Project Completion Report
Please submit through your APEC Secretariat Program Director within 2 months of
project completion.
SECTION A: Project profile
Project number & title:
Time period covered
in report:
Committee / WG / Fora:
Project Overseer Name
/ Organization /
Economy:
FWG 01-2010A: Potential Contribution of Small Pelagic Fish to Food
Security within Asia Pacific Region
Date May 21, 2013
February 2012 to March 2013
submitted:
OFWG
Mr. Jose Allemant, Ministry of Production of Peru, Vice Ministry of
Fishery, Peru
SECTION B: Project report and reflection
Briefly answer each of the questions below. Section B should be a maximum of 2-3 pages,
inclusive of the questions and tables provided.
1. Project description: In 3-4 sentences, describe the project and its main objectives.
The project originated from the need to study the potential supply and use of small pelagic fish to
tackle food security. Indonesia and the Philippines, top producers of small pelagic fish in the
Asia-Pacific region, were the case study economies and Peru was the leading economy of the
project. The main objectives were to analyse the fisheries statistics of small pelagics and share
the Peruvian experience regarding research, monitoring and processing of small pelagics.
Capture statistics were collected and analyzed for the case study economies to assess their
potential supply of small pelagic fish. Consumption data was also collected and analyzed to
assess the potential contribution of small pelagics supplies to food security. The findings of this
project were published in an APEC publication entitled “Potential Contribution of Small Pelagic
Fish to Food Security within the Asia-Pacific Region” (Publication Number: APEC#213-OF-01.1)
which can be found on the APEC Publications Database at:
http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1401
2. Meeting your objectives: Were the proposed objectives of the project met? If so, please
describe how. If not, please include any major changes to the proposed scope of the
project. Please outline any problems you may have encountered that resulted in delays to
the delivery of the activity.
The first objective regarding the analysis of the existing data on captures, processing,
consumption and strategies to overcome market impediments was almost fully met. Capture fish
statistics were analyzed to assess contribution and availability of small pelagics and consumption
data was collected and analyzed to explain consumption habits. Processing could not be fully
assessed due to the lack of specific data of processed small pelagics. The objective concerning
the identification of strategies to overcome market impediments for consumption was not that
realistically set since small pelagic fish are highly consumed in the case study economies, except
for remote populations in small islands and mountains where access is the limitation.
The two other objectives were related to the organization of a meeting to share the knowledge
and experience of Peru with small pelagics with the economies of Indonesia and the Philippines.
The second objective was to share knowledge and experience in matters of research and
management techniques that help regulate and manage small pelagic fisheries, and the third
objective in matters of technology in the production of value-added products and marketing
strategies to promote human consumption of small pelagics. The meeting was delivered
successfully with the topics of interest appropriately addressed.
There were delays experienced for number reasons, including change in the Project Overseer
two times, personal changes and other difficulties, once over these hurdles the project preceded
well and without further difficulty.
To overcome these difficulties we requested a time extension. This extension was used to collect
additional data in Indonesia and Philippines and to provide greater support for the conclusions of
the study. Two case studies were successfully completed and the outcomes published in an
APEC publication which can be accessed via the APEC website as stated above.
3. Evaluation: Describe how you evaluated the project upon completion? Detail the results of
the evaluations conducted, if any (e.g. participant evaluation, peer review of publication,
measurement of indicators, statistics demonstrating use of outputs etc.).
Upon completion, the project was evaluated to determine the adequate completion of the
objectives and the timely submission of deliverables as per the project’s work plan. Objectives
were almost completely fulfilled as explained on the previous section and deliverables were
submitted on time with the help of an extension that was necessary due to initial delays to start
the project and to strengthen the results of the surveys conducted.
The draft publication was reviewed by the members of the OFWG before publication. The
publication and results of the project will also be discussed at the 2013 2 nd OFWG meeting, and
any further feedback can be received at that time.
During the course of the study, in addition to traditional means of collecting data and information,
“stakeholder interviews” were also conducted. Stakeholder interviews had the purpose of
collecting knowledgeable opinions, issues and concerns that normally cannot be obtained
through questionnaires and surveys. They aid to validate opinions that are consistent and to spot
incongruences on a same topic. Interviews took place on a one to one setting, the interviewer
and interviewee, plus a third local person to serve as an interpreter in case it was required. Time
and place for the interview were scheduled by the case study Economies, normally at the offices
or working sites of the interviewees. Questions were open-ended to reduce bias. Notes were
taken during the interview and they were transcribed on the same or the next day, the overall
impression of the interviewer was also noted. Interviews lasted about one hour.
Key stakeholders were identified from the following areas of interest of the project: small scale
and industrial fishermen, fishing port managers, fish vendors, fish brokers, processing plant
owners, capture fisheries, fish statistics, fish processing, port-harvest fisheries, marketing of fish
products, fisheries monitoring and surveillance, and socioeconomics of fisheries.
The
stakeholders interviewed were identified and suggested by the case study Economies.
The meeting in Lima was also positively graded by all participants through the final discussion.
