2004 Auto-evaluation of

Programme Entity 2.3.4. P2 “Global Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture”

Report prepared by Lena Westlund FAO consultant

DRAFT 3 January 2005

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and context of report .......................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and scope of the evaluation....................................................................... 1 1.3 PE outputs covered by the evaluation..................................................................... 2 1.4 Evaluation process and methodology ..................................................................... 2 1.5 Outline of the present report .................................................................................. 3

2 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMME ENTITY (PE) DESIGN AND RATIONALE ....... 3 2.1 Description of the PE............................................................................................. 3 2.2 Assessment of the overall PE rationale and design ................................................. 4

3 ASSESSMENT OF PE RESULTS AND EFFECTIVENESS ........................................ 5 3.1 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA)......................................... 5

3.1.1 Description .................................................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Assessment .................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Fishery Country Profiles (FCPs) .......................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Description .................................................................................................. 12 3.2.2 Assessment .................................................................................................. 13

3.3 Global studies on fish consumption and future demand for fishery products ........ 14 3.3.1 Description .................................................................................................. 14 3.3.2 Assessment .................................................................................................. 15

4 OTHER ASPECTS...................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Assessment of the Fisheries Department’s (FI’s) management of the PE.............. 17 4.2 Contribution of the PE to Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action (PAIAs) ... 18 4.3 Media work ......................................................................................................... 18

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 19 5.1 PE rationale, design and output............................................................................ 19 5.2 Auto-evaluation work .......................................................................................... 19

6 Concluding remarks .................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Terms of Reference for the auto-evaluation Appendix II: Literature consulted and persons met Appendix III: Table of Contents SOFIA 2002

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and context of report The Programme Entity (PE) 2.3.4. P2 – “Global Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture” – is one of seven entities of the Fisheries Policy Programme of the FAO Fisheries Department (FI)1. The PE has a central role in the work of FI and also contributes to the FAO interdisciplinary work on assessments of the long-term outlook for the world’s food supplies, nutrition and agriculture2. The PE covers country specific reviews, global status reports and forecasts of likely future supply and demand scenarios. The information is published as documents and is also made available to users on the FAO website. Considering the importance of the PE, it was suggested that its outputs were reviewed to ensure that they remain appropriate in view of the changing needs of users. Accordingly, an auto-evaluation exercise was carried out during the second half of 2004. This document constitutes the consolidated report of the 2004 Auto-evaluation of the Programme Entity 2.3.4. P2 “Global Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture”.

1.2 Purpose and scope of the evaluation The purpose of the evaluation is to give guidance to FI with regard to any specific actions needed in order to ensure a successful implementation of the PE, including opportunities that may be seized and issues that should be resolved. The evaluation includes the following main elements: • Review of the PE design and rationale. • Description of the PE outputs and assessment of the PE results and effectiveness, i.e.

the relevance and appropriateness of the PE outputs to their users, in particular with regard to the following aspects: � The access to the outputs: do potential users know about the information and how

is it accessed? � The use of the outputs: who uses the information and for what? � The relevance of the outputs to the needs of users: how well does the information

meet the likely requirements of users and potential users? � The quality of the outputs: do users consider the information well presented, user-

friendly and of good quality? In addition, this evaluation also briefly looks into: • FI management of the PE with regard to work process and institutional framework. • Contribution of the PE to the Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action (PAIAs) on

global trends. • FI media outreach.

The original Terms of Reference (ToR) for the evaluation are included in Appendix I (see also section �1.4).

1 See Programme of Work and Budget 2004-5. 2 One of the Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action (PAIAs).

2

1.3 PE outputs covered by the evaluation The evaluation covers the following main PE outputs: • “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture” (SOFIA), online and hardcopy

versions. • “Fisheries Country Profiles” (FCPs), online versions. • Global studies on fish consumption and future demand for fishery products.

Six studies, conducted by the Development Planning Service (FIPP), have been reviewed for the purpose of this evaluation.

More details of the PE outputs are given in chapter �3.

1.4 Evaluation process and methodology The ToR for the auto-evaluation were prepared by FIPP in consultation with the Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit (FIDI) and the Evaluation Service (PBEE) (see Appendix I). In accordance with the evaluation methodology defined in the ToR, five studies were carried out during the period July-November 2004. The studies focused on different components of the PE and the following reports were prepared: • “Report on the SWOT Analysis of SOFIA & Programme Entity 234P2 – Global

Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture”, report of meeting held on 11 October 2004 by Olivier Cossee, PBEE.

• “Evaluation of Studies on Future Levels of Fish Consumption”, desk study by Trevor Young, Centre for Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, School of Economic Studies, University of Manchester.

• “Auto-evaluation for SOFIA 2002 and SOFIA 2002”, analysis of web statistics by Maud Le Bars, consultant, FIDI.

• “FI Country Profiles Auto-evaluation”, analysis of web statistics by Maud Le Bars, consultant FIDI.

• “2004 SOFIA Auto-evaluation Report”, report on a questionnaire survey by Immacolata Di Marco, consultant FIPP.

In December 2004, the author of the present document was asked to consolidate the conclusions of the above studies into a final evaluation report. During a visit to FAO Headquarters on 15-17 December 2004, additional information was collected through discussions with FAO staff. The Fisheries Branch Library (FBL) assisted the author in, among other things, conducting a citation search for SOFIA on the “Web of Science”. A list of other sources of information – literature consulted and persons met – is given in Appendix II. It is felt important to mention that the author found it somewhat difficult to fulfil the requirements of the ToR using only the studies made available to her. Due to the limited time allocated for the work in December 2004, it was also difficult to collect any substantial amount of supplementary information or conduct additional analyses. It should also be pointed out that no detailed description of the PE work program appears to exist, e.g. no indicators have been defined against which performance could be measured. The evaluation focuses on the SOFIA publications. This is due to its relative importance, being the flagship publication of FI, both with regard to inputs and in visibility to users.

3

The conclusions and recommendations are largely based on the views of the author and her interpretations of the information provided. Some comments with regard to how further evaluation work of the PE could be organised are given at the end of this report.

1.5 Outline of the present report After this introductory chapter, outlining the context and scope of the evaluation, chapter 2 gives an assessment of the overall design and rationale of the PE. Chapter 3 describes in some detail the characteristics and contents of the PE outputs covered by the evaluation, i.e. the SOFIA publications, the Fishery Country Profiles and the fish consumption/demand studies. This chapter also presents the findings with regard to the assessment of the results and effectiveness of the PE outputs. The FI management of the PE, its contribution to FAO interdisciplinary work and FI media outreach are briefly reviewed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 gives a summary of the conclusions and recommendations. The Appendices contain the ToR of the auto-evaluation, a list of literature consulted and persons met and the table of contents of SOFIA 2002.

