mopdf.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYBackgroundIllegal commercial fishing is one of the world’s most serious and complex transnationalenvironmental crimes. Crimes related to fisheries have significant and far-reaching economic,social and environmental impacts, affecting almost all the coastal countries in the world, with anestimated economic loss to fisheries crimes of USD 10-23.5 billion. 1The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has a broad mandate in supportingMember States in preventing and responding to transnational organized crime, including fisheriescrime, as reflected in United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions 67/79 and 68/71, andvarious resolutions of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ).Managed under the Global Programme for Combating Wildlife and Forest Crime (GPWLFC)(GLOZ31) and the Container Control Programme (CCP) (GLOG80), the project ‘Fisheries CrimeInitiative FishNET’ (hereinafter referred to as FishNET) has been developed to help Member States‘effectively prevent, identify, investigate, prosecute and adjudicate fisheries crime’. The project hasthe following four outcomes:1. Legal and policy frameworks to address fisheries crime are strengthened.2. Criminal justice and law enforcement response to fisheries crime enhanced.3. Law enforcement capacity to detect and inspect fisheries crime in containers enhanced.4. Awareness raised at the international level on the serious nature of organized fisheries crime.Outcomes 1, 2 and 4 have been implemented by GPWLFC, and outcome 3 by CCP. FishNET isintended to support cross-divisional cooperation as GPWLFC is in the Sustainable Livelihoods Unit(SLU) of the Division for Operations (DO), while CCP is in the Implementation Support Section(ISS) in the Organized Crime and Illicit Trafficking Branch (OCB) of the Division for TreatyAffairs (DTA).FishNET started on 15 November 2016 (date of signature of the grant agreement) and is foreseento be completed on 31 October 2020. The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation(Norad) is the only donor, and the UNODC-approved budget is USD 3,890,891, with USD2,531,492 for GPWLFC and USD 1,359,399 for CCP. FishNET has been implemented in LatinAmerica, East, Southern and West Africa, South and South East Asia, and the Pacific.Purpose, scope and methodology of the evaluationAs stipulated in the grant agreement and the UNODC Evaluation Policy, a Mid-Term IndependentProject Evaluation of FishNET has been undertaken from October to December 2019, in closecooperation with UNODC’s Independent Evaluation Section (IES), for accountability and learningpurposes. This evaluation covered the period from 15 November 2016 until 8 November 2019,which was the end of the one-week evaluation mission to Vienna. The geographical coverage wasglobal, which was accomplished by phone and Skype interviews with stakeholders in the variouslocations.1FAO, 2016; Marine Resources Assessment Group, 2008viii

EVALUATION FINDINGSThe main stakeholders were staff and consultants of UNODC, and representatives of beneficiaries,partners, and the donor. The evaluation criteria relevance, design, efficiency, partnerships andcooperation, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and human rights and gender equality guided the33 semi-structured interviews, with 19 interviews with male respondents and 14 with femalerespondents, and the desk review with a total of 70 UNODC and 90 external documents. The deskreview incorporated a quantitative content analysis of workshop and training materials. Datacollection and analysis involved different qualitative and quantitative methods in order to establishvalidity of the main findings, and due regard was given to collecting and analysing sexdisaggregated statistics and gender-related information, and findings have been presented in agender-sensitive manner in this evaluation report.Due to the limited budget available for this evaluation and, therefore, the evaluation team’s limitedtime resources, this evaluation was primarily confined to the desk review and the semi-structuredinterviews undertaken from UNODC headquarters at the cost of extensive data collection in thefield.The evaluation team comprised an independent international evaluation team leader and anindependent international fisheries crime expert who undertook complex evaluations in the field ofcriminal justice prevention and reform, and have a strong background in using quantitative,qualitative and gender-sensitive evaluation methods.Main findingsThe design of FishNET was appropriate, and it had been undertaken in a participatory manner tosome extent. The initial project design had been prepared by a relatively small group composed ofstaff at the UNODC headquarters, Norad, and the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry andFisheries. As fisheries crime was new territory for UNODC, and because of limited awareness andthe absence of relevant partners, the original design had been too ambitious for some of theoutcomes. A further complicating factor was some lack of conceptual clarity on the application offisheries crime. The emphasis for the GPWLFC was, therefore, shifted to awareness-raisingactivities, with legislative reform and capacity-building taking initially a secondary role. States’formal requests for assistance then informed the selection of beneficiaries. In contrast, the selectionof countries for Outcome 3 with already functioning Port Control Units (PCUs), as well as a strongplanning and implementation mechanism, had led to a realistic design of this component. However,FishNET’s results framework had no comprehensive theory of change, and the two globalprogrammes (GPs) had used different approaches for the formulation of results and indicators,which had partly made it difficult to measure the intended results for the main beneficiaries. Onlymonitoring of activities had been done to some extent; activity assessment reports were available.FishNET was relevant at the time of its inception, and remains relevant to the global priorities thatstem from UNGA Resolutions 68/71 (2013) and 71/209 (2016) and 71/326 (2017) and the CCPCJResolutions 28/3 (2019) entitled ‘Strengthening regional and international cooperation in crimeprevention and criminal justice responses to illicit trafficking in wildlife crime and 20/5 (2011) on‘Combating the Problem of Transnational Organized Crimes at Sea’. FishNET has, thus far,contributed to achieving the goals set forth by the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as the various Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), including SDG 14 ‘Life Below Water’. The project also continued to be relevantconsidering donor priorities. The relevance of the CCP-led activities could have been more clearlyjustified by placing the detection of possible cases of fisheries crime in the criminal justice chain,and clearly linking this to roles and responsibilities of law enforcement and criminal justice actorscovered by other UNODC GPs in the previous and following chain, while the relevance of theix

