FINAL EVALUATION REPORT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SFMP) APRIL 2022 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared and submitted by the Bureau of Integrated Rural Development (BIRD) - KNUST, Kumasi RFP SOLICITATION NUMBER: METSS-2021-017 SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SFMP) April 26, 2022 RFP SOLICITATION NUMBER: METSS-2021-017 Submitted by: Bureau of Integrated Rural Development (BIRD) - Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi Photo credit: Sustainable Fisheries Management Project DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... I 1.0 EVALUATION OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Evaluation Purpose ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Description of the Intervention to Be Evaluated and Theory of Change ................................................. 2 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................... 4 3.1 Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 4.0. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 9 4.1 Evaluation Question 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Evaluation Question 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 25 4.3 Evaluation Question 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 29 4.4 Evaluation Question 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 34 4.5 Evaluation Question 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 35 5.0 MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES ....................................................................... 38 6.0 SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................ 41 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 41 7.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 41 7.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 42 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 47 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 49 Annex 1: Statement of Work ................................................................................................................................... 49 Annex 2: List of People Interviewed in the SFMP Final Performance Evaluation: Key Informant and Focus Group Participants ........................................................................................................................ 67 Annex 3: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................................ 74 Annex 4: Interview Guides ....................................................................................................................................... 96 Annex 5: Project Results Achieved: 2015–2020 ............................................................................................... 115 SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report LIST OF ACRONYMS BAA Beneficiary Assessment Approach BIRD Bureau of Integrated Rural Development CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interview CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEWEFIA Central and Western Fishmongers Improvement Association CLaT Child Labor and Trafficking COVID-19 Corona Virus Disease of 2019 CT Cash Transfers DAA Development Action Association DAC Development Assistance Committee DOPA Densu Oyster Pickers Association DQF Daasgift Quality Foundation FC Fisheries Commission FEU Fisheries Enforcement Unit FGDs Focus Group Discussions FoN Friends of the Nation GIS Geographic Information System GITA Ghana Industrial Trawlers’ Association GNCFC Ghana Canoe Fishermen’s Council HM Hen Mpoano IDIs In-Depth Interviews IRs Intermediate Results IUU Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated KAP Knowledge, Attitude and Practice KIIs Key Informant Interviews KNUST Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MASLOC Microfinance and Small Loans Centre METSS Monitoring, Evaluation and Technical Support Services MEY Maximum Economic Yield MOFAD Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development MSC Most Significant Change SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NAFPTA National Fish Processors and Traders Association NGOs Non-governmental Organizations POCs Point of Contacts QA Quality Assurance RCCs Regional Coordinating Councils SBCC Social Behavior Change Communication SFMP Sustainable Fisheries Management Project SOW Scope of Work SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists STWG Science and Technical Working Group UCC University of Cape Coast URI/CRC University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center USAID United States Agency for International Development VSLAs Village Savings and Loans Associations WIFI Wireless Fidelity ZOI Zone of Influence SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this final performance evaluation is to determine the extent to which the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project’s (SFMP) components and/or interventions have been successfully implemented and confirm progress made toward achieving its intended goal to rebuild small pelagic fisheries through the adoption of sustainable fishing practices and exploitation levels. It also assesses how the project interventions have contributed to achieving USAID/Ghana’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Development Objective (DO) 2: “Sustainable and broadly shared economic growth.” The evaluation is expected to provide USAID, its implementing partners, and stakeholders in the fisheries sector with data on outcomes, best practices, and lessons learned to inform future programming. PROJECT BACKGROUND SFMP was designed to support the Feed the Future strategy through the 2013–2019 CDCS. It was granted an initial no-cost extension for November 1, 2019–September 31, 2020, and a second costed extension in May 2020 through April 30, 2021. In its first year, SFMP took into account the newly adopted Ghana National Marine Fisheries Management Plan and the newly initiated $50-million West Africa Regional Fisheries Project (WARFP) for Ghana. The complete adoption of sustainable fishing practices to address overfishing and illegal, unreported, unregulated (IUU) fishing was the only way Ghana could rebuild its marine fisheries supply and bring profitability to the artisanal fishery sector. This adoption has the potential to benefit over 100,000 people directly and up to two million indirectly. The integrated set of activities under SFMP’s original five-year program included: 1) improved legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity, and effort reduction strategies; 2) improved information systems and science-informed decision-making; 3) increased constituencies that provide the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector; and 4) applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems. These components feed into applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems. Under SFMP’s costed-extension period, new activities were added to address the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Ghana, including: 1) fisherfolk at 300 landing, processing, and/or fish market sites better adhere to official COVID-19 disease prevention protocols; 2) two thousand extremely vulnerable fisheries-dependent households avoid extreme poverty with cash transfers (CTs); 3) the Government of Ghana (GoG) has evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID-19; and several cross-cutting areas: private-sector engagement and partnerships, gender and youth, and building for sustainability. EVALUATION DESIGN AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team used a mixed-method approach to collect and analyze data. Data collection methods used included project document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), observations, and questionnaires targeting key project beneficiaries and participants to gather quantitative data to support the evaluation findings and conclusions. Limitations to this evaluation included recall bias, respondent bias, and limited access to or engagement by key informants due to competing priorities and workload of stakeholders. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report ii FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question (EQ) 1a: To what extent has SFMP achieved its intended purposes of rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels? Given that rebuilding over-exploited fish stocks could take much longer than the program’s life, the evaluation team used four indicators (i.e., perceptions on fish catch, adoption of sustainable fishing practices, fishing efforts, and law enforcement) to aid evaluative judgement on the extent to which SFMP achieved its objective of rebuilding the fish stock. A review of relevant documents and discussions held with various stakeholders across the fishery value chain showed that, while some progress had been made on improving awareness and perceived reduction of illegal and unregulated practices, the change is not yet sufficient to reverse the gradual decline of the small pelagic stocks. This finding is supported by stock assessment reports (Lazar et al., 2020) from SFMP’s Scientific and Technical Working Group (STWG) that showed declining catch per unit effort (CPUE), declining biomass of small pelagic fishes increasing fishing mortality, and increased fishing effort. Factors implicated for the declining fish stocks were the continuous open access in the artisanal and semi-industrial fisheries, increased fish landings by trawlers through illegal fishing and transshipment popularly referred to as “saiko,” and weak enforcement and non-compliance with the fisheries management regulations. In relation to the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, there was widespread perception among community members that unsustainable fishing practices such as light fishing, fishing with small, fine mesh sizes, and fishing with explosives had declined in their communities, although fishing is perceived as increasing over the past five years due to more entrants and more boats in the fishery. Although SFMP trained the marine police, more than two thirds of the respondents said they rarely or never saw law enforcement patrols (e.g., navy or police) on the beaches. Respondents attributed this to lack of political will or political interference, corruption, and limited resources (boats, fuel, etc.) that hindered patrol activities. Gender Mainstreaming SFMP made significant contributions to gender mainstreaming in the Ghana fisheries sector. The project implemented a gender mainstreaming strategy, which aimed to increase gender