2 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMME ENTITY (PE) DESIGN AND RATIONALE

2.1 Description of the PE According to the FAO Programme of Work and Budget 2004-05 (PWB, p. 166) the objective of the PE 2.3.4. P2 – “Global Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture” – is the ”improved identification and funding of services and productive assets by public sector administrations and private sector enterprises for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture development [and] enhanced international and regional collaboration based on a more accurate and common understanding of long-term trends and emerging issues”. The expected outcome of the PE, i.e. the immediate result of the use of the PE outputs expecting to lead to the attainment of the objective in the longer-term, is not explicitly mentioned in the PWB. However, it could be assumed to be a better understanding of global and regional trends and issues on behalf of policy makers and professionals in the fisheries and aquaculture sector leading to more informed decisions. The PE is a continuing programme activity and produces global trend analyses and studies on a regular basis. The outputs of the PE currently include the SOFIA series, the FCPs, the demand and supply studies reviewed for the evaluation, the updating of the Web-based Fisheries Atlas and the publication of a series of regional fisheries management review series. The impact rationale of the PE is that, as the world economy becomes more integrated, governments and private entrepreneurs (fishers and aquaculturists) can no longer rely only on what happens in their immediate vicinity but also need global information for assessing their long-term prospects. By providing global and regional information, through the PE outputs, decisions can be made based on better knowledge. It is assumed that this will contribute to sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. The activities carried out for producing the outputs include data and trend analysis, development of methodologies (in particular with respect to the demand and supply studies), dissemination of information, including preparation of reports and publication (in hardcopy

4

and web-based). The inputs required are staff (in FIPP and as well as in other services and divisions) and consultancy time, computer hardware and software, funds for travel and the use of in-house and external databases. Figure 1 gives a schematic summary of the PE design with respect to the different steps in the cause-to-effect result development process.

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the development of PE results

Source: Developed by the author based on “Figure 1: Illustrative Sequence of Development Results” in Auto-evaluation Guidelines, PBEE 2003.

2.2 Assessment of the overall PE rationale and design In summary, the purpose of the PE is to produce information on global issues and trends that is used by decision makers in such a way that sustainable fisheries and aquaculture are promoted. FAO is in a unique position to provide the information required in that it combines a global reach for obtaining information and data with a neutral non-advocacy task. The PE under review is an example of a task that relies heavily on both these aspects of FAO’s mandate. The global analysis of trends requires extensive and reliable international statistics and data. The analysis has to be carried out in a serious unbiased manner and produce results that are objective and unprejudiced. The results should be disseminated openly and to a wide audience. Many of the current issues in fisheries and aquaculture are complex and attract different opinions. The present concerns with regard to the livelihoods of fishers and the sustainability of commercial catches and the aquatic ecosystems call for international cooperation and new approaches for which reliable, objective information is needed. It would hence appear that the role that FAO plays in conducting analyses of global trends and disseminating the results is important. Against this background, the PE rationale and general objective is found justified and appropriate. Given the information available, it would appear that the overall PE design is appropriate for its purposes. One could, of course, discuss the choice of outputs and whether there would be other types of publications and studies that could be more suitable for achieving the PE objective. Such a discussion is however considered beyond the scope of this evaluation. Nevertheless, it can be noted that while the SOFIA publications and the FCPs are likely to remain regular and permanent components of the PE output – because of, among other things,

IMPACT RATIONALE

INPUTS ACTIVI-TIES

OUTPUTS OUT-COMES

OBJEC-TIVE

FAO OTHERS – USERS & BENEFICIARIES

Staff, consultants, computers, travel, databases.

Analyse data and develop methodologies, dissemination – write and publish reports.

SOFIA, FCPs, demand/supply studies, management reviews, Atlas.

Better understanding of global issues by policy makers and professionals.

More effective decisions in fisheries and aquaculture and increased international collaboration

Actors

Category

Description Improved decisions and international collaboration will lead to sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.

5

the existence of parallel activities in other FAO departments3 – the general PE design is open for the inclusion of a variety of more occasional studies. The contents of the current PE outputs are reviewed in some detail in chapter �3. It is noteworthy that the details of the PE design and rationale do not appear to be documented. The target audience, users and beneficiaries are only loosely defined. For guiding the work and facilitating the monitoring of progress, it would be useful to develop a logical framework or a similar tool in which expected results and relevant indicators for the PE were clearly defined.

3 ASSESSMENT OF PE RESULTS AND EFFECTIVENESS

3.1 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA)

3.1.1 Description “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture” (SOFIA) is the flagship publication of the Fisheries Department and was first published in 1997 when the issue SOFIA 1996 appeared. It is a biannual publication; four issues have been published and SOFIA 2004 will be ready in early 2005. SOFIA 2002 was complemented with a CD-ROM containing “World Fisheries and Aquaculture Atlas”. SOFIA 1996 contained a world review of fisheries and aquaculture, an in-depth study of marine fishery landings, a review by geographical regions and a description of fishery activities by country groupings, i.e by different regional inter-governmental organisations. The global and regional reviews described recent trends in fish production, utilisation and trade, discussed some of the current issues with regard to policies and fisheries management and presented an outlook for future demand and supply, and consumption and production, of fish and fishery products. In the later SOFIA issues, the contents have been slightly altered and reorganised. The global review – Part 1 of the document – focuses on trends in production, utilisation and trade (and, in SOFIA 2002, on international fisheries policy and governance). Part 2 presents and discusses a number of selected current issues facing fishers and aquaculturists. Highlights of special FAO studies and on-going research work are given in Part 3. The outlook for future trends has been expanded and Part 4 gives long-term projections of fish production and consumption and also – in SOFIA 2002 – prospects with regard to food supplies and employment. The reviews by country groupings are found in Part 5, although removed in the forthcoming SOFIA 20044. The intention with the SOFIA publications is to provide “a useful tool for facilitating a balanced and comprehensive understanding of the fisheries sector, particularly its international aspects” (Foreward, SOFIA 2002). SOFIA is neutral and as objective as possible. The intended audience is wide and includes policy makers, professionals and those

3 Although different in scope and coverage, publications similar to SOFIA are produced by the Forestry Department, “State of World’s Forests” (SOFO), by the Agricultural and Economics Division, “State of Food and Agriculture” (SOFA) and “The State of Food Insecurity in the World” (SOFI). The FAO Country Profiles and Mapping Information System is an information retrieval system through which country specific information can be obtained. The Fisheries Country Profiles are part of this system. 4 The Table of Contents of SOFIA 2002 is given in Appendix III.

