Annual Workplan and Budget BDM Bêche de Mer (sea -cucumber) BET Bigeye tuna CBT Competency -Based Training CLS Collecte Localisation Satellites CFP Coastal Fisheries Programme (SPC) CMM Conservation and Management Measure (WCPFC) CRGA Committee of Regional Governments and Administrations DevFish Development of Tuna Fisheries in the Pacific ACP Countries DWFN Distant Water Fishing Nation EC European Commission EDF European Development Fund EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EU European Union FA Financing Agreement FAD Fish Aggregating Device FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FE Final Evaluation FFA Forum Fisheries Agency FFC Forum Fisheries Committee FSM Federated States of Micronesia GDP Gross domestic product GEF Global Environment Fund HoF Head of Fisheries ICT Information and Communications Technology ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) IWP International Waters Project JCS Joint Country Strategy JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JTF Japan Trust Fund LFA Logical Framework Analysis M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (of fishing activities) MDG Millennium Development Goals MHLC Multilateral High -Level Conference MRAG Marine Resources Assessment Group MSG Melanesian Spearhead Group MTE Mid -Term Evaluation NTSA Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement NZAID New Zealand Aid OCT Overseas Countries and Territory OFCF Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation (of Japan) OFP Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC) OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator

P-ACP Pacific ACP countries PACREIP Pacific Regional Economic Integration Programme PFRP Pelagic Fisheries Research Programme PIC Pacific Islands Country PICs Pacific Island Countries (here meaning P -ACPs plus Pacific OCTs) PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat PIRFO Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Observer PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement PNG Papua New Guinea PRIP Pacific Regional Indicative Programme PROCFish Pacific ACP and French Pacific OCT Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Development Project PSAT Pop -up satellite archival tag PSC Project Steering Committee PTTP Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme RAO Regional Authorising Officer SCICOFISH Scientific Support for the Management of Coastal and Oceanic Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region Project SCIFISH Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Project SEAPODYM Spatial Environment and Population Dynamics Model SIDS Small Island Developing States SKJ Skipjack tuna SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme SPRTRMP South Pacific Regional Tuna Research and Management Project SSAP Skipjack Survey and Assessment Programme TA Technical Assistance TBAP Tuna and Billfish Assessment Programme TCP Technical Cooperation Programme (FAO) TDW Tuna Data Workshop ToR Terms of Reference TUBS Tuna Fisheries Observer database TUFMAN Tuna Fisheries Management Programme (software/ database application) TVM Te Vaka Moana UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UN DOALOS United Nations, Department of Ocean Affairs, Law of the Sea UVC Underwater visual census VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (the ‘Tuna Commission’) WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean YFT Yellowfin tuna

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - SCICOFISH This Mid-Term Evaluation of SCICOFISH was conducted during February and March 2013 by Mr Gilles Hosch (Team Leader) and Mr Paul Nichols of Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd (part of the COWI Consortium). A total of 87 persons from concerned stakeholder and beneficiary institutions in SPC member States were interviewed in regard to their perceptions of SCICOFISH. Evaluation Title (and Reference) Mid-Term Evaluation: Scientific Support for the Management of Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH), 2010 – 2014. FED/2010/235-690 10 ACP.RPA 01.

Relevance

• Overall, SCICOFISH is a project of high relevance, being in fact a continuation of earlier initiatives (PROCFISH O/C and SCIFISH), which addresses priority issues in the domains of scientific research and management advice in both oceanic and coastal fisheries . • The project relevance in coastal fisheries (project Component 2) is slightly diminished for lack of attention paid by the project to the recognized needs of strengthening management frameworks in coastal fisheries. • The addition of Timor Leste to the list of project countries (a Pacific ACP country geographically located outside of the Pacific Ocean), and not managing to include the earlier participating (under SCIFISH) French OCTs (for limitations on mixing PACP and OCT programming under the 10 th EDF) has been somewhat contrary to achieving coherent outcomes.

Design

• The project logic overall is sound, but a number of inconsistencies in formulation have been identified, as well as a number of weaknesses in the line-up of assumptions and stated OVIs. However, these do not undermine the project’s capability in terms of confidently working towards its purpose and overall objective, and it is deemed of very little practical benefit to formally address and adjust these at this late stage of project implementation. • The Overall Objective and Project Purpose are perfectly coherent. Result 1 & Project Purpose are essentially the same. Result 2 is somewhat less coherent – intrinsically, and with the Project Purpose. Activities feed results well in Component 1 (oceanic), but less so in Component 2 (coastal). • Component 2 focuses on commercial small-scale fisheries, although this is not indicated in the project document, and is a result of a bottom-up and demand-driven approach under this component. • Component 1 is broad and complete, whereas under Component 2, there is insufficient focus on much needed development and strengthening of management frameworks – a classic impediment to relevance, impact and sustainability of data and derived scientific information in coastal fisheries. • The focus on commercial coastal fisheries under Component 2 is relevant and highly appreciated by stakeholders (both in terms of improved science and derived management advice).

Efficiency

• Overall, the project is sufficiently resourced in operational budgets and staff, but there is an unequal resource allocation between the two components, with an imbalance between operational and staff allocations under Component 2 (coastal fisheries), which has 37% of the budget but only 27% of the allocated staff.

• The project is still likely to complete its term with having spent most of its budget. Several key positions are to run out ahead of time, which is likely to spell trouble for at least one key activity under Component 2, if positions are not extended beyond currently allocated budget lines. • The project is well managed, has sufficient visibility, works very well with beneficiaries and stakeholders, and the quality of annual reporting has improved greatly over earlier projects – notably SCIFISH. • Component 1 disbursement rate is effective and largely as expected. The Component 2 disbursement rate is somewhat below expected, largely owing to above mentioned imbalance in resource allocations. • A ROM conducted in 2012 was useful to establish that the is Project on track. However, the MTE is being undertaken too late, with three quarters of the Project already having lapsed. Relevant re-orientation would (and is) now hardly possible (one of the usual central purposes of an MTE).

Effectiveness

• Under both Components, the project has either achieved already, or is highly likely of achieving its stated OVIs – to such a degree that the MTE concludes that the OVIs could have been setting slightly more ambitious targets. • The MTE is mildly concerned about the secondary data collection activity targeting the rolling out of customized creel and market surveys, which have high potential of success, but which have fallen behind, and are going to prove HR intensive, at a time when the component is about to run out of staff, and ultimately of time also. • Effectiveness rated by stakeholders has provided high impact to SCICOFISH’s work on observer programmes and data collection and centralisation, having boosted enormously P-ACP’s abilities to perform in these domains. However, in both these domains, predecessor projects are at least partly responsible for achievements seen today. • In the domains of boosting the capacity of P-ACPs in coastal fisheries science and knowledge, and in coastal fisheries conservation and management, the felt results are more limited, while trends do remain positive. This owes in part to the fact that predecessor work has been less important, that the period scrutinized is shorter, and that project focus rested almost exclusively on the management of commercial resources. • Overall, across both components, achieved work thus far has been widely acclaimed by stakeholders as highly relevant, very useful, and in most cases of critical importance to improve the capacity of P-ACPs in playing their part in the sustainable management of the region’s strategic fisheries resources.

Impact

• Component 1: Observer work is achieving all targets – the key focus now is on training observer de-briefers and training of trainers. • The stock assessment and modelling work being undertaken is crucial to the region, however, management decisions and outcomes made at the level of WCPFC are beyond reach of SPC’s sphere of influence. • Data collection, pooling, encoding, and analysis are amongst the best of such work worldwide. Data management protocols and safeguards for sensitive economic and financial data are set to evolve, and most targets are likely to be achieved by the end of the project. • SPC is poised to remain firmly in position as the key driver of tuna science for the region. However, cost recovery mechanisms should be explored in all relevant areas, in order to firmly anchor sustainability. • Component 2: Training, monitoring and management advice for commercial sea-cucumber fisheries is much appreciated. Less work has been done on 2 ary data collection – unlikely to hit its target fully by end of project, due to staffing issues and the time remaining.

vii

• Management advice provided is possibly too informal. • Overall, weak or lacking functional national management frameworks undermine impact and sustainability of scientific information and management advice delivered.

Sustainability

• Examination of the evolution of FAME budget shows CFP portion has been in gradual decline in recent years, as is reflected in the FAME 2013 – 2016 Strategic Plan (OFP - 61% of budget, CFP 39%). • Regarding the future of EU support to SPC, project funding towards SPC’s FAME programme engenders serious inefficiencies in terms of: Project and contract preparations (time and attention); Project monitoring and reporting (duplication between programme and project); Ineffective evaluation (project approach inappropriate, evaluation mechanisms ill-adapted). • Direct programme support would allow SPC to plan and manoeuvre within its Strategic Plan, serve its entire member base, and become more efficient. The EU’s relative contribution to FAME has decreased from 44% of total budget in 2003 to 28% in 2013, while steadily increasing in nominal terms.

Recommendations The MTE is confident that the project will continue to perform and produce further expected results in its final year, but makes the following recommendations, some of which are already actively being considered or planned by SPC:

• All efforts should be made to extend the key staff positions until the formal term of the project. This concerns especially the staff positions for which funding is to run out in their respective budget lines before the end of the project, namely the observer programme coordinator (Component 1) and the chief scientist (Component 2); • Funds and EDF rules permitting, Component 2 should assess the possibility of hiring short-term TA under a long-term contract (from as soon as possible until the end of the project) in order to boost the staff resources available to the secondary data collection activity that is falling behind schedule; • From a perspective of the EU moving to programme support, should the Final Evaluation of SCICOFISH not only look at SCICOFISH achievements, but the Final Evaluation should then become an expanded EDF/SPC final evaluation of the entire family of EDF-funded projects that have provided the SPC with support in related fisheries domains since 2002. That FE should cover the PROCFISH 29 , SCIFISH, both DEVFISH 30 and the SCICOFISH initiatives – and provide an encompassing closing picture of what these often overlapping projects have achieved overall. A relevant point in time to conduct such an encompassing FE would be 2015.

The following recommendations at the technical level may already largely be factored into upcoming work by SPC: • As observer numbers start to reach levels sufficient to respond to the requirements of the WCPFC, observer work should start to focus more on the training of trainers, on facilitating the accreditation of national training centres (working for the region), and in assisting countries in

29 PROCFISH/C and the associated COFISH initiatives, which finished in 2009, have not benefitted from an FE. 30 The DEVFISH I project, which finished in 2009, has not benefited from an FE .

viii

the management (logistics) of running observer programmes – hand in hand with its FFA partner programmes; • Bio-economic analysis is highly appreciated by countries. The MTE feels that its impact would be further increased if the economic aspects inherent to the modelling would expand beyond value aspects of the resources caught, and factor in revenue streams to governments (licensing and agreements) and benefits accruing to national economies (port services, observer programmes, employment, processing and exports, etc.) – as well as operational costs of fleets. This would greatly enhance the strategic value of the modelling outcomes for national decision-making.

In regard to the provision of short term support to SPC/FAME (2014-15), it is recommended:

• Following the granting of a no-cost time extension (should funds remain) – the EU ought to consider the making available of additional (extra) bridge funding to extend the project by a further full year. This will allow SPC to continue the smooth implementation of a range of flagship activities which have been supported through EU funding for many years now, and avoid a disruption of critical services to the region. Not all SCICOFISH activities will be able to be carried forward under both components, but the most important ones should be (as addressed and discussed specifically at the HoF8 / SCICOFISH PSC meeting in Nouméa in March 2013). • The preliminary indications of these discussions at HoF8 were that the following activities would be critical for countries to continue unabated: Component 1: (a) Observer programme work; (b) Bio-economic modelling and advice, and Component 2: (a) Secondary data collection; (b) Management planning for coastal fisheries. • Given the uncertainty in how much funds will remain at the official term of the project, and the granting of a time extension – and the unknown duration thereof, it is difficult to set a precise amount for bridge funding. However, given SPC’s track record as an effective agency, generally managing to engage funds on time in its externally funded projects, it is estimated that €1.5 million would likely be appropriate and sufficient to bridge the gap discussed above. • The MTE recommends to the EU to consider such a request favourably, given that the funds would be well-invested in activities of critical importance to the region and the management of its fisheries.

In regard to the provision of Longer-term support , and considering SPC FAME’s vulnerability in the face of the relative diminishing of core/programme funding on one hand, and the inappropriateness of project funding as a vehicle to deliver donor support to SPC and its FAME strategic plans on the other, the MTE strongly recommends the following:

• The EU ought to consider moving from project funding to direct programme support. This would simplify reporting, unclutter administration needs and costs, and stabilize the funding profile of the two technical FAME programmes overall - by reducing dependency on the vagaries of project funding. • In doing so, the EU should decide on what funding level would be appropriate, and sustainable in the long term. The relative long term average funding support to FAME was 34% of the overall total made available to FAME by all sources combined. This would be a relevant figure to consider. In pegging it against the current overall budget of FAME – the last three years (2011- 2013) having been rather level – the current expected annual financial support to SPC FAME would be in the order of CFP460 million (equivalent to €3.85million).

Lessons Learned – regarding EU support through project funding • Project formulation : Projects must be formulated on the basis of elements inscribed in the programme, in order to attract funding. This creates a duplication and waste of time. The programme is already formulated, and adopted by the region’s leaders;

• Project administration : Projects must be individually administered, complete with budgeting, auditing, monitoring and reporting. This creates multiple administrative layers within SPC, which would be just one under a scenario of broad and unique programme implementation; • Reporting : SPC reports to the heads of fisheries on its activities, and then to project steering committees on a selection of the same activities funded by a particular donor, creating duplication, confusion, and generating a lack of focus and interest from stakeholders. It also applies to paper reporting, having to report on the same activities to the HoF as SPC, and to donors and PSCs as project implementation agency – creating duplication of work, and a generally diminishing quality in reporting; • Membership : Projects may force SPC to work with countries that are not SPC members (as for Timor Leste under SCICOFISH), while SPC member countries might be excluded due to their non- member status in other organisations (such as the ACP club) – creating incoherence and two- speed development and assistance regimes; • Project funding cycles are ill-aligned (or not aligned at all) with four-year strategic programme cycles, creating issues for the consistent implementation of the strategic programmes, and acrobatics to make projects fit regionally agreed prerogatives for projects straddling such cycles; • Projects overlap (e.g. SCIFISH & SCICOFISH), so that formal project review and evaluation, and the outcomes thereof, are only marginally useful (when useful at all) in the design of follow-up projects – chiefly because they are conducted too late in the cycle of follow-up project planning and approval; • Staffing is also problematic, as positions to implement programme elements become tied to project funds, and become difficult to control in time and in technical focus; • If the coastal component shifts more focus towards CBRM work , it is likely that staff costs as a percentage of total CFP costs will increase, which will make it likely to fail EU project rules on relative limits of staff costs (CBRM activities in general are known to be especially “hungry” for sufficiently endowed staff and TA budget lines); • The SPC implements long term support in specific domains which straddle multi-annual strategic plans and projects. Much of this work is not “project” work in the classic sense. Ecosystem and bio-economic modelling, observer work, information (data) management and other SPC initiatives reach back by more than a decade. They were in existence before any project start, and continue to evolve after projects (and their funding) have ended. Much of this is standing and continuing long term programme work, funded through project vehicles. Generally speaking, evaluations (such as this MTE) have great difficulty in properly qualifying achievements, because more often than not, the starting point (baseline) is unknown or hazy, and the endpoint is not really an endpoint, because work will continue under separate funding within the same strategic FAME plan. Especially impact and sustainability are often largely impossible to quantify under such circumstances, making the project approach inherently inappropriate.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SCICOFISH SUMMARY PROJECT FEATURES

The Scientific Support for the Management of Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH) aims to further the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and oceanic fisheries resources in the P-ACP region. It directly contributes to the management efforts of oceanic and coastal fisheries resources; of the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), and of the 14 Pacific ACP states (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu), plus Timor Leste, respectively. It does not cover French OCTs (New Caledonia and French Polynesia). SCICOFISH is a four-year project, funded under the 10 th EDF. Project implementation is based on a Contribution Agreement, and has thus been outsourced for implementation to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), based in Nouméa, New Caledonia. The Contribution Agreement was signed by the Contracting Authority (EC) on 7 th April and by the Organisation (SPC) on 16 th April, 2010. SPC commenced draw-down of funds in the second half of 2010. Summary information taken from the Contribution Agreement is given in Box 1 below. A new feature of this Contribution Agreement is the fact that the EU Commission (Brussels) replaces the Regional EU Delegation as the Contracting Authority, providing the Commission with more direct oversight powers, and reversing earlier decentralisation trends. Box 1: Summary project features of SCICOFISH Project Name : Scientific Support for the Management of Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH) Accounting Number : 10 ACP.RPA 01 Contribution Agreement contract number : FED/2010/235-690 Contracting Authority : Commission of the European Union Implementing agency : Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Location: Regional with most project staff based in Nouméa, New Caledonia; one further staff in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, and one in Honiara, Solomon Islands Duration : 46.5 months (17 th April, 2010 to 3 rd March, 2014) Value total : €8,655,765 Participating countries : 14 Pacific ACP countries (Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) and Timor Leste Key Stakeholders : FFA, WCPFC, national Governments, coastal communities, private sector Project Purpose : Conservation and sustainable use of coastal and oceanic fisheries resources EU Monitoring missions : One ROM mission undertaken in late August 2012 Source: Project documents. SCICOFISH is by and large a follow-up to the SCIFISH project, which came to an end in December 2011. It also continues work from other earlier EU-funded projects, notably PROCFISH and COFISH. SCICOFISH is segmented into two fundamentally separate components, which focus on oceanic fisheries on one hand, and on coastal fisheries on the other. In this document, these components are mostly referred to as Results 1 and Result 2, respectively. The results can be summarised as follows:

Result 1 - providing scientific support/advice for oceanic fisheries management; and Result 2 - providing monitoring and scientific support/advice for coastal fisheries management.

1.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

The Mid-Term Evaluation was funded under EUROPEAID/127054/C/SV/multi LOT N° 1: Rural Development REQUEST N°: 2012 /308477/1. Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd. (UK) – member of the COWI Consortium – was awarded a Service Contract to carry out the Mid-Term Evaluation, endowed with a total of 84 working days over the period 28 th January to 31 st May, 2013. The Mid Term Evaluation was undertaken by contracted Senior Fisheries Experts, Mr Gilles Hosch, Team Leader (TL), and Mr Paul Nichols 31 . The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Mid Term Evaluation (MTE) are given in Annex 1. The same mission also covered the final (ex-post) evaluation of SCIFISH, the EDF-funded SCICOFISH precursor project. Field work commenced on 6 th February, 2013, with a briefing between the team and representatives of the EU Delegation in Fiji and the Forum Secretariat (Regional Authorising Officer for the Pacific- ACP States). The team then travelled to Nouméa, New Caledonia, where it met with SPC staff and national fisheries authorities. Then the team split and visited a number of countries individually, before returning to Nouméa, where the opportunity was given to interact with heads of fisheries during the HOF8 meeting, to present preliminary findings of the evaluation mission at the SCICOFISH Steering Committee Meeting, and to debrief with Fiji-based EU Delegation staff present in Nouméa for these events. The mission schedule as implemented is given in Annex 2. Given the fact that many key P-ACP officials with involvement in SCICOFISH were attending a high level PNA meeting in Palau in late February, arrangements were made for Paul Nichols to travel there, and consult with delegates in the margins of that meeting. Over the course of the mission, the consultants visited nine countries, namely Fiji, New Caledonia, Kiribati, French Polynesia, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands. It should be noted that the visits paid to New Caledonia and French Polynesia authorities contributed largely – if not exclusively – to the SCIFISH FE, rather than the SCICOFISH MTE, given their non-participation in SCICOFISH. A total of 87 persons from concerned stakeholder and beneficiary institutions were interviewed with regard to their perceptions of SCICOFISH. Names, designation and email contacts are provided in Annex 3. Project documentation was kindly provided by the EU Delegation, Fiji, and SPC in Nouméa (Annex 5). Additional material was obtained from websites, including those of WCPFC and FFA.

1.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The methodological approach to the evaluation is prescribed in the mission TOR (Annex 1), which also set out a range of evaluation questions specifically tailored to the project. Further guidance on evaluation methodology, and criteria to cover was drawn from the applicable EU Manual on Project Cycle Management, which also covers project evaluations 32 . As is typical for Mid-Term Evaluations in general, the SCICOFISH MTE focuses on the ‘front end’ of evaluation criteria, namely project relevance and design, efficiency and effectiveness. The ‘back-end’ evaluation criteria – impact and sustainability – are assessed only to the extent that predictions can

31 E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]

32 EU Project Cycle Management Guidelines, EC (2004).

already be made at this stage of project implementation. This approach was discussed and agreed upon during the briefing with the EU Delegation at the beginning of the mission.

2 SCICOFISH PROJECT DESIGN

The SCICOFISH project is an initiative that follows in a long chain of EU funded projects which stretch back to the 1990’s. These projects include initiatives such as the RTTP, SPRTRMP, PROCFISH, COFISH, SCIFISH, and DEVFISH (I & II) projects. Some of these were pure oceanic fisheries projects focusing on tuna fisheries, while others were hybrids addressing both coastal and oceanic fisheries (PROCFISH), and at least one was a purely coastal fisheries project (COFISH). SCICOFISH is also a hybrid, bringing together oceanic and coastal fisheries under the same project. With the exception of DEVFISH – which looks into the (economic) development aspects of national tuna fisheries sectors – all of these projects covered science and management facets of coastal and oceanic fisheries in the WCPO. One of the challenges SPC faces in the designing of EU-funded projects is that these projects are essentially geared to implementing parts of SPC’s recurrent strategic four-year programmes. Many of SPC’s fundamental activities in coastal and oceanic fisheries programmes are long-term and span several of those recurrent periods. Examples of such fundamental and long-term activities are observer programme development, stock assessment, coastal resource surveys and monitoring, and database design and implementation. In these domains, EU-funded projects typically “pick up” activities that are already underway, and typically also “put down” the same activities without them having reached a stage of final completion; in actual fact, some of these activities are recurrent and incremental, and have no discernible end-date attached to them. Therefore, these “projects” are not classic projects in the sense that they address a specific issue (or family of closely related issues), and do not set out to provide a lasting (or terminal) solution to such issues. Instead, these projects are used as mere vehicles for fund delivery to a broader programme, thus spanning more subject areas than the projects per se , as well as also transcending the shorter life-times of these projects. The nature and the design of SCICOFISH are also fundamentally characterised by this state of affairs. SCICOFISH is subdivided into two components; Component 1 (Oceanic fisheries – Result 1), and Component 2 (Coastal fisheries – Result 2). These components are united by a common Project Purpose and Overall Objective, but set out to achieve rather different results through a range of largely unrelated activities. Most of the analysis in this MTE will assess both components of the SCICOFISH project individually. Only where the evaluation process so warrants, or calls for it, will both components be assessed together.

