REPORT OF THE SECOND STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING OF …

REPORT OF THE SECOND STEERING COMMITTEEMEETING OF THE SMARTFISH PROGRAMME:

IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL FISHERIESSTRATEGY FOR THE ESA-IO REGION

August 2012

REPORT/RAPPORT : SF/2012/27

EuropeanUnion

Funded by

Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Stategy For The Eastern-Southern Africa And Indian Ocean Region

10th European Development FundAgreement No: RSO/FED/2009/021-330

“This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to the views of the European Union.”

Implementation of a Regional Fisheries StrategyFor The Eastern-Southern Africa and India Ocean Region

Programme pour la mise en oeuvre d'une stratégie de pêche pour laregion Afrique orientale-australe et Océan indien

Report of the Second Steering Committee Meeting of the Smartfish Programme: Implementation of a Regional Fisheries

Strategy for the ESA-IO Region

SF/2012/27

This report has been prepared with the technical assistance ofLe présent rapport a été réalisé par l'assistance technique de

August 2012

Table of Contents

1. OPENING OF THE MEETING....................................................................................................... 22. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE MEETING............................ 22.1 AGENDA ITEM 1: OVERVIEW OF SMARTFISH PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION...................... 23. AGENDA ITEMS 2-6: PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION BY RESULT ACHIEVEMENTS AND NEXT STEPS............................................................................................. 34. Result 3........................................................................................................................................... 35. Result 2........................................................................................................................................... 46. Result 4........................................................................................................................................... 67. Result 1........................................................................................................................................... 68. Result 5........................................................................................................................................... 79. AGENDA ITEM 7: STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTS AND REGIONAL LINKAGES...................................................................................................................................... 910. ITEM 8: INFORMATION-COMMUNICATION AND VISIBILITY.................................................... 1011. ITEM 9: FOLLOW-UP OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STEERING COMMITTEE AND FOCAL POINT MEETINGS........................................................................... 1012. ITEM 10: MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM................................................................ 1113. ITEM 11: STE MOBILISATION........................................................................... ........................... 1214. ITEM 12: ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE............................................................................... 1215. ITEM 13: ROM, MID-TERM EVALUATION AND PHASE TWO OF THE PROGRAMME................................................................................................................................ 1316. ITEM 14: NEXT MEETING, VENUE AND DATE........................................................................... 1417. APPENDIX A: AGENDA................................................................................................................ 1518. APPENDIX B: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS......................................................................................... 1619. APPENDIX C:............................................................................................................................... 20

4

Second Steering Commite Meeting

SmartFish Programme Report SF/2012/27

OPENING OF THE MEETING

1. The Second Steering Committee Meeting of the Programme for the Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy in the Eastern-Southern Africa and Indian Ocean Region (SmartFish Programme) was held at the Pearle Beach Hotel, Flic en Flac, Mauritius on 28th and 29th May 2012, at the kind invitation of the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC).

2. The Meeting was attended by representatives from the ASCLME, IOTC, IGAD, LVFO, LTA, EAC, AGROTEC Spa Consortium, IOC-PRSP, IRCC, SWIOFP, SWIOFC, EUD (Mauritius), FAO, as well as the IOC-SmartFish PMU (including Technical Assistance Teams from IOC and FAO).

3. The Officer in Charge of the Programme for the Indian Ocean Commission, Mr. Harijhons Razaka, officially opened as Chair of the meeting. He asked the participants to observe a minute of silence in memory of a member of the SC who passed away: Mr. Maina Karaba from IGAD.

4. The Chair called upon the participants to introduce themselves.

5. Mr. Raj Mohabeer, Deputy Authorizing Officer of the Programme, insisted on the short period of time for the implementation of the SmartFish Programme and urged the participants to come up with concrete recommendations for the next steps of the Programme.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE MEETING

6. The agenda for the SC Meeting was adopted. Mr. Dominique Gréboval, Team Leader of the SmartFish Programme, indicated that additional documentation had been prepared for each agenda item and provided to the participants.

AGENDA ITEM 1: OVERVIEW OF SMARTFISH PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

7. The Chair gave some background information about the SmartFish Programme, including details on duration, funding, partners and beneficiaries. He also explained briefly the role and functions of the implementing structure. The Chair recalled that the overall objective of the Programme is to contribute to an increased level of social, economic and environmental development and deeper regional integration in the ESA-IO region through the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. He also recalled that the objective underlying the Programme was to implement the IO-ESA strategy for Fisheries through 5 result areas: fisheries management (R1); fisheries governance (R2); monitoring, control and surveillance (R3); regional fish trade (R4) and food security (R5). He underlined that the ROM report on implementation to date was satisfactory.

AGENDA ITEMS 2-6: PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION BY RESULT – ACHIEVEMENTS AND NEXT STEPS

8. The Meeting reviewed the agenda items 2 to 6 through presentations made by the Technical Assistance Team (TAT) and FAO experts, based on the supporting documentation provided.

9. Implementation was reviewed for Results 2-3-4 (IOC) and then Results 1-5 (FAO) given that implementation modalities would be different for both groups of results. For each result, achievements and next steps were discussed by the SC.

Result 3

10. IOTC raised the issue of collaboration and communication between partners, especially between SmartFish, IOTC and consultants. There seems to be a lack of communication (in particular, the integration of IOTC standards

5



in different countries, the IOTC compendium and the implementation of NPOAs). IOTC also suggested that there should be more discussions between partners and recipients. Mr. Marcel Kroese, Key Expert for Result 3, explained that issues raised will be duly taken into account in the future trainings to be undertaken and IOTC will be invited to contribute. Comments on the compendium of IOTC resolutions will be considered and incorporated in the final version.

11. LVFO stressed the need to internalize the large amount of data captured through SmartFish activities. A number of programmes and projects “come and go” without giving the possibility to use these resources at a later stage. The issue of access to data is a matter of accountability, not only towards beneficiary countries but also towards EU taxpayers. In the context of Lake Victoria, this would enable the mechanisms put in place by SmartFish to be continued and to serve as examples. Mr. Marcel Kroese agreed that there is a lack of carry forward in programmes where data is lost. He underlined that all the MCS training undertaken by SmartFish are open source trainings. SmartFish will ensure that training and assessment methodologies are directly made available.