6

who are not familiar with the fisheries sector. The language is not overly technical and the document is available both in hardcopy and on the FAO website as downloadable PDF-files.

3.1.2 Assessment As mentioned under “Evaluation process and methodology” in section �1.4, two studies were carried out for the purpose of the evaluation of the SOFIA publications; a questionnaire survey sent out to users of SOFIA and an analysis of webstatistics for SOFIA 2000 and SOFIA 2002. In addition, a search for citations to the SOFIA publications was made on “Web of Science”. Moreover, an in-house SWOT-analysis was carried out. PBEE facilitated a meeting with participants from the different FI divisions, the Editorial Group of the Information Division (GIII) and the Agricultural and Development Economics Division (ESA) in which the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with regard to SOFIA were discussed. During her visit to Rome, the author of this report also held discussions with FAO staff involved in the production of SOFIA. Based on the above sources of information, the appropriateness of SOFIA with respect to the needs of its users – or potential users – was investigated with regard to access, use, relevance and quality. (i) Access SOFIA is published in hardcopy, on CD-Rom and made available on the FAO website. It is translated into five languages. Table 1 shows the number of printed copies for SOFIA 2000 and SOFIA 2002.

Table 1: Size of print runs of SOFIA 2000 and 2002 in the five language versions

English French Spanish Arabic Chinese SOFIA 2000 5 800 2 000 2 000 700 200 SOFIA 2002 4 500 1 000 1 400 500 250

Source: Table 2 in Webster and Collins (in print). The hardcopy publication is distributed to FAO member state governments according to a standard distribution list. Additional copies can be ordered and bought on-line, through the FAO Information Division (GII) Sales and Marketing Group’s distribution network (covering 70 countries) or from a sales agent for FAO publications. Information on how to buy is given on the FAO website. The price of SOFIA 2000 is USD 33 and of SOFIA 2002 USD 40. The sales statistics from GII show that 290 copies of SOFIA 2000 (English version) and 203 copies of SOFIA 2002 (English version) have been sold (December 2004). Copies are also distributed free of charge upon request by FI, especially to institutions in developing countries. It can be assumed that individuals hold most of the copies. A survey carried out with regard to the distribution of the “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries” publications and of SOFIA showed relatively limited numbers of copies held by libraries5. The total number of distributed SOFIA copies is not known but it could be assumed that the printed number of copies gives an indication of their circulation. However, many of the distributed copies are not requested why it is difficult to make any inference with regard to

5 See Webster and Collins (in print). The search was carried out using the Online Computer Library Centre (OCLC), mainly covering North American and major European libriaries.

7

their demand. It is noteworthy that the size of the print run has decreased as fewer copies of SOFIA 2002 were printed compared with SOFIA 2000. This is likely to be a sign of increased use of the electronic version available on the FAO website. It is also interesting that the Spanish version of SOFIA 2002 has a larger print run than the French version.

With regard to the electronic version of SOFIA, web statistics show that SOFIA 2000 received some 2 000 – 3 000 visits per month during the year 2001. When SOFIA 2002 was published in January 2003, the number of visits to the earlier issue declined drastically. SOFIA 2002 has had more visits per month than SOFIA 2000, between 3 000 and 4 500, with a peak in May 2003 (4 555 visits). As the sizes of the print runs of the hardcopy SOFIA also indicate, the Spanish language version on the web has become increasingly popular. The web statistics for SOFIA 2002 show that 67% of the users consulted the English version, 22% the Spanish, 8% the French, and 3% the Chinese and Arabic versions. An analysis of the regions of origin of web visitors show Latin America as the third most important user region after North America and Europe (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Regions of origin of web visits SOFIA 2002 in October 2003

Source:“Auto-evaluation for SOFIA 2002 and SOFIA 2002”, analysis of web statistics by Maud Le Bars, consultant, FIDI. The increase in web traffic is encouraging and likely to indicate an increasing access and use of SOFIA. It would be interesting to compare this development with that of other publications but it is difficult to identify documents with which valid comparisons could be made. The other FAO flagship publications, SOFA, SOFI and SOFO6, are covering different sectors and also have different scope and contents. Nevertheless, it can be noted that SOFIA enjoys about twice the number of visits compared to both SOFA and SOFO (May 2003).

6 See footnote 3.

North America 29%

Western Europe27%

South America14%

Asia11%

Northern Europe4%

Australia4%

Middle East3%

Eastern Europe2% Others

6%

8

A prerequisite for accessing a publication is to know about it. The questionnaire survey covered a total number of 80 respondents mainly from fisheries related government bodies and institutions all over the world. Out of these, 26 declared not having any knowledge of SOFIA. This would appear to be a fairly high percentage considering the audience to which the questionnaire was sent. (ii) Use The fact that printed copies of SOFIA are available and that its web page is visited indicates that the publication is accessed. It also gives some indication of the use of the document. However, if using the document is defined as something more than just accessing it, i.e. creating the outcome as defined in section �2.1, the utilisation of SOFIA in research and decision-making has to be assessed.

A search for citations of SOFIA on the “Web of Science” gave 203 citations of the four issues of SOFIA so far published. The distribution of these citations according to the publication year of the citation is shown in Figure 3. As it can be seen, the number of citations has increased considerably recently, in particular of SOFIA 2000. It should be noted that the data for 2004 is only partial since the search was carried out before the end of the year.