2.1 LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS

The logical framework analysis (LFA) table is the centrepiece of any EU-funded project (see Annex 6). It is supposed to establish in very succinct and clear terms what a project is setting out to achieve. The quality and coherence of its design often pre-conditions a project’s success or failure. The Log- Frame logically combines means and activities to produce results, which in turn combine to achieve Project Purpose. Project purpose contributes to the achievement of the Overall Objective, without pretending to reach or realise it on its own. The LFA is located in Annex I of the Contribution Agreement, the title of the Annex being “Description of the Action ”. This Annex embodies the technical project document. 2.1.1 Coherence of the LFA 2.1.1.1 Overall Objective and Project Purpose The Overall Objective of the project is the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and oceanic fisheries resources of the western and central Pacific Ocean. The Project Purpose is to provide a

reliable and improved scientific basis for management advice and decision making in oceanic and coastal fisheries . As is argued in section 3.1, the accent in the formulation of the Project Purpose is on the provision of a reliable and scientific basis, while the provision of management advice does lie within the scope of the project also. The Project Purpose is perfectly coherent with the Overall Objective. Both scientific knowledge, and the constant improvement of it, and the (improved) management advice which can be derived from it can (and should ideally) combine to lead to better decision making. Better decision making – by virtue of its being “better” – contributes to the more sustainable management of the resources targeted by the project. 2.1.1.2 Project Purpose and Results This section looks at both results individually, assessing as to how they relate to the stated Project Purpose. Result 1 – Oceanic Fisheries Result 1, as stated in the log-frame, is: P-ACP governments, the FFA and the WCPFC are provided with scientific data, modelling, and advice to underpin their management decision making and strategic positioning. Although it is formulated more as an action, rather than an outcome ( i.e. a result), it is coherent with the Project Purpose; it in fact paraphrases the Project Purpose, merely adding more detail on who is to benefit directly from the activities’ outputs. The result also makes it clear that the production of management advice – in addition to scientific knowledge – is being actively pursued. A notable issue with this result is that it already ‘existed’ before the project started. The result lacks specificity, and does not detach itself from the baseline situation given at the beginning of the project. The word “ improved ” (as used in the formulation of the Project Purpose) in combination with relevant OVIs would have made for a better fit. Result 2 – Coastal Fisheries Result 2, as stated in the log-frame, is: [1] P-ACP governments, private sector and communities are equipped to monitor coastal fisheries to provide scientific advice in support of sustainable management of these resources. [2] P-ACP governments, private sector and communities will be provided with technical methods and training to monitor coastal fisheries, scientific advice to inform management decisions, and development of in-country capacity to evaluate their effectiveness. Result 2 proposes two clauses (numbered in square brackets). The first clause is well formulated as an outcome, while the other is formulated more as a string of elements that will be provided by the project to the beneficiaries. “ Scientific advice ” is repeated in both clauses. In the first clause, stakeholders will be equipped with the monitoring tools to generate their own scientific advice by the end of the project, while in clause two, the scientific advice is provided to them by the project – which is more of an activity than a result. Result 2 implies many different outcomes. Such formulations should always be avoided, and results should be discrete. If more than one result is pursued – which is the case for most projects – then more results should be formulated. This is useful in order to tag activities to specific results, and guarantee coherence. Among its different outcomes, Result 2 proposes the “ development of in-country capacity to evaluate (…) effectiveness [of management decisions]”. This is an activity, instead of a result. Its immediate outcome and contribution to the stated Project Purpose (scientific information and derived management advice) is not given, creating a lack of coherence within the LFA. Result 2 overall is poorly formulated. It contains a string of actions, instead of outcomes. It is internally incoherent, and it also lacks coherence with Project Purpose. All of this combines to create a results group that is unclear about what its ultimate outcome is supposed to be. As opposed to

Result 1, the provision of management advice, and/or the outcome thereof is not directly or indirectly implied in Result 2. For the sake of clarity and direction, it is recommended to consider but the first clause as the result pursued by the project. 2.1.1.3 Results and Activities This section looks at both project components individually, assessing how stated results are fed by the activities detailed in the LFA. Result 1 – Oceanic Fisheries The LFA proposes five activities, as follows: 1.1 Observer Training and Systems 1.2 Integrated Tuna Fisheries Databases 1.3 Bio-economic Modelling and National Advice 1.4 Ecosystem Modelling of Management and Climate Change 1.5 Validate Key Model Parameters through Tagging All five activities – few of which are formulated as activities, but rather more as chapter headings – are all in line with, and contributing to the Result (improved scientific information and management advice). Activities span the spectrum of data collection (observers, tagging), data input and pooling (integrated databases), data analysis (modelling), and national advice, covering a diverse and relevant array of activities. In addition to this, part of the scientific work builds upon, and goes beyond the work of earlier SPC initiatives – notably at the level of modelling management options and climate change impacts on tuna stocks, and running much more detailed bio-economic analyses. Result 2 – Coastal Fisheries The LFA proposes four activities, as follows: 2.1 Conduct Stakeholder Consultation 2.2 Develop and Implement Field Monitoring Protocols 2.3 Develop and Implement Secondary Data Collection Protocols 2.4 Develop Management Advice The four activities feed the principal elements of Result 2 (improved monitoring and science). While the activities in the LFA do not directly mention capacity building, section 1.3.4. of Annex I of the CA reformulates activity 2.2 as “ Develop local capacity to Implement Field Monitoring Protocols ”, introducing the training and capacity building dimension under Result 2. It should be noted that such reformulation only affects Component 2 activity titles. It is not helpful, because it creates dissonance between the LFA and the more detailed description of activities. The user of the document is left with the question as to which section is the one that “really” applies, introducing a certain level of incoherence into the project document. The development of management advice (activity 2.4) – while intrinsically sound as an activity – does not directly feed into the result – as formulated. Conversely, the “development of in-country capacity to evaluate (…) effectiveness [of management decisions]” – part of result 2 – has no relevant activity associated with it. Importantly, it is highly improbable that a project that sets out to monitor a resource, then to provide scientific results, then to provide management advice, then to assist in management plan development, and then awaiting implementation of such plans on the ground, would – within the space of less than four years – find itself in a situation where it could actually achieve tangible and measurable management effectiveness ( i.e. impact of management decisions on resource status). Even under a scenario of perfect implementation this could not be expected to be packaged and implemented in relevant terms within a short-lived project such as SCICOFISH. In section 1.3.4. of Annex I of the CA, another action element is outlined under activity 2.4, which is “providing scientific input into the development of community-based management arrangements ”.

This is confusing, owing to the wording. It is unclear why inputs (or assistance) in the development of community based management arrangements would need to be specifically “ scientific ” – it is widely accepted that the development of successful CBM arrangements is a “soft science” at best, and requires the mobilisation of mostly non-scientists, versed in the domains of traditional knowledge systems, community power and decision-making arrangements, cultural value systems, and the art of crafting novel and effective management arrangements within the socio-cultural fabric of such communities. The development of community-based arrangements is generally not perceived as a “science”-driven process. This leads one to suspect that the intention for this action might rather have been to “ provide scientific inputs into community-based management efforts ” – and that this is therefore a matter of unfortunate formulation. Finally, it should be noted that this activity – as formulated – does also not feed Result 2 – as formulated – in any direct or obvious manner. The staff apportioned to Component 2 of the project (biologists and IT specialists) would clearly suggest that “ science ” in this activity group refers to hard biological sciences, and the scientific basis pursued to feed management regimes (implicitly excluding “soft” sciences). All of these elements generate a rather important degree of incoherence in the design of project Component 2, clouding an understanding of what Component 2 as a whole is intended to achieve. 2.1.2 Risk analysis, Assumptions, and OVIs 2.1.2.1 Risk analysis and assumptions The project document (Annex I to the CA) does not contain a formal risk analysis. SPC has been in existence since 1947, and it is expected that the institution is aware of the key risks that can, and sometimes do, affect projects in the Region. However, key risks should still be clearly identified and spelled out, and be factored into project design. This implies that for risks that materialise, contingencies and alternative courses of action to counterbalance them are envisaged and have been agreed upon in broad outlines. Assumptions are proxies for risks. If assumptions are not realised, they turn into risks that can jeopardise project outcome. The logical framework contains a total of 12 assumptions, as listed in the table below. They have been numbered in the table below for ease of reference (in the original LFA, they are bulleted). Table 16: List of assumptions against project objective, purpose, results and activities Narrative Summary Assumptions Overall Objective Conservation and sustainable use of coastal and oceanic fisheries resources in the Pacific Islands region. Project purpose To provide a reliable and improved scientific 1. P-ACP governments have the political will to fully basis for management advice and decision consider the best scientific advice when taking decisions. making in oceanic and coastal fisheries. 2. P-ACP governments can receive and deploy funds intended to support the cost of observers from fishing fleets. 3. Increased observer coverage is effective in improving compliance. Results Result 1: P-ACP governments, the FFA and the 4. There is sufficient political will to heed scientific advice. WCPFC are provided with scientific data, 5. Complementary actions, for example surveillance modelling, and advice to underpin their cooperation on IUU fishing, will continue. management decision making and strategic positioning.

Narrative Summary Assumptions Result 2: P-ACP governments, private sector and 6. P-ACP governments will commit the human resources communities are equipped to monitor coastal for initial and sustained fishery monitoring. fisheries to provide scientific advice in support of 7. P-ACP governments will implement identified sustainable management of these resources P- management measures. ACP governments, private sector and communities will be provided with technical methods and training to monitor coastal fisheries, scientific advice to inform management decisions, and development of in- country capacity to evaluate their effectiveness. Activities 1.1 Observer Training and Systems 8. Fishing industries cooperate in biological and bio- 1.2 Integrated Tuna Fisheries Databases economic research. 1.3 Bio-economic Modelling and National 9. National fisheries training institutions willing to host Advice and maintain observer training courses. 1.4 Ecosystem Modelling of Management and 10. Suitable vessel can be chartered for biological Climate Change research (tagging). 1.5 Validate Key Model Parameters through 11. P-ACP governments can commit human resources for Tagging coastal fisheries training and attachments. 2.1 Conduct Stakeholder Consultation 12. Adequate local equipment and infrastructure are 2.2 Develop and Implement Field Monitoring available for maintenance of coastal fisheries databases. Protocols 2.3 Develop and Implement Secondary Data Collection Protocols 2.4 Develop Management Advice

Overall Objective No assumption is formulated. The minimum assumption is one of genuine political commitment and drive to pursue and achieve this outcome – beyond and above all other medium and short term political considerations which might counteract the achievement of the Overall Objective – notably through non-consideration of the scientific and management advice derived from the project. Project Purpose The first assumption (#1) is generic to both components. It is not relevant to the Project Purpose – which is to provide a reliable and improved scientific basis for decision making. Assumption #1, as formulated, is an assumption that is valid against the Overall Objective. The other two assumptions (#2 & #3) relate directly to Component 1 activities and are limited to observer work only. They are relevant to a certain degree, but largely incomplete. There are many more elements that generate data (and science) under Component 1, and for which risks against continued achievements exist. Assumption #2 is critical and important. Assumption #3 is largely misguided, since the main function of observers is to observe and collect fisheries data, not to collect compliance data and execute an operational law enforcement activity. 33 In addition to this,

33 Discussions on this specific issue were held with FFA. There is agreement on the principle, but NOAA is insisting on compliance monitoring (and using of such information in prosecution) for observers operating under the US Treaty. This undermines the entire quality and validity of observer data, and has also led to personal safety issues of individual observers within this programme. The MTE is of the firm opinion that observer safety is first, data quality second – and that both are undermined by providing observers with formal compliance monitoring mandates.

increased compliance is not a pre-condition for better data, better science, and/or better management decision. What is important is that observer programmes can qualify and quantify lack of compliance – in the same way as they may sample fish length – so that appropriate knowledge is gained, and better management decisions may be formed. No assumption specific to the envisaged work of Component 2 is formulated, underlining the shortcoming of the risk analysis overall. Result 1 – Oceanic Fisheries Both assumptions (#4 & #5) are irrelevant to the result pursued under Component 1. Assumption #4 is the assumption that fits against the Overall Objective (mirroring assumption #1), and for assumption #5 (regional cooperation in combatting IUU fishing) it is largely unclear how it conditions or diminishes the achievement of the result – i.e. providing decision-making organs with scientific data, modelling, and advice - if not verified. Result 2 – Coastal Fisheries Two assumptions are formulated: assumption #6 is highly relevant, and a pre-condition (and key risk) to achieving governments equipped with the tools to monitor coastal resources. Assumption #7 is not relevant to achieving the result of monitoring coastal resources and providing scientific advice, and is another reflection of assumptions #1 and #4. Activities – Oceanic Fisheries Assumptions #8, #9 and #10 are formulated against the 5 activities under Component 1. The three assumptions are highly relevant, and do reflect risks inherent to the accomplishment of some of these activities. The line-up of critical assumptions against activities is incomplete. A critical assumption against activity 1.4, for instance, would have been the assumed solidity of underlying IPCC (and related) datasets and model runs, used as baselines in the SEAPODYM model. Activities – Coastal Fisheries Assumption #11 and #12 are formulated against the 4 activities of Component 2. These are also largely incomplete. Assumption #11 is valid and relevant against activity 2.2, while assumption #12 seems to suffer from an inherent logical flaw. “Maintenance of coastal fisheries databases” is not so much achieved through “adequate local equipment and infrastructure”, but rather through “adequately trained and sufficient IT staff” – especially when SPC is being endowed with the resources to supply the equipment and infrastructure through the project. Conclusions Overall, the analysis of risks and the formulation of assumptions are poor. Of the 12 assumptions formulated, only seven are directly relevant, while the other five lack relevance, are misguided or are poorly formulated. Many important assumptions are missing, indicating that the risk analysis overall is only partially complete. 2.1.2.2 OVIs Indicators are key to gauging project progress and success. The quality of OVIs pre-determines to a large degree how well the advances achieved by a project can be measured and qualified. The table below lists SCICOFISH OVIs against their LFA components. They have been numbered in the table below for ease of reference (in the original LFA, they are bulleted).

Table 17: List of OVIs against project objective, purpose, and results Narrative Summary OVI Overall Objective Conservation and sustainable use of coastal and 1. Effort on yellowfin and bigeye tuna reduced to at oceanic fisheries resources in the Pacific Islands least the level required to reach F MSY (the fishing region. mortality associate with the maximum sustainable yield) or lower, for both species. 2. Tuna discards by purse seiners reduced to less than 1% of catch (<12,000 mt) confirmed by 100% observer coverage. 3. At least some management measures adopted in each of 5 coastal areas with measureable signs of recovery observed in baseline monitoring (indicators to be established under this project). Project purpose To provide a reliable and improved scientific 4. 100% of project stock assessment results for 4 basis for management advice and decision main tuna species accepted by WCPFC Scientific making in oceanic and coastal fisheries. Committee and forwarded to full Commission for decision-making. 5. Observer coverage rates reach regionally-agreed levels by 2012 (100% for purse seine vessels) with no decrease in data quality. 6. At least 5 P-ACP countries adopt coastal fisheries management measures in line with project recommendations. Results Result 1: P-ACP governments, the FFA and the 7. National tuna fisheries databases operational in WCPFC are provided with scientific data, 15 P-ACPs modelling, and advice to underpin their 8. Tuna data audits conducted for at least 10 P- management decision making and strategic ACPs positioning. 9. 300 observers trained, 10 observer trainers and 10 observer de-briefers operational 10. 14 P-ACP’s report data to WCPFC as per their obligations 11. 10 region-wide stock assessments for key tuna species, using the latest updated data, provided to decision-makers during 2010-2013 12. 1 regional and 10 national reports providing bio- economic modelling advice 13. 1 regional and 10 national reports (including Timor Leste) providing advice on tuna resource vulnerability to environmental variability including climate change Result 2: P-ACP governments, private sector and 14. Country specific needs prioritised for all P-ACPs communities are equipped to monitor coastal 15. Assessments and management fisheries to provide scientific advice in support of recommendations given for at least 5 major coastal sustainable management of these resources P- fisheries. ACP governments, private sector and 16. Standard monitoring protocols implemented and communities will be provided with technical sustained in at least 5 P-ACPs methods and training to monitor coastal 17. Regional data repository maintained and fisheries, scientific advice to inform national data provided for backup from at least 5 management decisions, and development of in- countries/fisheries. country capacity to evaluate their effectiveness.

In Annex I of the CA, another table with OVIs is given under this section 4.2. This table is reproduced below for ease of reference. Table 18: “Key Performance Indicators” from section 4.2 of Annex I of the CA OVI given in Indicator Baseline (2009) Target 2014 Without Project LFA? Tuna fishing Yellowfin is fully Effort reduced to at Insufficient observer effort* exploited and there is least the level data to verify whether

a significant risk that required to reach F MSY management overfishing is (the fishing mortality measures are occurring. There is a associated with the effective; lack of YES high probability that maximum sustainable modelling tools to (#1) overfishing of bigeye yield) or lower, for fully evaluate

is occurring both species necessary adjustments/ alternatives Tuna discards 5% of total catch (~ Less than 1% of catch (see previous row) by purse- 62,000 t) (<12,000 t) confirmed YES seiners* by 100% observer (#2) coverage Tuna statistical 10 basic systems, not 4 or 5 new systems; No change from / data systems* fully utilised 10 existing systems baseline YES enhanced; all fully (#7) functional Observer 20% on some foreign 100% on all fleets by Coverage may coverage on fleets – less on others. 2012 with no decrease increase but quality of purse seine Monitoring data are in the quality of data would likely vessels adequate monitoring data, and decrease responsibility for YES training and (#5) programme maintenance devolving to P-ACP countries by 2014 Tuna stock Scientific Scientific Committee Without on-going assessment recommendations continues to accept development, results fully accepted by WCPFC recommendations assessment tools will considered in Scientific Committee not be able to answer YES management and forwarded to full increasingly complex (#4) decisions Commission for management decision-making questions and decisions will be impeded Fishery 7 coastal fishery 12 coastal fishery No change from PARTIAL management management plans management plans baseline (#3 & #6) plans (coastal)* Note: “Mgt Plans” not referred to in LFA

OVI given in Indicator Baseline (2009) Target 2014 Without Project LFA? Resource status Currently documented At least some Unmanaged and of 5 coastal or believed to be management overexploited status PARTIAL fisheries overexploited and measures adopted in will likely continue (#3, #6 & unmanaged each of the 5 areas #15 -?) with measureable Note: signs of recovery “Resource observed through status” is not baseline monitoring referred to in (indicators to be the LFA established under this project) Income in Baseline data will be Income levels Resource depletion fishing collected under maintained in real likely to reduce communities project terms in areas incomes NO targeted by the project Sustainable Some basic or New systems No change from PARTIAL coastal resource snapshot monitoring established and baseline (#17 - ?) monitoring and in place in some continuing for 5 major Note: “Sust. database countries, but fisheries Coast. Res. systems in 5 programmes not fully Mon.” is not countries functional referred to in the LFA

Table 3 above is useful as a project evaluation tool in that it establishes 2009 baselines for a range of indicators used to assess project progress against. Two drawbacks are to be noted: not all baselines of OVIs listed in the LFA are provided ( e.g. OVI #8 or #10), and none of the OVIs listed for Component 2 is fully consistent with the LFA. In addition to this, one OVI (Income in fishing communities) does not appear in the LFA at all, creating confusion and an inherent mismatch between the LFA and this table. The OVIs inherent to the LFA (and not those in table 3 above) are the ones assessed below. Overall Objective The two OVIs listed against Component 1 action are relevant and appropriate (#1 and #2). These OVIs are based on the outcomes of decision-making and implementation of management measures. They are thus beyond the reach of SPC’s immediate action (as the provider of scientific advice), and are hence fully relevant to gauge the achievement of the project against the Overall Objective. OVI #3 is used to gauge impact of Component 2 against the Overall Objective. It is far too specific, and should have been placed at results level. An appropriate OVI for achievement at Overall Objective for Component 2 has therefore not been set. In addition to this, the establishment of “measurable signs of recovery” within the lifetime of the project, and through the cycle of planned sequential activities ( i.e. identification of needs, training in monitoring, collection of data, inputting and analysis of data, formulation of management advice, adoption and implementation of management measures, renewed collection of data after given period, inputting and analysis of data, establishment of recovery trends), is unrealistic, and would have been largely unachievable. Therefore, the OVI is not achievable, and therefore inappropriate. Project Purpose The two first OVIs at this level (#4 and #5 for Component 1) are appropriate, as they allow to measure fundamentals of the improved scientific basis that is being pursued.