equity in the fisheries sector. Under SFMP, the first ever user rights in a fishery were granted to a women's association. Discussions with key informants and women fisherfolk revealed that the training on leadership development, business skills development, and fisheries resources management increased women’s voices and participation in fisheries management. Another significant achievement of SFMP was the adoption at the national level of the “Gender Mainstreaming Strategy for the Fisheries Sector.” Further, to enhance access to credit, SFMP established 56 Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) with 94 percent female membership and facilitated microloans for “Ahotor” oven construction for 118 women processors. On the whole, the gender mainstreaming efforts contributed to challenging socio-cultural norms about women’s role in fisheries. Women were exposed to sustainable fisheries management and are now better equipped with the knowledge and leadership skills to advocate for good fisheries practices, which they actively demonstrate. The formation of the Densu Oyster Pickers Association (DOPA) remains a classic example of SFMP promoting women’s leadership in fisheries management. Public-Private Partnerships SFMP leveraged public-private partnerships (PPP) using SSG Advisors’ (Resonance) Sustainable, Transparent, Effective Partnerships (STEP) approach. A review of program documents showed that the partnership strategy incorporated a number of principles, including promoting partnerships, that were aligned with both the project and private-sector interests and used a co-creation participatory design process. The PPP served as a mechanism for the development of two partnerships: 1) a micro-insurance product developed with Millennium Insurance; and 2) a fisher’s calling network with Airtel-Tigo modeled after Vodafone’s “Farmers Club.” SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report iii EQ 1b: To what extent has SFMP’s additional 7-month cost extension achieved its intended purpose to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? The evaluation found that local partners provided awareness and handwashing stations to landing sites, which improved adherence to COVID-19 protocols at the early stages of SFMP COVID-19 support intervention. However, adherence to COVID-19 protocols had generally waned at the time of the evaluation, as evidenced by on-the-spot observations and assessment on availability and functionality of handwashing facilities; adequacy of water, soap, tissue, and waste bins; number of people using handwashing facilities; observations on physical distancing; and wearing of face masks at landing sites. The severity of COVID-19 during the evaluation team’s visit was reduced and complacency had set in; most respondents wore no face masks and were not practicing safety protocols. Information gathered from the field showed that the COVID-19 safety net program (i.e., CTs) helped mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities, at least for the time when CTs were active. The core use of funds was to buy food for the household (35 percent), followed by expenses related to children’s education (23 percent), healthcare expenses (19 percent), and then starting and/or investing in their businesses, which were not necessarily related to fishing. Evidence gathered from interviews and FGDs also indicate that CTs contributed to building household resilience against the financial and economic shocks resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Recurrent themes across the interviews and FGDs were improved nutrition, improved emotional and mental health, household resilience, and diversified livelihoods. In terms of the piloted diversified livelihood interventions, the results were mixed. It showed few respondents perceived the livelihoods option to have positively impacted household income (4 percent), standard of living (1.8 percent), food security (2.8 percent), and vulnerability to shocks (2 percent). Despite the limited impact, it must be noted that diversification of livelihood options, especially on a sustainable basis, requires adequate resources and time for partnerships to nurture and develop. EQ 2: What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why? Intended factors Across interviews, the involvement of fisherfolk, processors, relevant stakeholders, and the Fisheries Commission (FC) in fisheries management and decision-making were some of the key factors enabling the adoption of sustainable fishing practices. Institutional collaboration and capacity-building, and evidence-based decision making and practice were other intended enabling factors that contributed to the results achieved by SFMP. At the start of SFMP, there was little stakeholder involvement in policy formulation, and regulatory management decisions were mainly a top-down approach. The fisher-to￾fisher (F2F) dialogues were useful platforms for ensuring ongoing communications between and among fisherfolk and policy makers (e.g., Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development [MOFAD] and the FC) and provided key inputs into the development of the co-management policy. Unintended factors Key factors that constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices were conflicts between artisanal canoe fishermen and industrial fishing vessels, especially saiko; the lack of political will to enforce fishing laws; and limited alternative livelihoods for fisherfolk. The GoG’s slow response to staff development and post-harvest activities also affected the project. EQ 3: To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisher folk in decision-making lead to artisanal fisher folk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report iv reforms served their interest? SFMP made significant contributions in building the capacity of key fisheries sector organizations and actors including the FC, civil society organizations (CSOs), and other local project partners. The project achieved significant success in the empowerment of local artisanal fishers. For example, the evaluation team found the timing of the closed season and compliance by fisherfolk was done in consultation with the agency of the fisherfolk and processors at the community level. The closed season had almost perfect compliance because it used a bottom-up approach, in sharp contrast to earlier situations where top-down decision on prohibition of fine mesh nets and light fishing had virtually no compliance. The participation of fisherfolk, especially of women fish processors, is now institutionalized in a national co￾management policy, and this remains a demonstrable success of major proportions in the empowerment of the fisherfolk attributable to SFMP. Other examples of project attribution for enhancing the voice of the fisherfolk that the evaluation established include the Densu shellfishery and other estuarine co￾management plans that have enhanced women’s participation in decision-making and exclusive user rights. The evaluation team found that project partner the University of Cape Coast (UCC) has been actively involved in SFMP by participating in several of the project activities, and benefited from staff and student training and capacity development. UCC helped strengthen fisherfolk’s inclusion in evidence-based decision-making through STWG and the Densu shellfishery development. UCC’s Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences is working closely with local fisherfolk and policy makers. The F2F dialogue instituted by SFMP provided, for the first-time, an opportunity for fisherfolk to have a voice in decisions. As one FC senior officer said, “the paddle broke the pen,” implying that the power structure had shifted, and the FC will not implement actions without the support of fisherfolk. EQ 4: To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisherfolk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms? The original SFMP implemented a number of measures meant to strengthen the economic resilience of fisherfolk, including post-harvest processing and handling practices in the artisanal sector, as well as promotion of micro-insurance and credit. Working with the FC’s Post-Harvest Unit, Ghana Standards Authority, and Food and Drugs Authority, a Class 1 certification scheme was developed that certifies artisanal fish-smoking kitchens as meeting a minimal set of quality standards. SFMP documents reviewed suggest that there are 28 certified fish processing facilities as of January 2021. The certification scheme requires the use of the Ahotor smoker, which was developed by SFMP. This smoker is more fuel￾efficient and produces exhaust with lower Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) levels. PAH is harmful to the human body and extended exposure can be cancer-inducing. SFMP further invested heavily in training fish processors and traders in improved fish handling, hygiene, packaging, and business skills development. Literature by SFMP reviewed by the evaluation team showed that about 1,195 persons (120 men, 1,075 women) were trained in hygienic fish-handling practices that reduce microbial contamination during processing. SFMP also built two model fish processing and training centers and developed the capacity of the processor associations who managed the facilities—Development Action Association in Greater Accra, and the Central and Western Region Fishmongers Improvement Association in the Central Region. These centers continue to train women and produce improved fisheries products for sale in Ghana. Part of the measures to strengthen the economic resilience of fisherfolk included support for the establishment of VSLAs and cooperation with Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), the government-sponsored microfinance program, to provide discounted interest rates and financing mechanisms for women businesses. Documents reviewed (Coastal Resources Centre, 2021) suggested that a total of 56 VSLAs were set up, and 1,174 beneficiaries (1,103 females and 71 males) participated in these group-based savings, micro-finance, or lending programs. As of November 2020, these groups had saved $51,496 and originated $16,136 in loans. A total of $ 92,876 in financing from MASLOC was accessed, benefiting 492 fish processing businesses (Coastal Resources Centre, 2021). The evaluation found that these initiatives were important but not enough to strengthen SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report v the economic resilience to shocks related to the key fisheries management reforms. EQ 5: To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes, likely to be adopted by the Government or other actors after the project ends? SFMP’s technical approaches included training and capacity-building programs, canoe registration, supporting research for policy and sustainable fisheries management, awareness-creation of illegal fishing practices, and promotion of alternate fishing practices. SFMP made the stakeholders custodians of the interventions through constant engagement, even getting them represented on the FC subcommittees with gender sensitivity and occasionally inviting them to the FC Board to discuss issues that affect them. There has been a considerable involvement and engagement with the FC and relevant stakeholders of the sector and Ministry. The impacts of unsustainable fishing practices have been well demonstrated and backed with empirical data and information. The SFMP reports and presentations to stakeholders, particularly to FC Board meetings at Elmina and Accra on the declining fish stocks with data collected by STWG and the FC’s marine fisheries unit, lend credence to the declining pelagic fish stocks (SFMP Final Report, 2014–2021). Recent indications are that some considerable declines have been observed in these unacceptable practices. However, there remain some locations where fisherfolk describe a marginal decline in bad fishing practices. This can be attributed to the attitudinal behavior of some and, possibly, the low level of enforcement by the regulating authority. Interviews with FGDs in the zone of influence (ZOI) and the FC suggest that there is a general and widespread acceptance of the technical approaches, and they have already adopted them. The sustained application of science and/or scientific data in fisheries management decisions remains relevant. Among other factors, the implementation of such decisions will largely depend on the Fisheries Scientific Survey Division (FSSD), the Marine Fisheries Department, Monitoring Control and Surveillance Division, and FC’s Fisheries Enforcement Unit (FEU). These FC divisions are responsible for scientific data-gathering through stock assessment and biological surveys, and monitoring and enforcement of fishing rules and regulations. In addition, the sustenance of the technical approaches to regulate fishing effort will require the collective and collaborative efforts of all constituencies, agency institutions, and key stakeholders. The sustenance and continuation of the closed season have depended on a bottom-up approach and tight enforcement by government and the FC. Some pockets of non-compliance issues and agitation were recorded in Elmina in mid-2021, which took the involvement of the newly appointed Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development to intervene just prior to the close of the season. Closed season and use of science Over the period of engagement, SFMP saw the implementation of three closed fishing periods for commercial trawlers in November 2016, February 2017, and January–February 2018. For the marine artisanal canoe fishery, the first seasonal closure was May 15–June 15, 2019. While the timing of the 2019 closed season for the artisanal sector lacked a scientific basis, this has subsequently been corrected with the declaration of the next closed season for July 2021. There was considerable broad compliance with these closed seasons for all the fishery sectors, mainly due to SFMP communications campaigns, dialogues, and the scientific justifications provided. The sustainability of closed seasons will likely depend on the political will of the government, the demand of fisherfolk and their ability to unify among their own representative organizations, and continuous education and campaigns to sustain the awareness and long-term benefits. It is obvious that SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report vi the GoG adopted SFMP’s innovative approach to sustain the closed season concept as evidenced by the successful implementation of the close season in 2021 (i.e., post project), which is a good sign of its sustainability. Furthermore, while the closed season had difficult starts and stops after the project ended in 2021, a closed season was held for all fleets, including canoes, and timing was changed from the original 2019 closure to a period more in line with SFMP STWG recommendations. There are strong indications from the FC that the closed season will be sustained. Further, the community-based plans and associated closed season in the pilot estuaries are also still happening, years after intervention stopped. SFMP conceptualized the canoe identification card system as an instrument for moving the marine artisanal fisheries sector from open access to regulated access, an important step in reducing fishing effort and vessel capacity in the subsector. A national registration of vessels and canoes are in place and adopted by the GoG (Executive Director, FC). The canoe identification cards have been printed and submitted to the relevant regional fishery officers and await collection by beneficiaries (Human Resources Officer, FC). Through the efforts and assistance of SFMP, there is now a national policy mandating fisheries co￾management decisions. This form of decision-making will most likely continue to operate with sustained engagement of fisherfolk associations and policy implementers. Discussions with the FC and other local government agencies suggest the likelihood the GoG adopts the fisheries management decisions and outcomes. This is reflected in responses to the questions related to the role of SFMP in strengthening collaboration with institutions and government agencies and sustainability of the fisheries management decisions. Conclusion SFMP positively impacted efforts to rebuild the small pelagic fisheries of the Ghanaian marine waters. Awareness creation is a precondition for addressing issues impacting the fisheries, especially in situations where IUU has been going on for a considerable period. The strategies by SFMP to try and halt these practices were relevant and effective. SFMP caused MOFAD and fisherfolk to effect a closed season for the marine fisheries sector, which was observed by all. There were mixed feelings about its effectiveness over its short duration and timing in 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a perceived economic short-changing of the fisherfolk, but SFMP swiftly provided a safety net to alleviate affected fisherfolk while piloting approaches for providing them skills and resources for alternative livelihoods. Stakeholder engagements and participation in decision-making processes contributed to providing fisherfolk a voice in policy issues. It also raised fisherfolk’s expectations for their voice to be heard, which changed the attitude of the FC about the value of hearing them. For now, the outcomes of the interventions for rebuilding the fish stocks are less apparent, and more time is required to see changes. There is a need to sustain what SFMP initiated over its project period and collect data and information on fish stocks in the future. Anecdotal reports from some fishermen suggest that there is some compliance with the use of proper mesh size netting for fishing. There is a sustained effort by MOFAD to wipe out light fishing in the Central Region, and it recently imposed sanctions on fishers at Elmina by withholding supply of premix fuel supplies and subsidies. The GoG should reconsider withdrawing fuel subsidies to minimize and control overfishing. SFMP’s assessment of Subsidies in Ghana’s Marine Fisheries Sector1 found that the premix fuel subsidy and tax waivers cost the GoG $44 million annually. There are better alternatives the subsidies could be spent on such as closed season safety nets and/or provision of alternative livelihoods to protect the fishery, 1 Tobey, J., A. K. Normanyo, P. Osei, K. Beran, & B. Crawford (2016). Subsidies in Ghana’s Marine Artisanal Fisheries Sector. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_POL059_CRC., Pp. 53. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report vii e.g., the CTs done by SFMP as part of COVID-19 interventions to poor fishing communities. It is estimated that about $3 million per year is spent on subsidies. This amount can be used to create a safety net to support poor fishing households, especially during closed fishing seasons. The SFMP subsidies assessment report also recommended phasing out subsidies in the marine fisheries sector and putting the money into alternative uses that would be more beneficial to fisherfolk (Tobey et al. 2016). RECOMMENDATIONS In line with the evaluation findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are made to inform the Ghana’s fisheries section policy and programming. Rebuild the small pelagic fish stock by creating an enabling environment that supports adaptive marine resources management. • Revise and implement the National Marine Fisheries Management Plan and the Fisheries Act. • Terminate open access and require vessel registration. • Sustain the co-management policy. • Support community-based fisheries management approaches. • Continue closed seasons. Apply Science and Research in Fisheries Management. • Conduct stock assessments for the pelagic fishery. Create Constituencies and Stakeholder Engagement. • Institutionalize the Fisher-to-Fisher dialogue process. • Enforce fishing laws and regulations. • Reduce the level of fishing effort. • Deter illegal fishing and impose penalties for offenders. • Educate political parties. • Create closed areas and marine habitat protection areas. Sustain Post-Harvest Improvements. • Continue post-harvest management and trainings. Cross-Cutting Issues • Continue anti-child labor and trafficking campaigns. • Scale up gender mainstreaming. Continue the COVID-19 Response. • Intensify the social behavior change communication (SBCC) campaign on COVID-19 preventive measures in fisheries communities. • Expand the safety net program. Develop alternative livelihoods to fishing. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 1 1.0 EVALUATION OVERVIEW 1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of the performance evaluation was to determine the extent to which the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project’s (SFMP) components and/or interventions have been successfully implemented and to confirm progress made toward achieving its intended goal to rebuild targeted fish stocks through the adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels. It also assesses how the project interventions have contributed to achieving USAID/Ghana’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Development Objective (DO) 2, “Sustainable and broadly-shared economic growth.” The findings of the evaluation will inform decisions about future programming, as it will assist USAID/Ghana, its implementing partners, and other relevant stakeholders with guidance to optimize the effectiveness of future programming in Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. 