Figure 3: Citations of SOFIA (data from “Web of Science”, 13 December 2004)

About half of the citations appearing in the search were found in fisheries or aquaculture related journals. Journals with a science focus and management journals were more or less equally represented. However, it should be remembered that the “Web of Science” citation analysis tool does not work well with fisheries policy and management documents. So-called “grey literature” is not included in the database and this means that policy guidelines, government publications, industry strategies, etc., are not covered. The tool only includes commercial peer-reviewed journals, primarily in North America and Europe. Considering this relatively narrow focus, the number of citations of SOFIA must be considered fairly high. A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Publication year of citation

No

of c

itatio

ns

SOFIA 2002

SOFIA 2000

SOFIA 1998

SOFIA 1996

9

similar search of the “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries” publications carried out for the period 1995 to spring 2004 gave 126 citations to those documents. While the citation analysis offers some interesting results, it does not give the full picture of the use and usefulness of SOFIA to policy and decision makers. The results of the questionnaire survey are not particularly precise but the following points can be extracted from the answers given by the respondents with regard to their use of SOFIA: • About 30% of the respondents stated that they use SOFIA “often” or on a “regular

basis”, another 26% “occasionally” and the rest “seldom” or gave no answer. • The most common uses of SOFIA were (in order of importance):

� “As reference material for own reports and publishing” � “As background information and analysis for briefing in relation to decision

making” � “As support material in the preparation and implementation of technical activities” � “For dissemination of information”

• SOFIA was less used “as support material in the preparation and implementation of research activities, policy analysis and formulation, and work plans”.

Although the results of the survey have to be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size and weaknesses with regard to the design of the questionnaire, the apparent rather common use of SOFIA is noteworthy. In Box 1 some additional comments by respondents regarding the use of SOFIA are given. It would appear that SOFIA is particularly appreciated as a source for general reference material on global issues and international comparisons. (iii) Relevance SOFIA – “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture” – is an ambitious document. The publication has a broad scope and “everything” relating to fish could be included. This extensive coverage makes SOFIA potentially relevant to a large audience but it does limit the depth of the analyses and reviews since a certain brevity is required. This makes the publication less interesting to specialists and scientists requiring more detailed information. The questionnaire survey included questions about the relevance of the publication to its current users. The benefits of SOFIA were generally perceived by the respondents as “expanding the awareness of their institution of fisheries related issues” and “increasing the basic knowledge of fisheries and aquaculture”. SOFIA was also said to be helpful for planning and preparing better justified workplans and as an input into various research activities, workshops, seminars, etc. The findings confirm the importance of SOFIA as a background and general reference publication. In order to better assess the relevance of SOFIA, its target audience would need to be clearly identified. On the FI SOFIA webpage, it is explained that SOFIA aims to give “policy-makers, civil society and those who derive their livelihood from the sector a comprehensive, objective and global view of capture fisheries and aquaculture, including associated policy issues”. This statement implies a broad target audience and possibly a wider range of readers than indicated by the objective and expected outcome of the PE (see chapter �2).

10

If a wide audience is sought, it would seem appropriate to keep the contents at a general and non-technical level, similar to the way the publication is structured at present. If the intended audience were more narrowly defined, the contents could be made more specific. It is felt that the target audience should be more clearly defined within the context of the objective and expected outcome of the PE. The contents of the publication may – or may not – thereafter need to be adjusted. For example, one could keep part of the document as a general overview and other sections made more specific. Clear references to recommended further reading would benefit the readers looking for more detailed information and in-depth analyses. The question of objectivity should also be mentioned. SOFIA is a non-advocacy publication and this is felt to be important. Its contents are rather factual so the text may appear somewhat “dull”. There is little discussion of “right” vs. “wrong” or “good” vs. “bad”. However, the role of FAO as a neutral provider of information should be respected and safeguarded. At the same time, there are messages that FI would like to convey, e.g. concerns

Box 1: Use of SOFIA – comments by questionnaire respondents

in reply to the question: “Could you expand briefly on any other ways you use SOFIA?”

• “I have used SOFIA as part of induction material of new members of staff who have little

or no previous experience in fisheries and as a means of updating older staff on current developments in fisheries”;

• “Don’t use it for any other purpose than reading a report on the state of aquaculture”; • “As a consulting document to learn about the different positions and views of various

countries”; • “To compare data of SADC countries”; • “When I need to find out the holistic view of world fisheries and aquaculture”; • “As a reference material for lectures to undergraduate, postgraduate students on

attachement to the Institute.Similarly, during orientation courses for newly recruited pupil research officers”;

• “Selecting parts of the publication to be used for stimulating discussion during lectures”; • “As information source for preparing speechs around the issue of sustainable

improvement of fisheries resources”; • “As reference material to see what are the major fisheries issues in other oceans”; • “Extraction of data”. Source: “2004 SOFIA Auto-evaluation Report”, report on a questionnaire survey by Immacolata Di Marco, consultant FIPP.

11

with regard to the stagnation of capture fisheries production and the sustainability of commercial fisheries, and these need to be presented in a clear manner. The views and opinions given in the publication should be consistent across chapters (see also below). (iv) Quality In the questionnaire survey, respondents were asked for their opinion with regard to the overall quality of SOFIA and the majority answered “very good”. In the SWOT-analysis, several of the strengths identified related to quality issues and included:

• “It’s a widely quoted, high profile, reference document”. • “Readable language, not too technical”. • “Translated in five languages”. • “Published on paper, on the Web and in CD-Rom (even if not always the same

material)”. • “SOFIA is harnessing content from the entire FI department in one comprehensive

information product”. • “It links to other FI publications”.

However, the SWOT analysis also identified the following weaknesses:

• “Interesting issues but sometimes treated superficially or with inconsistent language and depth of analysis across chapters”.

• “Absence of bibliographic references”. • “The data is patchy and rather old by the time it is published in SOFIA”. • “The “year issue”: SOFIA 2002 issue is published in 2003, whereas other SOF7 are

labelled with the year of their publication”. • “Insufficient resources, hence length and layout limitations”. • “Always a last minute scramble to meet the deadline (6 weeks before COFI8), which

leaves little time to fine-tune the graphics and must increase the margin of error.” • “Lack of time means insufficient peer review and quality assurance, e.g. in

Departmental Senior Staff Meetings”.

Some of these issues are also related to the more general design of SOFIA and have been mentioned in the sections above. The fact that the publication is made available in five languages and is available in hardcopy as well as in electronic format is important to the access to the document. The document is first produced in English and then translated into the other four official UN languages9 by professional translators. The document is printed in two colours and the web versions are the same as the hardcopy. It has been suggested10 that a full four-colour print should be used to make the graphs clearer, although SOFIA 2004 will still be printed in two colours. Quality issues with regard to the access and design of SOFIA on the FAO website were not covered by the questionnaire survey or any of the other studies prepared for the evaluation. Nevertheless, it is noted that the document can be consulted as html-webpages or downloaded as a pdf-file. The document appears easy to find; there is a direct link from the FI homepage to the SOFIA publications and also from the main FAO publications webpage.