OVI #6 mirrors OVI #3, and remains ill-placed at this level. A “reliable and improved scientific basis” under Component 2 would be given through the existence of improved and/or sustainable monitoring, data collection, and data analysis routines. The number of nationally (and independently run) coastal surveys following SPC training, and/or the national expansion of existing datasets would have been a more appropriate indicator at this level. OVI #16 fulfils part of these attributes. Result 1 – Oceanic Fisheries OVIs #7 to #13 are all appropriate and useful to gauge the success of activities 1.1 to 1.4, and their contribution towards achieving result 1. The OVIs are all responding to the SMART criteria, and allow for measurements to be made against all planned activities. However, with respect to activity 1.5 (Validate Key Model Parameters through Tagging), no relevant OVI has been formulated. Result 2 – Coastal Fisheries OVIs #14 to #17 are appropriate to measure success in achieving Result 2. It is however somewhat unclear which OVIs refer to monitoring of coastal resources (activity 2.2), and which ones refer to secondary data collection (activity 2.3). Some more specificity and direct relationship to activities would have been useful. It is assumed that OVI #15 refer to field monitoring of coastal resources, and that OVI #16 refers to same plus management advice also. It is assumed that OVI #17 refers to secondary data collection protocols (bearing in mind that the latter could equally well refer to field monitoring data). OVI #16 – and its reference to “sustained” monitoring protocols - would have been more appropriately placed at the level of Project Purpose. However, it is unlikely that this dimension will be measurable within the lifetime of the project, creating a SMART 34 -issue with part of this indicator, independently of its place within the LFA. Conclusions There is some discrepancy in the quality of OVIs between the two project components. This is reflected both in the additional table under section 4.2 of Annex I of the CA, as well as in the quality, appropriateness and completeness of OVIs in the LFA itself. Overall, it may be said that progress and achievement of impact and sustainability of Component 1 may be easier to assess, than that of Component 2, and that a reformulation and expansion of OVIs for Component 2 could prove useful to allow for a better assessment of achievements by the end of the project. This concerns especially activity groups 2.3 and 2.4, for which OVIs are deficient. Overall, the OVIs formulated for SCICOFISH mark a net improvement in quality over initial OVIs formulated for the SCIFISH project. However, insufficiencies remain under both Components.

2.2 PROJECT RESOURCES

The project is endowed with a financial envelope of €8.7 million, for a project duration of 46.5 months. 2.2.1 Funding density 15 Pacific ACP countries benefit from the project. On a simple basis of supply of funds, project length, and number of countries, with an equal distribution of funds between components, between countries and over time, the following indicators arise for the establishment of funding density:

34 Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound

• €4,327,788 available per component over the lifetime of the project • €577,051 available per country over the lifetime of the project • €148,916 available per country per year • €74,458 available per country per year and per component • €6,204 available per country per month and per component These figures represent very simple but relevant indicators, and contain all costs ( i.e. project overheads, project staff, potential equipment, services, logistics, TA, etc.). They can be compared to other projects with regional or global scope in order to develop a feel as to how appropriate the project envelope is. They also provide a sense of whether allocated funds would appear “reasonable” or “sufficient” to drive activities in individual countries. In the case of SCICOFISH, it appears that for a project that works at the level of individual countries (which is mostly the case under Component 2) the theoretical €74,458 per annum allows the project to implement one or two larger activities per year across all of the countries over the lifetime of the project – which is in line with the ambitions stated in the financing agreement. For central – or regional – actions, serving more, many or all countries at the same time (which is more the case for activities under Component 1), the endowment of €4.3 million per Component appears to be sufficient. By means of comparison, the EDF-funded global SFP project 35 , serving 60 ACP States and 8 OCTs, which finished in 2010, had a financial envelope of €44.9 million. Its funding density (across the equivalent of four project components) was €27,000 per country per year and per component. This was found to have been too little to allow the project to fulfil its ambitions. 2.2.2 Allocation of project resources between components The allocation of resources between components varies considerably. Component 1 commands a larger portion of project funds and of project staff. Of the 13 staff allocated to the project, nine evolve under Component 1, and only three under Component 2. One project administration and communications officer is shared by both Components. The allocation of these resources is graphically represented in the figure below. Figure 8: Allocation of SCICOFISH resources between components

100%

80%

60% Component 1 40% Component 2

20%

0% Staff Funds

35 Strengthening Fishery Products’ Health Conditions in ACP/OCT Countries. 8 ACP TPS 137; 8 ACP PTN REG 001 (for Netherlands OCTs); & 8 ACP PTU REG 001 (for UK OCTs).

The salient issue in the distribution of funds and staff between both components is that there is a conspicuous imbalance between staff and funds. Component 2, with 27% of the staff complement, has 42% of funds allocated, while Component 1 has 73% of staff with 58% of funds allocated. While Component 1 has three times the amount of technical staff, funds allocated to it are only marginally superior to funds allocated to Component 2. When dividing funds allocated per technical staff member, the figures per Component are as follows: • €441.4k per technical staff member for Component 1 • €965.0k per technical staff member for Component 2 Allocation of funds per staff member in Component 2 exceeds the same allocation of resources in Component 1 by 119% (i.e. more than double). In addition to this, the allocation of a mere three staff to Component 2, and a country-by-country approach for most activities, implies that Component 2 could risk facing challenges in effectively disbursing funds over the course of the project’s lifetime. The imbalance in allocation of staff and budget resources is a project design flaw which is likely to engender efficiency losses, and cause one project component to be under-spent by the end of its lifetime. The discrepancy in allocation of resources reflects the general imbalance of resources allocated to the OFP and CFP under FAME. The evolution of the relative budget allocations between both FAME components over the last 11 years is rendered in the figure below (2013 is a projection). Figure 9: SPC relative FAME budget allocation between OFP and CFP

100%

80%

60%

OFP 40% CFP

20%

0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Year

It is apparent that the relative proportion of CFP budgets has gradually diminished over the last 11 years, and this trend is also reflected in the draft four-year strategic plan (2013-2016) submitted to the HoF-8 meeting for approval in March 2013 in Nouméa, where 61% of funds are allocated to the OFP, and 39% to the CFP. If both coastal and oceanic fisheries are of equal importance to the Region, and if the “servicing” of coastal fisheries is at least equally onerous as the support afforded to oceanic fisheries, this discrepancy leads to the question as to whether the coastal fisheries

Component is adequately funded at SCICOFISH level – as well as in t he overall context of the FAME Strategic Plan. In conclusion, it is felt that the CFP (Component 2) has been under -resourced to achieve the expected results, specifically in terms of not making available sufficient human resources to implement the made-ava ilable operational budget. This is a reflection of a decadal FAME trend that has gradually afforded more importance to oceanic fisheries, to the relative detriment of the coastal fisheries programme. 2.2.3 Allocation of budgetary resources within components The following figures provide a graphic representation of the allocation of funds as initially planned, by activity, within the two Components. For Component 1, it arises that Observer training and systems and Bio-economic modelling and national advice embody the two most important activities, with a total of 67% of the budget allocated to them, followed in third position by Data management (16%). Ecosystem monitoring and advice and Pacific Tuna Tagging Programm e together embody a mere 17% of this Component. Figure 10 : Relative allocation of funds for activities under Component 1

6% 11% 36% Observer training & systems Data management

Bioeconomic modelling & national advice Ecosystem monitoring & assessment Pacific Tuna Tagging 31% Programme 16%

For Component 2, Field monitoring and Management advice were provided with the most important budgets, also making up a total of 67% of the overall envelope fo r the Component, followed by a rather important third activity, Secondary data collection (23%). Figure 11 : Relative allocation of funds for activities under Component 2

10% 26%

Stakeholder consultation

Field Monitoring

Secondary data collection

Management Advice

23% 41%

2.2.4 Project staff SCICOFISH has been endowed with 13 technical and one administrative position. The following table lists the technical staff positions that were planned, and that have been filled by the project. Table 19: SCICOFISH technical staff positions Component 1 Component 2 Fisheries Economist Reef Fisheries Information Manager Fisheries IT Officer Fisheries Scientist (finfish) Fisheries Scientist (Bio-economic modelling) Fisheries Scientist (invertebrates) Fisheries Scientist (Ecosystem modelling) Fisheries Scientist (National Scientific support) Fisheries Data Audit Officer Observer Support & Development Coordinator Observer Training & Support Officer (N. Pacific) Observer Training & Support Officer (S. Pacific)

When analysing table 4 in conjunction with the preceding figures 3 and 4, a number of distinct findings arise; • Under Component 1, all 5 activity groups are covered by at least one technical staff; • Under Component 1, technical staff cover a spectrum of technical expertise which ranges from the socio-economic to the biological sciences; • Under Component 2, not all activity groups are covered by at least one staff; • Under Component 2, none of the staff have a socio-economic profile (limited to biological sciences and database design & management) Overall, Component 1 appears to be adequately – and sufficiently – staffed, while Component 2 appears to be somewhat inadequately – and also insufficiently – staffed. For Component 2, the important activity 2.4 (Management advice) only has biologists to depend on. However, it has been accepted for many years now that management advice based on biological considerations alone has failed governments worldwide more often than it has helped them in conserving and managing resources (especially commercial resources) sustainably. In coastal fisheries, the multidisciplinary concurrence of social, economic and biological expert profiles (integrating cultural, social economic and biological considerations into management equations) has been widely regarded as a pre- requisite for the formulation of successful management plans for many years. The project design has clearly failed to provide Component 2 with a multidisciplinary array of expert profiles, which does not bode well for activity 2.4. It is therefore not be unlikely that the resulting quality of management advice and plans prepared by the project could suffer as a result. Under these conditions, resulting management advice and plans could be expected to be largely limited to biological considerations (closed areas, minimum sizes, etc.), while overlooking other potentially important areas ( e.g. market control measures).

3 RELEVANCE

This section discusses the relevance of the project with respect to the needs as they existed in the region at the time of project formulation. The assessment focuses on the project layout at the relevant levels of the Overall Objective, the Project Purpose, and the results pursued. Coherence between the result and activities (by Component) has been discussed in the previous chapter, and will not be reviewed further here.

3.1 OVERALL OBJECTIVE

The Overall Objective of the project is to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and oceanic fisheries resources of the western and central Pacific Ocean . This objective is of unquestionable relevance to both oceanic and coastal fisheries in the WCPO. Fisheries form an essential component of the livelihoods of Pacific island communities, including their economic make-up (employment and income); and with respect to oceanic fisheries, they also embody an important source of government income. The Overall Objective is sufficiently broad, and it is clear in scope. It so responds to a host of formal regional and national policy and planning guidelines, which include the Pacific Plan, the Vava’u Declaration, and the PRIP of the 10 th EDF. It also directly responds to international instruments of different denominations, such as the Millennium Development Goals, Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, the Cotonou Agreement, UNCLOS and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

3.2 PROJECT PURPOSE

The Project Purpose is to provide a reliable and improved scientific basis for management advice and decision making in oceanic and coastal fisheries . The wording of the Project Purpose is less straightforward, because it sets out to do one thing (providing a reliable scientific basis ) in order for another thing to occur ( management advice and decision making ). The main purpose of the project is clearly to provide reliable and improved scientific information. The intention is for scientific information to feed into management advice, which in turn is to feed into decision making. Who produces management advice and who makes the decisions is not specifically addressed. With respect to decision making, SPC – as a regional institution providing support to its Member States – has no part in it. Management advice could be provided by the project, and the result and line-up of activities under the Component 1 (oceanic) makes clear that the production of management advice is being actively pursued. For Component 2 (coastal), provision of management advice is not clearly stated at Project Purpose or results level, but exists as an activity (2.4) in the LFA. The implied logic conveyed by the Project Purpose is that better science leads to improved management advice, and that this in turn allows for better decision making. The project’s active focus rests on the first and second link in this chain of components. The nature, dynamics and needs of oceanic fisheries on one hand, and coastal fisheries on the other, are different, and in terms of needs, have grown more so over time – not least because of the substantial progress that has been made in oceanic fisheries science and management in recent decades (data collection, data analysis, tuna science, management arrangements and governance). In oceanic fisheries, a functional regional management framework is given, and is embodied by the FFA and the WCPFC. In coastal fisheries, management frameworks are limited to national administrations, and these remain weak – and in many cases ineffective. The latter implies that scientific information and management advice often remain limited in terms of impact potential for lack of effective management frameworks within which they could be implemented. Vast differences do of course exist between countries and capacities in this domain. Similarly to the Overall Objective, Project Purpose is shared between components 1 and 2 of the project. Uniting both components under the same Project Purpose – pursuing the improvement of scientific information (and management advice) – does not necessarily pay tribute to these inherent differences. Top priority needs of oceanic and coastal fisheries at Project Purpose level differ to a large degree.

The Project Purpose is absolutely relevant and pertinent for oceanic fisheries. It is also relevant for coastal fisheries, but not to the same degree. It could easily be argued, on a basis of comparable top priority strategic needs, that the need of coastal fisheries management frameworks to be strengthened and to become more effective is equivalent to the need of oceanic fisheries to be supplied with improved scientific and management advice.

3.3 RESULTS

3.3.1 Result 1 - Oceanic Fisheries Oceanic fisheries in the WCPO are based on a regional institutional landscape that is widely regarded as (close to) ideal by the international community. It basically rests on three pillars, which are the SPC, the FFA and the WCPFC. Since the coming into life of WCPFC in late 2004, SPC has evolved into the (confirmed) regional provider of tuna science (and management advice), FFA and its related groupings (the PNA, the MSG and TVM) develop regional policy positions and management proposals, and WCPFC is the decision making body that issues CMMs on the basis of the science and the management proposals submitted to its General Assembly. The parallel between this functional “Science2Governance” setup and the logic inherent to the Project Purpose is direct. The regional setup for tuna fisheries governance is based on this line-up of institutional actors and mandates, with SPC holding the mandate for providing the science. The science is called for and needed, and the continued supply of such science responds to a fundamental need in the Region. The result aimed for under Component 1 is thus highly relevant, and also fully consistent with the science and governance framework that is currently in existence in the Region. 3.3.2 Result 2 - Coastal Fisheries Coastal fisheries management falls under the mandates of national governments, or by delegation, to coastal communities evolving under various forms of customary marine tenure or co- management arrangements. As opposed to oceanic fisheries, where there is but a handful of major or ultimate management “organs” – avid and able to collect and process scientific information and management advice – there are infinitely more such “organs” in coastal fisheries, and many of these are not equipped to make optimal use of scientific information (and management advice). There is no question that certain forms of data and information, and analysis of such information is useful or desirable, and sometimes necessary to underpin coastal fisheries management and decision making processes. However, it turns out that truly effective frameworks for coastal fisheries management throughout the WCPO remain few, and that for many, they remain genuinely weak, or ineffective, or simply don’t exist at all. The usefulness (or relevance) of pumping scientific information into such a setting for decades is questionable. The problem inherent to the formulation of result 2 has been discussed under section 2.1.1.2. Annex I of the CA (under section 1.2) qualifies the expected result for Component 2 to be “ monitoring and management of coastal fisheries ”. It adds that activities will be focused on “ projects combining an urgent resource management issue with a strong local capability to address the issue and maintain a long-term programme ”. It is not immediately clear what is meant by this, but it is assumed that the monitoring and management of commercial fisheries is implied. In combination with the above on

the general capacity of P-ACP Governments to manage coastal fisheries, this is reminiscent of a statement made by Adams in 1996. 36 The PROCFISH/C MTE established the following (paragraph 18): “ Clearly, it is intended that information from the monitoring should feed into the management systems. The management systems vary from country to country, and while for some countries government level control is appropriate, for others management is carried out at the community level, so that the types of information and the forms in which it can be absorbed will vary. The project could have considered the needs of these management systems first, then looked at how that information could be provided. ” It added (paragraph 19) that: “ The project has been providing specific stock assessment advice on invertebrates to some countries. This is not officially part of the project, but is a response to country requests. There is a clear demand for this sort of immediate relevant technical help which perhaps should have been included in the project design .” In conclusion it may be said that the results aimed for under SCICOFISH Component 2 are relevant, and respond to the positive experiences made under PROCFISH/C when commercial fisheries were provided with monitoring assistance and management advice. On the other hand, the wider coastal fisheries – not involved in the production of export commodities – continue to be largely disregarded. However, these fisheries are hugely important, and provide the social and economic backbone of a majority of Pacific Island communities – and not least, assure their basic food security. The management arrangements for these fisheries – and not the formulation of management plans – will require much dedicated attention and strengthening in the future. Such support was envisaged in the SMACFISH project formulated in 2009 (but not funded), and it is also an element that appears in the line-up of objectives and activities in FAME’s draft 2013-2016 strategic plan. With respect to the latter, the new objective 1 of the CFP sets out “ to assist governments and administrations in the development of socially achievable coastal fisheries management policies and systems, in line with the guiding principles of the ‘Apia’ Policy ”37 . The multidisciplinary approach hinted at, the focus on management systems (and not management advice and plans), and the reference to the “Apia Policy” (note: not referred to in the SCICOFISH project document) suggests a true paradigm shift in SPC’s approach to coastal fisheries, and will be instrumental in achieving the level of relevance that has been missed to a certain degree under Result 2 of SCICOFISH.

3.4 CHOICE OF PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES

Timor Leste, an Indian Ocean rim country, was included in the project, following the wish expressed by the donor to do so. The French OCTs, which were covered under SCIFISH, on the other hand, did not participate under SCICOFISH. Timor Leste has no relevant involvement in oceanic fisheries in the WCPO, and is far removed from Pacific subsistence fisheries in terms of cultural attributes, language, and accessibility. It is also not an SPC member. It would appear that it was included in the project on the sole basis of being an ACP country. This is not necessarily a solid basis to include countries in projects which are focusing on other world regions altogether, and on fisheries largely different from those practiced in that

36 “The majority of governments have not pursued any [management] policy at all and have been restricted to crisis management (usually involving an export commodity) ’. Adams, T.J.H. (1996) Governance of fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific Islands region. Review paper for the 3 rd Dialogue on the ACP-EU Research Initiative, Belize, December, 1996. 37 The 2008 so-called Apia Policy embodies a call by regional leaders for organisations to support PICs in their quest to bring about functional CBRM models for managing coastal fisheries.

country. The participation of Timor Leste is not relevant to the project, and should be understood more as a distraction (leading to inefficiencies), rather than a relevant addition. The non-involvement of the OCTs is unfortunate, as the administrations themselves wanted to benefit from the continued developments and assistance driven through SCICOFISH. The non- participation was due to administrative-type technicalities, which should be solved and removed in the future. The continued participation of OCTs in this work is of absolute relevance. Regarding oceanic fisheries, the western-most Pacific Rim countries actively operating in the WCPO, i.e. the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia, are neither ACP nor SPC member countries. They do not benefit from any inclusion in activities of the SCICOFISH-type, but in their case, it is highly relevant to explore through which mechanisms SPC services in the oceanic fisheries domain could be extended to these countries, in order to improve their performance within the WCPFC framework.

4 EFFICIENCY

This section assesses the efficiency with which SCICOFISH activities have been implemented towards the achievement of project results. In doing so, it also assesses the quality of management, and how well resources available to the project have been mobilised. The MTE is mindful of the fact that a full year remains to the project to carry out activities, further contributing towards the achievement of results.

4.1 ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

SPC has been implementing the SCICOFISH project under the supervision of the Director of FAME, Mr. Mike Batty. Directly attached to this office is the project’s designated administration and communication officer, Ms. Anne Lefeuvre, funded through the project’s staff complement. It is the first time such a position has been created, and it has been a very successful undertaking which has allowed the project to be guided and managed in a more dedicated manner – but also to develop the communications (visibility) aspect of the project in a much more successful manner. The two technical components of the project are being supervised by the heads of the coastal and oceanic fisheries programmes, Dr. Lindsay Chapman (CFP) and Dr. John Hampton (OFP) respectively, without these being on the payroll of the project. The project is hence well integrated within the overall programme structure of SPC. The SCIFISH MTE noted deficiencies in annual project reporting, and made a number of relevant recommendations to improve reporting. These recommendations have been implemented, and carried across into SCICOFISH to a large extent. Annual reports are succinct, logically structured, and allow the reader to rapidly develop a sense for the activities that have been implemented over a year. Annual reports and work plans were available to the MTE for years 1, 2 and 3 (2010, 2011, and 2012 [draft]). Overall, the MTE is satisfied with the reporting and planning aspects of the project. However, annual reports continue to suffer from a lack of detail, which can make it difficult for the users of annual reports to understand: a) what or how much exactly has been done; and b) what the outcome was. By way of an example, the MTE had substantial difficulty to bring Box 2: SCICOFISH Logo together and construct a picture of how many field monitoring activities had been implemented, on which species, in which countries, where they had included training, SPC attachments, the production of management advice, and where such advice had been put into action by recipient countries. As another example, it may be said that milestone achievements of SEAPODYM development are hard to extract from annual reports. The production

of such information pre-supposes the existence of an effective internal monitoring mechanism, and the incremental feeding of this system as new information on operations and achieved results is generated. The MTE feels that information for annual project reports under SCICOFISH is brought together more on a one-off basis for the production of these reports, rather than systematically throughout the year – which may then lead to reports that do turn out to be too superficial for the purpose of an MTE, for instance. On the other hand, a closer assessment of annual reports showed that problems and backlogs reported for any given year under any activity group were taken across, and addressed in the work plans for the following period. Any problems faced are briefly discussed, and practical solutions to overcome them are generally proposed – indicating a metered, incremental, results-oriented and performance-driven approach to project management. Project information (administrative and technical) is well managed, and any information required by the MTE team – whether administrative or technical – was promptly made available. In addition to this, specifically dedicated web-pages have been created to host SCICOFISH related information (http://www.spc.int/fame/en/projects/scicofish/about-scicofish ) – and a logo for the project has been created (see Box 2), conferring upon it a recognisable and appealing visual identity.

4.2 MONITORING OF ACTIVITIES

One external results-oriented monitoring mission (ROM) was carried out in August of 2012. This mission was useful in providing an analysis of project progress towards achieving planned results, with the purpose of supporting management decision making. The ROM grading conferred to the project (see below) was all situated in the green zone, and no major hick-ups were detected.