12. Mr. Denis Reiss, EU delegation, expressed his satisfaction regarding the speed of implementation of the SmartFish Programme. In regards to Result 3, he noted that compliance was the main challenge and that more emphasis should be put on the results of the training. In particular he raised the issue of data collection and suggested that SmartFish should be innovative in finding ways to make data available. He noted that the addendum to the financial convention will be approved by Brussels within days, which should allow the Programme to make more commitments.

13. LTA raised the issue of harmonized standard operations for MCS, and pointed out that there is already an FAO/LTA programme with a focus on MCS. A study on this topic will be undertaken in Lake Tanganyika through an agreement with FAO on technical services. A regional meeting will be organized based on the outcomes of this study, where the results of a similar study already completed by SmartFish could be shared. LTA invited the MCS expert to coordinate and share information, as much as possible, with this programme.

14. SWIOFC pointed out the lack of catch data in Lake Kariba, where it is estimated that 35% of fish caught is “black fish” (according to an intensive monitoring that occurred 7 years ago), both in Zambia and Zimbabwe. He welcomed the engagement of the EU against IUU, which is a major issue in the region with several implications and repercussions. He pointed out that FAO has done a lot of work on MCS there and that it is a significant source of knowledge. He noted that the issue was the implementation of NPOAs rather than the NPOAs themselves. It was suggested to work closer with SADC. Given the number of activities, it was also suggested to link activities with impacts. Mr. Marcel Kroese informed the participants that Zambia and Zimbabwe have approached SmartFish to request support to the implementation of the closed season. SmartFish will have a mid-term review and it is likely that the Programme will narrow its actions and concentrate on more specific activities, including MCS in artisanal fisheries.

15. IOTC noted that they have not been engaged in the process of initiating some of the activities, including some training, and requested clarification about the process for initiating activities in collaboration with partners/stakeholders. Mr. Marcel Kroese explained that specific areas that need work to be done are identified through expert work and then partners are contacted for engagement. Requests are addressed on a case-by-case basis and TORs are designed in line with the work plan. In Port State measures, in particular, activities are undertaken in a fairly wide context and the idea is not to do a single shot, but to improve training methodology for next steps. He added that SmartFish was in a process of improvement and that the programme is planning to engage more partners in future training. Dominique Gréboval underlined that, generally speaking, the Programme has been trying to engage with various partners. He noted that SmartFish was on a learning curve and may need to sit down more systematically with partners (a meeting of partners will be organized in July). He agreed with the EU that there is a need to find innovative ways to share data and information, without reinventing the wheel.

6



16. The EU acknowledged that they were satisfied with performance so far. They reassured the SC that the grant issue was in the process of being solved and that different types of contracts will be allowed in the addendum to the financial convention. They further stressed that concrete results have to be shown so that they can be used to redesign the expected results of the second phase.

Result 2

17. SWIOFP thanked the SmartFish Programme for the work that has been carried out and for the support provided to IOC countries to participate in the last IOTC compliance committee meeting in Australia. He noted that SWIOFP was currently assisting countries in the development of national management plans. The work of SmartFish in reinforcing the legal framework of these plans is then complementary.

18. LTA welcomed the effort in bringing together Directors of Fisheries from across the region, and noted that it might be interesting to invite regional fisheries organizations, including LVFO and LTA, to take part in that meeting.

19. The issue of integrating inland fisheries in Result 2 (originally designed for marine fisheries) was raised by LVFO. Countries from continental Africa have requested that this result be extended to inland waters. Mr. Dominique Gréboval explained that such extensions would be feasible in the next phase of the Programme, if an agreement is reached by the SC. However, he highlighted that it will not be possible within the current phase given the additional work that it would represent. Mr. Raj Mohabeer noted that the question raised by LVFO was really important but not something this meeting should make a decision on, rather it should be taken as recommendation and discussed further with EAC. ASCLME added that, if an extension is to be planned, not all the resources should come from the Programme. There is a need to look for partners in that respect. This proposition should be put on the table in the next partners/donors meeting in July to which ASCLME wishes to take part. A process needs to be set up in that respect.

20. The EU appreciated the work done under this result. He noted that the picture of the priorities should be better clarified, given that this result is a guiding and overarching component of SmartFish. In particular, it would be appreciated to show on which existing flows SmartFish is working. Mr. Dominique Gréboval agreed that the perception of priorities in terms of fisheries governance was a challenging issue. He explained that the idea was to work mainly on selected principles of good governance, with the issue of focus being inspired by the governance assessment undertaken and by the requests from the countries.

21. SWIOFC thanked the SmartFish Programme for the collaboration that has started, and highlighted the added value of the FAO component of the project. He noted that there was a whole suite of activities on management plans in the region. He suggested that the project should look at the management plans already set up, to see what is working and what is not. A meeting on this topic will be organized by SWIOFC in Mauritius in October and it might be a good occasion to reinforce collaboration. In regards to the proposition of a Directors of Fisheries meeting, it might be interesting to pay attention to existing structures rather than creating new ones. IOTC underlined that such meetings need to be inspired by shared resources as a common bonding concept. Mr. Dominique Gréboval emphasized that the idea was to bring the directors together regularly through a practical arrangement in collaboration with IOTC and SWIOFP rather than attached to an institution. It was suggested that the Directors should focus only on issues of common interest, not only related to the use of common resources given that shared resources are not common to all countries. The first meeting will need to balance the pros and cons of such a mechanism. The EU delegation stressed that this meeting was also funded by the EU under a DG Mare contract with IOC justified by the fact that IOC has a monopole of fact for MCS activities in the region. It has to be clear that this initiative of IOC is recognized as such. Mr. Dominique Gréboval noted that this kind of institutional set up could very well be open to other projects and serve the interests of other countries, or at least increase collaboration and consultation.

7



Result 4

22. EAC/LVFO expressed their gratitude for the work undertaken in the region and reminded all the results to provide more interaction in advance so that everyone is made aware of planned activities.

23. On the issue of underfunding for Result 4, it was noted that the requirement was larger than the existing re-allocation already undertaken. The Team Leader, Mr. Dominique Gréboval pointed out the overall imbalance of resources allocated to each of results 2, 3 and 4 and reiterated the urgent need to address the requirements of Result 4. The EU delegation emphasized that Result 4 was an important Result and recommended that the SC follow the advice and support the reallocation of more funds to this result.