7 See footnote 3. 8 FAO Committee on Fisheries. 9 Arabic, Chinese, French and Spanish. 10 E.g. by GII.

12

Contributions to SOFIA are made by a large number of FI staff and consultants, although only a few key persons coordinate the work. This allows the use of specialist competence and knowledge on the various issues covered. However, this also means that the writing style, and sometimes the opinions expresse, are not consistent throughout the document. The text is edited by GIII before going to print. This generally happens at a fairly late stage in the production process when it is difficult to make any significant changes to the structure or style. Probably the only way to make SOFIA more consistent with regard to style and language would be by having one main writer/editor responsible for all the sections of the document. Contributions would still be made by the various specialists but with stronger editorial control than at present. This would require a dedicated consultant or a staff member during the SOFIA production year as the current coordinators are unlikely to have enough time to get more closely involved11. This would probably require additional budgetary resources. Involving GIII earlier in the process and allowing time for peer-reviews at various stages of the development of the document could also prove beneficial with regard to consistency in style and structure. SOFIA draws on other FI publications and on statistics collected and compiled by FIDI. There are some references in the text but there is no general bibliography. The benefit of having bibliographic references would be that an interested reader is quickly directed to specific and detailed texts. A middle-way solution could be to keep main references and add suggestions for further reading (as discussed above under “Relevance”). The comment that data are old when presented is more difficult to deal with. Due to the amount of data and information collected from each individual country, the FI database of world fishery statistics has a certain time lag. The latest data used in SOFIA 2004, which will be published in early 2005, are for the year 2002, which is also the most recent year in the Fishstat Plus database downloadable from the FAO website. The time lag is regrettable but not surprising. An interested person could probably obtain more recent data directly from the original source. Several of the weaknesses identified in the SWOT-analysis concern insufficient time and resources. These are presumably difficult issues to solve. A large part of the SOFIA text is dependant on data that are only available at a certain moment and this hence sets the time for when work can start. The deadline for the publication – six weeks before the biannual COFI meetings – may also be difficult to change since it is desirable to have SOFIA, the FI flagship publication, available in time for these important meetings. Even with more resources, such as a lead writer/coordinator as suggested above, it would be difficult to use more up-to-date information but time could possibly be saved by a closer control of the work process. However, in summary, the importance of having a peer-reviewed, fully consistent and referenced text together with four-colour high-quality graphs has to be considered in the context of the available resources needed for achieving this and their possible alternative use.

3.2 Fishery Country Profiles (FCPs)

3.2.1 Description FI started to publish Fishery Country Profiles (FCPs) in the 1970s. They are relatively short concise general descriptions of the fisheries sector in individual countries. A total of 143

11 See also section �4.1.

13

countries are now included in the series “Fishery Country Profiles” and at least 30 of them are updated each year. In the last few years, an expanded section on fisheries management issues has been added to the FCPs. In addition to providing some basic information on the country and the fisheries sector (e.g. EEZ area, population, per capita income, fish production, per capita food fish supply, etc), the profiles generally include the following chapter headings:

• Structure and characteristics of the sector o Marine fisheries o Fleet structure o Inland fisheries o Aquaculture o Utilisation of the catch o State of the industry o Trade o Economic role of the fishing industry

• Development prospects • Research • Financial aid • Information on the fisheries management

o Main landing places o Role of public and private sectors o International cooperation in the region o Present role of fisheries in the national economy o Fisheries policies and plans o Management regulations in use o Financial support o Projection of supply and demand

Internet links and web addresses to relevant governments agencies and institutions are also included. An FCP generally amounts to some 6-10 pages but it can also be considerably longer. The new additional section on fisheries management issues is published separately but in conjunction with the FCPs, i.e. it is separate document opening as its own webpage. The profiles are written and published in English, French or Spanish according to the language preferences of the country in question. Some are translated into a second language.

3.2.2 Assessment The FCPs are only published on the FAO website and not available in hardcopy. They are accessed via the FAO Country Profiles and Information Mapping System where they are found in “Fisheries Country Profiles” under the heading “Specialized Country Profiles and Information Systems” or by choosing a country and then “Fishery Sector”. They can also be accessed through the FI homepage but this is somewhat complicated and not easy to find: the path is via the heading “Socio-economics”. The current FI access to the FCPs is not particularly user-friendly. There are however plans to link the FCPs to the Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS) and then the access problem would be resolved.

14

The analysis of the FCP web statistics shows that the majority of users are accessing the relevant web pages from North or South America. As for SOFIA, there appears to be an increasing trend of Spanish speaking users of the information. The studies carried out in preparation for the evaluation did not cover issues relating to relevance or quality of the FCPs. It would nevertheless appear that the FCPs is a unique source of summary country specific information on the fisheries sector. The standardised format of the FCPs makes suitable for comparisons among countries. They are useful to those looking for summarised background information.

3.3 Global studies on fish consumption and future demand for fishery products

3.3.1 Description FAO responded to a recommendation by the Kyoto Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security in 1995 and increased its work on food security issues in the 1990s. FI decided to monitor present fish consumption patterns more closely and to attempt predicting future supply and demand for fish and fishery products. This led to the conduct of several studies, inputs for the SOFIA issues, to contributions to various meetings and to the publication of one Fisheries Circular (see below). For the purpose of the PE evaluation, Prof. T. Young of the University of Manchester was asked to review FIPP’s work on fish consumption and demand forecasting. He reviewed two global studies (1-2), three country studies (3-5) and one literature review (6).

1. Ye, Y. (1999) Historical consumption and future demand for fish and fishery products: Exploratory calculations for the years 2015/2030. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 946 FIPP/C946.

2. Chan, H.L. et al. Long-term world projections of fish production and consumption. Unpublished. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

3. Taya, K. et al. (2001) FAO marine product demand forecast project in Japan. Second Research. Unpublished. Report prepared for FAO, Rome.

4. Knapp, G. (2000) Projections of future United States production and consumption of fisheries products. Unpublished. Report prepared for FAO, Rome.

5. Failler, P. et al. (2003) Fish consumption in the European Union in 2015 and 2030. Unpublished. Report prepared for FAO, Rome.

6. Westlund, L. (2001) Forecasting fish consumption and demand analysis: a literature review. Unpublished. Report prepared for FAO, Rome.

The studies were carried out by consultants on behalf of FIPP. Most of the unpublished studies are likely to be published in 2005. The following discussion focuses on the five analytical studies (1-5) but the literature review (6) is different in scope and purpose.