Box 3: ROM grading of SCICOFISH A Steering Committee actively oversees the project, providing recurrent monitoring, guiding project Relevance and quality of design B activity planning, and ensuring a fair level of Efficiency of implementation to date A stakeholder involvement and commitment at Effectiveness to date B project management level. Three steering Impact prospects A committee reports have been published to date – of Potential sustainability B which the third one was issued following the field mission of the MTE. The reports show that the PSC is a venue for stakeholders to review and discuss progress, and to lodge requests for future assistance under the project. This process is especially important for project Component 2 (coastal), which is based on a demand-driven (or bottom-up) approach for the identification of relevant activities. The timing of the MTE comes unfortunately late in the project’s lifetime, and was started at a time when 74% of the project had already lapsed. MTEs are useful as a formal tool to inform management of possible necessary changes, at a point in time of the project’s cycle when more fundamental changes can still be effected, and sufficient time is left for these to achieve the desired effect. While the MTE highlighted some issues with the coherence and relevance of Component 2 (for instance), it would appear unreasonable to suggest a re-defining of certain objectives, and a re- focusing of some activities at this late stage of project implementation. Finally, it is important to underline that SCICOFISH, as a follow-up project to SCIFISH, could of course not benefit from the Final Evaluation (and the conclusions and lessons learnt) of the SCIFISH project, which ran in parallel to this MTE, and followed the start of SCICOFISH by a full three years. SCICOFISH did not even stand to benefit from the SCIFISH MTE, as this took place towards the end of the first year of SCICOFISH implementation (late 2010). This underlines one of the challenges faced by implementing the SPC programme through projects, and with SPC being under pressure to keep external activity funding rolling – wedging projects and follow-up projects into one another in the process. The value of classic project evaluations, such as the MTE and FE under SCIFISH, then run the risk of not serving the improvement of follow-up projects – in this case SCICOFISH. MTE and FE

conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt are especially important at project design level, should shortcomings in predecessor projects have been established. For SCICOFISH, it arises that lessons learnt from the PROCFISH project (started in 2002) have been integrated to a large extent.

4.3 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETING

The financial management of the project is in the hands of the project’s designated Administration and Communications officer, assisted by the SPC’s accounting office. All financial information is kept in proper order, and any information requested by the MTE has been made available. External audits are organised on a yearly basis, and accounts and expenditure statements are audited by PWC. All audit reports concluded that financial reports produced by the project reflect actual expenditure incurred and revenue received from the project, and that funds received from the EU are being used in conformity with the contractual conditions. The recurrent annual reports and work plans, produced by the project, contain summaries of budget expenditure against “budget items” ( i.e. staff costs, equipment, travel, etc.), for the previous year, and the year that is finishing. The end of any work plan budget year is at the end of the following calendar year – implying that the budget planned for a given year may be spent until the end of the following year ( e.g. the budget planned for 2012 may be committed for activities until the end of 2013). The new budget funds may start to be drawn from the EU as soon as the expenditure of funds of the previous annual budget hits 75% of the overall planned expenditure. In practical terms, this arrangement has worked well. Table 20: Summary of SCICOFISH budget expenditure

Budget spent on previous year Budget spent during year reported on

Year 1 (2010) n/a 43%

Year 2 (2011) 100% 48%

Year 3 (2012) 100% 55%

The table above summarises the expenditure of budgets for the three reporting periods the project has currently undergone. Table 5 shows that budget expenditure of the previous year has generally been about half way through by the end of a calendar year (with a rising trend), and that by the following year, it was used up completely. Available financial data summarised above suggest that this is a stable and steady process, which will see the project move towards close-to-full expenditure towards the end of its lifetime. However, there are differences in expenditure rates between the two Components, as might be expected – not least because of issues presented in section 2.2.2. The figure below renders expenditure of year 3 funds (2012) by the end of the same year, with figures segregated into Component 1 and Component 2 portions. By the end of 2012, 55% of 2012 funds had been engaged by the project. However, with respect to those budget line items accessed by components individually 38 , Component 1 had spent 81.6%,

38 These items are the following: Staff, Travel and subsistence, Training, Equipment and services, Consumables and other supplies, Subcontracts/consultancies, Fieldwork.

while Component 2 had only spent 21.8%. Only with respect to staff costs was Component 2 ahead of Component 1. These figures underline the difficulties of Component 2 to commit its funds in time, while Component 1 appears to be endowed with adequate funding, and a functional staff/operational funds balance. Figure 12: 2012 budget expenditure (planned vs. actual) (by 31 December 2012)

120%

100%

80%

60% Component 1 40% Component 2 20%

The accounting system of SPC allows an analysis such as the one presented above (by line items) to be undertaken, but it does not allow analysis of expenditure (planned vs. actual) on an activity basis. The fact that Component 2 staffers are active across several activity groups also makes a manual assessment of financial data problematic, since staff costs represent close to 50% of overall costs, and given the fact that the distribution of staff costs between activity groups could be highly subjective. Therefore it is not possible to say in which activity domains slow implementation is most conspicuous, nor for which activity groups project resourcing is most out of kilter. Looking at the under-spent line items in figure 8, it appears that consulting, training, equipment, consumables and supplies items are the most severely underspent. All of these are spread out to a certain degree across all four Component 2 activity groups. It would ultimately appear, that there have simply been too many funds made available for Component 2 under these categories.

4.4 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL AND HR MANAGEMENT

The list of staff recruited has been presented in table 4. The MTE found that in general, technical staff recruited for the project are of high technical competence, and are widely respected for their technical know-how and achievements. A decent proportion of staff are Pacific islanders, which is viewed as a very solid attribute for the project, but also of SPC in general, which has a long-standing policy and history in ensuring the employment of technicians from within the region. SPC has in place a well-established recruitment mechanism which allows it to attract and to retain high quality staff. SCICOFISH has clearly benefitted from this. The project has an official duration of close to four years (46.6 months). Staff for the project has been recruited on standard SPC job contracts, which are of 3-year duration (36 months). Figure 6 below summarises the recruitment periods of SCICOFISH staff.

What is apparent is that the overlap between the formal project period, stretching from the 2 nd quarter of 2010 to the 1 st quarter of 2014 inclusive, and the contract durations of staff recruited under the project, match only to a limited extent. For Component 1, staff has generally been recruited late, which is in part due to the tapering out of the predecessor SCIFISH project, which ended in early 2011. Several SCIFISH staffers have then hopped projects, and were recruited across into SCICOFISH. This induces a certain amount of “back- loading” of technical staff under Component 1. Few staff (only 2 out of 9) were recruited in the first calendar year, and almost half of Component 1 staff only started in the 2 nd , 3 rd or 4 th quarter of 2011. This brings with it that a number of positions will remain filled until the end of the project, especially when considering the remaining unspent budget line funds for specific positions. Only two positions do not reach to the end of the project, which are the (all important) Observer Coordinator position, and the Ecosystem Modeller position which was a two year contract only, and had been planned to be terminated within the lifetime of the project. Three contracts are poised to extend well beyond the end date of the project itself. Figure 13: SCICOFISH staff complement over project lifetime 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Project Lifetime Coastal component Coastal component Team leader / senior scientist Senior social scientist --- Information manager -- Support services Oceanic component Oceanic component Data audit officer ----- Observer coordinator Sub regional observer trainer (Pohnpei) ---- Observer trainer (Noumea) x Fisheries scientist (bioeco modeller) ---- Fisheries economist (FFA) ? Fisheries scientist (national support) ------Ecosystem modeller Fisheries IT officer x Administration Administration Admin. & communication officer ---- Legend: “ x” lack of funds to fully finance a quarter; “ -“ left-over funds for a position at current spending rate, to finance further quarters; “ ?” left-over funds unknown, as FFA staff contract details are unknown to SPC For Component 2, staff contracts fall completely within the project duration, and technical staff have been recruited within a tight band of time (all within the 3 rd and 4 th quarter of 2010). The biggest issue here is that the contract of the Senior Scientist, who is the leader of the coastal component, runs out (along with the funding for that position) at the end of the 2 nd quarter of 2013, leaving Component 2 without its scientific lead for a full 9 months before the project is officially closing. Positions for the other two technical staff are closing two quarters before the end of the project, but left-over funding for those positions remains, and they can be extended to the end of the project lifetime without increasing the budget envelopes, or hopping between budget lines. Overall, the full SCICOFISH staff complement will have been under contract between the 4 th quarter of 2011, and the 2 nd quarter of 2013, which is less than 2 years, or less than half of the project’s planned lifetime. For any project, the fact of not having a full staff complement under contract over the lifetime of the project is bound to induce major inefficiencies. In this case, this applies especially to within components. From a project perspective – which may not be the most relevant here – 29% of potential project staff time has not been filled (if positions running out before the end of the project’s lifetime are not extended). If all positions were prolonged to the end of the project, it would still mean that 19% of

potential project staff time (about 129 man/months) has not been filled at the beginning of the project. In terms of staffing and operations, this implies that SCICOFISH really represents more of a three-year effort within a four-year project shell, rather than a four-year project. The positive aspect is that wiring of funds between budget lines is allowed, that most positions have left-over funds within their respective budget lines, and that, with a few exceptions, positions may seamlessly be extended all the way to the end of the project. For positions where this is not so, funds may be taken from other budget lines that are under-spent – as long as it does not induce a relative ballooning of staff costs against operational costs.

4.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES

This section details the progress that has been made under the nine specific activity groups which are part of SCICOFISH, feeding either of the two respective results. Progress is presented for both components individually, and under the respective activity headings. The period under assessment covers the first three calendar years of the project, i.e. 2010, 2011 and 2012. A raw list of all completed activities, compiled from annual reports, is appended in Annex 4. Each of the following activity-specific sections presents a summary of key activities carried out, and progress made towards achieving the OVI(s) attached to each activity group. For each activity, salient issues are discussed, and the likelihood of the project achieving its target (OVI) by the end of the project is indicated. 4.5.1 Component 1 – Oceanic Fisheries 4.5.1.1 Activity 1.1 – Observer training and systems OVI: 300 observers trained, 10 observer trainers and 10 de-briefers operational This activity is one of the most visible and important activities of SPC, predecessor projects and SCICOFISH – all in one – in the domain of oceanic fisheries. Under Component 1, it is the biggest activity group, endowed with 36% of the planned budget. Observer coverage is mandatory at 100% on purse seiners, and 5% on long-liners, based on WCPFC conservation and management rules. At the end of SCIFISH, an estimated 300 trained observers existed in the region. The objective of SCICOFISH was to train more observers, as well as to increase the numbers of de-briefers and observer trainers (in each case, providing advanced training to senior existing observers). During the SCICOFISH period under assessment, the following numbers of people in different categories were trained/received training: • 351 (new) observers • 136 (new) de-briefers • 16 trainers With respect to observers, the number of observers trained throughout the region since training began now stands at about 650 persons (figures may vary according to sources). It is not known how many of these observers are still undergoing active deployment. The estimated minimum number of observers necessary to the region is about 432 on a full-time employment basis to honour the WCPFC requirements (100% purse-seine and 5% long-line coverage). The current level of trained and active observers in the Region is thought to approach a level sufficient to guarantee the aimed for coverage. The need for top-up training to replace observers who are lost due to attrition will always remain. With respect to de-briefers, many were trained, but not all have finished their training to achieve PIRFO-certification standards. For a few countries, Solomon Islands being an example, the lack of certified de-briefers continues to pose a challenge, causing a backlog in debriefed observer data, and entry of data into the observer information database (TUBS). For other countries, the situation is

better. A ratio of 1:5 (de-briefer/observer) is thought to be ideal, and the numbers of de-briefers trained under SCICOFISH and trained observers in the region overall reflect this ratio to a large extent. Most countries have in place at least one trainer, but few have got more than one – with the exception of PNG. Under PIRFO, two certified trainers must be available to run a training course, which makes that most countries are not in a position as yet to run their own courses. It is the expressed wish of a number of countries visited by the MTE to gain the necessary capacity to run courses and certify observers, and gain independence from courses organised nationally and/or regionally through SPC. In the medium-term, it is likely that trainings will evolve to involve one certified SPC/FFA trainer and one national trainer, in order to continue to confer on-the-job trainer skills and SPC/FFA staff to continue to function as a guarantor of training quality. A number of maritime training schools/centres ( e.g. Kavieng in PNG or MTC/FTC in Kiribati) have aspirations of becoming fully accredited PIRFO observer training centres able to deliver such services to the Region. Under this activity group, a number of other relevant activities were carried out: • Two films were made to support observer training courses; one on purse seine, and one on long-line fishing operations. This material provides a solid overview of observer work, and allows bringing visual impressions from on-bard operations directly into the classroom. • Regional workshops for national observer programme coordinators were organised every year, assisting coordinators to organise and manage their extremely complex tasks. FFA is rolling out web-based software in the near future that should allow coordinators to use a customized central platform to manage their operations and log data centrally. • The TUBS database system for logging observer data was completed in 2012, and is up and running. • Observer guides are being developed (first draft for purse seine operations completed in 2012). With a further 150 observers planned to be trained in 2013, It is safe to state that activity 1.1 has already achieved and exceeded its stated targets. SCICOFISH has managed to train a large number of observers, and the regional observer programme overall is running well and targeted coverage rates are being largely achieved, and data are being collected and centralized – albeit the latter with some slowness in some countries. One of the most important challenges remains the training to certification level, and recruitment of sufficient de-briefers at national level, and helping countries in putting in place functional cost- recovery strategies for their observer programs overall. While cost-recovery for sea-going observers are already in place in many countries, to varying degrees of success, or covered under the one or the other treaty (US Treaty and FSM Arrangement), cost recovery of purely national observer programmes on the whole (also covering de-briefing, training and data input/management costs) is not yet as far advanced, and poses threats to medium-term programme sustainability at national levels if not addressed effectively. 4.5.1.2 Activity 1.2 – Data Management One of SPC’s very strong outputs over the past decade has been the spearheading of the design and implementation of databases with national/regional connectivity features. These allow countries (and SPC) to log data from various sources (license rosters, log-sheets, port sampling, observer trips, etc.), and make them available for national and regional scientific and management purposes through data centralisation routines.

OVI: National tuna fisheries databases operational in 15 P-ACPs The main, tuna related database developed by SPC is called TUFMAN (Tuna Fisheries Management Programme). The development of the TUFMAN database application started years prior to SCICOFISH, and was refined under SCICOFISH. The continued rolling out, anchoring and active usage of the application in all 15 P-ACPs was the objective aimed for under SCICOFISH. TUFMAN is a server-based database application, which is physically located in individual countries, and whose data can be synchronized with the central SPC servers on a periodic (normally weekly) basis. Countries choose which data they share, and which ones they keep to themselves. TUFMAN allows countries to input/record log-sheet and port sampling data, as well as other data, such as licensing rosters. By the end of 2012, TUFMAN had evolved to version 6.27, and has expanded its capacities. Expanded functionalities of the system over pre-SCICOFISH versions include a module that allows for the management of the vessel day scheme (VDS), a module that provides a log for the active licenses in the fishery (with full vessel and owner details – including license values), and a module allowing for the reconciliation of log-sheet data with VMS trip data – providing a tool to achieve 100% coverage of all trips across the WCPO with confidence. With the expansion of TUFMAN functionality under SCICOFISH, the database application has gained broader acceptance at country level. Initial versions were deemed too limited by many countries, as they served more the purpose of data logging and submission, rather than a tangible working tool useful also to assist the administration and management of the national tuna fisheries sectors. TUFMAN is a key tool allowing WCPFC members to comply with their mandatory data submission routines to the Commission. At the beginning of SCICOFISH, basic (earlier version) systems were installed in 10 P-ACPs, with limited use of functions. By the end of 2012, all P-ACPs minus PNG and Timor Leste were actively running and feeding the system with data. With Timor Leste not operating any national tuna fisheries, TUFMAN installation (plus existing language barriers) reduce the scope of this particular activity there. PNG, like the OCTs of New Caledonia and French Polynesia, has been running its own tuna fisheries information system when TUFMAN was first introduced, and has decided not to switch systems – although some of these countries are reconsidering, given the ever-expanding functionalities of TUFMAN. This being said, irrespective of the platform in use, all P-ACPs are today actively using a functional tuna fisheries information system. TUFMAN has also moved beyond the classic circle of SPC member countries, with Vietnam and Indonesia actively trialling/ implementing the system – providing a clear signal that the system has evolved to a level of maturity sufficiently advanced to attract wider interest from other tuna fishing nations also. Other actions under this activity group included tuna data officer attachments at SPC for training, seven country training visits by SPC staff, and annual Tuna Data Workshops (serving data audit purposes & preparation of data submission to WCPFC by the 30 April annual deadline). Overall, targets under this OVI have already been achieved, while database development work, and national capacity building are poised to continue until the end of the project. The TUFMAN system is to become more and more web-based (moving away from servers), and functionalities to interface TUFMAN with national MIS systems are to be expanded – thus furthering the national-level direct administration and management functionalities called for by national stakeholders. The ability of TUFMAN to interface with national systems will be key to its long-term success and value to PICs, as well as its integration with database applications that are currently being developed by FFA. The latter include applications relating to MCS and observer programme management solutions, for instance, and also constitute relevant applications that will assist governments greatly in streamlining and rendering their tuna-related work more effective. The continued dialogue and coordination amongst these three stakeholder groupings (national administrations, SPC and FFA)

involved in database design and operational implementation is essential to ensure that the systems under development will meet their full potential. OVI: 14 P-ACPs report data to WCPFC as per their obligations As indicated above, TUFMAN is the tool which allows countries to record tuna operations data, and to honour their WCPFC obligations regarding annual data submission. The figure below traces the recent evolution of P-ACP data submission to the WCPFC. Figure 14: Submission of catch / effort data to WCPFC

Source: FAME 2012 annual report (“N/S” means “not submitted”) What is apparent is that there was a dramatic increase in the effectiveness of timely data submission to the Commission between 2009 and 2010, which has to be attributed to earlier work. However, these trends have been maintained by SCICOFISH in 2011 and 2012. For both years combined, only one P-ACP submitted data late in one single year only. OVI: Tuna data audits conducted for at least 10 P-ACPs SPC assists its members in ensuring the quality and completeness of data entered into the systems. To this effect, data audit workbooks have been developed for the countries. In 2011 and 2012, seven formal in-country data audit missions and one informal data audit run from SPC HQ (for the Solomon Islands) were organised. The VMS-logsheet reconciliation module developed in 2012 has to be understood primarily as a data audit tool, allowing countries to ensure all trips have been covered and logged, while the tuna data workshops (TDW) organised annually provide another formal venue to effect data audits. With 8 countries covered by this activity, and another four planned for 2013 (including a formal audit for the Solomon Islands), the project is well on track to meet, and to exceed its target. Data quality overall has been provided with effective and efficient support services from the project. 4.5.1.3 Activity 1.3 – Bio-economic modelling and national advice Activity 1.3, endowed with 31% of the funds of Component 1, is the other very important activity under this component. OVI: 1 regional and 10 national reports providing bio-economic modelling advice P-ACPs strive to prevent overfishing on one hand, and to secure adequate economic returns on the other – two objectives which often appear as opposed. Activity 1.3 addresses both goals by providing estimates of economic impacts on P-ACPs of alternative tuna fisheries management

measures. Bio-economic modelling plays a crucial role in identifying economically efficient management measures. SPC and FFA are collaborating closely under this activity, and one economist funded by SCICOFISH is based in FFA. Since the beginning of the project, a large number of reports have been spawned under this activity. These include 3 National Tuna Fisheries Status Reports (NTFSR) 39 – which include bio-economic analyses. Based on recommendations made at the 2010 mini-HoF meeting, it was decided in 2011 to stop for good the production of voluminous NTFSRs, and to replace them with leaner, 10-page, Issue Specific National Reports (ISNRs). NTSFRs can only be produced at a maximum of three per year, which poses a major challenge to SPC with a membership base of 22 countries. ISNRs respond directly to specific questions relating to tuna management. Seven ISNRs on FAD fishery options (closure regimes), and economic implications were produced in early 2012, and updated towards the end of the year. These assisted especially PNA group countries such as Kiribati and PNG to evaluate different options and impacts of proposed FAD closures on the efficiency of purse seine operations in their respective EEZs. Another report was produced for Fiji conducting a bio-economic analysis of the logline fishery, with the view to establishing an optimum number of vessels to operate in the Fiji EZZ. One regional report produced in 2011 provides an overview of the WCPO tuna fishery, including economic conditions. 40 Steps have been undertaken to collect operational cost data from the sector, notably from purse seine operators, with the concourse of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), and returns by the end of 2012 have been very poor. This has prompted SPC to work closely with the PNA and FFA, with both organisations in the process of collating data in the course of their economic and strategic studies. Bio-economic modelling is currently largely limited to value aspects of the resource. Operational costs of the fleets, and national economic benefits and multiplier effects (through income generation, value addition, export earnings, port economy, treasury income, etc.) are still to be fully investigated through use of the models that are being incrementally developed through the project. The current modelling work present tangible advances over earlier region-wide (and rather insensitive) bio-economic models, and assists countries today to assess the impact of specific management options on the value of the fisheries within their EEZs. The succinct format of the ISNRs presents clear advantages over the earlier NTFSRs, and their usefulness is much more immediate and applied. With another set of 10+ ISNRs planned for 2013 (covering FAD closures and edible by-catch), a regional bio-economic analysis of the albacore fishery, and the integration of purse seine operational costs into the various models, this activity is also set to hit and exceed its stated targets. HoF8 established the subject areas for the upcoming ISNRs in early March 2013. OVI: 10 region-wide stock assessments for key tuna species, using the latest updated data, provided to decision-makers during 2010-2013 Stock assessments are also covered under this activity, and 10 assessments were undertaken in 2010, 2011 and 2012 as follows: • 2010: BET & SKJ

39 For Samoa, Cook Islands, and Solomon Islands. 40 http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/Meetings/WCPFC/SC7/GN-WP-01.pdf

• 2011: ALB, YFT, BET & SKJ • 2012: ALB, striped marlin, oceanic white-tip shark and silky shark With the exception of the silky shark assessment, which was developed using data the veracity of which was subsequently challenged, all stock assessments have been accepted by WCPFC. Work on the silky shark will have to be further developed before the assessment meets the required standards for acceptance. The project is also highly likely to achieve its stated target. If no additional WCPFC-accepted stock assessment were to be achieved in 2013 and/or early 2014 (which is unlikely), the project would miss its target by a narrow margin, completing it to 90%. Note that while SCIFISH facilitates data collection, stock assessments proper are funded directly by WCPFC, and not through SCICOFISH. 4.5.1.4 Activity 1.4 – Ecosystem monitoring and assessment OVI: 1 regional and 10 national reports (including Timor Leste) providing advice on tuna resource vulnerability to environmental variability including climate change The Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model (SEAPODYM) is a dynamic oceanic ecosystem and population model developed through SPC, in conjunction with others, with the view to estimate the response of Pacific tuna stocks at the regional and national levels to exploitation, management intervention and environmental variability, including climate change. The model provides greater spatial resolution than other modelling tools, and can assist in modelling the impact of management measures at the national level, and hence in developing national tuna management measures and plans. SEAPODYM has been under continuous development at SPC for about a decade. Since 2010, SEAPODYM development has moved into the high resolution domain, where predictions can be made at the level of individual EEZs (1x1° squares and lower). At the individual country level, little use has been made of SEAPODYM this far. National and regional reports have been drafted in 2012, and are due for publication in 2013. SEAPODYM should have the possibility to predict, inter alia : • Seasonal movements of tuna stocks, specifically factoring in environmental variables; • Decadal tuna stock distribution, factoring in climate change (IPCC) model predictions; • Estimating national (localised) levels of depletion; • Vulnerabilities of specific areas with respect to developments in other areas; • Impact of management measures ( e.g. high seas pocket closures) on stock evolution. The reports that will be produced in 2013 imply that the project is likely to reach its stated targets. These reports will provide a first tangible taste of what SEAPODYM-backed assessments can produce, and how useful it is for policy making at the national level. The modelling of ocean-wide tuna population, climate and ecosystem dynamics is extremely complex, and margins of error and unknowns remain very wide – implying an elevated degree of uncertainty in model predictions. It remains unclear in how far uncertainties in given domains can be quantified and reduced to a degree that confers sufficient confidence in the predictions that the model will produce on demand to specific queries in the future. This will largely determine the medium- and long-term success – or demise – of this long-winded undertaking. Whether it will truly pay off as a long-term investment remains unknown, but its scientific value and potential are unquestionable.