24. SWIOFP stressed the need to disseminate studies properly, including through validation workshops organized with STEs. The SC noted the importance of publishing and circulating reports on time. This comment was not targeted directly at Result 4, but was a general comment for all results to note.

25. SWIOFC commended the inclusion of women in this Result area and reminded the SC of the importance of gender to the programme. It is really important for SmartFish not to miss the point in regards to gender.

26. The EU delegation encouraged and recommended more training that linked competent authorities from different countries and made the link also to the Trade Readiness activities already undertaken. Efforts being undertaken in Comoros should be extended to other countries.

27. The EU also welcomed the continued use of value-chain assessments as a useful tool and suggested they could also focus on existing flows of products in key fisheries.

28. IGAD recommended that dried fish, as a commodity for regional trade, be looked at in the context of Result 4, but also linked to Result 5

Result 1

29. The Steering Committee has noted that the implementation of activities under Results 1 and 5 started with a delay of one year compared to results 2, 3 and 4, due to the late date of signature of the financial agreement between FAO and the EU (October 2012) and the time to set-up the FAO Technical Assistant Team. Consequently, the reported activities are ongoing or planned. The Steering Committee expressed its recognition of the amount of work initiated in the short implementation period.

30. The Steering Committee agreed to redirect the funding foreseen for Output 1M1.2 (on the Nile Basin) to implement specific requests brought up by beneficiaries, due to conditions that hinder implementation of this output as it was initially intended. To be considered, requests should have a regional relevance, should fit into the present logical framework and should not modify the original structure of the budget. Specific requests were already expressed at the 2nd National Focal Point Meeting (mentioned under Item 9).

31. EAC/LVFO re-stressed its request made at the 2nd National Focal Point Meeting for Result 1 of SmartFish to promote the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in inland waters.

32. LTA reaffirmed their commitment, including in finalizing the Letter of Agreement with FAO. The current momentum needs to be maintained in order to promote harmonization among the countries.

33. Mr. Dominique Gréboval brought to the attention of the SC the relation between management and governance, given the request made by beneficiary countries during the 2nd National Focal Point Meeting to have a meeting in the near future on the management of overcapacity – not only in small-scale fisheries but also in large-scale

8



fisheries – for the benefit of both marine and inland fisheries.34. SWIOFP noted that it would also be necessary to elaborate national action plans on sharks. The regional action

plan on sharks will be put forward at the meeting of Directors of Fisheries (29 June 2012) in order to ensure that sharks are not only managed through the issue of by-catch but as a fishery in its own right.

35. Given the difficulty to see to what extent fisheries contribute to the accomplishment of MDGs, SWIOFC members expressed the need to have a conference on MDGs and fisheries (focusing on sustainable use of natural resources and poverty reduction). As SWIOFC countries need to reaffirm their commitment for this meeting and to develop well informed national papers to feed it, the meeting will be held later than intended in the original work plan, likely early 2013.

Result 5

36. The EU appreciated the efforts taken so far to fast track activities under Result 5. They also invited the SC to bear in mind that all the components are part of the same programme – SmartFish – for which IOC is the lead contracting authority. Davide Signa, Fisheries Officer for Result 5, reassured that everything was done to prevent overlapping and to fine tune activities in a concerted way between the food security result and the trade result, whilst ensuring the visibility of IOC and EU in a concerted manner.

37. IGAD recommended from the perspective of food security that SmartFish should seek more work on dried fish (drying, being less capital intensive, is the most suitable processing method to reduce post-harvest losses). Also related to point 28 under Result 4.

38. 38. The EU delegation urged the SC to come up with clear resolutions regarding the timeframe within which the IOC and FAO intend to implement the various results.

39. IOTC recommended that by-catch should be taken into account when dealing with post-harvest loss (PHL) assessments, especially in Seychelles given the lack of incentives for vessels to keep fish with no commercial value. The PHL module of the project will need to put emphasis on processors to convince them that they can get value from this resource.

40. LTA mentioned the situation in DR Congo, where the use of sails and paddles (slow propulsion) is responsible for high levels of post-harvest losses. Efforts need to be made to gain higher-quality products and fetch better prices.

41. SWIOFC suggested taking stock of lessons learned from the SWIOFP training of observers programme before engaging into more training of on-board observers for discards and PHL assessments.

42. It was brought to the attention of the SC that there are a lot of instances where alternative livelihoods are promoted and developed without looking at the actual management of the fishery. Mr. Dominique Gréboval suggested focusing the topic of the regional livelihood diversification meeting on fisheries management implications in order to provide guidelines on this issue.

43. It was brought to the attention of the SC that the IIFET meeting conference is being held in Tanzania this year and that is a unique opportunity for raising profile and engaging researchers of the region in a high level international conference gathering fisheries economists from around the world. It was noted that the project is already supporting the participation of some people of the region in the IIFET conference.

AGENDA ITEM 7: STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTS AND REGIONAL LINKAGES

44. It was noted that the fisheries strategy of the ESA-IO region mentioned in the SmartFish Agreement is in fact not a fisheries strategy, but a piecemeal of various strategies. Despite the strategic framework being well defined and

9



stipulated, it is necessary to clarify its implementation in line with the strategy adopted by NEPAD and the African Union. The fragmented elements of the strategies (overall strategy, specific development strategies, elements related to the work of RECs and RFMOs, etc.) need to be clarified in collaboration with SmartFish partners and donors (a meeting will be organized 30th to 31st July in this regard).

45. The relationship that exists between strategic work being undertaken at REC level, at RFMO level and at national level will also need to be addressed. SmartFish has taken steps to work closely with the NEPAD Secretariat in that respect.

46. The process of implementing a sectorial regional integration process for fisheries needs more coordination and coherence with all partners at all levels. The IOC programme on fisheries cannot be delinked from what is developed in the Eastern Africa region. IOC cannot think about addressing sustainable fisheries on its own. The SC is invited to provide advice/proposals for the first partners meeting in order to ensure that there will be a concrete outcome (concept note or policy brief).