4. Key findings: Describe the main outputs delivered and any broader outcomes achieved as
a result of this project. (For example have there been any capacity building outcomes, policy
or operational changes, or changes to standards or systems as a result of this
activity?)Describe how project outputs relate to fora/sub fora/working group strategic and
medium-term priorities and strategic priorities. Please provide examples of important
findings or lessons learned arising from the project.
The main outputs of the project include: (1) a final report that analyses contribution of small pelagic
fisheries to food security based on extraction and consumer surveys on fish preferences, (2) a
meeting where the partner economies Indonesia, Peru and the Philippines exchanged knowledge
and experience regarding research and management techniques that help regulate and manage
small pelagic fisheries, use of technology in the production of value-added products and marketing
strategies to promote human consumption of small pelagics. Areas for future transfer of technology
and knowledge were identified and discussed, and (3) a meeting to disseminate of the results of the
project with the participation of national institutions in the fishery sector, private companies,
universities and interested public.
Through the project it was confirmed that small pelagic fish contribute greatly to food security in the
three partner economies. Production of small pelagic fish in Indonesia and the Philippines shows an
increasing trend of production in time series data, but due to the large human populations that these
economies bear, their production is not enough to satisfy their own demand for fish. Moreover, even
though fish statistics production appears to be on the positive side, the increasing production is a
direct reflection of increased effort but not of healthy stocks. A majority of the fishing grounds and
some stocks of small pelagics have a history of over exploitation well above of their maximum
sustainable yields, locating these stocks at imminent risk of collapse if continued to be overfished.
Sustainable management measures are recommended to reduce the pressure on small pelagics
resources. It is thus recommended that the excess demand of fish be satisfied by produce from
other economies of the region with healthier and more sustainable fish stocks. Peru could be an
option given that the surplus production of the Peruvian small pelagics stocks could be paired to the
dominant preference and demand of the Indonesian and Philippine populations for small pelagic fish
species for human consumption.
The limitations and opportunities of using value-added products to tackle food security were
assessed, with the finding that the greatest limitation is not technological but of distribution as
economies of the Asia-Pacific region are of archipelagic nature with dissected territories that make
distribution of fisheries resources to isolated and land-locked areas very difficult. Physical access is
thus the greatest problem, followed by proper handling and good post-harvest practices. The
greatest opportunity for the use of value-added products of small pelagics is the imprinted cultural
taste and preference for small pelagic fish, and the portability that value-added produce could
achieve to allow for proper distribution to the most remote areas.
In order to share Peru’s experience in research and monitoring of small pelagics stocks, and to
share knowledge on the production of value-added products from small pelagics monitoring, a
meeting took place in Lima in October 2012 with the visit of representatives of the two case study
economies. During the meeting future areas for the transfer of technology and knowledge were
identified.
5. Next steps: Describe any follow-up steps or projects that are planned following the
completion of the activity, such as post-activity evaluations or tracer studies planned to
assess the impact of this activity. Have the results of the activity been disseminated to
participants and other stakeholders and how? What are (if any) any flow-on effects from this
activity? How will this activity inform any future APEC activities?
Follow-up by the partner economies of Peru, Indonesia and the Philippine on the areas identified
and discussed for the transfer of technology and knowledge, to prepare new project proposals
aimed at improving (i) food security, (ii) sustainability of small pelagic fisheries, and (iii) small
pelagics trade within the Asia-Pacific region.
Relevant subjects for follow-up projects could include:
- The study channels to distribute small pelagics to populations vulnerable to food insecurity, such
as the remote highlands and small islands.
-Identify remote communities vulnerable to food insecurity that do not have the habit of consuming
small pelagics, and investigate ways to overcome their food scarcity issues by introducing small
pelagics in their daily diets.
- Capacity building workshops in best fishing practices for harvest and post-harvest activities, as well
as fish traceability, conducted by Peru and directed to the economies of Indonesia and the
Philippines.
The project organizers will continue to put forward Concept Notes for follow-on projects on the same
topic for the 3rd submission session in November 2013, and will continue to discuss the issue in the
context of the OFWG as a key food security subject.
The findings of this project were published in an APEC publication entitled “Potential Contribution of
Small Pelagic Fish to Food Security within the Asia-Pacific Region” (Publication Number:
APEC#213-OF-01.1) which can be found on the APEC Publications Database at:
http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1401. The report
will also be
disseminated at the2ndOcean and Fisheries Working Group Meeting in Indonesia, June 2013 on CD
format.
Before the 2ndOcean and Fisheries Working Group Meeting, a meeting is scheduled in Peru to
disseminate the project’s findings among the fisheries sector stakeholders, the Peruvian Marine
Research Institute (IMARPE), the Technologic Institute of Production
(ITP), the National Fund for fisheries Development (FONDEPES), the Ministry of Production
(PRODUCE), university and academia, the private sector and general public. After the meeting the
report will be hosted on the websites of PRODUCE, IMARPE and ITP.
A teleconference will also be scheduled with our partner in Indonesia and the Philippines to present
the final results of the study.
6. Feedback for the Secretariat: Do you have any suggestions for more effective
management of projects in the future? Any assessment of consultants, experts or
participants that you would like to share? (The Secretariat collates and examines feedback to
identify trends for ongoing evaluation of our project management and/or communications systems.)