4.5.1.5 Activity 1.5 – Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme No relevant OVI has been formulated for this activity (see section 2.1.2.1). This activity has been endowed with the smallest financial envelope within Component 1 (6%). In 2012, the third large tagging campaign since 2006 commenced. Two PTTP tagging cruises were successfully implemented under SCICOFISH funding in the central Pacific and in PNG waters in 2012. Another one – under PNG funding – is to take place in 2013. The tagging results of the two cruises are represented in the figure below. Figure 15: 2012 tag releases of the two SCICOFISH-funded tagging cruises

Source: John Hampton / SPC Both cruises were successful, and the central Pacific cruise managed to tag a majority of BET – evidenced by the exceedingly red pie charts in figure 8 in the central Pacific band. A total of over 46,000 individuals were tagged in both cruises. Tag data have been incorporated in MULTIFAN CL and SEAPODYM models, allowing for further refinement of model parameters. This work, as well as tag recovery will continue into 2013. Even though no OVI was formulated, the outcome of the tagging cruises has been rated a success, especially the tagging of the more difficult to target BET. Especially movement data from tagging experiments are crucial for the fine-tuning of the SEAPODYM model. 4.5.2 Component 2 – Coastal Fisheries 4.5.2.1 Activity 2.1 – Stakeholder consultation OVI: Country specific needs prioritised for all P-ACPs The project document reads as if activity 2.1 was a foundation activity to be carried out at the beginning of the project, in order to draw up an action plan for interventions covering the full period of the project, and covering participating countries. This is not the way it was understood, or handled under Component 2, notably because country priorities can change over a four-year period. In actual fact, countries have been approached and consulted over time, on a case-by-case basis, and often on the basis of convenience when opportunities to meet and discuss arose. National priorities were for instance set during the 2011 monitoring workshop held in May 2011 in Fiji, but no formal workshop report was produced. Project Steering Committee meetings provided another annual venue during which countries did – and continue to – communicate their needs. Over the course of the three calendar years under review, most (if not all countries) were consulted, and

needs were discussed and prioritised. In the case of PNG, the identified management and monitoring priorities have been incorporated into its Joint Country Strategy (JCS) Paper (2011). A specific difficulty for the MTE to assess the approach and outcomes of this drawn-out needs assessment and prioritisation exercise is that no formal consolidated trace has been recorded regarding the exercise. It would also seem that no particular strategy was followed in terms of who to consult, and/or in orienting the project towards the one or the other type of management and monitoring activities (towards subsistence fisheries, for instance, or towards commercial fisheries/ export commodities). However, it is clear to the MTE that the discussions, prioritising and implementation of activities has occurred (most obviously) – the problem is that qualifying it is not possible. The activity can be considered as largely achieved by the end of 2012, with Timor Leste being the only country left to set priorities. It is suggested for the future that SPC consider producing formal traces for activities endowed with formal budget lines. 4.5.2.2 Activity 2.2 – Field monitoring OVI: Standard monitoring protocols implemented and sustained in at least 5 P-ACPs The project ended up focusing much of its attention on sea-cucumber work. Few activities focused on finfish surveys (most of which for aquarium trade species/fisheries), and one single activity looked at trochus. Overall, nearly all of the work under this activity had a clear focus on commercial small-scale fisheries producing export commodities, with virtually no attention given to the monitoring and management of subsistence fisheries. Thus far, key activities comprised of training workshops (in survey methodologies), monitoring of particular resources in-country (including on-the-job field training for national staff), attachments at SPC for data entry and analysis, and the development of survey manuals (which were still at the draft stage at the time of the MTE). Overall, it may be said that the in-country survey work (with on the job training) for sea-cucumber has been very successful, and generally highly appreciated by the countries who had asked for this support, and benefitted from the assistance. This type of activity was first carried out as isolated a parte actions under PROCFISH/C, and countries had expressed their appreciation for applied scientific work combined with directly-derived practical management advice. The countries that have benefitted from this assistance under SCICOFISH to date are listed in the following table. Table 21: Summary of SCICOFISH field monitoring-related activities Field Attachment in Mgt advice Activity Training monitoring data analysis from project Cook BDM yes yes (planned 2013) yes Islands assessment BDM yes yes (planned 2013) yes / prelim. assessment Fiji Reef fish yes yes (planned 2013) assessment invertebrate yes assessment EIA / finfish yes yes yes yes assessment Kiribati Bonefish yes yes assessment Aquarium fish yes yes yes assessment

Field Attachment in Mgt advice Activity Training monitoring data analysis from project BDM / finfish PNG yes assessment BDM yes yes yes assessment Reef fish RMI yes yes yes assessment Ciguatera yes assessment BDM yes yes yes yes / prelim. assessment Reef fish Samoa yes yes assessment Ciguatera yes yes assessment Solomon BDM yes yes yes yes / prelim. Islands assessment BDM Tonga yes yes yes yes / prelim. assessment BDM yes assessment finfish Tuvalu yes yes yes assessment Ciguatera yes yes assessment BDM Vanuatu yes yes yes yes / prelim. assessment Note: this table does not list work relating to secondary data collection (activity 2.3), such as creel census, market data, household surveys and biological sampling

It arises from table 6 that a lot of work has been delivered under this activity group by the project, and that this work spanned different types of assistance, ranging from training to the running of surveys, to data input and analysis and formulation of management advice – discussed in section 4.5.2.4 below. Individual countries have received assistance to varying degrees. The field training and demonstration survey carried out in the Solomon Islands in late 2011, for instance, has led to the implementation of a sea-cucumber survey at the national scale in 2012, with 2-3 sites surveyed across 8 provinces – resulting in the first ever full-scale national sea-cucumber survey. In other countries, full surveys following training and limited field monitoring under the activity have not followed. Underwater visual census (UVC) work for finfish work was more subdued, notably due to a lack of assistance requests from countries. UVC methodologies for finfish assessments have been criticised widely for large error margins and low replicability. Although it can be used successfully under very specific and limited circumstances, the MTE is of the opinion that it is not a methodology that can be applied widely and meaningfully to assess the status of reef fish populations. What is apparent also from the above table is that management advice has not been produced in all cases, and that activities sometimes remained limited to training. In other cases, management advice was produced in preliminary format as part of activity reports of attachment trainees back to government. On this latter point, the MTE feels that management advice has not always been given

the necessary clout and status, and was not communicated back to national administrations through the right channels and a sufficiently formal format – undermining the chances of formulated advice to be picked up and used by governments. Standard monitoring protocols have been implemented in more than five countries by now, and with this, the activity group already exceeds its stated target. In addition to this, the activity has been deemed as highly useful by a majority of countries visited by the MTE. Whether monitoring protocols will be “sustained” in five countries (as the OVI is stating) will be difficult to say –by the end of the project – since relevant national monitoring cycles will be longer than the effective lifetime of the project. The fact that training (capacity building) for monitoring has been part of every single initiative does play in favour of the longer term sustainability of the interventions. Additional activities covered monitoring of one site for EIA purposes (Kiribati), and sampling and analysis of reef fish for ciguatera outbreaks in several countries – all clearly tying in with the wider “monitoring for management” thrust of Component 2. 4.5.2.3 Activity 2.3 – Secondary data collection OVI: Regional data repository maintained and national data provided for backup from at least 5 countries/fisheries The project document establishes that “ for each project, in addition to field data collection, protocols will be designed to train local participants to capture data from markets, fishermen interviews, export records and other sources. SPC will provide on-going support for database development. ” Secondary data collection thus refers to all forms of data collection not deriving from field monitoring of live resources. These include household surveys, market surveys, creel census, and other forms of data collection – such as data derived from export records – for instance. In addition to this, the activity sets out to provide on-going database development services, and these in direct support to the secondary data collection protocols being envisaged. Any data to be collected should have a customised (or customisable) database application associated to it. Although this might sound intuitive, it does in fact represent a quantum leap in approach, overcoming former project designs where data collection and database development often evolved in unrelated fashion, if related at all –generally leading to the early demise and failure of such non-integrated initiatives. Database module development for coastal fisheries was initiated many years ago, notably under PROCFISH/C, and has constantly evolved since. A host of different modules exist today, catering for different data input, analysis and reporting needs. A number of modules are actively used by different countries across the region. The SEMCoS module – Socio-Economic Survey Manual Companion Software – developed under PROCFISH/C as a customisable household survey (also in conjunction with a manual), is starting to be used by countries with the rolling out of the micro- servers (national survey run in Samoa in 2012). Parts of RFID, the export database and the Creel/Market survey module were built under SCICOFISH. The following table provides an idea of the modules in existence, and the countries using them (population of DBs with data). Table 22: Summary of SPC-installed coastal fisheries databases and data population CI FSM Fiji KIR RMI NAU Niue PAL PNG SAM SI Timor TON TUV VAN RFID - Sea - cucumber/Trochus 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2011 2011 2011 UVC RFID - Fish UVC 2013 2012 RFID - Fish+Invert 2012 2011 2011 2012 2011 for climate change RFID - Aquarium 2012 2010 2010 2008 2007 2008 2005 2005 2004 trade RFID - PROCFISH 2007 2006 2002 2004 2007 2005 2005 2007 2006 2005 2006 n/a 2008 2005 2003 (Fish/Inverts/Hhs) Export Database 2012 2013 (Online)

CI FSM Fiji KIR RMI NAU Niue PAL PNG SAM SI Timor TON TUV VAN Export Database 2013 2012 (Offline) SEMCoS 2013? 2012? 2012 Creel/Market 2012 2012 2012 2012 Survey Trial Note: RFID DB sub-divided into individual components (2 components contain earlier data from PROCFISH/C – years greyed out); Export DB sub-divided into online and offline versions. All field monitoring survey data (see previous section), for instance, have been input and analysed through a specific database module serving the recording and analysis of field monitoring data (first row in the above table). Nine micro-servers have been installed in countries41 , containing the suite of database modules currently developed, plus access to the SPC/FAME digital library (6,500+ documents). The micro- servers can be remote-accessed and serviced from SPC, and software updates can be run remotely too – diminishing in-country servicing needs. Data may be backed up on SPC servers through automated data upload routines, providing a relevant data safety mechanism. Attachment training in database use was also provided for a number of nationals under this activity, and sub-regional workshops in DB fundamentals training were implemented. A field survey manual for market and creel surveys has been drafted and field tested in four countries (2012). In conjunction with a new database module, market and creel surveys will be made available to countries in fully customisable building blocks, where the manual functions as the menu from which options for survey elements are to be chosen. National surveys to be designed will take into account national capacity and resources, conditioning thus the number of sites to be sampled, the periodicity of sampling, and the number of indicators to sample. This work is far advanced and set to roll out in 2013. One of the key historic stumbling blocks regarding coastal fisheries in the WCPO has been the inability of countries to design and maintain achievable long-term sampling programmes – with the outcome that still today, very little reliable information is available on exploitation trends and the status of coastal fisheries resources across the Region. Surveys designed through external partners have generally been science-driven, resulting in survey frameworks too onerous for national administrations to maintain. These efforts generally resulted in snapshots with an over-abundance of detailed information, and a virtually complete lack of data that might otherwise allow for trend analysis. The latter is of course the element that is most useful to inform adaptive management initiatives. The MTE feels that the customisable creel and market survey initiatives will overcome many of the classic mistakes of the past. The MTE team feels that the initiative has high potential to deliver the first truly relevant and sustainable solution for (fishery dependent) coastal fisheries resource monitoring across the region, and to contribute to the generation of much needed consistent and longer term data series that will – in time – allow for meaningful trend analysis to occur. With respect to the OVI, which is much more limited than the initiatives implemented under this activity group, the stated targets have already been exceeded threefold, and are poised to continue to evolve towards the end of the project. However, the achievement of the central Creel and Market Survey Database, manual and the rolling out of it still requires massive input of resources in order to complete to a satisfactory degree before the end of the project.

41 Palau, Kiribati, Fiji, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Cook Islands, Vanuatu and Timor Leste

4.5.2.4 Activity 2.4 – Management advice OVI: Assessments and management recommendations given for at least 5 major coastal fisheries According to the project document, management advice is to be derived and supplied to countries from the field monitoring initiatives under activity 2.2. Following attachments of national staff to SPC for data input and analysis of national survey data, management advice has been produced under various formats, and submitted to national Governments. Generally, this advice has been supplied in the form of a formal document. The following table lists countries that have benefitted from management advice in the framework of this initiative, and tries to provide a picture of whether advice has led to modification or developments in national management regimes. Table 23: Summary of SCICOFISH management advice outcomes by end 2012 Object of advice Mgt situation - Mgt situation – Mgt framework (see table 6) before end 2012 changed end 2012? Cook Islands BDM closed fishery closed fishery no * Fiji BDM open open no EIA / finfish on -going on -going no Kiribati Bonefish open open no Aquarium fish open open no RMI BDM closed fishery full mgt plan yes – full Samoa BDM closed fishery closed fishery no * Solomons BDM closed fishery closed fishery no * Tonga BDM open quota reduced yes – partial Vanuatu BDM closed fishery closure extended yes – full Note: * where a closed fishery has simply been maintained closed without specific further management measures or regulatory texts adopted. indicates whether provided advice has been partially or fully adopted. For those countries where advice has been produced – eight in total – there are six countries where a palpable contribution to the management climate may have occurred. Existing closures for sea- cucumber fisheries that remain unaltered are difficult to attribute solely or largely to SCICOFISH advice, but the findings of monitoring missions and the resulting advice have contributed in maintaining such mechanisms in place to differing degrees. In the case of Vanuatu, the extension of the closure for another 5 years is a more clear-cut outcome of management advice delivered is picked up and turned into a clear and new management ruling. Otherwise, a number of management plans have started to be developed, exist in draft form, and are poised to enter into force in 2013. It is likely that the picture provided in the table above will have evolved substantially by early 2014. Only in the case of Tonga and Vanuatu has the advice delivered led to specific decisions. In some cases, management advice has also been delivered outside of formal field monitoring work. This concerns for instance Samoa and Kiribati, who have benefitted from generic advice on national coastal fisheries development and management policy. In addition to the training in survey methodologies of nationals, and survey work carried out, directly by the project or by the countries individually following the training, some countries have moved forward, and worked on management regimes for the conservation of the resources on which work was done. Modification and development of management regimes based on work undertaken under SCICOFISH can be attributed directly to two situations (Tonga and Vanuatu) – underlining the positive and tangible impact of this project Component. For countries where closures were simply maintained, it is not possible to attribute a direct share to project intervention, although it is likely that project work and management advice has contributed to the maintenance of the resource conservation measures already in place.

Another activity has been the production of communication and knowledge materials for generic support to coastal fisheries management in general ( i.e. without particular focus on commercial fisheries), from a perspective of supporting community-based management approaches. Materials produced include information sheets on typical lagoon and reef fisheries resources – modelled on the sheets developed under the highly successful AusAID funded Samoan Village Fisheries Project of the late nineties. Twenty-three information sheets have been developed by late 2012, complemented by a 4-page brochure on community-based no-take areas. This material is not feeding any immediate SCICOFISH or SPC field activities in the same domain, but is made available to other actors ( e.g. NGOs, fisheries departments, community members, etc.) and stakeholders to make use of in relevant activities promoting community-based fisheries management initiatives. The materials have been made available to countries in important numbers, and are distributed through fisheries administrations. They are widely appreciated, but some countries face problems with the language – indicating that wider translation into local languages and dialects would be very useful. Their actual use and impact in other projects and initiatives was not possible to formally assess during the MTE, as this widely transcends the SCICOFISH project boundaries. With respect to the OVI – specifically the part on management recommendations referring to this activity – the target has clearly been achieved, and with more management advice planned to be produced in 2013, will have been largely exceeded by the end of the project. 4.5.3 Summary of outcomes Overall, it may be said that all nine activity groups, across both components, have been highly successful in achieving the targets that have been set through OVIs at activity level. Many targets have been achieved and exceeded a year ahead of schedule, while others, not yet achieved, generally appear likely to be achieved within the lifetime of the project. Coupled with the late entry on duty of most project staff under both project components, leading to a generally belated effective project start, this leads the MTE to conclude that OVIs could probably have set slightly more ambitious targets. There is no activity group that is likely to fail its target. However, with respect to Component 2, and activity 2.3, the MTE feels that the implementation of customised creel and market surveys in P- ACPs, a highly valuable activity (not directly covered by an OVI, but explicitly planned for in the project document), is falling behind schedule. This activity is firmly built on lessons learnt from the past, and has the potential to overcome decades of trials, frustrations, and failures in this crucial domain. The running out of staff contracts ahead of project schedule, and the generally reduced staff complement of Component 2 risks to undermine the successful outcome (or at least significant degree of completion) of this activity.

5 EFFECTIVENESS

According to classic evaluation theory, this section provides an assessment of the contribution made by results to achievement of the Project Purpose, and how assumptions have affected project achievements. The Project Purpose is “ to provide a reliable and improved scientific basis for management and decision making in oceanic and coastal fisheries ”. The MTE finds, that overall, results achieved by both components of the SCICOFISH project are managing to feed the project objective successfully, and most meaningfully, in line with expectations. The scientific basis, and a host of basic data collection and management tools, essential for the gathering and management of scientific information, has been improved by the project: some of which in dramatic fashion. This is true for both Components. Therefore, the project has been effective in achieving its purpose to date, and is expected to do so while moving forward to completion. The following sections set out to qualify effectiveness as far as possible.

5.1 RESULTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT PURPOSE

The MTE gathered quantified appraisal information during the field mission to help it qualify the contribution made by the project in four specific thematic domains, in order to gain an understanding of project effectiveness in achieving Project Purpose – beyond the project’s capacity of fulfilling stated OVIs. In doing so, two critical domains under both components were selected, and countries were asked to rate their performance in those domains at the beginning of the project and today – in order to gain an understanding of how much progress has been made. The assessment is summarised in the table below. The four key domains for which national performance, and SPC contribution is assessed, are the following: 1. National capacity to run fisheries observer schemes 2. National capacity to comply with WCPFC data submission requirements 3. National overall scientific knowledge basis regarding coastal fisheries 4. National performance in coastal fisheries resource conservation and management Table 24: SCICOFISH effectiveness in improving national capacity in four selected domains SCIFISH/ SCICOFISH oceanic average progress Fiji Kiribati Solomons RMI FSM PNG NC FP CP 2007 3.60 4 3 5 3 4.5 3 3.3 3 capacity to run fisheries CP 2013 1.75 37% 1 2 2 3 2 1 1.5 1.5 observer schemes SPC contrib. 74% 30% ? 80% 50% 90% 90% 80% 95% capacity to comply with CP 2007 3.83 3 4 5 4 4 3 WCPFC data submission CP 2013 1.75 42% 1 1 3 2 2.5 1 requirements SPC contrib. 66% 50% 75% 60% 70% 90% 50% SCICOFISH coastal overall scientific CP 2010 3.33 2 4 3 3 4 4 knowledge basis regarding CP 2013 2.33 20% 1 3 2 2 2 4 coastal fisheries SPC contrib. 67% 90% 40% 80% 90% 70% 30% national performance in CP 2010 3.17 2 3 3 3 3 5 coastal fisheries resource CP 2013 2.50 13% 1 2 2 4 2 4 conservation/mgt SPC contrib. 63% 90% 30% 50% 90% 90% 30%

In the table above, the four key domains are in the left hand column, under the respective component headers. The following rules apply; the country performance (labelled “CP 2007”, CP 2013”, etc.) in a given year and domain is rated from 1 to 5; 1 being “very good”, 2 being “good”, 3 being “average”, 4 being “poor” and 5 being “very poor”. Scores for past and current performance, and SPC contribution to the current state of play, are provided for individual countries (as provided by the countries), and are averaged on the left (in the column “average”). “SPC contribution” merely stands for the involvement of SPC in a given domain, and its contribution to the current result. This is not a qualitative, but a mere quantitative measure. It is diminished by the concurrence of more actors ( e.g. other development agencies assisting in the same domain), and the countries quantification of its own efforts, and it is generally increased if SPC is one of the only parties lending this particular assistance. Progress in performance from past to present is averaged under the column “progress”, and is computed from the difference arising from the average score between past and present performance – expressed as a percentage value. Several points need clarification in this table. For the two domains assessed for SCICOFISH under oceanic (Component 1), it is not possible to disassociate these from SCIFISH, as interventions under SCICOFISH in these domains represent a continuum of earlier initiatives. Therefore the timespan covered is of six years. The timespan covered for the two domains under Component 2 is of only three years. For Component 1, the French OTCs are covered for the first domain (running of observer schemes), because they benefitted heavily under this activity, and so their feedback was collected. This does

also provide an idea of how much had already been achieved in this domain before SCICOFISH started. The same territories are not queried for the second domain, since they have not adopted the TUFMAN software, and hence their responses would not be appropriate to assess progress. A number of findings are derived from these data: • Progress measured in all four domains yields positive trends. • Under Component 1, the capacity of countries to run observer schemes and submit data to WCPFC according to requirements is rated twice as above “good” – tending towards “very good” • Under Component 2, the scientific knowledge basis of countries and their performance in coastal fisheries management is rated twice as below “good”. • SPC involvement and contribution is invariably high, across all four domains. • SPC contribution has been rated highest for its observer programme related work, where it stands out among the other three ratings, which all fall more or less into the same band. • Progress for both Component 1 domains is very high, with countries rating it on average by close to 40% (equivalent to two points on the 1-5 scale), which equates to going from “poor” to “good”. • Progress under Component 2, regarding overall scientific knowledge in coastal fisheries progresses by 20%, equivalent to one point, while progress in coastal resource management is lowest, with a mere 13% achieved. These results confirm a few points. The oceanic component has been highly effective in moving countries forward in the domains of observer work and data submission to the Commission, which are two important proxies to measure effectiveness and achievement overall. However, it should be underlined that this achievement is not attributable to SCICOFISH alone, and that many years of funding and earlier work and results have contributed to this. This being said, it does not diminish in any form or manner the highly effective work achieved under Component 1. The coastal component has also been effective in enhancing national capacity and performance, however to a significantly lower degree. This is in part due to the fact that the period under scrutiny is substantially shorter. The domains selected are also less specific to the work that the coastal Component ended up carrying out; the actual focus of work carried out was almost entirely on commercial fisheries, while the domains queried in table 9 cover coastal fisheries as a whole. There is little doubt that scores would have been higher if the assessment would have focused on commercial fisheries only. This reconfirms the earlier statements (see project relevance) that coastal fisheries must be addressed holistically – also covering subsistence and other (non-export oriented) small-scale fisheries. Countries rate their own performance in coastal fisheries conservation and management lowest of all (mid-way between good and average), with little progress to speak of in the last three years. This result is especially important from a perspective of future coastal fisheries programme development and focus. The Project Purpose has also been pegged to a number (3) of OVIs. OVIs at Project Purpose level, which were assessed in section 2.1.2.2, are the following: • 100% of project stock assessment results for 4 main tuna species accepted by WCPFC Scientific Committee and forwarded to full Commission for decision-making. • Observer coverage rates reach regionally-agreed levels by 2012 (100% for purse seine vessels) with no decrease in data quality. • At least five P-ACP countries adopt coastal fisheries management measures in line with project recommendations.