47. ASCLME urged the IOC to participate in the first IBAR Think Tank Meeting to be held in Abidjan, 4th to 6th June, 2012. He noted that a number of management plans were currently under development and that more were planned to be supported by projects. He suggested analyzing them in order to see how countries were dealing with the implementation of existing ones, in order to draw lessons for others. He stressed the need to link WIO and ESA in order to have a broad strategy. He noted the difficulty for countries to adapt to the African strategy (once AU summit discussions are endorsed at national level). He recommended that SmartFish could assist such an endorsement and adaptation process.

48. The EU noted the inconsistencies in EPA negotiations, with some trade negotiators not being aware of some fisheries elements such as the flag states responsibilities (including on vessels behavior and compliance with national laws within EEZ). There is a need for better collaboration and consistency in this approach, especially on trade and governance issues. FAO noted that they were addressing the issue of integration of the sector in a broader perspective. They suggested that input may be provided in this regard during the donors meeting.

49. SWIOFC measured the good convergence going on between RECs and other institutions, aiming at the perspective of making the continent realize the potential of fisheries, given that in many countries fisheries are relegated to a status far below the actual contribution to the economy.

50. It was recommended to participate in the follow up meeting on the NEPAD/AU Abidjan initiative in Mauritius.

51. The partners meeting in July will be extended to other partners such as the World Bank, given that they are going to be more significant partners in the future. The members of the SC are invited to participate as well. This particular action is under the responsibility of IOC and the IOC would be pleased to receive proposals from the SC. It was noted that the priority was to put fisheries at the top of the agenda. It will be important for the Programme to have a clear outcome (concept paper) without being too ambitious.

ITEM 8: INFORMATION-COMMUNICATION AND VISIBILITY

52. The EU raised the issue of visibility and noted that a lot has been done to raise awareness and visibility of the Programme. They thanked the programme for taking EU guidelines into account. They suggested that the programme should maintain a database for pictures. They also stressed the importance of the website and the need to keep it up to date given that it provides information to all stakeholders.

53. SWIOFP and ASCLME are encouraging countries to have awareness raising campaigns with the support of SmartFish. It was noted that, given the number of countries covered, the Programme should decide at what level it will support such initiatives.

54. LTA suggested sending more promotional material to partners to make sure that visibility is addressed in meetings

10



that happen in the region or in international forums such as the FAO COFI or the Abidjan meeting. ASCLME stressed that participation of representatives from the region was key to voice concerns in international forums. ASCLME and SWIOFP have contacted COFI to have a ministerial side event in which it would be good to have sharp communication on governance by SmartFish.

55. It was suggested by FAO to harmonize and voice the priorities of the region.

56. PRSP explained that communication and visibility is also important for the fight against IUU (the more regional determination is shown, the more political willpower will be visible).

ITEM 9: FOLLOW-UP OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STEERING COMMITTEE AND FOCAL POINT MEETINGS

57. IGAD expressed the need to have a mechanism that allows National Focal Points to have an input at the SC. It was explained that the composition of the SC is defined in the financial convention, but it is also foreseen that the parties can invite additional representatives. Composition of the SC will need to be discussed with IOC.

58. LTA noted that the report of the last FP meeting has not been disseminated so far.

59. ASCLME suggested including IBAR and NEPAD in the SC, so that it will be possible to ease the communication with the African Union.

60. The EAC called upon the Programme to ensure that partners are informed in advance of the activities undertaken.

61. The EU delegation appreciated the work undertaken in regards to Value Chain Analysis and suggested to go a step further by narrowing the scope of intervention at the various strategic parts of the chain already identified.

ITEM 10: MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM

62. EAC acknowledged the difficulties encountered in the establishment of the database. They stressed however that reporting was necessary for future project planning, and also for EAC’s internal monitoring. They stressed the need to provide information on activities undertaken in order to know if they were beneficial to the community. Dominique Lemoine, M&E expert, suggested developing a web-based service to assist the PMU in channeling information to Focal Points, national administrations and partners. Mr. Saïd Ahamada, IOC, suggested promoting the use of metadata among partners (“data about data” such as localization of the information, contacts, etc.).

63. The EU expressed concerns on the fact that the system is not an evaluation tool and should be called only a Monitoring and Information system. They highlighted the need to measure the impact of the activities and to have clearly measurable – SMART – indicators. They also suggested that in order to monitor cost effectiveness, basic information about the cost of each activity should be included as well. They stressed that it was also necessary to assess beneficiary countries ownership of the programme, and to keep track of experts and meeting recommendations along the activities. Mr. Dominique Gréboval agreed on the need to measure the impact but explained that this will be difficult at activity level and suggested to revise the logframe indicators using SMART indicators at output and result levels only. With regards to the inclusion of cost information in the Monitoring system, he raised the concern that this might be very difficult and time consuming. He also explained that the process of keeping track of all recommendations formulated is underway, although this is not a simple mechanical process. On beneficiary countries ownership, Mrs. Clotilde Bodiguel, Project manager (FAO), added that the countries’ endorsement (of laws for example) is beyond the control of SmartFish and then can’t be integrated as SMART indicators. Mr. Raj Mohabeer informed the SC that the IOC was undertaking a “transposition study” in order to measure how commitments at regional levels are transposed at a national level and suggested to initiate something on the same line for SmartFish.

11



ITEM 11: STE MOBILISATION

64. The methodology for recruitment of STEs was presented to the meeting. It was agreed that a mechanism will be developed for the involvement of the Focal Points and other key stakeholders in the dissemination of the findings of the work of STEs.

ITEM 12: ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

a) SmartFish IOC

65. LVFO requested to have more clarity on the financial reporting and to have the document shared before the end of the meeting for SC revision. He moreover requested to have it provided prior to the meeting so that it can be shared with their technical people and get proper feedback for the SCM. LTA agreed with LVFO on this request and insisted on having not only the financial but also the technical documents sent via email well in advance. The EU repeated the request and urged the IOC to have the financial report with a summary of expenditures by the end of the meeting. It was also agreed that for future meetings all documentation will be sent in advance to all SC members.

66. EAC asked what the duties of experts in terms of linking with RECs are, to be sure that there is no duplication. Mr. Raj Mohabeer explained that given the geographic coverage of the project and the various partners involved, there is a project meeting every month to look at mobilization to ensure that there is full control of all experts recruited. He reassured the SC that there is a very well set process to ensure proper recruitment and selection.