15

The overall purpose of the studies was “to foresee the demand pressure and consequently to highlight the necessary actions required to secure supply of these products in the future” 12. They present medium- and long-term forecasts of demand for fish and fishery products. Table 2 presents Young’s summary of the studies with regard to their contents and methodologies used.

3.3.2 Assessment Since most of the studies reviewed are unpublished, the below assessment will have a different focus compared to the ones presented for SOFIA and the FCPs. The ToR for Young’s review included providing an assessment of the methodologies used, their appropriateness and the correctness of their use. He was also asked to assess the presentation of methods, assumptions and results. Young notes that the “researchers have set themselves a daunting task” by the type of long-term forecasting they are attempting. The studies present scenarios reaching as far into the future as 2030, i.e. over 30 years beyond the baseline. In most cases the forecast horizon is longer than the data period used for estimating the model parameters. While Young believes that the forecasts provide information on possible future developments in the demand for fish, he notes that they show significant weaknesses if used as guidance for decision-making, owing to:

• “insufficient attention to the requirements of economic theory” • “complete absence of any evaluation of forecast accuracy”.

As seen in Table 2, three of the studies (Chan et al., Ye and Taya et al.) use an econometric approach and estimated single demand functions. The focus is on static models and the dynamics of consumer behaviour and adjustment are not considered. The variables included are determined by data availability and the need for aggregation. Little attention is given to the requirements of economic theory when specifying the models. The two remaining studies do not use econometric estimation but develop the forecasts based on passed trends, expert opinion and a literature review (Failler et al.) and a simulation model (Knapp). The studies reviewed do not discuss or evaluate the accuracy of the forecasts. Moreover, the forecasts give points rather than prediction intervals or ranges. Particularly when considering the long time horizon of the forecasts, decision makers are likely to need information on the uncertainty of the estimates in order to be able to interpret and use the forecast results. For future work, Young offers the following suggestions:

• “continue to use the methodology of the econometric studies (Ye, etc.) but pay more attention to:

a. the requirements of theory (specifically, one could estimate a Working-Leser Engel function rather than the double log or semi log specifications used here),

b. dynamics, and c. out-of-sample evaluation”.

• “use time series forecasting methods and judge these against the econometric approach”.

12 This purpose is explicitly stated in Ye (1999) but underlies the analyses of the other studies as well.

16

Table 2: Summary of studies reviewed by Young Product coverage Country/regional

coverage Components Methodology

Chan et al. 10 aggregate fish categories (fresh water fish, anadromous fish, 4 categories of marine fish, crustaceans, molluscs, cephalopods, aquatic animals).

15 countries /regions Production (capture fisheries, aquaculture) consumption (food demand, non-food demand, trade

Econometric estimation of single equation demand and supply equations, market clearing economic model + an ad hoc iterative process based on expert opinion. Fish consumption is projected as a function of per caput income, with constant prices and with prices reaching new equilibrium levels.

Ye Total food fish 17 country groups Food fish consumption Econometric estimation of single equation demand functions. Predictions based on extrapolated per caput GDP (the only economic variable in the model).

Failler et al. 9 OECD groups of commodities; 10 FAO groups of species

28 current and prospective EU members

Production, exports, imports, fish supply (food use). Production, exports, imports, fish supply (non-food use), capture, aquaculture.

Net supply is defined using commodity production instead of capture and aquaculture. Future demand is estimated from past trends, expert opinion and a literature review.

Taya et al. food fish demand in total; tuna; salmon trout; ‘small floating fishes’; ‘bottom fish’; sea bream; shrimp and crabs; shellfish; cuttlefish and octopus; fresh water fish; seaweed; other; feed demand; total fish demand

Japan total food fish demand; demand for individual species; feed demand

Econometric estimation of single equation demand equations. Predictions based on 3 different assumptions of the growth in income, with prices assumed constant.

Knapp 7 groups of species: freshwater fish, pelagic fish, demersal fish, other marine fish, crustaceans, other molluscs, cephalopods.

USA and Rest-of-World

US production, rest-of-world production, US consumption, rest-of-world consumption. Prices, consumption and net trade are simultaneously determined at levels at which world supply and demand are balanced.

With assumed (constant) demand and supply elasticities, the price required to restore the market to equilibrium, following exogenous changes to supply and/or demand, and the new equilibrium levels of demand and supply are computed.

Source: Table 1, page 3, “Evaluation of Studies on Future Levels of Fish Consumption”, report by T. Young.

17

• “use a stylised structured model, such as the IMPACT model13, but again with more attention to dynamics, and compare it with econometric/time series approaches”.

• “continue to rely on expert opinion, as in Failler et al., but within a more formal (and hence assessable) framework and test whether this approach is in fact providing better forecasts than more structured, econometric/time series modelling”.

• “consider whether a combination of competing forecasts – similar to constructing an asset portfolio – might produce a composite forecast which is superior”.

4 OTHER ASPECTS

4.1 Assessment of the Fisheries Department’s (FI’s) management of the PE The PE 2.3.4. P2 is a departmental activity and all FI divisions and units contribute to the work. FIPP is concerned with the analysis of economic and social issues and is also responsible for a large share of the coordination of the work and contributes most of the budget. FIDI carries out a large part of the data analysis and provides statistical information. With regard to publishing, GIII is responsible for the editing, design and production of the SOFIA series. This evaluation does not include any in-depth review of the management and work processes of the PE. Through the report of the SOFIA SWOT-analysis and the discussions with various FAO staff members some issues have been identified and merit discussion:

• In the SWOT-analysis, insufficient ownership is mentioned as a weakness with regard to SOFIA. A few staff members do a large amount of work while others may not be asked to contribute. Coordinating inputs is sometimes difficult because of low enthusiasm on behalf of some contributors. Among the opportunities identified in the SWOT-analysis, some ideas for improving this situation are mentioned:

o Giving authorship more recognition. At present, chapters are not “signed”. Contributors are instead mentioned in the acknowledgements at the beginning of the publication.

o Rotating the coordination role among FI department. Presently, the coordination is the responsibility of the Chief of FIPP in cooperation with the Chief of FIDI and a senior FIDI staff member.

If insufficient FI ownership is indeed felt to be a problem, another solution could be to create a special SOFIA working group with representatives from all the FI divisions. It is however possible that the current practice to discuss SOFIA matters in the DSSMs14 is satisfactory.