The first two OVIs – well formulated and appropriate – have been achieved by the project by the end of 2012, and their continuation is likely to continue, signalling project success at this level by the end of its lifetime. With respect to the third OVI, which has been found by the MTE to be more appropriate as a measure of the project contributing to the Overall Objective, the target has not yet been achieved. Management advice has been formulated in more than five instances, but formal adoption has to date only occurred discretely in two single instances. Achieving this OVI, which basically targets the management of commercially important (and in some cases economically very important) resources is difficult, and has been overambitious, especially when considering that the formulation of five sets of management advice was targeted, and so also the adoption of the same five sets of advice, equating to 100% acceptance of external management advice (see also the final paragraph of the following section). However, it is not unlikely that more advice will be formally adopted by P-ACPs before the end of the project, and some meaningful measure of success has been secured at this time already.

5.2 REALISATION OF ASSUMPTIONS

Assumptions on the whole have been rated by the MTE as having been rather weak (see section 2.1.2.1). The table below assess the assumptions retained as relevant, and provides a succinct assessment of their degree of realisation. Table 25: Summary of relevant assumptions and degree of realisation Assumption Assessment Project purpose 1. - not appropriate - 2. Most Governments visited have put in place cost 2. P-ACP governments can receive and deploy recovery mechanisms that are operational to certain funds intended to support the cost of observers degrees. Key issues appear in cash transfer protocols from fishing fleets. between Treasury and Fisheries Administrations. Overall, 3. - not appropriate - the assumption is (and is being) realised. Results Result 1 4. - not appropriate - 5. - not appropriate - Result 2 6. This has been realised in most cases for the “ initial ” 6. P-ACP governments will commit the human part. Whether it will be realised on a “sustained” basis will resources for initial and sustained fishery not able to be monitored within the lifetime of the monitoring. project, but the MTE expects challenges and constraints in 7. - not appropriate - this domain Activities Result 1 8. Fishing industries cooperate in biological and 8. Realised for biological research, but not economic. ISSF bio-economic research. has been slow in providing operational costs for research. 9. National fisheries training institutions willing 9. Realised – national training institutions are willing and to host and maintain observer training courses. eager to gain PIRFO accreditation and run the courses. 10. Suitable vessel can be chartered for 10. Realised – suitable vessels were identified and the biological research (tagging). tagging cruises were implemented. Result 2 11. P-ACP governments can commit human 11. Realised for training and attachments resources for coastal fisheries training and attachments. 12. - not appropriate - Overall, realisation of (appropriate) assumptions has been very high, also for the critical ones where risk of failure was high. This refers specifically to in-country cost recovery mechanisms for observer

programmes, which is a domain that is invariably critical for long-term sustainability in projects of any denomination. The MTE is confident that progress will be made in the domain of securing operational cost data from the sector, in order to refine the bio-economic models that are currently being developed. With regard to the willingness of training institutions to take over training functions in the domain of the regional observer programmes, the question now evolves to when and how these institutions will achieve PIRFO accreditation, and when sufficient trainers accredited to PIRFO standards will be available to such centres to run the courses independently of SPC and FFA. These questions will need to find answers in the near future in order to allow SPC and FFA to withdraw from more of the active training functions, and pool resources in new and/or other fields of intervention. The “killer assumption”, which should have been placed at the level of the project’s Overall Objective, conditioning project impact, is that the political will in P-ACPs exists to translate scientific knowledge and/or management advice into conservation and management substance . This is missing, and it is the assumption that also conditions the achievement of the third (misplaced) OVI discussed at the end of the afore-going section 5.1. The leveraging of any and all scientific information and advice into management substance is diminished by the failure to realise this assumption, in both coastal and oceanic fisheries.

5.3 VISIBILITY AND COMPLEMENTARITY

The SCICOFISH project took stock in earlier voiced concerns that EU-funded projects were not having enough visibility. SCICOFISH developed a suite of project-specific communication tools, including an attractive logo (see Box 2). The logo was used for communicating visually, on posters, on t-shirts, and also on publications. The MTE found that all formally printed materials (i.e. excluding meeting hand-outs such as agendas) did normally acknowledge the financial contribution of the EU in producing the materials. This acknowledgement normally comes in the form of the EU flag, rather than the SCICOFISH logo. The MTE finds that using the EU logo does more justice to EU visibility, rather than the use of a project logo of which the connection to EU-funding might not be understood by all, and/or becomes lost over time. Not all stakeholders were aware of SCICOFISH as a project, as it was earlier reported for SCIFISH and PROCFISH projects. This was true for both oceanic and coastal components, and implied some challenges for the MTE. It is difficult to have stakeholders assign measures of progress and impact to a project of which they do not formally know the existence. The MTE finds that SPC does make the necessary efforts in communicating EU involvement and support, and also finds it within the boundaries of normality that not every civil servant and other stakeholder are fully aware of which funding agency is involved in the financing of every single activity SPC may be implementing – and in that sense, EU is not the only funding agency sometimes lamenting a lack of visibility of its funding support to the region. The MTE also finds a high degree of complementarity and coherence in approaches and funding between the main institutional players in the region, namely the FFA, the WCPFC the SPC, and the EU as a donor. A key element of complementarity in funding lies in the fact that the EU funded a host of stock assessments under SCIFISH. Such funding was discontinued under SCICOFISH, and funding was thence made available to SPC to continue stock assessment work by WCPFC. Beyond complementarity between funding sources, this does underline the vital role the science produce by SPC plays in the management of fisheries resources in the Region.

6 IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY

The terms of reference call for a comparison (if possible) of the scenario immediately prior to the implementation of the Project with the achievements of the project to date. This is often not possible, on one hand because the oceanic component is a quasi-complete extension of SCIFISH activities, while little formal baseline information was collected under the coastal component in order to establish a formal set of indicators to compare against by the end of the project. Overall, the assessment of impact and sustainability is more important to be covered by a final evaluation, and it is generally difficult – or somewhat unreasonable – to try and firmly qualify impact and sustainability of a project before it is has been completed. However, a number of statements can be made with respects to elements that would seem to increase or diminish the prospects for high impact and sustainability of the project’s outcomes at the term of its expected lifetime.

6.1 CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF WCPO TUNA RESOURCES

Improved fisheries monitoring has been the largest single impact of SCIFISH, and the extremely high observer coverage rates, and log-sheet submission rates achieved in recent years are testimony to the fact that high impact in given domains of critical data collection are being achieved. Cost- recovery schemes put in place at the level of individual countries for the running of national observer schemes provide a solid foundation for sustainability of approaches currently being advocated. The continued evolution of the TUFMAN and TUBS database applications and making them ever more versatile also points towards increased future acceptance – and therefore sustainability. Remote servicing of servers and databases, and the gradual move towards web-based platforms (further reducing national hardware and software servicing needs) are all elements signalling that sustainability criteria are high on the agenda, and being actively pursued. All of the scientific work carried out by SPC – and through SCICOFISH – is of high standard, and represents the nexus of oceanic tuna fisheries science and advice in this part of the world. The scientific output of the OFP has driven tuna management in the WCPO for decades, and is highly likely to do so in the future. SPC’s growing interconnectedness with WCPFC, as its designated data collector and science provider – over the most recent decade – clearly points in this direction. SPC is therefore the logical organisation in the WCPO to deliver impact and sustainability in tuna fisheries science and management advice for the years to come. The tools to provide advice have constantly evolved, and are becoming ever more sensitive and complex, and this evolution is highly appreciated by stakeholders across the Region.

6.2 CONSERVATION & SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF COASTAL FISHERIES RESOURCES

Coastal fisheries were placed somewhat at the losing end of the institutional equation for a number of years now. The CFP has diminished substantially in terms of size since 2009 – when five Programme funded staff positions (equating to 50% of the total) were lost, and a number of divisions were scrapped/merged. This situation has weakened the CFP, and its capacity of delivering results of the same level of impact and durability as its cousin, the OFP does. The other element which is of concern is the CFP’s rather limited focus on science and – more recently under SCICOFISH – commercial coastal fisheries. Without diminishing the importance of these aspects of CFP’s work, the important management needs of subsistence fisheries have gone largely ignored since the PROCFISH years – not least because of these other domains of focal activity. This being said, the work done on field monitoring of coastal commercial resources and the management advice delivered is praised and appreciated, and is creating an impact in some countries already; and equally importantly, the secondary data collection work (based on

customized sampling protocols and databases) will develop very important tools to overcome a historic dearth of resource exploitation information – which is sometimes referred to as a reason stunting progress in management of the same fisheries. Critically, as indicated elsewhere in this report, this initiative does build on lessons learnt from former failures, and stands a fair chance of providing sustainable solutions for this sort of important data collection work, where most initiatives have failed before. The mix of people working on coastal fisheries management has to shift from pure biological science teams to teams that integrate profiles such as sociologists and economists. Especially coastal fisheries management is all about managing humans, not merely fish and sea-cucumbers.

6.3 POLICY SUPPORT

Policy support and interest in participating in, and benefitting from SPC’s project work is very solid. SPC’s work and advice is generally highly appreciated, and actively sought. SPC enjoys a high degree of trust from governments and officials, and SPC does embody the very widely accepted premier science provider for fisheries in the Region. National governments do regard SPC’s activities in fisheries – including those funded under SCICOFISH – as critical elements furthering national development prerogatives. This state of play is modulated by the political process, which takes into account scientific knowledge and advice offered. In the coastal domain a palpable slowness in adopting management advice seems given (see table 8). However, this is not limited to coastal fisheries. In the oceanic domain, management advice based on bio-economic modelling, for instance, delivered directly to individual countries through ISNRs, have also hit snags of administrative inertia – particularly in Fiji (regarding the optimum size of the long-line fleet) and Kiribati (regarding FAD closure periods). Such inertia is related at least in part to the fact that the political implications of translating received advice totally and without compromise into management substance may appear painful or impossible to decision- makers, who might then scramble to have alternative options appraised. This finding is not unexpected – rather to the contrary. The reach of a technical and science-oriented project such as SCICOFISH stops where the political process of decision-making starts. Science-based advice will often be watered down, and some knowledge and advice will invariably go ignored – and sometimes become actively supressed.

6.4 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP

In oceanic fisheries, industry representatives met during the MTE lamented the fact that they interface very little with FFA and the SPC directly. SPC does tend to work largely through governments – although not only. At government level, the OFP is well established, accepted and many of its products are being tailor-made to demand. In coastal fisheries, there is a healthy approach of working with NGOs – already today – who in turn are often the functional interfaces working with the communities. This should also provide pointers for CFP’s upcoming work in coastal fisheries management, as inscribed under objective 1 of FAME’s Strategic Plan 2013-2016. In this context, it is also essential to underline that the management sheets prepared under activity 2.4 have been highly prized by governments, NGOs and communities alike, showing that the CFP is an able communicator, able to produce relevant and attractive working materials that span stakeholder spectrums going beyond the norm.

6.5 APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY

In terms of technology, it is obvious that a critical amount of work under SCICOFISH centres on data collection, data entry, and data access. All such work today is carried through the deployment of modern technology – in this case PCs, databases and good access to the internet. The risk is always

that there is a gap or divide between the centre’s proposed solutions (SPC and FFA), and the periphery’s capacity in using and maintaining it. In the case of SCICOFISH, it is clear that the pitfalls inherent to the digital divide have been, and continue to be integrated into project strategies, in order to avoid the deployment of technologically unsustainable solutions. Examples include the deployment of country-based servers allowing for remote access and servicing, and more recently, the development of web-based applications (or transfer of server-based applications to ones that are web-based), in order to minimise in-country IT capacity and servicing needs. Such needs have often proven a killer factor in the past. Another issue is web access and data transfer capacity: in general data loads and transfer protocols are structured and streamlined in such a way that bandwidth needs are minimised, and that data can be up- and down-loaded within reasonable timeframes. The most important classic technology constraints, both technical and human, are being actively addressed and overcome by SCICOFISH, and the MTE concludes that lessons learnt from past initiatives have been actively and successfully ploughed into SCICOFISH project design – increasing its potential for impact and sustainability.

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 REGARDING SCICOFISH

Overall, SCICOFISH is a project of high relevance, which addresses priority issues in the domains of scientific research and management advice in both oceanic and coastal fisheries. The MTE feels that project relevance in coastal fisheries is slightly diminished for lack of attention paid by the project to the recognized needs of strengthening management frameworks in coastal fisheries. The project logic overall is sound, but a number of inconsistencies in formulation have been identified, as well as a number of weaknesses in the line-up of assumptions and stated OVIs. These do however not undermine the project in terms of confidently working towards its purpose and overall objective, and it is deemed of little practical benefit to formally address and straighten these out at this late stage of project implementation. The project is sufficiently resourced in budget and staff terms, overall, but an imbalance in funding and staffing induces a bottleneck for efficient expenditure under Component 2 (coastal fisheries). However, the project is still likely to reach its term with having spent most of its budget. Several key positions are to run out ahead of time, which is likely to spell trouble for at least one key activity under Component 2, if positions are not extended beyond currently allocated budget lines. The project is well managed, has sufficient visibility, works very well with beneficiaries and stakeholders, and that the quality of annual reporting has improved greatly over earlier projects – notably SCIFISH. Under both components, the project has either achieved already, or is highly likely of achieving its stated OVIs – to such a degree that the MTE concludes that the OVIs could have been setting slightly more ambitious targets. The MTE is marginally concerned about the secondary data collection activity targeting the rolling out of customized creel and market surveys, which have high potential of success, but which have fallen behind, and are going to prove HR intensive, at a time when the component is about to run out of staff, and ultimately of time also. Effectiveness rated by stakeholders has provided high impact to SCICOFISH’s work on observer programmes and data collection and centralisation, having boosted enormously P-ACP’s abilities to perform in these domains. However, in both these domains, predecessor projects are owed at least part of the acclaims. In the domains of boosting the capacity of P-ACPs in coastal fisheries science

and knowledge, and in coastal fisheries conservation and management, the perceived results are more limited. This owes in part to the fact that predecessor work has been less, and project focus rested almost exclusively on the management of commercial resources only. Overall, across both components, achieved work thus far has been widely acclaimed by stakeholders as highly relevant, very useful, and in most cases of critical importance to improve the capacity of P-ACPs in playing their part in the sustainable management of the region’s strategic fisheries resources. The MTE is confident that the project will continue to perform and produce further expected results in its final year, and has but a handful of relevant recommendations to make, some of which are already actively being considered or planned by SPC: • All efforts should be made to extend the key staff positions until the formal term of the project (including the first quarter of 2014). This concerns especially the staff positions for which funding is going to run out in their respective budget lines before the end of the project, namely the observer programme coordinator (Component 1) and the chief scientist (Component 2); • Funds and EDF rules permitting, Component 2 should assess the possibility of hiring short- term TA under a long-term contract (from as soon as possible until the end of the project) in order to boost the staff resources available to the secondary data collection activity that is falling behind schedule; • From a perspective of the EU moving to programme support (see next section) – and only then – should the Final Evaluation of SCICOFISH not only look at SCICOFISH achievements, but the Final Evaluation should then become an expanded EDF/SPC final evaluation of the entire family of EDF-funded projects that have provided the SPC with support in related fisheries domains since 2002. That FE should cover the PROCFISH 42 , SCIFISH, both DEVFISH 43 and the SCICOFISH initiatives – and provide an encompassing closing picture of what these often overlapping projects have achieved overall. A relevant point in time to conduct such an encompassing FE would be 2015. A few recommendations at the technical level may also be put forward, and are already being considered or planned by SPC: • As observer numbers start to reach levels sufficient to respond to the requirements of the WCPFC, observer work should start to focus more on the training of trainers, on facilitating the accreditation of national training centres (working for the region), and in assisting countries in the management (logistics) of running observer programmes – hand in hand with its FFA partner programmes; • Bio-economic analysis is highly appreciated by countries. The MTE feels that its impact would be further increased if the economic aspects inherent to the modelling would expand beyond value aspects of the resources caught, and factor in revenue streams to governments (licensing and agreements) and benefits accruing to national economies (port services, observer programmes, employment, processing and exports, etc.) – as well as operational costs of fleets. This would greatly enhance the strategic value of the modelling outcomes for national decision-making.

42 PROCFISH/C and the associated COFISH initiatives, which finished in 2009, have not benefitted from an FE. 43 The DEVFISH I project, which finished in 2009, has not benefited from an FE.

7.2 IMMEDIATE (2014-2015) AND LONGER TERM EU SUPPORT TO SPC/FAME

7.2.1 Short-term support (2014-2015) SCICOFISH is due to finish officially in early 2014, coinciding with the beginning of the EDF11 funding cycle. A number of SCICOFISH staff positions will run out before 2014, especially under Component 2, which is likely to deal a crippling blow to the important activities that are still under implementation – and currently unachieved – notably the essential secondary data collection activity. Based on current trends, the analysis of project expenditure has shown that SCICOFISH is likely to wind up with little unspent funds by the official term of the project’s contractual lifetime. An extension of the project lifetime (time extension) without extra funding would allow the project to extend but for a few months at most. In addition to this, the definition of new support under EDF11 funding, and the coming online of such assistance, is likely to not become available before 2015. This will be partly related to the fact that the overall form of EDF support to SPC should be re-considered, and re-defined (see next section), and this will undoubtedly need some extra time, and imply funding delays. Therefore it is recommended that – following the granting of a no-cost time extension (should funds remain) – the EU consider the making available of additional (extra) bridge funding to extend the project by a further full year. This will allow SPC to continue the smooth implementation of a range of flagship activities which have been supported by EU funding for many years now, and avoid a disruption of critical services to the region. Not all SCICOFISH activities will be able to be carried forward under both components, but the most important ones should be. This issue, and the choice of activities, was addressed and discussed specifically at the HoF8 / SCICOFISH PSC meeting in Nouméa in March 2013, and the final decision on which activity groups and elements to consider for bridge funding should be based on the report and the decisions derived at HoF8. The preliminary indications of these discussions at HoF8 were that the following activities would be critical for countries to continue unabated: Component 1: • Observer programme work • Bio-economic modelling and advice Component 2: • Secondary data collection • Management planning for coastal fisheries Given the uncertainty in how much funds will remain at the official term of the project, and the granting of a time extension – and the unknown duration thereof, it is difficult to set a precise amount for bridge funding. However, given SPC’s track record as an effective agency, generally managing to engage funds on time in its externally funded projects, it is estimated that €1.5 million would likely be appropriate and sufficient to bridge the gap being discussed. The MTE recommends the EU to consider such a request positively, given that the funds would be well-invested in activities of critical importance to the region and the management of its fisheries. 7.2.2 Long-term support The EU has a long-standing history of supporting SPC’s FAME Division through the funding of projects. The MTE has analysed EU funding support spanning the last 11 years, in order to gain a sense of the magnitude of the support, and the trends that can be detected in this.