1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS As indicated in the Scope of Work (SOW)(Annex 1), the following critical learning questions linked to the project’s performance will be answered: 1. To what extent has the SFMP achieved its intended purposes of: 1) rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels; and 2) the additional 11- month cost extension to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence (ZOI)? 2. What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why?2 For the original program, at a minimum, consider the efforts to: 1) build effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations; 2) expand the use of science for management; 3) strengthen gender equity; and 4) collaborate with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. For the COVID-19 extension, at a minimum, the team should include the focus on diversifying livelihoods and providing economic assistance to vulnerable fishing households. 3. To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisherfolk in the decision-making lead to artisanal fisherfolk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the reforms served their interest? Why or why not? 4. To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisherfolk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms, and can they be sustained post-project? Why/why not? 5. To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes, likely to be sustained and/or adopted by the government or other actors after the project ends? The evaluation team will ensure that, where relevant, sex disaggregation and gender differentiated effects are captured in answering the evaluation questions (EQs). 2 Findings to be segmented according to the original project description and the supplemental COVID-19 project description. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 2 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND SFMP was originally a five-year cooperative agreement project (October 2014–October 2019). It was granted an initial no cost extension from November 1, 2019–September 31, 2020, and a second costed extension from May 2020 through April 30, 2021. SFMP was designed to support the Feed the Future Strategy through the 2013–2019 CDCS, Intermediate Results (IRs) 2.1.1 on increased agricultural productivity (Feed the Future IR 1.13), IR 2.4.2 (Feed the Future IR 1.14), IRs 2.25 and 2.36 under IR 2.2 (Feed the Future IR1.3), and IR 2.3 (Feed the Future IR 2). SFMP supports the Government of Ghana’s (GoG’s) fisheries management policies, particularly its objectives to end overfishing and rebuild the key small pelagic fish stocks. Adoption of sustainable fishing practices that address overfishing and illegal, unreported, unregulated (IUU) fishing is the only way Ghana can increase its catch from wild-caught local marine fisheries supply and bring profitability to the artisanal fisheries, with the potential to benefit over 100,000 people directly and up to two million indirectly. The integrated set of activities under SFMP’s original five-year program included: 1) improved legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity, and effort reduction strategies; 2) improved information systems and science-informed decision-making; and 3) increased constituencies that provide the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. These components feed into applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems. Under SFMP’s costed-extension period, new activities were added to address the effects of the COVID￾19 pandemic in Ghana, including: 1) fisherfolk at 300 landing sites, processing, and/or fish markets sites better adhere to official COVID-19 disease prevention protocols; 2) two thousand extremely vulnerable fisheries-dependent households avoid extreme poverty; 3) the GoG has evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID-19; and 4) cross-cutting areas: private-sector engagement and partnerships; gender and youth; and building for sustainability. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION TO BE EVALUATED AND THEORY OF CHANGE The project’s purpose was to “Rebuild targeted fish stocks, through adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels.” To achieve sustainable practices and exploitation levels requires a reduced level of fishing effort, not only reduced capacity (i.e., a reduced number of boats), to end overfishing. Over the longer term, these changes will lead to improved fish stocks and higher and more sustained fishing yields, signaling to stakeholders and beneficiaries the efficacy of the measures and the time lag between the measures and the improved biological outcomes that can enhance livelihoods. In order to build political will for the required reforms, SFMP forged a campaign to build constituencies for change among high￾level decision-makers and politicians as well as grassroots fishermen, fishmongers, and processors. By attaining the following IRs and objectives SFMP’s purpose will be achieved: (IR 1) Strengthened enabling environment for marine resources governance.  Improved legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity, and effort reduction strategies. 3 This is a sub-IR under the USAID/Ghana CDCS 2013–2017, IR 2.1 – Increased competitiveness of major food chains. 4 IR 2.4.2 – Improved local community management of natural resources. 5 IR 2.2 – Improved enabling environment for private-sector investment. 6 IR 2.3 – Improved resilience of vulnerable households and communities and reduced undernutrition. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 3 (IR 2) Increased use of applied science to inform decision-making, law enforcement, and the implementation of management plans.  Improved information systems and science-informed decision-making. (IR 3) Improved constituencies and political will for policy reform and implementation built, support and demanding use and conservation.  Increased constituencies that provide the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. (IR 4) Improved management of marine resources to conserve biodiversity and provide other benefits.  Applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems. CROSS-CUTTING - Gender mainstreaming, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and institutional strengthening. The SFMP theory of change argues that IF the activities are successful in: 1. Improving legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity, and effort-reduction strategies; 2. Improving information systems and science-informed decision-making; 3. Increasing constituencies that provide the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector; and 4. Applying management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems; THEN it will: Rebuild targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels, which will contribute to achieving USAID/Ghana’s CDCS DO 2: “Sustainable and broadly shared economic growth.” In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 a costed extension was approved to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and an additional purpose was added—prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities and, in the process, contribute to building institutional structures and processes toward sustainable management of the fisheries resources of Ghana. This would be achieved through four additional COVID IRs:  (COVID 1) Fisherfolk at 300 landing sites, processing, and/or fish markets sites better adhere to official COVID-19 disease prevention protocols.  (COVID 2) 2,000 extremely vulnerable fisheries-dependent households avoid extreme poverty.  (COVID 3) GoG has evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID-19.  (COVID 4) Cross-cutting areas: private-sector engagement and partnerships; gender and youth; and building for sustainability. 2.1.1 Project Target Area and Target Beneficiaries The intervention ZOI is Ghana’s Central, Western, Greater Accra, and Volta regions. Over 100,000 men and women involved in the local fishing industry were expected to benefit from the activity, and tens of thousands of metric tons of additional high-quality, low-cost food supply from fisheries could be regained via improved management of the marine fish stocks in Ghana’s waters. Key government clients of SFMP include the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (MOFAD), the Fisheries Commission (FC), Regional Coordinating Councils (RCCs), and associated districts in the Central, Western, Greater Accra, and Volta regions. The marine police were also provided with direct support to build their capacity. Additional direct support was provided to the SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 4 University of Cape Coast (UCC) and a number of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and women’s associations active in fisheries management issues and serve either as core or supporting partners in the project’s implementation, including the Densu Oyster Pickers Association (DOPA), the Development Action Association (DAA), Friends of the Nation (FoN), Hen Mpoano (HM), the Central and Western Fishmongers Improvement Association (CEWEFIA), the Ghana Canoe Fishermen’s Council (GNCFC), and the National Fish Processors and Traders Association (NAFPTA). 