67. ASCLME requested to have a much clearer picture of Regional Officers (RO) and National Focal Points’ (NFP) duties. Mr. Raj Mohabeer told the SC that ROs’ and NFPs’ TORs will be provided together with the financial statement before the end of the meeting. Mr. Dominique Gréboval explained that the main task of the ROs is to facilitate the implementation close to the countries and organizations concerned, with no particular focus in terms of thematic coverage. EAC suggested that they should be given a clear mandate so that they can relieve pressure from the PMU.

b) SmartFish FAO

68. LTA acknowledged the good work done so far by FAO and requested clarification with regards to the request of extension raised in the presentation. Mr. Joachim Laubhouet, FAO Senior Field Programme Officer, explained that this is related to a “no-cost extension” in order to bring the project at its initial duration to compensate the delay of 6 months on the projects effective starting date. FAO started in March 2012 and not in October 2011 as expected, and the current closing date is September 2013. LVFO/EAC agreed with FAO that the no-cost extension is needed. Moreover, in case a 6 months extension is not sufficient, an additional extension might be considered. IOC invited the SC members to postpone the discussion on the extension to the next item.

69. With regards to the request of proper visibility raised by FAO, IOC answered that they agreed to give proper visibility to the FAO logo. FAO will be mentioned as a co-implementing agency, which IOC agreed would be an added value to the programme and, despite the late arrival, was confident that it will enrich the project.

ITEM 13: ROM, MID-TERM EVALUATION AND PHASE TWO OF THE PROGRAMME

70. The IOC explained that the ROM report was the result of a short monitoring mission undertaken in February by an external EU consultant. The consultant provided recommendations that have been shared with all SC members together with the answer of the IOC. The main recommendation was an extension of 24 months. The IOC has

12



shared the fact that an extension of 2 years was not feasible but agreed with the EU on a six month extension, with no budgetary implication. However, this will imply some adjustments within the budget lines and provisions.

71. The EU thanked the IOC for the appreciation of the monitoring exercise. The grading of the project was satisfactory for the EU in terms of impact, efficiency and sustainability. The EU also recommended the IOC to share the report with all SC members.

72. The EU confirmed that an extension has already been negotiated for the entire project, in order to reach the total duration initially planned.

73. IOC informed that the ROM recommended preparation of the documentation in November 2012, prior to the mid-term evaluation planned in December.

74. IOC further explained that the programming of PE 2 should take into account all requirements identified so that the basis for a second phase will be set.

75. The EU requested that the workplan of the PE 2 should be circulated with all SC members in order to ensure that they all support this main guiding document. IOC responded that the PE 2 is more of an internal document and therefore might not be relevant. However, the workplan will certainly be circulated.

76. IOTC asked for clarification on who is in charge of designing the PE 2 and the second phase document. IOC confirmed that some main issues have been agreed upon, such as the duration of 42 months with a total contribution of 14 million euros and that the second phase will start immediately after the end of the first phase, with no gaps, in order to continue the momentum. The EU has already committed the funds therefore a draft document should be ready by the middle of October and the preliminary documents and ToRs should be ready by the end of August. IOC reaffirmed that the design of the second phase will be done by IOC, together with FAO. IOC stressed that it is crucial to assess achievements in a timely manner, so that the PMU and IOC can easily agree on key issues for the second phase. IOC pointed out the key role of the SC in the revision and final shaping of the second phase document and confirmed that the second phase is a natural continuation of the first phase.

ITEM 14: NEXT MEETING, VENUE AND DATE

77. IOC explained that since there is a need to work on the revision and approval of the workplan for PE 2 (which starts in November), as well on the elaboration of the second phase, the next SCM should not be later than the end of October 2012. The EU agreed that it is crucial to set the timing for next SCM.

78. IOC suggested having the SCM back to back with the expert meeting planned for mid-October in Mauritius.

79. LVFO suggested to plan the meeting in advance and to allow all NFP to participate in the preparation and decision making of the PE and second phase so that they are involved as requested during the last NFP meeting in Zambia.

80. IOC wanted to be sure that there was a clear distinction between the SC and the NFP. It is important that the PMU design the main points of the next phase and present them to the NFP meeting that will be held in September for their validation and input.

81. LTA supported the schedule proposed and suggested to have the next NFP meeting in the beginning September and the next SCM in mid-October.

82. SWIOFC requested to specify the dates in order to avoid a collision with other meetings. SWIOFC also requested IOC to give at least one month notice for all future meetings and that all documents should be provided at least two weeks before.

83. ASCLME proposed to set the dates on the 15th and 16th October.

13



84. LTA suggested to change the location to Nairobi since it is the most convenient region in terms of logistics and flight connections and urged the PMU and secretariat to give proper notice with good advance.

85. All SC members agreed that the next SC will be held in Nairobi on the 15th and 16th October, 2012 and that all documents will be provided at least two weeks before the meeting.

14

IRFS PROGRAMME (SmartFish)2nd STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGPearle Beach Hotel, Flic en Flac, Mauritius28th and 29th May 2012

APPENDIX A: AGENDA

Monday 28th May08.30 – 09.00 Registration09.00 – 09.15 Welcoming remarks09.15 – 09.30 Adoption of the agenda09.30 – 10.15 Item 1. Overview of SmartFish Programme implementation10.15 – 10.45 Coffee/Tea break10.45 – 12.15 Item 2. Programme implementation - Result 312.45 – 13.30 Lunch13.30 – 14.15 Item 3: Programme implementation - Result 214.15 – 15.30 Item 4: Programme implementation - Result 415.30 – 15.45 Coffee/Tea break15.45 – 16.30 Item 5: Programme implementation - Result 116.30 – 17.15 Item 6: Programme implementation - Result 5Tuesday 29th May09.00 – 09.30 Item 7: Strategic Developments and Regional Linkages09.30 – 10.00 Item 8: Information-communication and visibility10.00 – 10.30 Coffee/Tea break10.30 – 11.00 Item 9: Follow-up of recommendations from Steering Committee and focal point meetings11.00 – 11.15 Item 10: Monitoring and Evaluation System11.15 – 11.30 Item 11: STE mobilisation11.30 – 12.00 Item 12: Programme administration and Finance: a) SmartFish IOC; b) FAO12.00 – 12.30 Item 13: ROM, mid-term evaluation and phase two of the programme12.30 – 13.30 Lunch15.00 – 15.15 Item 14: Next meeting, venue and date15.15 – 16.30 Item 15: Summary of conclusions and recommendations and close of the meeting

