Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

This member contributed to:

    • 2. Meaningful and feasible indicators: how can we measure progress?

      For the GFCM region (RFMO for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea), we have adopted a Regional Plan of Action for SSF in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (RPOA-SSF) in September 2018 which supports the implementation of the SSF Guidelines at the regional level, identifying actions to be taken over the next ten-years.

      Subsequent the adoption of the RPOA-SSF, in 2019, we conducted a consultation process with stakeholders, fisheries administrations and relevant experts in the region in view of developing a monitoring framework for the implementation of the RPOA-SSF over its 10-year implementation period. This monitoring framework seeks to identify select priority actions for short-term implementation, as well as indicators - coupled with short- mid- and long-term objectives - to measure implementation. Breaking down big goals into achievable steps has been useful in developing indicators to measure progress. A simple questionnaire has been circulated among GFCM countries to identify baseline information in line with the indicators developed, with a view of limiting the reporting burden for countries.

      Key issues:

      • Set priorities and objectives within a timeframe (what we want to achieve and when). Break objectives into achievable steps and measure implementation in line with those steps
      • Allow for flexibility (qualitative, quantitative indicators as appropriate), but set in place a mechanism for regularly assessing the state of implementation and reassessing as necessary (in the GFCM's case we have an SSF working group, plus an RPOA-SSF mid-term conference)
      • Keep indicators simple to avoid creating additional reporting burden to countries

      3. Participatory monitoring: key elements and experiences

      The GFCM’s RPOA-SSF is long and complex, with over 50 paragraphs of specific actions to be implemented. In trying to identify priorities for implementation we attempted to consult as many interested parties as possible: SSF organizations, researchers, managers/administrators and partner organizations.

      For such a multi-faceted topic such as SSF, a one-size fits all approach likely won't work and we recognized that priorities would vary at different levels (global, regional, national, local). As our organization is regional, we tried to steer focus towards identifying a limited number of common regional objectives. However, we know that there is a lot of work going on in the region to address different priorities at different levels and therefore we recognized that part of our role is to help build synergies among this ongoing work in order to drive additional efforts to where there are needs. Therefore, in addition to the monitoring framework, which is based on a limited number of big priority actions with agreed indicators, we have also developed a mapping tool to facilitate monitoring work underway at local and national levels in our region.

      Key issues/lessons learned:

      • Try to be as inclusive as possible, engaging stakeholders, fisheries administrations, experts and partner organizations
      • Ensure many different groups as possible can contribute to the monitoring process