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach to collect and analyze data to complete the performance evaluation within the timeline and budget constraints. While quantitative methods were useful in determining SFMP’s effects, qualitative evidence helped clarify their range and nature. For some EQs, qualitative evidence helped better explain the enabling and constraining factors of project effectiveness, implementation approaches, and their acceptability, as well as outcomes that cannot be readily measured quantitatively. Further, a mixed-methods approach helped strengthen the reliability of data and validity of the findings and recommendations; broadened and deepened understanding of the processes through which program outcomes and impacts were achieved; and explained how these were affected by the context within which the program is implemented. The specific data collection methods used included document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), observations, and questionnaires targeting key project beneficiaries and participants to gather quantitative data to support the evaluation findings and conclusions. In some instances, the team compared the results from the endline survey to the baseline survey for some selected indicators.7 The data for the baseline was obtained from Crawford et at (2016), while the data for the endline was obtained from the evaluation field work. The detailed evaluation methodology has been presented elsewhere in the approved work plan.8 3.1.1 Review of Relevant Project Documents As part of the evaluation pre-planning process, the SFMP team developed and stored all necessary SFMP documents in a Google Drive folder. A full review of these documents, reports, studies, and surveys helped the evaluation team design the instruments for the questionnaires, FGDs, and KIIs. The evaluation team reviewed and incorporated into the analyses relevant secondary data sources, including:  Project design documents;  Project implementation plans;  Project theory of change and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework;  Baseline report;  Annual reports; 7 Crawford, B., L. Gonzales, D. Amin, B. Nyari-Hardi, & Y.A. Sarpong (2016). Report on the Baseline Survey of Small Pelagic Fishing Households along the Ghana Coast. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP) Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_PGM187_CRC., pp. 122 8 Bureau of Integrated Rural Development, Work Plan: The Performance Evaluation of the Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Accra: Monitoring, Evaluation and Technical Support Services (METSS II) for USAID/Ghana Economic Growth (EG) Office. July 2021. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 5  Lessons learned reports; and  Published commissioned reports and peer-reviewed journal articles. Aside from using the findings from these documents to enable the evaluation team to respond to specific EQs, the review also improved its understanding of SFMP’s objectives and outlook. 3.1.2 Primary Data Collection/Sampling Approach For primary data collection, the evaluation team verified project results and reported accomplishments through first-hand observation. Data were collected from the four different levels of implementation and sources of information. Respondents included project beneficiaries (men and women involved in the local fishing industry) and private-sector entities that are beneficiaries of cash or in-kind grants from SFMP; the University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center (URI/CRC); key project partners; key government clients of the project, including MOFAD, FC, and RCCs; associated districts in the Central, Western, Greater Accra, and Volta regions; the marine police; UCC; local NGOs; and women’s associations that benefited from SFMP interventions. The evaluation used several data collection tools for each level of data collection. The detailed methodology and the research instruments are described in the approved evaluation work plan.9 Quantitative Survey Survey Objectives The main objective of the quantitative survey was the collection of data relating to values of the outcome indicators for both the original SFMP and COVID-19 extension to assess the impact of project interventions. The survey covered small pelagic fishing dependent communities in the project ZOI.10 Sampling The sample covered communities and participants who benefited from both the original SFMP and COVID-19 interventions. A random sampling technique was used to select both fisherfolk and cash transfer (CT) beneficiaries. The team’s initial analysis indicated that to detect a medium effect size when comparing three proportions (Cohen, 1988), the needed sample size will range between 170 and 450. This means that a sample size of 450 respondents would guarantee a power of 0.80 (or larger). A total of 594 respondents participated in the survey, comprising 51.2 percent females (N= 304) and 48.8 percent males (N=290). Of this, 74.6 percent (N= 443) were fisherfolk and 25.4 percent (N=151) were CT beneficiaries. While the evaluation team planned to sample more of the CT beneficiaries, only a few of those on the list provided to the evaluation team actually confirmed receipt of CTs. The questionnaires were administered to a random sample of fisherfolk and CT beneficiaries. The initial plan was to construct the sampling frame using the fishing villages recorded in the 2013 Canoe Frame Survey. However, during fieldwork the team realized that most fisherfolk could not readily identify SFMP interventions, making it difficult to select respondents that could speak to issues that were of interest to the evaluation. The team therefore used the list of communities that benefited from the COVID-19 safety net program as the sample frame to aid the selection of communities and respondents. The safety net program provided an entry point to knowledge about SFMP. At the community level, fisherfolk (male and female) were randomly selected at the various landing, processing, and marketing sites. The field enumerators first established knowledge of SFMP before interviewing selected respondents. This was found to be a more useful approach to getting respondents who could speak to the issues being 9 Bureau of Integrated Rural Development, Work Plan: The Performance Evaluation of the Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Accra: METSS II for USAID/Ghana EG Office. July 2021. 10 The political boundaries of some of these regions have changed since December 2018. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 6 investigated by the evaluation team. CT beneficiaries were randomly selected from the list provided by SFMP. It was assumed that these COVID-19 safety net beneficiaries were fisherfolk and could therefore respond to both the original SFMP and the COVID-19 questionnaire modules. For all the safety net beneficiaries, the enumerators first established knowledge of the original SFMP to assess their ability to speak to the issues. In instances where safety net beneficiaries lacked knowledge about the original SFMP, enumerators administered only the COVID-19 safety net questionnaire. Development of the Survey Instrument and Training of Enumerators As part of the survey tool development, the evaluation team reviewed the instruments used in the previous baseline questionnaires, project indicators, and the questions and/or relevant sub-questions guiding this evaluation. In line with the evaluation purpose and questions, the questionnaire was comprised of two modules: original SFMP and COVID-19 support interventions. The instruments were reviewed and approved by Monitoring, Evaluation, and Technical Support Services (METSS II), USAID/Ghana, and SFMP. The questionnaires were pre-tested in Moree, Central Region to determine the appropriateness of the questionnaire format and wording of questions, appropriateness of verbal translation of questions to illiterate respondents, readiness of trained data collectors for the task, and to allow for revision of the questionnaire. A paperless survey was administered using KoBoToolbox installed on Samsung tablets. Annex 3 contains the questionnaire for the quantitative survey. Training of Interviewers The evaluation team viewed training of survey team members as the key to data quality. In view of this, a three-day training session was organized for 30 enumerators and four supervisors on August 3–5, 2021. The training focused on the background of SFMP, the small pelagic fisheries sector in Ghana, questionnaire overview, interview techniques, survey methodology, administration of consent forms, monitoring procedures, use of tablets for data collection, and research ethics. A major session of the training was devoted to practicing the Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) platform used for quantitative data collection. The survey was conducted between August 13–25, 2021. Enumerators in a CAPI role play at the training. Qualitative Survey The qualitative component formed an essential part of the evaluation. It was designed to capture the perspectives of project stakeholders on project implementation, effects, sustainability, and factors that influenced implementation and outcomes in line with the EQs. Further, the qualitative component contained participatory methods that complemented the quantitative approach by providing an understanding of the context within which the program was operating, and how this affects and is affected by SFMP. It captured experiences and processes that produced outcomes of interest, enabling an assessment of impacts that were difficult to cover quantitatively (such as social cohesion and inter￾and intra-household relations) and providing complementary data on topics covered by the quantitative survey, and in doing so triangulating, validating, and providing depth to the quantitative findings. The qualitative survey focused on: SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 7  Gaining understanding of why the intervention worked or did not work and assessing how effectively SFMP and its complementary programs addressed child labor, gender, and women’s empowerment issues.  Shedding light on attributable changes on the set of outcome indicators, which are hard to measure by quantitative methods. The team worked with local stakeholders and collected beneficiary feedback to understand whether beneficiaries view the nature and magnitude of the outcomes of the intervention as relevant and significant.  Reviewing the effectiveness of the program from an operational, programmatic, and sustainability point of view, focusing on answering the implementation and sustainability EQs. Sampling For the qualitative component, purposive sampling technique was used to select participants across the broad spectrum of the project stakeholders (partners/collaborators and direct beneficiaries). The use of purposive sampling ensured diversity of participants’ views, opinions, and experiences. Participants for KIIs and FGDs were selected based on their affiliation and familiarity with the project and ability to answer questions that speak to the impact, implementation issues, and sustainability of SFMP interventions, as well as inform exit strategies, lessons learned, and areas for improvement. As indicated in the SOW, KIIs were held with:  URI/CRC and USAID/Ghana;  Key project partners, including SNV Netherlands Development Organization, Resonance, HM, FoN, CEWEFIA, Daasgift Quality Foundation (DQF), and DAA;  Project beneficiaries, including MOFAD, FC, GNCFC, NAFPTA, and the Ghana Industrial Trawlers’ Association (GITA); and  Chief fishermen. The evaluation team used a combination of face-to-face and phone or Zoom to conduct the KIIs as appropriate. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with the fisherfolk. In the case of the KIIs, to identify ideal points of contact (POCs) before interviews the evaluation team gave each institution a short synopsis of SFMP and an outline of the overall purpose of the evaluation. Then the team requested a list of staff with knowledge of SFMP at each level of the implementation chain. In-Depth Interviews and Focus Group Discussions The evaluation team adopted a beneficiary assessment approach (BAA), providing the opportunity for program beneficiaries to share their experiences on the value of SFMP. This is grounded on the principle of participation (understanding different people’s perspectives) and learning and responsiveness (uncovering program operations will lead to actions to improve SFMP). In this regard, in-depth interviews (IDIs) and FGDs were held with direct project beneficiaries (i.e., men and women involved in the local fishing industry). The IDIs and FGDs were audio recorded. FGDs were restricted to a maximum of five to six participants to accommodate social distancing protocols. In all, a total of 20 FDGs and 52 KIIs were conducted. Annex 2 provides a list of all KII and FGD participants. Observation To assess fisherfolk’s adherence to COVID-19 safety protocols, structured observations were conducted on landing sites completed by interviews with site advocates. The evaluation team also selected physical investments supported by SFMP and documented how they are functioning and helping beneficiaries. These included the CEWEFIA fish processing training center and COVID-19 handwashing facilities provided at landing sites. The Most Significant Change Approach SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 8 The most significant change (MSC) collected stories from various project stakeholders. The MSC helped find out which changes were valued by stakeholders by selecting their most significant change. Using this method, project stakeholders, including beneficiaries, in effect identified what it is that they most value. Development of Interview, Focus Group Discussion, and Observation Guides The qualitative data were collected primarily through KIIs, FGDs, and observations. The evaluation team developed appropriate guides that consider the EQs to facilitate the KIIs, FGDs, and observations. The interview guide is in Annex 4. Data Analysis Methods Both the qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed concurrently. Data collected through qualitative and quantitative methods were triangulated for each question, e.g., information collected from interviews with mayors were compared to responses of community leaders and beneficiaries. The team used Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) for the quantitative data analysis. For the qualitative data, thematic analysis was used. The data processing and analysis followed two broad steps: 1) familiarization of the qualitative data; and 2) coding framework to organize data into categories, patterns, and themes. Ethics Ethics here concerns the relationship between the researcher and the researched and the moral principles underpinning research actions. Evaluation studies, like any surveys, involve research activities that border on ethics. At all stages of the evaluation, the evaluation team strictly adhered to the ethical principles most especially autonomy (respect for individuals’ rights and seeking of informed consents). The evaluation team also ensured that outputs from the research are the bona fide property of the client, and information from it will be treated with strict confidentiality. COVID-19 Protocols and Adaptations To ensure the safety of participants and the evaluation team, all local and national guidelines regarding COVID-19 prevention protocols were strictly adhered to. Safety precautions adopted by the evaluation team included wearing masks (with a policy of “no mask, no interview”). To enforce this, field teams provided free masks to participants who did not have masks at the point of interview. Other safety protocol field teams rigorously observed included hand hygiene, ensuring a one-meter distance between the interviewer and study participants, and conducting interviews outdoors. The fieldwork was conducted in compliance with Bureau of Integrated Rural Development’s (BIRD’s) safety guide for conducting fieldwork during the COVID-19 pandemic (BIRD, 2020). 3.2 LIMITATIONS Quantitative Survey In social surveys of this nature, there is always the possibility that a question will be misunderstood or that it will not measure what it was intended to measure. The evaluation team avoided such measurement issues by pre-testing each of the data collection instruments to ensure questions were easy to understand and response choices made sense to the respondents. In surveys of this nature, recall bias, which results from asking respondents to provide information from a period in the past, is inevitable. The team mitigated this potential bias by triangulating responses between the quantitative survey and qualitative survey. Also, in an attempt to reduce potential internal validity issues, the evaluation team thoroughly analyzed the data to identify any significant outliers. Finally, as the sampling frames between the endline and baseline surveys were different, endline-baseline comparisons contained in this report should be interpreted with caution. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 9 Qualitative Survey As is customary with qualitative research, data collected through KIIs, IDIs, and FGDs is self-reported and, as such, carries the potential for respondent bias. To minimize the impact of bias on the results of the qualitative component of the evaluation, the evaluation team explained the purpose of the evaluation at the start of all interviews and FGDs so as to avoid social desirability bias. There was limited access to or engagement by key informants due to competing priorities and workload of stakeholders or insufficient key stakeholder engagement, which could result in lack of data. 4.0. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The quantitative survey was not a population-based survey. It was used to assess a few selected project indicators. This means that providing detailed background of the participants’ characteristics does not add value to the evaluation findings. The evaluation team therefore limits the presentation of the findings to the specific EQs. 4.1 EVALUATION QUESTION 1 To what extent has SFMP achieved its intended purposes of: 1) rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels; and 2) the additional 11-month cost extension to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project’s ZOI? 4.1.1 Findings EQ 1a: To what extent has SFMP achieved its intended purposes of rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels? Given that rebuilding fish stocks could take much longer than the program’s life, the evaluation team used four indicators (i.e., perceptions on fish catch, adoption of sustainable fishing practices, fishing efforts, and law enforcement) to aid evaluative judgement on the extent to which SFMP achieved its objective of rebuilding the fish stock. A review of relevant documents and discussions held with various stakeholders across the fishery value chain showed that while some progress has been made, the totality of change is not yet sufficient to reverse the gradual decline of the small pelagic stocks. This finding is supported by the stock assessment reports (Lazar et al., 2020) of SFMP’s Science and Technical Working Group (STWG) that showed declining catch per unit of effort, declining biomass of small pelagics in the ocean, and increasing fishing mortality (increased fishing effort). Factors cited to account for the declining fish stock were the continuous open access in the artisanal and semi-industrial fisheries and increasing share of the landings being taken by trawlers through illegal fishing and transshipment (i.e., “saiko”), weak enforcement, and noncompliance with the fisheries management measures. In relation to the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, there was widespread perception among community members that unsustainable fishing practices such as light fishing, fishing mesh, and explosives had declined in their communities, although fishing effort is still perceived to have increased over the past five years. Although SFMP trained the marine police, more than two-thirds of the respondents said they rarely or never saw law enforcement patrols (e.g., navy or police) on the beach, perceived to be resulting from lack of political will, political interference, and corruption and limited of resources (boats, fuel, etc.) that hinders patrol activities. As shown in the Table of Indicator and Results Per Project Goal and Results in Annex 5, despite the SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 10 slow progress toward rebuilding the fish stock, SFMP made significant progress toward achieving the project indicators, in some cases exceeding its targets. Perceptions of Fishing Efforts and Fish Catch Quantitative survey findings indicate most respondents (58.8 percent) perceived fishing efforts to have increased compared to when SFMP began five years ago (Table 1). Compared to the baseline in 2016, there has been a nearly four-fold increase (from 14.94 percent to 58.8 percent) in the number of respondents believing that fishing effort has increased over the past five years (Table 1). This aligns with the qualitative findings, which revealed catching fish is more difficult now compared to five years ago. Similarly, a common theme across interviews and FGDs was that there has been a decline in the amount of small pelagic. Linked to the declining fish stocks and increased fishing efforts was the practice of IUU. Table 1: Perceptions of Change in Fishing Efforts Compared to Five Years Ago Perceived Changes in Fishing Efforts Endline (N=594) Baseline (N=716) Increased 58.8% 14.94% Remained the same 20% 7.96% Reduced 18.2% 72.21% Don’t know 3% 4.89% “In comparing five years ago to now, I will say that fish catch has decreased drastically because of the activities of the big boat fishermen, the Chinese and light fishing, and the use of carbide. This has also led to increase in prices of fish at the market, and people find it difficult to buy