15

Appendix B


IRFS PROGRAMME (SmartFish)2nd STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGPearle Beach Hotel, Flic en Flac, Mauritius28th and 29th May 2012APPENDIX B: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Name Organization Contact detailsCorinne PAYA Project Manager

EU Delegation (Mauritius)St James Court - Port [email protected]+230 207 1515

Denis REISS Attaché PêcheEU Delegation (Mauritius)

St James Court - Port [email protected]+230 207 1515

Ngoile MAGNUS Policy & GovernanceASCLME

18 Somerset Street, PO Box 68220, Dar es [email protected]+255 758 196 525

Gerard DOMINGUE Compliance CoordinatorIOTC

PO Box 1011, Victoria, Mahé[email protected]+248 422 5494

Sreenivasen SOONDRON Principal Fisheries OfficerSWIOFP (rep)

4th Floor, LIC Building, Port [email protected]+230 208 1929

Marco GIRELLI Project DirectorAGROTEC SPA

Via Nemo Rese 77, [email protected]+39 06 360 93831

Abura Samson ACHIENG Project ManagerEAC & LVFO

BO Box 1625, [email protected]+256 434 123 123

16

Appendix B


Kaitira Ibrahim KATONDA Director of FisheriesLTA

BP 4910, [email protected]+257 22 273 585

Samuel ZZIWA Programme Manager for Agriculture, Livestock and Food SecurityIGAD

BP 2653 [email protected]+253 21 35 40 50

Vikramdityasing(Krish) BISSOONAUTHSING

Coordinator, head of SecretariatIRCC

Comesa centre, Ben Bella Road, [email protected]+260 974 04 5298

Léon Martial H. RAZAKA Chargé de MissionIOC

Q4 - Guy Forget Avenue, Quatre [email protected]+230 427 3366

Raj MOHABEER Chargé de MissionIOC


Vicky CUSHMAJEE Head of Administrative & Financial ServiceIOC


Said AHAMADA Assistant Chargé de MissionIOC


Herland CERVEAUX Assistant Chargé de MissionIOC


17

Appendix B


Xavier NICOLAS Team LeaderPRSP


Jeromine FANJANIRINA Programme AssistantPRSP


Joachim LAUBHOUET Senior Field Programme Officer - Budget HolderFAO

FAO Regional Office for [email protected]+233 263 017 602

Aubrey HARRIS Senior Fisheries OfficerFAO

[email protected]+263 4253 655

Clotilde BODIGUEL Project ManagerFAO


Davide SIGNA Fisheries OfficerFAO


Bonnie ZAK Programme AssistantFAO


Soudha NUNKOO Programme AssistantFAO


18

Appendix B


Dominique GREBOVAL Team LeaderIRFS-SmartFish


Chris SHORT Trade ExpertIRFS-SmartFish


Marcel KROESE MCS ExpertIRFS-SmartFish


Dominique LEMOINE Monitoring & Evaluation ExpertIRFS-SmartFish


Toky RASOLOARIMANANA Communication OfficerIRFS-SmartFish


Yann YVERGNIAUX Fisheries EconomistIRFS-SmartFish


Jude TALMA MCS SpecialistIRFS-SmartFish


Said MMADI ALI IT OfficerIRFS-SmartFish


19

Appendix B


Aurore MARTINGALE Accounts AssistantIRFS-SmartFish


Minakshi PALLUT SecretaryIRFS-SmartFish


Claudia LAGUETTE SecretaryIRFS-SmartFish


20

Appendix C


IRFS PROGRAMME (SmartFish)2nd STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGPearle Beach Hotel, Flic en Flac, Mauritius28th and 29th May 2012APPENDIX C:

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SECOND STEERING COM-MITTEE MEETING OF THE SMARTFISH PROGRAMME: IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL FISHERIES STRATEGY FOR THE ESA-IO REGION

1. The Second Steering Committee Meeting (SCM) of the Programme for the Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy for the Eastern-Southern Africa and Indian Ocean Region (SmartFish Programme) was held at the Pearle Beach Hotel, Flic en Flac, Mauritius on the 28th and 29th of May, 2012, at the invitation of the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC). Representatives from the ASCLME, IOTC, IGAD, AGROTEC Spa Consortium, IOC-PRSP, IRCC, SWIOFP, SWIOFC, EUD (Mauritius), FAO, were present, as well as the SmartFish PMU (including IOC and FAO Technical Assistance Teams).

AGENDA ITEM 1: OVERVIEW OF SMARTFISH PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

2. The Steering Committee (SC) recalled that the objective underlying the Programme was to implement the IO-ESA strategy for Fisheries through 5 results areas: fisheries management (R1); fisheries governance (R2); monitoring, control and surveillance (R3); regional fish trade (R4) and food security (R5).

AGENDA ITEMS 2 - 6: PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION BY RESULT – ACHIEVEMENTS AND NEXT STEPS

3. The SC reviewed progress made in the implementation of Results 2, 3 & 4 (IOC) and Results 1 & 5 (FAO), based on documentation provided by the secretariat. The main conclusions and recommendations pertaining to each result are given below.

AGENDA ITEM 2: RESULT 3 - MONITORING, CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE (MCS)

4. The SC noted a need for strengthened collaboration and communication between partners in relation to the design and implementation of key activities.

5. The SC agreed to the need to ensure that the large amount of data gathered through SmartFish activities remains available for future use and that, in this regard, mechanisms be put in place by SmartFish.

6. The SC expressed satisfaction with regards to implementation of this result, noting the need to allocate the Grants as soon as possible following agreement on the addendum to the financial convention submitted by the programme to the EUD.

21

Appendix C


AGENDA ITEM 3: RESULT 2 - FISHERIES GOVERNANCE

7. The SC took note of progress made under this result and of the need for further strengthened collaboration among SWIO countries for effective participation in addressing regional fisheries’ governance issues.