Figure 9 below shows the FAME budgets between 2003 and 2013 (note: year 2003=1), and EU funds as a relative portion thereof (marked as percentage values) . It also provides a simple trend analysis of budget evolution, both of the overall FAME budget, and the EU contribution – independently of each other. What arises from this analysis is that the FAME Budget has increased stead ily over the last 11 years (by 120%), and that the contribution of the EU to the overall budget has been substantial throughout (fluctuating between 23% and 43% of the total). The net increase in EU contribution (based on the linear regression trend) is of about 44% over the same period. In relative terms, based on both linear regressions (total funds & EU portion ), the relative contribution of the EU to the overall FAME budget has decreased from an average 44% in 2003, to 28% in 2013. This notwithstanding, 2011 was the year with the highest net contribution of EU funding to FAME over the period analysed. Figure 16: Trend analysis of FAME budget and EU -funded portion - 2003 to 2013 (x100CFP)

An important finding is that both the rel ative and the net contributions of EU funding to SPC/FAME fluctuates significantly between years, while the overall SPC budget (in net terms) displays less variability. Much of the variability in the overall FAME budget is actually caused by the variabilit y of EU envelopes, and it seems that SPC has been able to buffer fluctuations to some degree (especially on downward swings of EU funding). This underlines SPCs capacity in effectively tapping a diverse range of donor funding. The EU has been a very import ant funding source and development partner to SPC throughout, yet annual variability in flows of funds has been high. This is related to a large extent to the funding mechanism used – which is project funding. Projects start, funds flow in; projects finish , funding stops. Gaps arise. New projects must be defined and come online. A certain degree of disruptions in activities and services are a consequence thereof. SPC’s FAME is drawing on three key sources of funding. These are core funding, programme fundin g, and project funding. Core funding is derived from recurrent member country contributions. Programme funding is made available by countries or entities that support FAME overall or any one of its two technical programmes (CFP / OFP) in particular. Austra lia, France and New Zealand (in order of decreasing envelope size) have been very important donors making available such funds

over the period assessed. However, New Zealand withdrew programme funding at the end of 2010, and France’s envelopes have shrunk substantially, creating important recent programme funding shortfalls. Figure 10 below shows the evolution of core, programme and project funding for both CFP and OFP over the 11-year period analysed. For each technical programme, only two values are shown ; core and programme funding have been amalgamated to provide one single figure (both sources serve a common cause, supporting the programme), and project funding. What arises is that the CFP’s core/programme funding has traditionally been more important t han that of the OFP. This brings with it a higher vulnerability of the CFP to fluctuations in core/programme funding. The CFP was hit hard in 2009/2010, when New Zealand Programme funding was discontinued, and France’s programme funding was reduced by over 60%. The OFP, on the other hand, received little programme funding from New Zealand in the first place, and weathered changes in funding patterns with no noticeable impact. As mentioned earlier, the reduction in core/programme funding led to the loss of h alf the programme staff positions in the CFP in 2009, weakening it substantially, and diminishing its capacity to implement projects and deliver results with the same efficiency and effectiveness as the OFP. Figure 17: Funding sources of FAME programmes (x100CFP)

It is also apparent that both programmes are becoming ever more dependent on project funding. In 2003, OFP’s project funding was two and a half time the value of core/programme funding; in 2013, it was six and a half times that. For the CFP, programme/core funding was higher than project funding in 2003, while project funding had increased to two and a half times the value of core/programme funding in 2013. For an institution that is basing its business on the implementation of four-year strategic plans, complete with clear objectives and identified domains of intervention, obtaining the bulk of its financial assistance through funding attached to projects ought to be regarded as a fundamental weakness and distraction, creating inefficiencies, and also a certain degree of ineffectiveness. The following provides a number of key points that create inefficiencies for SPC when implementing projects within its strategic programme;

• Project formulation: Projects must be formulated on the basis of elements inscribed in the programme, in order to attract funding. This creates a duplication and waste of time. The programme is already formulated, and adopted by the region’s leaders; • Project administration: Projects must be individually administered, complete with budgeting, auditing, monitoring and reporting. This creates multiple administrative layers within SPC, which would be just one under a scenario of broad and unique programme implementation; • Reporting: SPC reports to the heads of fisheries on its activities, and then to project steering committees on selection of the same activities funded by a particular donor, creating confusion, and generating lack of focus and interest from stakeholders. It also applies to paper reporting, having to report on the same activities to the HoF as SPC, and to donors and PSCs as project implementation agency – creating duplication of work, and a generally diminishing quality in reporting; • Membership: Projects may force SPC to work with countries that are not SPC members (as for Timor Leste under SCICOFISH), while SPC member countries might be excluded due to their non-member status in other organisations (such as the ACP club) – creating incoherence and two-speed development and assistance regimes; • Project funding cycles are ill-aligned (or not aligned at all) with four-year strategic programme cycles, creating issues for the consistent implementation of the strategic programmes, and acrobatics to make projects fit regionally agreed prerogatives for projects straddling such cycles; • Projects follow each other so closely, or overlap (e.g. SCIFISH & SCICOFISH), so that formal project review and evaluation, and the outcomes thereof, are only marginally useful (when useful at all) in the design of follow-up projects – chiefly because they are conducted too late in the cycle of follow-up project planning and approval; • Staffing becomes problematic, as positions to implement programme elements become tied to project funds, and become difficult to control in time and in technical focus; • If the coastal component shifts more focus towards CBRM work, it is likely that staff costs as a percentage of total CFP costs will increase, which will make it likely to fail EU project rules on relative limits of staff costs (CBRM activities in general are known to be especially “hungry” for sufficiently endowed staff and TA budget lines); • Last but not least, the SPC implements long term support in specific domains (see box 4 below), which straddle multi-annual strategic plans and projects. Much of this work is not “project” work in the classic sense, where an issue is recognized, addressed and solved through the implementation of a project. Ecosystem and bio-economic modelling, observer work, information (data) management and many more such SPC initiatives reach back by more than a decade. They were in existence before any project start, and continue to evolve after projects (and their funding) have gone. Much of this is standing and continuing long term programme work, funded through project vehicles. Generally speaking, evaluations (such as this MTE) have great difficulty in properly qualifying achievements, because more often than not, the starting point (baseline) is unknown or hazy, and the endpoint is not really an endpoint, because work will continue under separate funding within the same strategic FAME plan. Especially impact and sustainability are often largely impossible to qualify under such circumstances 44 , making the project approach inherently inappropriate.

44 By way of a relevant example; how is the ex-post FE of SCIFISH going to rate the impact and sustainability of the achieved observer work, when the same work was picked up under SCICOFISH a year ahead of SCIFISH finishing? There was no clear endpoint, and results achieved were further built upon and sustained through a follow-up project (SCICOFISH) and the associated funding; and how could sustainability be rated, when there

Box 4: Summary project features of SCICOFISH

“The project’s achievements are substantial. Observer and port sampling activity has been carried out as anticipated and has contributed to the expansion and quality improvement of the Regional Tuna Database. In addition, new light has been shed on by-catch and discards, especially in the long-line fishery, and this will allow the design of monitoring programmes aimed at these aspects of the fishery. Scientific research has focused on environmental and bio-economic modelling, and this is leading to the development of practical tools for use in reaching decisions on the management of the fishery. Biological research has focused on […]”

The 2 nd paragraph of the (EDF funded) SPRTRMP MTE Summary (1998) – above – highlights the “historic” existence of fundamental OFP work programme elements of the mid-nineties (implemented then through SPRTRMP), and which persist today. These include observer training, port sampling, data base development, environmental and bio-economic modelling. These key elements continue to exist to the largest extent under SCICOFISH Component 1 – launched 15 years later. This underlines that many of SPC/FAME’s activities are open-ended endeavours which inscribe themselves in a regional strategic programme of scientific and managerial support, provided to its members and the region in a long term perspective. The SPC is a renowned and widely acclaimed institution providing world-class research, science and management support to its members and this view is fully shared and supported by the MTE. A lot of this support is long-term and incremental – fit for delivery under a recurrent programme framework. SPC also has a long-standing history of successfully developing highly relevant and appropriate multi- annual strategic plans to support its members in their various domains of endeavour in coastal and in oceanic fisheries, and this is a solid foundation for the EU, as a donor, to build upon. Based on these critical considerations, and bearing in mind SPC FAME’s vulnerability to the relative diminishing of core/programme funding on one hand, and the inappropriateness of project funding as a vehicle to deliver donor support to SPC and its FAME strategic plans on the other, the MTE strongly recommends that the EU consider moving from project funding to direct programme support. This would simplify reporting, unclutter administration needs and costs, and stabilize the funding profile of the two technical FAME programmes overall – by reducing dependency on the vagaries of project funding. In doing so, the EU should decide on what funding level would be appropriate, and sustainable in the long term. The relative long term average funding support to FAME was 34% of the overall total made available to FAME by all sources combined. This would be a relevant figure to consider. In pegging it against the current overall budget of FAME – the last three years (2011-2013) having been rather level – the current expected annual financial support to SPC FAME would be in the order of CFP460 million (equivalent to €3.85million). In time, more efforts should be made by PICs and OCTs to divert more substantial parts of their resource rent – especially from oceanic fisheries – to co-finance central SPC programme-related services. A number of countries are already actively engaged in this process – notably PNG, New Caledonia and French Polynesia (by decreasing order of contributions) – leading the region by example. On the other hand, it is also fully justified that the EU contribute to the continued financing of these services, in its capacity as an active operator of tuna vessels in the region, and thus (also) as a stakeholder, inter pares , directly benefitting from sound scientific research and solid management advice aimed at maintaining productive and sustainable tuna fisheries.

was no endpoint, and achieved results were never “handed over”, and made to stand and perform on their own – which is what sustainability is about?

Annex 12: Terms of Reference FINAL EVALUATION Scientific Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the western and central Pacific Ocean (SCIFISH) 2007 - 2010 FED/2006/018-725 - 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8 and MID-TERM EVALUATION Scientific Support for the Management of Coastal and Oceanic Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH) 2010-2012 FED/2010/235-690 - 10 ACP.RPA 01

1. BACKGROUND

The specific objective of the Fisheries Focal Sector under the 9th EDF Regional Indicative Programme (RIP) for the Pacific was the conservation and optimum exploitation of fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific by promoting regional cooperation and coordination of policies aimed at eradicating poverty and securing maximum benefits for the people of the Region. The Overall Objective and purpose of the SCIFISH project directly addressed this regional strategy. The measures taken by the project were designed to enhance scientific information on oceanic marine resources and their ecosystem.

Under the 10 th EDF Regional Strategy and Regional Indicative Programme, ‘Sustainable management of natural resources and the environment’ formed one of two focal sectors. In line with the priorities of the Pacific Plan, fisheries resources received considerable attention in the programming. The SCICOFISH Project Purpose is to provide a reliable and improved scientific basis for management and decision making in oceanic and coastal fisheries. SCIFISH focuses solely on meeting the needs of Pacific ACP countries for scientific support and advice – there are no activities in the OCTs. The oceanic fisheries component includes the development of national observer programmes, tuna fishery databases, bio-economic modelling to support management advice, ecosystem modelling to forecast impacts of climate change, and a small tuna tagging project. The coastal component aims to develop national capacity for field monitoring of coastal resources, develop other coastal fisheries data collection systems, and assist countries use this data to develop coastal fishery management measures.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

The objectives of the evaluation are to:

4. determine the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of SCIFISH and SCICOFISH in meeting their objectives and the sustainability of the outcomes; 5. identify the possible scope of future projects or programmes to meet the needs of the Pacific ACP countries for regionally delivered scientific services in the Fishery area. 6. ascertain the need for an extension in time and other resources for SCICOFISH;

Specifically the evaluation will:

9. Assess the degree to which project activities have achieved the defined goals, objectives and targets of SCIFISH and SCICOFISH 10. Assess the complementarity between SCIFISH and SCICOFISH 11. Review the problems faced, lessons learnt and successes achieved which could strengthen institutional capacity and future planning. 12. Review and assess the relevance of the original project design, Financing Agreements and ToRs of the Technical Assistance contracts in light of achievements or failures to achieve the expected objectives 13. Conduct cost benefit analysis of the projects, as far as possible 14. Assess the issue of sustainability 15. Assess the project’s sensitivity to environmental and gender issues, specifically whether these issues are addressed. 16. Assess the complementary of Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission funding to SPC and the 9 th and 10 th EDF funding for similar activities

One report covering distinctly both projects will have to be produced. However two separate invoices (one for each project) will have to be submitted.

3. MAIN ISSUES TO BE STUDIED

When undertaking the evaluation, the Consultant should address the following issues:

Project Design

Assess the project design based on the original Financing Agreements. Also assess the internal coherence of the project with due consideration to:

• The Overall Objective • Project purpose • Results • Activities • Assumptions / preconditions • Comment on the Logical Framework

Relevance

The consultant will, amongst others, assess the following:

More specifically, the Consultant should make an assessment of the contribution of SCIFISH to:

Efficiency

Evaluate the efficiency with which the activities of SCIFISH and SCICOFISH have been undertaken in order to yield project results. The following aspects should be considered:

Effectiveness

The evaluation will analyse the relationship between the purpose of each project and results achieved. The following questions should assist with the assessment of the effectiveness of each project:

• What are the relationship between the purpose of each project and results achieved beneficiaries (compare actual vs. planned)?

• To what extent have the purposes of the project been achieved, or can be expected to be achieved in the current project duration? • Have there been unforeseen beneficiaries or unintended consequences, and if yes, explain why, the extent, impact and implications for all stakeholders? • Have the assumptions required to translate project results into the Project Purpose been realised? If not, why and how did this affect the project? • Have the projects’ resources (TA and personnel, equipment, training, research etc.) been directly related to projects’ results? • Have appropriately qualified and experienced staff been recruited to implement the projects and contribute to planned project outputs. • What communication and information strategies have been developed and implemented in terms of visibility, dissemination and access to information acquired by the projects?

Impact

Based on the results of the projects to date, the Consultant will assess the impact and predict the potential impact of the projects in the following areas:

Sustainability

In terms of sustainability particular emphasis should be given to:

Policy Support

• Extent to which project has had support in the recipient countries. • Degree of agreement on the Project Purpose

• Support from relevant organizations and national institutions (technical, political, business etc.) • Willingness to provide resources (financial and personnel) by ACPs, OCTs and others.

Economic and Financial Analysis

This part will be based on a cost effectiveness analysis, and should lead to conclusions and recommendations to improve and ensure the sustainability of the SCICOFISH project and its results.

Community Acceptance and Ownership

This important component of sustainability needs to be assessed in all relevant target groups. Do the target groups feel the outputs of the project are relevant to their needs?

Appropriate Technology

Does the technology offered correspond to the capacity and needs of the target groups. Will the intended beneficiaries be able to adopt and maintain the technology acquired?

Institutional and Management Capacity

Assess the commitment of all parties involved such as governments, (e.g. through policy and budgetary support) other institutions and potential donors in contributing towards sustainability.

The Consultant should make specific recommendations regarding:

Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall outcome

What are the main achievements of the projects to date and to be expected? Elaborate on the possible impact of the outcomes and their efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability.

Elaborate also on the remaining needs at the regional and national levels and how these would be best met.

Sustainability

Management Capabilities

Comment on the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisational and supporting management arrangements.

4. EXPERTS REQUIRED

The evaluation will be undertaken by two experts with the following profile: Fisheries experts (senior)

Minimum requirements:

The following experience would be a strong asset:

5. LOCATION AND DURATION

The evaluation will be undertaken as follows:

• De-briefing with RAO/SPC/EU in Suva.

The total personnel input to be provided is estimated to be 78 man-days. An indicative time schedule per study phase and projects is broken down as follows:

Please note that:

• Both experts will have to come to Fiji and to New Caledonia. • Experts will have to divide the country visits in order to cover all countries required.

The indicative starting date of the assignment is 14 January 2013, upon availability of the experts. The above indications may be changed with the agreement of all parties concerned.

6. REPORTING

Consultants will prepare the following reports:

NB. All reports should be addressed to the RAOs and the EU Delegation for the Pacific.

Quality of the Final Evaluation Report

7. TIME SCHEDULE

Services rendered between the beginning of the evaluation and the acceptance of the final report should span no more than a period of four calendar months.

8. IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Flights to RMI, FSM are serviced regularly by Continental Airlines. There is no direct flight between Fiji and the North Pacific; however, Air Pacific operates twice weekly Nadi-Honolulu.

From Honolulu Continental Airlines flies to Majuro, Pohnpei. FSM or RMI to Fiji is notably possible via Guam/Cairns/Honolulu.

Flights to Kiribati from Fiji are serviced by Air Pacific twice a week usually on Mondays and Thursdays.

Flights to New Caledonia from Fiji (direct ones) are serviced by Air Calin twice a week.

Annex 13: Time schedule of the mission Date Meetings - Gilles Hosch Meetings - Paul Nichols Thu 07 Feb 2013 10.00 am, EU Del Fri 08 Feb 2013 Jope Temani Fisheries dept, pm Sat 09 Feb 2013 Hugh Govan Sun 10 Feb 2013 Mon 11 Feb 2013 Depart Suva -Nadi -Noumea Tue 12 Feb 2013 08.00 EU Delegation Mike Batty Peter Williams, Bruno Simon Nicol Wed 13 Feb 2013 Lindsay Chapman, Kalo Pakoa, Franck Magron Tim Lawson Thu 14 Feb 2013 Shelton Harley Fri 15 Feb 2013 Hugues Gossuin, Regis Etaix -Bonnin Mike Batty (debrief) Sat 16 Feb 2013 Depart Noumea -Brisbane Mike King Sun 17 Feb 2013 Depart Noumea, arrive Nadi Depart Brisbane -Port Moresby Mon 18 Feb 2013 Depart Nadi, arrive Tarawa 09.00 meeting with EU Delegation 10.30 meetings with NFA 2.00 meetings with NFA Tue 19 Feb 2013 Meetings with NFA Wed 20 Feb 2013 Meetings with NFA Thu 21 Feb 2013 Depart Tarawa, arrive Aukland Depart Port Moresby -Cairns Fri 22 Feb 2013 Depart Aukland, arrive Papeete Depart Cairns, arrive Palau Sat 23 Feb 2013 Meetings with PNA officials Sun 24 Feb 2013 Depart Papeete, arrive Aukland Meetings with PNA member states Mon 25 Feb 2013 Depart Palau, arrive Pohnpei Meetings with WCPFC staff Tue 26 Feb 2013 Depart Aukland, arrive Honiara Meetings with NORMA 15.30 on 26/2. Gilles meeting Meetings with WCPFC with EU Del. Wed 27 Feb 2013 Depart Pohnpei, arrive Majuro Thu 28 Feb 2013 Meetings with MIMRA Fri 01 March 2013 Depart Honiara, arrive Apia National holiday – report writing Depart Majuro-Honolulu Sat 02 March 2013 Depart Apia, arrive Noumea Depart Honolulu Sun 03 March 2013 Arrive Noumea (via Brisbane) Mon 04 March 2013 Report preparation Tue 05 March 2013 Attending HoF -8 meeting Report preparation Wed 06 March 2013 Report preparation Thu 07 March 2013 Presentation of initial results to HoF -8 meeting Fri 08 March 2013 Report preparation Sat 09 March 2013 Depart Noumea Depart Noumea Sun 10 March 2013 Arrive Rome Arrive London

Annex 14: List of Persons met Name Title/Organisation Email Meetings in Fiji, 7 th to 11 th February, 2013 Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Jean-Yves Hansart Technical Assistant to the RAO [email protected] Jerry Huekwahin Aid for Trade Officer [email protected] Delegation of the European Union Annick Villarosa Head of Section, Environment and Natural [email protected] Resources Thierry Catteau Attaché, Environment & Natural Resources [email protected] Fisheries Department Suresh Chand Deputy Director of Fisheries [email protected] Anare Raiwalui Principal Fisheries Officer, Management [email protected] ; [email protected] George Madden Principal Fisheries Officer [email protected] Jone Amoe OIC, national fisheries database [email protected] Jope Temani Ex-head of Fijian CA [email protected] NGOs Hugh Govan Adviser Policy and Advocacy, LMMA [email protected] network, Suva, Fiji Meetings in New Caledonia, 12 th February to 15 th February; and 3 rd March to 9 th March, 2013 Secretariat of the Pacific Community Anne Lefeuvre SCICOFISH Administration and [email protected] Communications Officer, FAME Bruno Deprez Data Audit Officer, OFP [email protected] Franck Magron Reef Fisheries Information Manager, CFP [email protected] Helene Lacomte Secretary, FAME [email protected] Kalo Pakoa Fisheries Scientist (Invertebrates), CFP [email protected] Lindsay Chapman Manager, CFP [email protected] Mike Batty Director, FAME [email protected] Peter Williams Data Manager, OFP [email protected] Shelton Harley Head, Stock Assessment and Modelling [email protected] Section Simon Nicol Principal Fisheries Scientist (Ecosystem [email protected] Monitoring & Assessment), OFP Tim Lawson Manager, Fisheries Monitoring, OFP [email protected] Mike King Consultant to SPC [email protected] Service de la Marine Marchande et des Peche Maritimes Hugues Gossuin Tuna Coordinator [email protected] Regis Etaix-Bonnin Fisheries officer [email protected] Delegation of the European Union Mechthild Kronen Gestionnaire programmes de coopération [email protected] Others (attending HoF-8) Mark Young Operations Manager, FFA [email protected] Hugh Walton Fisheries Development Adviser [email protected] Meetings in Papua New Guinea, 17 th to 21 st February, 2013 National Fisheries Authority Andrew Taunega Projects Planner, Fisheries [email protected] Brian Kumasi Tuna Fisheries Management Officer [email protected] John Kasu Executive Manager, Corporate Services [email protected] Leban Gisawa Manager, Inshore Fisheries [email protected] Philip Lens Observer Manager [email protected] [email protected] Presley Kokwaiye Provincial Support Officer [email protected]