the fish. Also, compared to five years ago, I can say that the fish stock has decreased, so I suggest there should be proper monitoring and punishment such as jail sentence for fishermen who engage in illegal fishing to serve as a deterrent to others. The fishermen are suffering because they invest a lot in the fishing activity but get little or no profit.” – Fisherman and Assemblyman, Moree, Central Region “I am 80 years of age, we used to catch a lot of fish because there were no illegal methods of fishing. But currently, there has been a reduction in the catch fish as a result of the illegal methods of fishing. The SFMP has come at the right time because the fishermen know how to fish but lack the knowledge to sustain the fish. So, I suggest the SFMP must be continued to help fishermen know sustainable methods of fishing so the present and future generations can get fish to catch.” – FGD Participant, Moree, Central Region “Fishing activity is not really going on well as compared to the past. You can go fishing for a week and return with nothing. The fishing business is declining as a result of illegal fishing activities.” – FGD Participant, Oshyiyie, Greater Accra “The Fisheries Commission through the SFMP is doing their best to put a stop to the illegal fishing practices. In fact, this is one the areas that SFMP did quite well. However, the fishing stock has decreased over the years because fishermen still use illegal fishing such as light, carbide, and dynamite. Also, illegal fishing practices is still going on because climate change has stopped the water that reflects light in the sea for easy fish catch. As a result, the fishermen decide to rely on light for fishing. So, there is the need to continue to educate the fishermen on the negative consequences associated with illegal fishing.” – FGD participant, Moree, Central Region SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 11 For fish stocks to be rebuilt and sustained, it would take more than just SFMP. In various engagements throughout the evaluation, there was evidence that SFMP contributed to increased awareness on IUU fishing and its effects on the small pelagic. Anecdotal reports from some fisherfolk suggest that although illegal fishing practices have not been eliminated, there is some compliance with the use of proper size netting for fishing and restrictions on use of light fishing, bombs, and carbides. The outcomes of the interventions to rebuild fish stocks might not be apparent now; more time is required. Beyond the reduction of IUU, a drastic transformational change is also necessary, including political commitment and a shift in attitudinal changes to address the collapse. There is also a need to sustain what SFMP initiated and continue to collect data and information on fish stocks. Such data needs to be analyzed and communicated by scientists to decision-makers (which includes fisherfolk in co-management institutional arrangements) as to what actions can reverse the declines. Perceptions on Illegal Fishing Practices Overall, more than half of quantitative survey respondents perceived that all four unsustainable fishing practices have decreased a lot or somewhat in their communities. Compared to the baseline in 2015, there is a larger proportion of respondents observing light-fishing, and the use of fine fishing mesh has decreased a lot or somewhat. More than half of respondents also perceived that carbide and bomb/explosive fishing have decreased a lot or somewhat compared to five years ago. The majority (54 percent) of respondents perceived light fishing has decreased a lot or somewhat compared to five years ago (Figure 1). Thus, there were more respondents perceiving light fishing to have decreased a lot at the endline (37.5 percent, n=594) than the baseline (17.4 percent, n=716). Figure 1: Light Fishing 37.50% 18.00% 16.50% 15.00% 10.10% 2.90% 17.74% 51.68% 5.17% 17.04% 5.59% 2.79% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Decreased a lot Increased a lot Decreased somewhat Increased somewhat Don’t know Stayed about the same Endline (2021) Baseline (2016) On the use of fine small mesh size, which holds the capacity to catch juvenile fish, a majority of respondents perceived the problem to have decreased a lot (31.8 percent) or somewhat (19.9 percent) compared to five years ago (Figure 2). Similarly, the proportion of respondents perceiving the use of fine fishing net to have decreased a lot in the endline (37.5 percent, n=594) were more than those who shared a similar view during the baseline (17.0 percent, n=716) (Figure 2). Similarly, the perceptions concerning the changes in both bomb/explosives fishing and carbide fishing show that most respondents perceived they have decreased a lot (38.9 percent and 40.9 percent, respectively) (Figures 3 and 4). SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 12 Figure 2: Fine Fishing Mesh11 31.80% 11.40% 19.90% 17% 12.60% 7.20% 17.04% 36.17% 8.80% 15.92% 9.50% 12.57% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Decreased a lot Increased a lot Decreased somewhat Increased somewhat Don’t know Stayed about the same Endline (2021) Baseline (2016) Figure 3: Bomb Fishing12 38.90% 7.10% 18.40% 9.40% 26.30% 56.56% 4.05% 2.37% 2.37% 30.59% 4.05% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Decreased a lot Increased a lot Decreased somewhat Increased somewhat Don’t know Stayed about the same Endline (2021) Baseline (2016) 11 The catching of fish with the aid of artificial light. 12 Bomb fishing is the practice of using explosives to stun or kill schools of fish for easy collection. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 13 Figure 4: Carbide Fishing13 40.90% 6.10% 16.50% 12.30% 24.20% 55.31% 4.19% 2.79% 2.65% 30.31% 4.75% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Decreased a lot Increased a lot Decreased somewhat Increased somewhat Don’t know Stayed about the same Endline (2021) Baseline (2016) The qualitative evidence showed mixed findings, with some participants indicating that illegal fishing is increasing while others felt that though illegal fishing practices still exist, they have somewhat decreased compared to before SFMP interventions. Some participants confirmed that SFMP embarked on several IUU education campaigns. The focus of the education was on illegal fishing such as light fishing, the use of fine mesh, the use of bomb (dynamite), and the use of poisonous chemicals in fishing. Some participants claimed that while the incidences of fishing with bombs and chemicals have gone down, that of light and the use of fine mesh is still ongoing and, in some places, increasing. It was explained that due to the declining fish stocks, light fishing was the only way to ensure a good harvest. It was also cost effective: “Normal fishing comes with all sorts of challenges such as fighting amongst fishermen on the sea, incurring huge losses, among others. You can spend 70 gallons of premix within two days without any catch for normal fishing, but for light fishing you can spend as low as between 14 and 17 gallons of premix a day with huge catches.” – Chief Fisherman, Lekpongunor, Greater Accra “I believe they tend to use those means because they ‘feel’ they need to put in certain measures in order to harvest the fish. So, if they don’t go with those measures, their harvest may not be assured. So that is the compelling force for them to resort to using light, because they are saying the catches are declining. If they don’t use light, they will not get the fish, they will not get the money back to recoup their fuel, their loans.” – Fisheries Manger, FC, Western Region The fisherfolk who continue to use fine mesh nets noted that they have not been provided with an alternative. They indicated that once an alternative was provided, they would stop using the mesh nets: “There is a kind of rubber fishing net being used by fishermen that is not legal and the government even said some time ago that they were going to change it for us, but that has not been done yet …. So that rubber nets should be changed for fishermen as the government has said.” – FGD Participant, Kokrobite, Greater Accra “Just as my colleague has said, it is true that these illegalities are going on. I would want to add my voice 13 The use of carbide as a chemical for fishing. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 14 to the rubber net (‘Togger’). About ten years ago, the government indicated that they were going to support fishermen to acquire the appropriate fishing nets in order to stop using the rubber nets for fishing. But till today the government has not done anything about it.” – FGD Participant, Kokrobite, Greater Accra These findings suggest that little progress has been made on the curbing of illegal fishing. This suggests that the USAID/Ghana SFMP activities on illegal fishing, as well as those of other donors including the World Bank-supported West African Regional Fisheries Project (WARFP) and European Union (EU)- supported fisheries projects, have made little or no impact in tackling the problem. There is a need to address the persistent problem of political influence within the fisheries sector, which compromises enforcement, compliance, and prosecution of illegal fishers. It is also necessary to focus more on the industrial trawl fishery to tackle the menace of saiko fishing. In the artisanal fishery, light fishing, illegal mesh size nets, and carbide hold the potential to drive the small pelagic fishery to collapse, therefore necessitating further monitoring and collaborative support of all fisherfolk and stakeholders. The complexities involved in these issues also call for adaptive management and behavior change on the part of stakeholders for a sustainable stock recovery that would lead to long-term socio-economic improvements in fishing communities. The need to build synergies and linkages across strategies and programs to ensure coherence and complementarity in the fisheries sector is also important. SFMP used lessons of earlier interventions and strategies to address the problem of the collapsing artisanal marine fishery. These should be sustained in future efforts by government and development partners. Awareness and Knowledge of Fishing Laws More fisherfolk are becoming aware of fishing laws. However, significant knowledge gaps remain on legal fishing practices. Awareness and knowledge of fishing laws can partly influence the adoption of sustainable fishing practices. The evaluation examined respondents’ awareness and knowledge on specific fishing laws. Findings show 59.8 percent of respondents were somewhat