• In section �3.1.2 above, the possibility of having one dedicated consultant or staff member working on SOFIA during its production year was mentioned. Such an approach would have several advantages and ensure consistency and quality control. This person could also take on responsibility for coordinating inputs and monitoring the keeping to the timetable.

• There does not seem to be a clear work program with regard to the fish consumption and demand forecast studies. Several FIPP studies carried out a few years ago still remain unpublished. FIDI is currently in the process of producing a study of the same

13 A food commodity analysis model developed by the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., U.S.A. (IFPRI). The model predicts future consumption of 22 different agricultural commodities using a representation of a competitive world market with 36 country/regions sub-models in which supply, demand and prices are decided. 14 Directors and Senior Staff Meeting.

18

type and the Global Perspective Studies Unit (ESDG) has the intention to add fish and fishery products to their forecasting modelling work. There appears to be a certain lack of coordination and overall FI strategy and it is felt that there is a need for clarification with regard to the purpose of the analytical work, how it should be carried out and how the results should be disseminated. There also appears to be a lack of expertise in FI with regard to economic modelling and forecasting; the studies carried out so far have been conducted by external consultants. Closer coordination and cooperation with other FAO departments – or competent institutions outside FAO – may constitute an opportunity for improving the results (see also below).

4.2 Contribution of the PE to Priority Areas for Inter-Disciplinary Action (PAIAs) The PE “Global Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture” contributes to the PAIA of Global Perspective Studies. One of the major outputs of this work program is the publication Agriculture Towards 20XX. The latest issue – “World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. An FAO perspective” – was published in 2003 and the next one should appear in 2009. These reports include long-term outlooks for the world’s food supplies, nutrition and agriculture. The projections cover supply and demand for the major agricultural commodities and sectors, including fisheries and forestry. The work is coordinated by the Global Perspective Studies Unit (ESDG). The current priorities of the Global Perspective Studies include perspective studies for fish consumption, supply and trade. The development of a new analytical framework for undertaking food and agriculture projections and scenario analysis – including for the fisheries sector – is also planned. ESDG has the intention to do more work on forecasts for the fisheries sector. Earlier the Unit has relied on inputs provided directly by FI but combining the economic modelling and forecasting expertise of ESDG with the fisheries knowledge of FI is likely to lead to better analysis and results.

4.3 Media work There are no separate data available on how the PE has been covered or perceived in the media. There is however information on the overall FI media outreach. The following data for 2004 (up to 12 November) have been compiled by GII: • Total number of press releases/web stories: 15

(for comparison, there were 11 in 2003 and 9 in 2002) • Approximate number of media queries and/or interviews: 84 • Approximate number of stories in press based on press releases: 163

For 2005, GII has identified the events that are most likely to have media outreach potential and the publication of SOFIA is one of them. The sections of SOFIA that are expected to attract most media interest are:

• Trawl impact and deep water fisheries • Fish contaminants • Capture-based aquaculture • Fishing subsidies • Labour standards in fisheries • State of stocks update and depleted stocks recovery • Global aquaculture outlook

19

GII has also formulated suggestions for how FI may improve their media work. These cover several different aspects including being clearer about how FI would like themselves to be perceived by media, how to get messages across and ways of making better use of the FI website. If it is felt that SOFIA should have a better media outreach and coverage, then some of these suggestions would be relevant for the PE work.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 PE rationale, design and output This report reviews the rationale and design of the PE, and makes an assessment of PE’s results and effectiveness. The FI management of the PE, its contribution to PAIAs and FI media work have also been briefly reviewed. The main conclusions and recommendations are summarised as follows: • The overall objective of the PE is important and its rationale is sound. However, the

audience and users of the PE outputs are both not clearly defined and poorly known. The expected outcome of the PE work is not documented. It would be useful to develop a logical framework or a similar tool in which expected outcomes and indicators of success are clearly stated. This is particularly important with regard to the flagship publication SOFIA.

• SOFIA is a popular high profile reference document of good quality. It is objective and easy to read. It aims to have a wide audience and is published in five languages. The popularity of the Spanish version is increasing. It is recommended to:

o Clearly identify the actual audience and to target and review the contents of SOFIA accordingly.

o Increase the number of references and give recommendations for further reading.

o Appoint one dedicated consultant/staff member as a main editor for SOFIA in order to improve management and consistency.

o Print SOFIA in four colours in order to improve the quality of graphs (but this could lead to problems in B&W copying and printing).

• The FCPs constitute a valuable source of country specific information. However, the profiles are difficult to find on the FI website. Work is currently underway to integrate the FCPs with FIGIS and this will improve access.

• The fish consumption analysis and demand forecasts provide potentially valuable information for decision-makers. However, a clearer plan for the work needs to be developed, both with regard to its purpose and the use of the results. Increased cooperation with other FAO departments working on commodity analysis and forecasting, and/or institutions outside FAO, would be beneficial.

5.2 Auto-evaluation work As explained in section �1.4 in the introduction, this report is mainly based on the findings of five preparatory studies provided to the author. Additional information for the evaluation was collected during the author’s visit to FAO in December 2004. The SWOT-analysis and the review of the fish consumption and demand forecast studies provided interesting and good quality information. However, the analyses of web statistics and the questionnaire survey were more difficult to interpret, and the results very unclear.

20

A further evaluation would benefit from: • Adding an obligatory registration procedure for consulting SOFIA (and/or the

FCPs) on the web. This registration should be free of charge and simple to use, but would give FI the possibility to monitor the users.

• Undertake an updated and re-designed questionnaire survey using a very much larger number of respondents.

6 Concluding remarks The PE “Global Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture” is an important part of the work of FIPP and of the whole FI. This evaluation gives some comments and recommendations for improving the work of the PE but it should of course be mentioned that the overall impression of the work is very positive. A lot of work and dedication is invested by FI and the results are impressive, especially for the well-known high-quality publication SOFIA. FAO is in the unique position to produce and publish important information on global trends and FI uses this opportunity well and wisely.