8. The issue of integrating inland fisheries into Result 2 (which was originally designed for marine fisheries only) was noted by the SC. The SC took note that countries from continental Africa have requested that this Result be extended to inland waters. Given the importance that the SC has placed on this question, this could be addressed in Phase 2 of the programme.

9. The SC agreed that there was a need for more collaboration between the SmartFish Programme and the various regional bodies and programmes.

10. The SC noted the proposed arrangement for Directors of Fisheries to meet regularly at the invitation of IOC (in collaboration with SWIOFC and IOTC) to discuss fisheries issues. It was emphasized that the agenda of such meetings should focus on issues of common interest, particularly those relevant to RECs and RFMOs.

AGENDA ITEM 4: RESULT 4 - REGIONAL FISH TRADE

11. The SC agreed that good work had been undertaken so far under this Result and further recommended the need for more funding for this Result area to be addressed as a matter of urgency to allow for continued work to complete PE1 and implement PE2.

12. The SC recommended that attention be paid to expediting the publishing and circulating of reports, as well as the importance of having workshops, where appropriate, to validate results of various activities.

13. The SC recommended that the issue of gender be duly considered, especially for Results 4 and 5.

14. 14. Result 4 to also be cognizant with the activities under Result 5 (food security) and look at how best to work with and contribute to the Result particularly with respect to issues mentioned in paragraphs 18 & 19.

AGENDA ITEM 5: RESULT 1 - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

15. The SC agreed to redirect the funding foreseen for the Output 1M1.2 (on the Nile Basin), to implement specific requests brought up by beneficiaries where the requests have regional relevance, fit into the present logical framework and do not modify the original structure of the budget.

16. The SC agreed to the need for close collaboration between Results 1 & 2 on some issues, such as the following up on the request made by the last national Focal Points (NFP) meeting, which was to organize a workshop on the management of overcapacity in marine and inland fisheries.

17. The SC supported the proposal to organize a regional meeting to emphasise and improve the profile of fisheries in terms of their contribution to national economies and to the accomplishment of the MDGs. This meeting should be based on regional experience in this regard.

AGENDA ITEM 6: RESULT 5 - FOOD SECURITY

18. The SC recommended that dried fish (under the post-harvest loss component), as well as discards and by-catches, should be looked at closely from the perspective of food security.

19. There is a need to be cognizant of and address the various linkages between Result 4 & 5 to ensure complementary activities as well as avoid unnecessary overlap.

22

Appendix C


20. The SC noted the point made that alternative livelihoods have been persistently promoted and developed in the region, often with limited success and related activities and approaches under this Result need to be carefully planned by the programme to ensure better success.

AGENDA ITEM 7: STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTS AND REGIONAL LINKAGES

21. The SC supported the initiative taken by the Programme to organize a partners and donors meeting on 30th & 31st July 2012. The meeting will be on the issue of strategy development and coherence between the various RECs and other regional bodies including NEPAD and the AU, with the purpose of achieving clarity in the strategic framework of the region with regards to fisheries. The expected objective of the meeting would be to address strategic developments in the ESA-IO region, ensuring greater coherence and efficiency in tackling collectively the key challenges of the fisheries sector and, more specifically, achieving clarity within a strategic framework for the region. The SC agreed to invite the AU, NEPAD and other Pan-African strategic and regional partners and programmes to this meeting.

22. The SC also supported the proposal for initiating actions relating to linking regional strategies and national strategies.

AGENDA ITEM 8: INFORMATION-COMMUNICATION & VISIBILITY (ICV)

23. The SC took note of the progress made in the implementation of the SmartFish ICV Strategy.

24. The SC suggested that the website be kept up to date and a database of pictures be developed and maintained.

25. The SC also suggested providing more promotional material to partners in order to ensure visibility of the activities undertaken.

AGENDA ITEM 9: FOLLOW UP OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 1ST SCM AND 2ND NFP MEETING

26. The SC noted with satisfaction that the recommendations of the last SC and NFP meetings had been appropriately followed up.

AGENDA ITEM 10: MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) SYSTEM

27. The SC took note of the work undertaken so far for the development of an internal Programme M&E tool.

28. In reference to the overall Logical Framework of the Programme, the SC appreciated the efforts made to develop this system at an Activity to Output level.

29. It was suggested, however, that a similar effort be undertaken to identify suitable SMART OVI (Objectively Verifiable Indicators) to assess progress towards the achievements of Results; this should be presented at the next SCM.

AGENDA ITEM 11: STE MOBILISATION

30. The SC noted the status of STE mobilisation.

31. The methodology for recruitment of STEs was presented to the meeting. It was agreed that a mechanism will be developed for the involvement of the Focal Points and other key stakeholders in the dissemination of the findings of the work of the STEs.

23

Appendix C


AGENDA ITEM 12: PROGRAMME ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

32. The SC took note of the updated financial status of the programme and in particular the fact that a reallocation in favour of Result 4 has been agreed by IOC.

33. The SC insisted on the importance of receiving documentation for meetings well in advance of the meeting.

34. The SC acknowledged the good work done so far by FAO and the added value of FAO as co-implementer, despite the delay in the start-up.

35. The SC agreed to the need to give proper visibility of the FAO logo to be mentioned as co-implementing agency.

AGENDA ITEM 13: RESULTS ORIENTED MONITORING (ROM), MIDTERM EVALUATION & PHASE II OF THE PROGRAMME

36. ROM - The SC appreciated the recommendations provided by the ROM mission and took note of the resulting report as well as the IOC’s response to the same. It was noted that the Programme will try to integrate the key recommendations of the ROM.

37. The SC shared the view of the IOC that an extension of 2 years was not feasible, but that the IOC agreed in principle with the EU in terms of a six-month extension without budgetary implication, though there would be some adjustment within budget lines and provisions. The IOC, as Regional Authorising Officer (RAO) for the Programme, confirmed that a no cost extension is being negotiated with the EU for the entire programme, which will also include the components relating to the FAO. It is noted that this will require a rider to the Financial Convention (FC).

38. Midterm Evaluation (MTE) - The SC recommended the proper preparation of all documentation for the MTE planned in September/October 2012, which will lay the basis for the design of the 2nd Phase of the Programme. IOC will initiate the MTE exercise from the beginning of June so that it includes also the necessary preparation of the elements for the 2nd Phase.