Name Title/Organisation Email Rodney Kirarock Trade & Investment Officer [email protected] Sylvester Pokajam Managing Director [email protected] Ludwig Kumoru Executive Manager, Tuna Fishery, NFA, Port [email protected] Moresby Delegation of the European Union Thomas Viot Attache, Economics and Trade [email protected] Meetings in Palau, 22 nd to 25 th February, 2013 Attending PNA Special Meeting Anton Jimwereiy PNA Coordinator, PNA [email protected] Gary Preston Fisheries Adviser to the Government of [email protected] Tuvalu Les Clark Consultant to PNA [email protected] Eugene Pangelinan Exec Director, NORMA [email protected] Maurice Brownjohn Commercial Manager, PNA [email protected] OBE Richard Banks Consultant to PNA [email protected] Transform Aqorau Director, PNA [email protected] Meetings in Federated States of Micronesia, 25 th to 27 th February, 2013 National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) Alfred Lebehn Jr. Statistics & Info -Tech Manager. [email protected] Justino-Helgen VMS Compliance Manager [email protected] Naiten Bradley Phillip Chief, Research Division. [email protected] WCPFC Glenn Hurry Executive Director, WCPFC, Pohnpei [email protected] Karl Staisch Regional Observer Programme Coordinator, [email protected] WCPFC, Pohnpei Albert Carlot Vessel Monitoring System Manager [email protected] Lara Manarangi-Trott Compliance Manager, WCPFC. [email protected] Sam Taufaoa ICT Manager, WCPFC, Pohnpei. [email protected] SungKwon Soh Science Manager, WCPFC. [email protected] Tony Beeching Assistant Science Programme Manager, [email protected] WCPFC, Pohnpei Pohnpei State Government Eugene Joseph Executive Director, Conservation Society of [email protected] Pohnpei. Itaia Richard Fred Fisheries Specialist [email protected] [email protected] Meetings in Republic of Marshall Islands, 27 th February – 1st March, 2013 Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) Bernard Fiubala Observer Programme Adviser [email protected] Candice M. Guavis Assistant Chief, Policy Planning and Stats [email protected] Section [email protected] Dike Poznanski Observer Supervisor [email protected] Florence Edwards Chief, Policy Planning and Stats Section [email protected] [email protected] Glen Joseph Director [email protected] Meetings in Kiribati, 18 th to 20 th February, 2013 Ministry of Marine Fisheries and Resources Development Raikaon Tumoa Director of Fisheries (Act.) [email protected] Mbwenea Teioki Senior Fisheries Officer (MCS unit) [email protected] Kaon Tiamere Fisheries Officer (Offshore Dept.) [email protected] Karibanang Tamuera Principal Fisheries Officer (Aquaculture [email protected]

Name Title/Organisation Email branch) Meetings in French Polynesia, 22 nd February, 2013 Direction des Ressources Marines Stéphen Yen Kai Sun Directeur des Ressources Marines stephen.yen -kai [email protected] Christophe Missélis Conseiller Technique (Ministère) [email protected]. pf Taiana Raoulx Coordinatrice Programme Observateurs [email protected] Cédric Ponsonnet Chargé Suivi & Evaluation [email protected] Meetings in Solomon Islands, 26 th to 28 th February, 2013 Delegation of the European Union Elisabeth Gotschi Rural Development Adviser [email protected] Forum Fisheries Agency Timothy Park Observer Programmes Manager [email protected] Ramesh Chand VMS Manager [email protected] Apolosi Turaganivalu Compliance Policy Officer [email protected] Nicholas Reese IT Manager [email protected] Kenneth Katafono Database Administrator [email protected] Roseti Imo Fisheries Economist Adviser [email protected] Christopher Reid Fisheries Economist Adviser [email protected] Ministry of Fisheries James Teri Deputy Director [email protected] Charles Tobasala Principal Fisheries Officer – Compliance [email protected] John Still Villi Senior Observer / Debriefer / Trainer [email protected] Derek Suimae Observer Coordinator [email protected] Selina Lipa Principal Fisheries Officer - Licensing [email protected] Francis Tofuakalo Deputy Director – Provincial Fisheries [email protected] Peter Kenilorea Senior Fisheries Officer [email protected] Rosalie Masu Deputy Director - Inshore [email protected] Robert Maneiria Chief Fisheries Officer – Statistics & IT [email protected] Simon Diffey Team Leader [email protected]

Annex 15: Implementation status of SCICOFISH activities at the time of the MTE Oceanic fisheries: Result 1 : P-ACP governments, the FFA and the WCPFC are provided with scientific data, modelling, and advice to underpin their management decision making and strategic positioning. Activities OVIs Results (2010-2012) 1.1 Observer Training 300 observers trained, 10 • Basic observer training: 28 courses, 351 Observer trainees and Systems observer trainers and 10 • Observer Trainer courses: 3 courses, 16 Trainees observer de-briefers • De-briefer courses: 8 courses, 110 trainees operational • Assistance provided to National observer courses: 3 • Recognition of Prior Learning courses: 2 courses, 24 trainees • ROCW held annually • Purse-seine observer training video (completed 2011) • Long-line observer training video (completed (2012) • First draft of a purse-seine observer guide completed (2012) 1.2 Integrated Tuna National tuna fisheries • Data audit workbooks for log-sheet and port sampling systems completed (2010) Fisheries Databases databases operational in 15 P- • 4 training attachments for national tuna data officer to SPC HQ ACPs • Two in-country data audits conducted • One informal audit of TUFMAN data conducted at SPC/OFP • TUFMAN version 6.22 completed and distributed end 2012 (includes VDS Management system) • Initial work on data coverage though web-based version of the VMS-logsheet reconciliation (2012) • Initial work on electronic reporting - improves data quality by removing a step in the data entry process (2012) 14P-ACP's report data to • All P-ACPs submitted their 2010 data to WCPFC before 30th April 2011 deadline WCPFC as per their • All but one P-ACPs submitted 2011 data to WCPFC before 30th April 2012 deadline obligations Tuna data audits conducted • TDW (Apr 2010) included audits of national tuna data collection systems. for at least 10 P-ACPs • Data audit tools developed including VMS-Log-sheet coverage enhanced and well established. • Five in -country audits conducted 1.3 Bio-economic 1 regional and 10 national • 6 NTFSR completed (Samoa, Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Marshall Islands), with national Modelling and National reports providing bio- advice on stock assessment and including bio- economic modelling of Fiji long line fishery Advice economic modelling advice • Regional bio-economic modelling advice paper produced for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna (with FFA) • 2 Region-Wide stock assessments completed for bigeye and skipjack tuna (2010) • 4 Region-Wide stock assessments completed for big eye, yellow fin, skipjack and south pacific albacore (2011) • Four stock assessments undertaken: south Pacific albacore, southwest Pacific striped marlin, oceanic

Oceanic fisheries: Result 1 : P-ACP governments, the FFA and the WCPFC are provided with scientific data, modelling, and advice to underpin their management decision making and strategic positioning. Activities OVIs Results (2010-2012) white-tip shark (accepted by WCPFC), and silky sharks (more work requested) • 1 regional tuna fishery status report produced • Database developed on historical changes in fishing costs from various sources • Form for economic data for purse seiners in the WCPFC completed • Attachment trainings at SPC HQ for Cook Islands and Solomon Islands • ISNRs on FAD closure impacts completed for seven countries (2012) 1.4 Ecosystem 1 regional and 10 national • CLS modelled development of high res oceanographic and fishery data to improve local acuity of Modelling of reports (including Timor SEAPODYM –initial focus on SJ Management and Leste) providing advice on • First experiment using high resolution oceanographic and fishing data for skipjack completed under CLS Climate Change tuna resource vulnerability to contract (SEAPODYM development) environmental variability • Skipjack, Albacore and Bigeye models validations completed; yellowfin model validation partially including climate change completed (2011) • 1 Regional and 22 national reports drafted. (awaiting comment from National and Regional counterparts – 2012) 1.5 Validate Key Model 10 region-wide stock • Around 4,000 tunas tagged in 2011 Parameters through assessments for key tuna • Data incorporated (2011) into WCPFC stock assessments (Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack tuna). tagging species, using the latest • Eighth central Pacific tagging cruise completed (2012). updated data, provided to • Tagging data successfully incorporated into the SEAPODYM model decision-makers during 2010- 2013

Coastal fisheries: Result 2 : P-ACP governments, private sector and communities are equipped to monitor coastal fisheries to provide scientific advice in support of sustainable management of these resources P-ACP governments, private sector and communities will be provided with technical methods and training to monitor coastal fisheries, scientific advice to inform management decisions, and development of in-country capacity to evaluate their effectiveness. Activities OVIs Results (2010-2012) 2.1 Conduct Stakeholder Country specific needs prioritised for all • Management and monitoring priorities identified – some incorporated into JCS documents . Consultation P-ACPs 2.2 Develop and Standard monitoring protocols • Draft Invertebrate survey methodology manual (2012) Implement Field implemented and sustained in at least 5 • Draft market and creel survey manual drafted (2012) Monitoring Protocols P-ACPs • Successful trials of the creel survey manual in 4 countries • Mentoring of 2 PIC young professionals in biological sampling, invertebrate surveys and ciguatera assessments. • Assistance to one PIC in ciguatera risk management • Finfish assessment/UVC training (incl. aquarium fish)): 9 countries, at least 18 participants • Invertebrate assessment training: 12 countries, at least 33 trainees • Environmental Assessment Impact assistance: 1 country (9 trainees) • Survey methodology training: 2 countries, at least 12 trainees 2.3 Develop and Regional data repository maintained and • Four sub-regional workshops on basic database skills (2011). Implement Secondary national data provided for backup from • 8 country-based servers established (2012) Data Collection at least 5 countries/fisheries • On-line training programme developed for identification of sea cucumber species (2011) Protocols • Regional database module for export data completed (2012 - focus on aquarium fish). • Two sub-regional workshops undertaken with 17 people trained from 14 countries. • Database training attachments in Noumea for 2 countries (2012) 2.4 Develop Assessments and management • Coastal finfish Management advice provided to (4) country and (3) country on aquarium fish Management Advice recommendations given for at least 5 trade major coastal fisheries • Coastal invertebrate management advice provided to (5) countries • 2 training attachment in 2011 on data analysis. • Management plans for sea cucumber (1) PIV and lobsters (1) PIC. • Production / publication of information sheets on CBM • Production / publication of guide to finfish and invertebrates. • Creel survey data and training and biological sampling undertaken (2012). • Invertebrate management advice provided to 3 PICs. • Data analysis/management formulation attachments for 3 PICs (2012) • Production / publication of brochure on community-managed no-take areas in fisheries

Annex 16: List of key Project documents consulted

Project documents

EU/SPC (2010) SCICOFISH Contribution Agreement (with Annexes). FED/2010/235-690. 65p. Caballero, E. (2012). SCICOFISH Monitoring Report (ROM). CRIS no. D-021370 PWC (2010). SCICOFISH Financial Audit – Year 1. 6p. PWC (2011). SCICOFISH Financial Audit – Year 2. 6p. SPC (2010). SCICOFISH Year 1 Progress Report and Year 2 Work Plan. 26p. SPC (2011). SCICOFISH Year 2 Progress Report and Year 3 Work Plan. 37p. SPC (2012). SCICOFISH Year 3 Progress Report and Year 4 Work Plan. 40p. SPC (2011). SCICOFISH Project Steering Committee Report 1. 17p. SPC (2012). SCICOFISH Project Steering Committee Report 2. 22p. SPC (2013). (DRAFT) SCICOFISH Project Steering Committee Report 3. 9p.

Papers and reports spawned directly under/from SCICOFISH activities (selection)

Carleton, C. (2012) (DRAFT FINAL REPORT) Effective management of sea cucumber fisheries and bêche-de-mer trade in Melanesia: bringing the industry under rational control. 52p. Fisk, D. (2012). (DRAFT) Manual for Assessing Tropical Marine Invertebrate Resources for Management Purposes in the Pacific Islands. 74p. Govan, H. (2013) (DRAFT) Strategic Review of Inshore Fisheries Policies and Strategies in Solomon Islands, Fiji and Vanuatu. 34p. Kaly, U. & Preston, G. (2012?) Creel and Market Manual for Fisheries Officers. 109p. King, M. (2011) Guide to information sheets on fisheries management for communities. 57p. Lehodey, P. et al. (2012) Modelling the impact of climate change on Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. Climatic Change (Springer). 17p. Leroy, B. & Lewis, T. (2012) Pacific Tuna Tagging Project. Phase 2 (Central Pacific). Cruise CP-8: September 26th to 17st October 2012. Summary Report. 16p. Nicol, S. et al. (2012) An ocean observation system for monitoring the affects of climate change on the ecology and sustainability of pelagic fisheries in the Pacific Ocean. Climatic Change (Springer). 17p. Tuara, P. & Passfield, K. (2011) Gender in Oceanis and Coastal Fisheries Science and Management. 70p.

Annex 17: SCICOFISH Logical Framework INTERVENTION LOGIC OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (ORIGINAL ) SOURCES OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS

Overall Objective: • Effort on yellowfin and bigeye tuna reduced to at • National stock assessment Conservation and sustainable use of coastal and least the level required to reach F MSY (the fishing reports oceanic fisheries resources in the Pacific Islands mortality associate with the maximum sustainable • Region-wide stock status region. yield) or lower, for both species. reports • Tuna discards by purse seiners reduced to less than • Comparisons to baselines 1% of catch (<12,000 t) confirmed by 100% established in this study. observer coverage. • At least some management measures adopted in each of 5 coastal areas with measureable signs of recovery observed in baseline monitoring (indicators to be established under this project). Project Purpose: • 100% of project stock assessment results for 4 main • Report of WCPFC Scientific • P-ACP governments have the To provide a reliable and improved scientific tuna species accepted by WCPFC Scientific Committee political will to fully consider basis for management advice and decision Committee and forwarded to full Commission for • Report of WCPFC Technical the best scientific advice making in oceanic and coastal fisheries. decision-making. and Compliance Committee when taking decisions. • Observer coverage rates reach regionally-agreed • National regulations and • P-ACP governments can levels by 2012 (100% for purse seine vessels) with management plans. receive and deploy funds no decrease in data quality. intended to support the cost • At least 5 P-ACP countries adopt coastal fisheries of observers from fishing management measures in line with project fleets. recommendations. • Increased observer coverage is effective in improving compliance. Result 1: P-ACP governments, the FFA and the • National tuna fisheries databases operational in 15 • SPC databases populated • There is sufficient political WCPFC are provided with scientific data, P-ACPs with these data will to heed scientific advice. modelling, and advice to underpin their • Tuna data audits conducted for at least 10 P-ACPs • Data audit reports • Complementary actions, for management decision making and strategic • 300 observers trained, 10 observer trainers and 10 • WCPFC Science Committee example surveillance positioning. observer de-briefers operational and Technical and cooperation on IUU fishing, • 14 P-ACP’s report data to WCPFC as per their Compliance Committee will continue obligations reports • 10 region-wide stock assessments for key tuna • Regional/national bio- species, using the latest updated data, provided to economic reports

INTERVENTION LOGIC OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (ORIGINAL ) SOURCES OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS decision-makers during 2010-2013 • Regional/national tuna • 1 regional and 10 national reports providing bio- resource profiles including economic modelling advice climate change impacts • 1 regional and 10 national reports (including Timor Leste) providing advice on tuna resource vulnerability to environmental variability including climate change Result 2: P-ACP governments, private sector and • Country specific needs prioritised for all P-ACPs • Project reports • . P-ACP governments will communities are equipped to monitor coastal • Assessments and management recommendations • National databases commit the human fisheries to provide scientific advice in support of given for at least 5 major coastal fisheries. • SPC repository database resources for initial and sustainable management of these resources. sult • Standard monitoring protocols implemented and sustained fishery 2: P-ACP governments, private sector and sustained in at least 5 P-ACPs monitoring. communities are equipped to monitor coastal • Regional data repository maintained and national • P-ACP governments will fisheries to provide scientific advice in support of data provided for backup from at least 5 implement identified sustainable management of these resources P- countries/fisheries. management measures ACP governments, private sector and communities will be provided with technical methods and training to monitor coastal fisheries, scientific advice to inform management decisions, and development of in-country capacity to evaluate their effectiveness. Activities: Resources Cost Estimate (Euro) Pre-conditions 1.1 Observer Training and Systems Total Staff Costs 4,325,000 Fishing industries cooperate in 1.2 Integrated Tuna Fisheries Databases Travel and subsistence costs 940,000 biological and bio-economic 1.3 Bio-economic Modelling and National Training costs 952,500 research. Advice Equipment and services 330,000 National fisheries training 1.4 Ecosystem Modelling of Management Consumables and other supplies 160,000 institutions willing to host and and Climate Change Subcontracts/consultancies 502,000 maintain observer training 1.5 Validate Key Model Parameters through Fieldwork costs 530,000 courses. Suitable vessel can be chartered Tagging Dissemination of results 260,000 for biological research (tagging). Visibility 90,000 P-ACP governments can commit 2.1 Conduct Stakeholder Consultation Total direct costs 8,089,500 human resources for coastal 2.2 Develop and Implement Field Eligible indirect costs 566,265

INTERVENTION LOGIC OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (ORIGINAL ) SOURCES OF VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS Monitoring Protocols Monitoring and Evaluation 100,000 fisheries training and 2.3 Develop and Implement Secondary Data Contingency Reserve 244,235 attachments. Collection Protocols TOTAL 9,000,000 Adequate local equipment and 2.4 Develop Management Advice infrastructure are available for maintenance of coastal fisheries databases.

Annex 18: DAC Summary

Evaluation Title (and Reference) Final Evaluation of Project: Scientific Support for the Management of Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands Region (SCICOFISH), 2010 – 2014. FED/2010/235-690 10 ACP.RPA 01. Abstract The report contains the final evaluation of the EC funded SCICOFISH project. The report provides an assessment of SCICOFISH’s performance at result level, and against evaluation criteria, including effectiveness, efficiency, and impact. Subject of the Evaluation SCICOFISH aims to further the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and oceanic fisheries resources in the P-ACP region. It directly contributes to the management efforts of oceanic and coastal fisheries resources of the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), and of the 14 Pacific ACP states. SCICOFISH comprised two Components: one providing P-ACP governments, the FFA and the WCPFC with scientific data, modelling, and advice to underpin their management decision making and strategic positioning for oceanic fisheries; and a second aimed at ensuring P-ACP governments, private sector and communities are equipped to monitor coastal fisheries to provide scientific advice in support of sustainable management of these resources. Evaluation Description The Mid-Term Evaluation assesses performance against expected outcomes, using EuropeAid's standard evaluation methodology. The evaluation was undertaken from a review of documentation, an assessment of outputs against the original log frame, rapid appraisal through field visit discussions with national public and private sector stakeholders and beneficiaries in seven representative participating ACP States and discussions with SPC and FFA programme managers, the contracting authority (EU), and RAO (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat). Main Findings Project Design and Relevance : The Overall Objective & Project Purpose are perfectly coherent. Result 1 & Project Purpose are essentially the same. Result 2 is somewhat less coherent – intrinsically, and with the Project Purpose. Activities feed results well in Component 1 (oceanic) but less so in Component 2 (coastal). Component 2 focuses on commercial small-scale fisheries (although this is not indicated in project document). The Project overall is highly relevant, being in fact a continuation of earlier initiatives (PROCFISH O/C and SCIFISH). Component 1 is broad and complete, whereas under Component 2, there is insufficient focus on management frameworks – a classic impediment to relevance, impact and sustainability of collected data and derived scientific information. The focus on commercial coastal fisheries is relevant and highly appreciated by stakeholders (in terms of both science & management advice). There is an unequal resource allocation between the two Components, with an imbalance between financial and staff allocations under Component 2, which 2 has 37% of the budget but only 27% of the recruited staff.

Efficiency : the Component 1 disbursement rate is effective and largely as expected. The Component 2 disbursement rate is below expected. A ROM conducted in 2012 was useful to ensure the Project on track. The MTE is actually being undertaken too late, with 74% of the Project having already lapsed. Relevant re-orientation is now hardly possible (one of the usual central purposes of an MTE). Annual reporting has improved substantially, when compared to SCIFISH.

Impact & Sustainability (Component 1) : Observer work is achieving all targets – the key focus now is on training observer de-briefers and Training of Trainers. The stock assessment and modelling work being undertaken is crucial to region, however, management decisions and outcomes made at the level of WCPFC are beyond reach of SPC’s sphere of influence. Data collection, pooling, encoding, and analysis is amongst the best of such work worldwide. Data management protocols and safeguards for sensitive economic & financial data are set to evolve, and most targets are likely to be achieved by end of project. SPC is likely to remain firmly in position as the key driver of tuna science for the region. However, cost recovery mechanisms should be explored in all relevant areas

Impact & Sustainability (Component 2): Training, monitoring and management advice for commercial sea-cucumber fisheries is much appreciated. Less work has been done on 2 ary data collection – unlikely to hit target by end of project (staffing issues key constraint). Management advice provided is possibly too informal. There has been a lack of attention to functional national coastal fisheries management frameworks: CFP should move forward on assisting members in developing these where needed. Overall, weak or lacking functional national management frameworks undermine impact and sustainability of scientific information and management advice delivered.

Examination of the evolution of FAME budget shows CFP portion has been in gradual decline in recent years, as is reflected in the FAME 2013 – 2016 Strategic Plan (OFP - 61% of budget, CFP 39%). Regarding the future of EU support to SPC, project funding towards SPC’s FAME programme engenders serious inefficiencies in terms of: Project and contract preparations (time and attention); Project monitoring and reporting (duplication between programme & project); Ineffective evaluation (project approach inappropriate, evaluation mechanisms ill-adapted). Direct programme support would allow SPC to plan and manoeuvre within its Strategic Plan, serve its entire member base, and become more efficient. The EU’s relative contribution to FAME has decreased from 44% of total budget in 2003 to 28% in 2013.

Recommendations : Ensure staff positions filled to project end. Boost Component 2 staffing. SCICOFISH time extension & top-up is required. Bridging finance is needed until 2015 (€1.5 million). EU to consider moving from project funding to programme support. Feedback Donor: European Commission Region: ACP and DAC sector : Fisheries certain OCT States Evaluation type: Efficiency, Date of report: Subject of evaluation : Scientific effectiveness and impact. 17 May 2013 Support for Oceanic Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (SCICOFISH). Language : English N° vol./pages : 1/7 1 Author : Gilles HOSCH, Paul NICHOLS Programme and budget line concerned : FED/2006/018 -725 - 9 ACP RPA 13 & 9 PTO REG 8 Type of evaluation : () ex ante (x) intermediate / on -going () ex post Timing : Start date: February 2013 Completion date: May 2013 Contact person : Richard BANKS Authors : Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. Cost : Euro 109,085 Steering group : Yes