GPWLFC-supported awareness-raising efforts has become visible in a paradigm shift whichincreasingly has included the field of fisheries crime together with IUU fishing. The appearanceand risk of duplication of efforts was observed with respect to UNODC activities, especially withthe Global Maritime Crime Programme (GMCP) (GLOX99), and with the FAO, because of whicheven more attention could be given to creating policy and programming level synergies.FishNET has been efficient to some extent. While 9 out of 13 countries had already been targetedunder the CCP-component, the performance under outcomes 1 and 2 was marked by thecancellation and delay of activities in GPWLFC’s first year of FishNET implementation. Thisseemed, however, justified considering the operational reality for activities led by this GP. Thearrangement to use Norwegian experts – without cost to the project – and UNODC regional andnational capacity contributed to cost-efficiency. Project management had gradually become lessunified in donor communication and in UNODC’s financial management system, with one of theunderlying causes the different characteristics of the two GPs. The use of GPWLFC consultantshad had an impact on efficiency, but with the arrival of a full-time P3 project manager, this issueseems to have been addressed. Generally, the quality of the inputs and outputs has been assessed ina positive light, including the reports produced by GPWLFC, such as ‘Rotten Fish: A Guide onAddressing Corruption in the Fisheries Sector’ (with CEB support), and the capacity-building workundertaken by CCP.Partnerships with international agencies and NGOs have facilitated the implementation ofFishNET, and strengthened the overall coordination, efficiency and effectiveness of the project.The landscape of international, regional and national agencies operating in the field of IUU fishingand fisheries crime turned out to be highly complex, and, therefore, more efforts had to beundertaken to find entry points, with noteworthy impact as a foundation laid for future work. Closepartnerships with FAO were developed to capitalize on its extensive expertise in IUU fishing, andto explore areas of cooperation. Furthermore, also Interpol, the Environmental Justice Foundation,the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the International Transport Workers’ Foundation,Oceana, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the North AtlanticFisheries Intelligence Group (NA-FIG), PescaDOLUS, various universities, and private sectororganizations, allowed the project to not only draw from these organisations’ strengths but also tointroduce FishNET to a broader audience. In addition to GPWLFC-led connections developed withsenior government officials, investigators and prosecutors, personnel from different PCUs, locallaw enforcement, federal police, customs, navies, ministries, and fisheries departments included inCCP trainings, supported multi-agency cooperation. Norad has also been a key partner in creatingopportunities for such cooperation.With respect to effectiveness, FishNET performance was, to some extent, on track, albeit in varyingdegrees when considering progress made under the four outcomes. Neither legislative reform nor amore effective law enforcement and criminal justice responses were observed at this stage of theproject. Limited results were reported on more effective identification processes of IUU fishing,offering a basis for checking if associated crimes (fisheries crimes) had possibly been committedon the basis of strengthened cooperation between PCUs and fisheries authorities in ports of severalcountries. Awareness was raised at the international level on the serious nature of organizedfisheries crime, and its necessity also clarified why it was still too early for the objective to havebeen met.The impact ‘fisheries crime affecting developing countries reduced’ had not been observed yet asthe project is still in the first phase of implementation.Sustainability has been considered to some extent. Ownership and commitment to effectuatechange had been underlying the selection of beneficiary countries and direct beneficiaries. Whilethe GPWLFC had implemented one-time regional training for investigators and prosecutors inVienna and another in Nairobi, the use of participatory risk assessments introduced in ‘Rotten Fish’x