39. 2nd Phase of the Programme – The IOC, as designated RAO, will submit all the documentation for the 2nd Phase of the Programme within the set deadline, namely by the end November 2012. In this context, the SC noted that the timeline is crucial to assess what the project has achieved so that the SC can understand the proper direction and content of the 2nd Phase. The SC agreed that a project document should be drafted and shared with all members by the end October 2012, but the preliminary documents and Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the MTE should be ready by the end of June 2012. The SC acknowledged that some main issues have been already agreed within the IRCC, such as the duration for an operational period of 42 months with a total contribution of 14 million euros from the 10th EDF, and that the 2nd Phase will start right after the end of the 1st Phase, with no gaps; very important to maintain the Programme momentum and the ESA-IO regional mobilisation.

AGENDA ITEM 14: THE NEXT SCM DATE AND VENUE

40. The SC agreed that since there is a need to work on the revision/approval of the workplan for Programme Estimate 2 (PE2), as well as on the 2nd Phase elaboration, the next SCM so should be not later than mid-October 2012, since the PE2 starts from October 25th 2012.

41. It was agreed that in order to ensure proper involvement of all NFP in the planning and decision making of the PE2 workplan and of the 2nd Phase (as per a request received during the last NFP meeting in Zambia in February) there should be a NFP meeting in September for their validation and inputs.

24

Appendix C


42. After some discussion the SC agreed to set the dates for the next SCM on 15 & 16th October. A representation of the NFPs will be invited to the SCM.

43. The agreed location will be Nairobi since is the most convenient logistically (flight connections, etc.)

44. The SC urged the IOC secretariat and the PMU to make sure that invitations are sent out with at least one month notice to ensure attendance of all and to avoid overlaps with other commitments.

45. All SC members requested to the IOC secretariat that for all future meeting, all necessary documents, including the financial reports should be provided at least two weeks in advance.

46. The SC noted the overall achievement of the project so far and commended the programme for its accomplishments to date under each of the result areas. The SC also expressed its recognition of the amount of work initiated in the short implementation period under the FAO components.

47. IOC is to ensure that the final version of the conclusions and recommendations be sent to all the participants by the 30th May 2012 and the draft report of the meeting is circulated within a week’s time; comments to be provided within one week after which the final version will be circulated to all.

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS – LISTE DES PUBLICATIONSSmartFish Programme

1. Report of the Inception / Focal Point Meeting of the SmartFish Programme – Flic en Flac, Mauritius, 15th-16th June 2011. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/01. August/Août 2011. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (55 pages).

2. Report of the First Steering Committee Meeting of the SmartFish Programme – Flic en Flac, Mauritius,17th June 2011. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/02. August/Août 2011. SmartFish Programme Indian Ocean Commission (51 pages).

3. Rapport de la réunion de présentation du programme SmartFish aux points focaux – Flic en Flac, Ile Maurice, 15-16 juin 2011. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/03. August/Août 2011. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (55 pages).

4. Eco-Certification for the Tuna Industry, Technical Assistance for Implementation of a Regional Fisheries Strategy for ESA-IO (IRFS). REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/04. May 2011. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (40 pages).

5. Regional Market Assessment (Supply and Demand). REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/05. March/Mars 2012. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (264 pages).

6. Trade Assessment Study. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/06. March/Mars 2012. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (120 pages).

7. Gouvernance des Pêches Maritimes dans l’Ouest de l’Océan Indien. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/07. June/Juin 2012. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (101 pages).

8. Value Chain Assessment of the Artisanal Fisheries – Mauritius. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/08. June/Juin 2012. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (85 pages).

9. Kenya Fisheries Governance. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/09. June/Juin 2012. SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (36 pages).

10. Training Needs Analysis – Quality and Hygiene: REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/10. June/Juin 2012.SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (95 pages).

11. A Review of Somalia’s & (Semi-Autonomous Regions) Fisheries Legislation and Management. REPORT RAPPORT: SF/2012/11. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (49).

12. Assessment of IUU Activities On Lake Victoria. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/12. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (130 pages).

13. Review Of The Legal Framework for the ESA-IO Region. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/13. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (149 pages).

14. Comprehensive capacity review to implement effective MCS in the ESA-IO Region. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/14. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (101 pages).

15. Assessment of IUU Fishing in Lake Tanganyika. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/15. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (52 pages).

16. Spirulina – A Livelihood and a Business Venture. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/16. SmartFish Programme. June/Juin 2012 Indian Ocean Commission (39 pages).

17. Diversification Study (Eco-Tourism and Recreational Fisheries). REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/17. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (76 pages).

18. Value Chain Analysis of Fisheries Sector for Rodrigues. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/18. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (78 pages).

19. Dagaa Value Chain Analysis and Proposal for Trade Development. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/19. June/Juin 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (45 pages).

20. Operationalization of Fish Auction Market. (Feasibility Study). REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/20. August/Août 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (45 pages).

21. Options to Reduce IUU Fishing in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zanzibar: REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/21. August/Août 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (101 pages).

22. Revitalization of Fisheries Research in Mauritius. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/22. August/Août 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (58 pages).

23. Preparation of Draft Kenya Fisheries Management and Development Bill: REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/23. August/Août 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (200 pages).

24. Une Analyse Globale de la Chaîne D’approvisionnement de la Pêcherie du Crabe de Mangrove (Scylla serrate) à Madagasar. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/24. August/Août 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (50 pages).

25. Analyse Globale de la Gouvernance et de la chaîne D’approvisionnement de la Pêcherie du concombre de mer à Madagasar. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/25. August/Août 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (92 pages).

26. Processing and Marketing of Small-Sized Pelagics in Eastern and Southern Africa. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2012/26. August/Août 2012 SmartFish Programme. Indian Ocean Commission (38 pages).

27. Report of the Second Steering Committee Meeting of the SmartFish Programme. REPORT/RAPPORT: SF/2011/27. August/Août 2012. SmartFish Programme Indian Ocean Commission (24 pages).

Indian Ocean Commission – SmartFish ProgramBlue Tower, 5th �oor, Institute Road - Ebène, MauritiusTél: (+230) 402 6100 Fax: (+230) 465 7933

REPORT OF THE SECOND STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING OF …

Documents

Transcript of REPORT OF THE SECOND STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING OF …