The consultant performing the study had some initial difficulties making contact with the appropriate
technical experts in the case study economies. This could possibly be alleviated by expanding the
OFWG contact list to include more fisheries technical experts in addition to the regular delegates.
Contact data of the focal points of APEC should be updated timely and published online on the
website of APEC to facilitate communication.
Also, at the beginning of the project communication was not fluent between focal points of the
partner economies and this made progress very slow. To some point this is the result of high
rotation within public sector positions, which in turn affects the familiarity and awareness of pending
projects by new focal points. Regular communication between focal points of APEC should be
encouraged, particularly between partner economies for projects, in order to gain fluent
communication and facilitate project implementation.
It is recommended that any modifications to the accepted project proposals require a thorough
process of approval, disseminated among the interested parties in order to avoid misunderstandings
or deviations of the original objectives of a project without partner agreement.
Consultant Recommendation
Daniela Lainez del Pozo
Address: CL Clemente X Nº131, Lima 33, Peru
Tel: +51 1 231 5106
Mobile: +51 9906 31893
Email: dlainez@gmail.com
7. Participant information: Please provide details, where applicable. Insert rows as needed.
Please see the attached supporting documents (Annex A, B and C) which show the primary
participants of the study, their work program for the October 2012, and the agenda of the meeting at
the Ministry of Production.
Economy
# male
Indonesia
Mr. Suwarso
The
Philippines
# female
Details
Daniela Lainez
Senior Scientist
Research Centre for Fisheries Management and
Conservation, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries
National Coordinator
/ Interim Deputy Executive Director
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute,
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Project Overseer
Ministry of Production / APEC
Consultant
Noel Barut
Jose Allemant
President of the
Technologic Institute of Production- ITP
Rolando Yzazyga
Melva Pazos
Research Director
Technologic Institute of Production- ITP
Alberto Salas
Peru
(national
Kalen Su
institutions)
Professional of the National Service of Fishery Health
Technologic Institute of Production- ITP
Miguel Ñiquen
Specialist in Pelagic Resources
Marine Research Institute of Peru- IMARPE
Surveillance and Control Office
Ministry of Production
Artisanal Fishery Department
Ministry of Production
Artisanal Fishery Department
Ministry of Production
Gladys Chavez
Frank Gomero
Jose Carlos
Aguado
Hugo Bernal
(private
institutions)
Coordinator of the Cooperation Office
Technologic Institute of Production- ITP
Miguel Aleman
Ivan Malaver
Peru
Coordinator of Consume Development
Technologic Institute of Production- ITP
Jorge Toguchi
Advisor
Vice Ministry of Fishery
Inversiones PRISCO S.A.
General Manager
(Fish processing plant for direct humans consumption)
KONTIKI
(Fish processing plant for direct humans consumption)
8. Outputs: Please provide details, where applicable. Change headings or insert rows as needed.
# planned
# actual
# of workshops / events
# of publications distributed
2
2
NA
NA
# of CDs distributed
500
# of websites created
500
3
3
Other:
Details
1) Exchanged knowledge and experience meeting
between Indonesia, Peru and the Philippines (Peru
2012)
2) Meeting to disseminate of the results of the
project (Peru 2013)
NA
We are going to use the Second Meeting of OFWG
to distribute the discs between member economies
Peru has distributed CDs in the meeting where the
project results were disseminated
We have included the report on the webpage of the
Ministry of Production where it can be download
and a link on the webpage of ITP and IMARPE
It is evaluating the use of social networks to
disseminate the results of the report
SECTION C: Budget
Attach a detailed breakdown of the APEC- provided project budget, including:
 Planned costs (using most recently approved budget figures)
 Actual expenditures
 Variance notes: An explanation of any budget line under- or over-spent by 20% or more.
The planned costs and actual expenditures are indicated below:
Item
Consultant
(including
researcher)
Travel – Airfare
and Per Diem
Publication
Total
Revised
Budget
Budget
Paid
Balance
Remarks
21,600
21,600
0
39,760
25,645.01
14,114.99
3,080
0.00
3,080
64,440
47,245.01
17, 194.99
It was decided
to publish the
document on
the APEC
website and any
CDs would be
self-funded later
SECTION D: Appendices or additions
Please attach any of the following. This information will help us better understand your project,
support overseers of similar projects and plan for future projects.

List of experts or consultants utilized, with job titles and contact details, gender
disaggregated where possible.

List of participants, with job titles and contact details




Event agendas
Links to any relevant websites or online material (e.g. reports, resources created)
Results of participant feedback or other project evaluation (raw and/or analyzed)
Any other relevant information or resources that would help us learn more about
your project
Please see the attached supporting documents (Annex A and B) which show the primary
participants of the study and their work program for the October 2012 meeting among the
consultant and the representatives of the case study economies.
FOR APEC SECRETARIAT USE ONLYAPEC comments: Were APEC project guidelines
followed? Could the project have been managed more effectively or easily by the PO?
Although the project faced many delays, the outcome was generally successful in that a publication
was produced that is accessible via the APEC website. - NJN