21

APPENDIX I: Terms of Reference for the auto-evaluation

of

2.3.4. P2: “Global analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture” 1. Background 1.1 Description of the Programme Element (PE) The common denominator for the work of the “Development planning service (FIPP)” of FIP is the economic and social analysis of issues in fisheries and aquaculture. This activity is a fundamental part of PE 234P2 “Global analysis of economic and social trends in fisheries and aquaculture”. The PE is distinguished from the rest of FIPP activities by the fact that the analysis aims to be “global” and to reveal “trends” in the social and economic characteristics of capture fisheries and aquaculture. The reason for undertaking this type of analysis are twofold: (i) in ever-growing integration of the world economy, governments and private entrepreneurs (fishers and aquaculturists) can no longer rely only on what happens in their immediate vicinity in assessing the long-term prospects for various fishing and aquaculture activities; (ii) FAO is unique in that it combines a global reach for obtaining information and data with a neutral non-advocacy task. 1.2 History of the PE FI started to monitor and review fishing and aquaculture activities already in the 1970’s by developing “Fishery Country Profiles (FCPs)”. In the 1990’s, after various ad-hoc publications on the status and developments had been published, it was decided to launch, in 1996, an FAO flagship’ publication to be called “The state of world fisheries and aquaculture”. Four issues have been published, the last complemented with a diskette containing a CD-Rom “World Fisheries and Aquaculture Atlas”; SOFIA 2004 is under preparation. Also in the 1990’s following the increased emphasis in the work of the organization on “food security” – and as an explicit recommendation of the Kyoto Conference - it was decided to make a more specific attempt to predict future fish supplies for food. This activity has resulted in contributions to various meetings, one fisheries circular and inputs to SOFIA. The publication of FCPs continues. The FCPs are now made available on the FAO Web Page and are complemented by an expanded section on ‘fisheries management’. A total of 143 countries are included, all in their official FAO language and 87 translated into other official languages. Every year at least 30 of the FCPs are updated.

22

2. Purpose of the Evaluation PE 234P2 is a central to the mandate of the Fisheries Department and the activities undertaken therein will continue in one form or another. The evaluation is intended to guide the Department on actions intended to ensure that the outputs remain appropriate in view of the changing needs of users. 3. Scope of the Evaluation The evaluation will cover PE: relevance; design; management and the first level of outcomes (i.e. use of the PE outputs by clients). A primary concern of the evaluation will be to establish the degree to which the outputs now produced under the PE respond to the needs of those concerned in Member Nations. It will describe the most salient trends identified and messages conveyed or relayed by the successive SOFIA publications, assess how these messages were relayed by specialized and generalist media, and how relevant and useful they were viewed by member nations and private entrepreneurs. The evaluation will also be designed so that it will shed some light upon: (i) the realism of the PE design (inputs, outputs, outcomes and objectives); and (ii) the degree to which the design ensures that the target groups actually are reached and their needs satisfied. In doing so, the evaluation will describe the readership of SOFIA and FCPs (mainly in terms of institution they work in, occupation, and geographical distribution) and try and get feedback on how the readership assesses the quality of these publications. The FI management of the PE will be addressed, as well as the contributions that the activity might have had towards better social and gender equity. A rapid review will be made of the PE contributions to the PAIAs it participates in, and of the extent to which it benefited from this participation. The evaluation will be conducted against the background of present concerns both in FAO and in the fisheries and aquaculture industries. Based on the above analysis the evaluators will draw specific conclusions and make recommendations for any necessary further action by FAO to ensure a successful implementation of the programme entity, including opportunities that may be grasped and issues that should be resolved. The evaluation will also draw attention to any lessons of general interest. 4. Roles in the auto-evaluation Jean Francois Pulvenis, Director of FIP, is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the evaluation. The evaluation team will consist of: Richard Grainger, Angel Gumy, Jan Orzeszko and Ulf Wijkstrom. A consultant will be hired for a desk study.

23

5. Methodology The evaluation will make use of the following indicators: for documents made available to Members the frequency of use, by geographical region, will be studied. The following desk study will be undertaken: “review of relevance and quality of studies aiming to project fish consumption”. The desk study will refer to one published fishery circular ( ), two four draft fishery circulars and to entries made in three volumes of SOFIA (1998, 2000 and 2002). SWOT analysis will be by undertaken for SOFIA. The SWOT team will comprise; Dr. Lahsen Ababouch, Chief, FIIU; Ms. Terry Raney, Chief Economist, ESAC and editor of SOFA; Dr. Richard Grainer, Chief of FIDI, Ulf Wijkstrom, Chief FIPP and a facilitator. Questionnaire surveys will be employed to obtain feed back on use, quality and relevance of SOFIA. Countries with little or no access to this flag-ship publication through the Internet will receive the questionnaire by mail, while countries having access to the Internet will be surveyed by email. Web statistics over the past few years (depending on data availability from GI) will be obtained and analysed for: SOFIA, Fishery Country Profiles, and Fishery Management documents. Annex 1 shows the proposed coverage. 6. Evaluation outputs There will be one consolidated report of the evaluation, to be drafted by Lena Westlund, consultant.

24

APPENDIX II: Literature consulted and persons met

Literature consulted: Cordes, R., “Is grey literature ever used? Using citation analysis to measure the impact of GESAMP, an international marine scientific body”. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 28, no 1 2004. GIIM (FAO) “Review of FI media work during 2004”. Internal report prepared by FAO News and Mulitmedia Service (GIIM). FAO Evaluation Service (PBEE), “Auto-evaluation Guidelines”, Version 1.1, November 2003. Available on FAO website. Webster J.G. and J. Collins, “Fisheries information in developing countries: support to the implementation of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries”. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1006. FAO {in print}. Evaluation studies: “Report on the SWOT Analysis of SOFIA & Programme Entity 234P2 – Global Analysis of Economic and Social Trends in Fisheries and Aquaculture”, report of meeting held on 11 October 2004, by Olivier Cossee, PBEE. “Evaluation of Studies on Future Levels of Fish Consumption”, desk study by Trevor Young, Centre for Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, School of Economic Studies, University of Manchester. “Auto-evaluation for SOFIA 2002 and SOFIA 2002”, analysis of web statistics by Maud Le Bars, consultant, FIDI. “FI Country Profiles Auto-evaluation”, analysis of web statistics by Maud Le Bars, consultant FIDI. “2004 SOFIA Auto-evaluation Report”, report on a questionnaire survey by Immacolata Di Marco, consultant FIPP. Persons met: J. Bruinsma, Global Perspective Studies Unit (ESDG) J. Collins, Fisheries Branch Library (GI-FBL) O. Cossee, Evaluation Service (PBEE) A. Crispoldi, Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit (FIDI) C. Engfeldt, Information Division (GII) R. Grainger, Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit (FIDI) J. Orszesko, Development Planning Service (FIPP) R. Tucker, Editorial Group (GIII) U. Wijkström, Development Planning Service (FIPP)