EVALUATION FINDINGSwas instead a first step in a possible long-term change-management process to identifyopportunities to redress corruption in the fisheries sector. Furthermore, PCUs had received a rathercomprehensive training package, which included mentoring and the use of local trainers, althoughstaff rotation continued to be one of the risks to sustainability. However, only limited attention hasbeen given to institutionalization of training by means of ToTs and integrating training curricula inrelevant training institutes. However, further awareness-raising is necessary to strengthen andconsolidate the outcomes of earlier processes of FishNET.Human rights and gender equality have been mainstreamed in FishNET to some extent from theearly design stages onward. Project indicators have, however, not included a reference to humanrights and to gender. Significant efforts have been made to establish gender balance whiledelivering training, although their outcomes were to a large extent determined by the proportion ofwomen in particular professions and organizations. The annual donor reports presented sexdisaggregated data. CCP FishNET training curricula contained sessions on human rights andgender, and these sessions were run by both female and male trainers. In 2018, both GPs hadsupported the establishment of LE FEMME network that aims at enhancing the role of women inlaw enforcement related to fisheries crime.Main conclusionsFishNET has been relevant. In close cooperation with partners, the project has contributed to aparadigm shift on IUU fishing by including fisheries crime to set the stage for a more effectivecriminal justice response to this transnational crime. The CCP component has overall been efficientand effective, although the more limited efficiency of the GPWLFC could be justified to someextent by considering long-term effectiveness and sustainability. More scope, however, exists forusing more comprehensive approaches to promote sustainability, including by limiting the numberof beneficiaries to increase investments to achieve impact. With the separation of the management,budgetary and financial arrangements of the two GPs, cooperation could take place on substanceto prepare one UNODC vision, approach and design on awareness-raising and capacity-building ofrelevant actors to prevent and counter fisheries crime.Main recommendationsRecommendation 1 – Efficiency/sustainability: FishNET has been implemented cost-efficientlyto some extent, and therefore not all funds will be spent before the project’s completion date.Additionally, one of the main achievements has been to prepare the ground for long-terminvolvement to strengthen the prevention and response to fisheries crime. A vehicle for thecontinuation of the work is not available yet, while results achieved will hardly be sustainablewithout continued support. The recommendations are therefore to a) Request for a no-costextension to the donor until 31 December 2020; and b) Design a FishNET phase II which considersgood practices and lessons learned of this phase (FishNET project team).Recommendation 2 – Design/partnerships & cooperation/effectiveness/impact Coordinationon substance matter was initially an aspiration, partly as the GPWLFC had to focus on awarenessraising., Scope for synergies exist as both GPs target the criminal justice chain concerning fisheriescrime, although different countries were selected by the GPs for FishNET activities thus far.Furthermore, cooperation has not yet taken place with the GMCP, which also covers fisheriescrime. It is, therefore, recommended to strengthen coordination on substance matter, to createsynergies and develop ‘regional champions’, including by a) selecting at least three countries inthree regions to target GPWLFC and CCP activities; b) reaching out to GMCP to build on theirnetworks and to align FishNET activities with their activities and results while also consideringxi

joint activities, and; c) identify opportunities to undertaking joint technical assessments (FishNETproject team, with support of regional GPWLFC/CCP staff)Lessons learned and best practicesGood practices were noted in design, efficiency and sustainability, such as CCP’s comprehensivetraining package, which included a long-term, constructive approach comprising different trainingmethods, and the methodology of preparing and implementing the ‘Rotten Fish’ guide, such as theuse of regionally and technically diverse small expert groups during its design process, theinvestment in editing to get a user-friendly guide accessible to a large audience, and theparticipatory methodology for planning given in the guide to promote ownership and action.Lessons learned were found in design and efficiency, such as the relatively short planning phasein the first year, which caused delays in implementation as assumptions made in the design phasecould not be tested and possibly addressed in a short time-frame, and the inclusion of the budget ofthe Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries in UNODC’s project budget causedconfusion, especially as decisions on its use are ultimately a national affair.xii

SUMMARY MATRIX OF FINDINGS, EVIDENCE ANDRECOMMENDATIONSFindingsEvidence(sources thatsubstantiatefindings)Desk reviewSemi-structuredinterviews1. FishNET has been implemented(cost)-efficiently to some extent,and therefore not all funds will bespent before the project’scompletion date. Additionally, oneof the main achievements has beento prepare the ground for long-terminvolvement to strengthen theprevention and response to fisheriescrime. A vehicle for the continuationof the work is not available yet,while results achieved will hardly besustainable without continuedsupport.2. Coordination on substanceDesk reviewmatter was initially an aspiration,Semi-structuredpartly as the GPWLFC had to focusinterviewson awarenes

2. Criminal justice and law enforcement respo nse to fisheries crime enhanced. 3. Law enforcement capacity to detect and inspect fisheries crime in containers enhanced. 4. Awareness raised at the international level on the serious nature of organized fisheries crime. Outcomes 1, 2 and 4