aware of the fishing laws, while 21.4 percent indicated being very much aware of fishing laws (Table 2). During the baseline, approximately two-thirds of respondents said they were barely or not at all aware of the fishing laws. Overall, the proportion of respondents who are very much aware or somewhat aware of fishing regulations increased from 36.17 percent to 81.20 percent (Table 2). Thus, SFMP appears to have contributed considerably to greater awareness of fishing regulations and practices among fisherfolk. Table 2: Awareness of Fishing Regulations Central (N) Western (N) Greater Accra (N) Volta (N) Endline (N=594) All Regions (N) Baseline (N=716) All Regions Very much aware 28.7% (46) 16.1% (23) 29.1% (37) 12.8% (21) 21.4% (127) 3.91% Somewhat aware 52.5% (84) 61.5% (88) 54.3% (69) 69.5% (114) 59.8% (355) 32.26% Barely/Not at all 18.8% (30) 22.4% (32) 16.5% (21) 17.7% (29) 18.8 % (112) 63.83% Total 26.9% (160) 24.1% (143) 21.4% (127) 27.6% (164) 100% (594) 100% Respondents were also asked about legal fishing behaviors/practices in relation to their general knowledge of fishing laws by the questioner stating 12 fishing practices and asking respondents to note SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 15 for each, which were illegal. Consistent with the baseline, the list of practices, some legal and some illegal, were: 1) set gill nets; 2) monofilament nets (i.e., rubber nets, Sika Ye Abrantie); 3) nets with mesh sizes smaller than 2.5cm; 4) beach seines; 5) fishing with lights; 6) nets with mesh sizes greater than 10cm; 7) catching of sword fish; 8) fish transferred from trawlers to canoes and then brought to shore (i.e., saiko); 9) catching of sea turtles; 10) "Ali Poli Watcha" nets; 11) use of dynamite; and 12) drift gill nets. The number of correct responses were summed for a total score on fishing knowledge from 0 to 12, with 12 representing a perfect score and 0 representing no correct responses (Table 3). Table 3: Score on Actual Knowledge of Fisheries Laws Regions Endline (2021) (N=594) Baseline (2016) (N=716) Central 2.76 7.30 Greater Accra 4.71 8.02 Volta 3.45 7.71 Western 7.37 7.66 All combined 4.57 7 Despite the perceived high awareness of fishing laws, respondents obtained a mean of 5 correct responses, or 41 percent of the specific regulations considered, which is a reduction compared with the 64 percent correct responses recorded on the same laws during the baseline. Regional differences in scores are shown in Table 3 and are statistically significant. Western Region had the highest mean followed by Greater Accra and Central regions (which also had the lowest score during the baseline). Overall, only 13.5 percent of the fisherfolks indicated “SFMP has contributed to improved and sustainable fisheries practices in Ghana.” (Figure 5). Figure 5: SFMP Contribution to Improved and Sustainable Fisheries Practices in Ghana The majority of fisherfolk (84.80 percent) would not confirm whether the project contributed to improved and sustainable fisheries practices in Ghana. FGDs and KIIs suggest that many fisherfolk 6.10%(N=36) 7.40%(N44) 84.80%(N=504) 1.50%(N=9) 0.20%(N=1) 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% Strongly agree Agree Indifferent Disagree Strongly disagree SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 16 acknowledge the potential of the project to improve sustainable fisheries practices in Ghana, but it may not have fully met their expectations. Others agreed that within the project’s lifetime of five years, it was not possible to fully achieve the project’s intermediate results and goal of improving sustainable fishing practices and to rebuild the declined fish stock. Perceptions on Deterrence How fishing laws are enforced could enable or constrain adoption of sustainable fishing practices. As such, respondents were asked the frequency they see law enforcement officers patrolling or talking to the public. Responses are shown in Tables 4–6. Responses between regions are statistically significant. Overall, more than two-thirds of the respondents said they rarely or never saw law enforcement patrols (e.g., navy or police) on the beach. Compared to the baseline, there has been no change in the proportion of respondents holding the view that law enforcement hardly or never patrols the beaches. Table 4: Frequency of Marine Police or Fisheries Commission Enforcement Officers Community Beaches Patrol Patrol of Beaches Endline (2021) (N=594) Baseline (2016) (N=716) Not at all / Never 31% 32.68% Rarely 38.9% 37.43% Frequently 19% 22.07% All the time 1.2% 0.56% Do not know 9.9% 7.26% Table 5: Frequency of Navy or Marine Police Sea Patrol Endline (N=594) Baseline (N=716) All the time 1.3% 0.56% Frequently 25.8% 27.51% Rarely 34.3% 34.64% Not all/Never 27.8% 23.04% Don't Know 10.8% 14.25% SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 17 Table 6: Frequency of Enforcement Officers’ Communication on the Reasons for the Fisheries Law Response Endline (N=594) Baseline (N=716) All the time 1.0% - Frequently 18.7% 8.66% Rarely 36.2% 25.84% Not all/Never 37.0% 53.77% Don't Know 7.1% 11.73% SFMP trained marine police on how to identify fish caught through illegal means and provided them with the necessary equipment. A number of judges were also trained on fisheries laws and policies. As a result, the judges are now able to give the appropriate punishment for offenders. However, the results of these interventions are yet to be seen: “I know they’ve trained a number or judges on fisheries laws and policies. Because I think when the enforcement unit was working, they will get an arrest. But how to prosecute became an issue. So, I remember they said they were able to train some judges. So, all these trainings have been but where is the result… bribery and corruption in the enforcement process is still there.” – Fisheries Manger, FC, Western Region The qualitative interviews revealed lack of political will, political interference, and corruption on the part of the security agencies as critical factors affecting law enforcement. Political Interference Political interference in the enforcement of fisheries regulations was considered by a majority of the respondents (58 percent) not to have reduced over the past five years (Figure 6). It was indicated by respondents that laws were not being enforced because of political interferences and bribery. It was also claimed that this has discouraged some fishermen from reporting illegal fishing practices. For example, in the Western Region, fishermen pointed fingers at the political authorities who were said to be colluding with the law enforcement agencies, including the navy in the Shama area, to allow most perpetrators of light fishing to go unpunished. These allegations were unsubstantiated, but some victims who claimed they could not pay bribes said their gears were confiscated. Many respondents emphasized that there is too much political interference in the enforcement of fisheries regulations, making activities in the sector very difficult. In KIIs and FGDs, limited resources for enforcement officers also emerged as an important factor that constrain efforts of enforcement officers in their work. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 18 Figure 6: Perception on Reduction in Political Interference on the Enforcement of Fisheries Regulations Over the Past Five Years “You know, because we don’t have the political will, the marine police are doing their best but if you arrested fishermen who were using illegal equipment, you could get an MP (member of parliament) who will just call them and tell them they wanted them to lose votes. Now, when they were taken to court, even the judge did not understand the fisheries sector very well. The naval officers, the marine police will tell you that when they arrest the fishermen, these fishermen could bribe them with sums of money of about GHS 5000 to GHS10,000 cedis…Bribe the marine police or naval officers. When they [fisherfolk engaged in illegalities] are sent to court, court will ‘fine’ them sometimes, GHS500, and sometimes GHS 200 so it was not deterrent enough. If I was a marine officer or a naval officer and you bribed me with GHS5000 or GHS10,000 cedis, I’ll allow you to do the illegal fishing.” – KII, Winneba, Central Region “I would say that they have done their part in rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks, but it is left for the government to its rightful role in rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks. The government would take bribe and free illegal fisherfolks and all that. It is the government that has a greater role to play in rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks.” Botianor Women Processors’ President Of the respondents (7.40 percent) who said they strongly agree or agree that over the past five years there has been a reduction in political interference in enforcement of fisheries regulation, 98.50 percent of them attributed this to SFMP. For example, in Greater Accra respondents said the training and general exposure (participation in policy process, appearance on TV shows, organized peer engagements, etc.) championed by SFMP empowered fisherfolk to stand up against some local authorities who otherwise would have used their political influence to overrule local decisions such as sanctioning of recalcitrant peers. Child Labor and Trafficking As part of the efforts of building marine fish stocks, SFMP implemented a number of initiatives to reduce the practice of child labor and trafficking in the fisheries sector. SFMP worked with MOFAD and the Ministry of Gender, Children, and Social Protection to develop a National Anti-Child Labor and Trafficking (CLaT) Strategy for the fisheries sector. SFMP also supported the formation of community and district anti-CLaT committees that provided direct outreach in communities known for high levels [1%](N=6) [6.40%](N=38) [34.50%](N=205) [41.20%](N=245) [16.80%](N=100) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Strongly agree Agree Indifferent Disagree Strongly disagree SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 19 of CLaT, conducted communications campaigns, and supported community volunteer advocates in the Central Region. Documents reviewed showed SFMP worked to mainstream anti-CLaT activities into nine coastal district medium-term development plans in the Central Region that proposed a collective total budget allocation of GHS 4.5 million over five years to address CLaT issues. Evidence from the evaluation indicates there have been significant gains in reducing CLaT in the project’s ZOI through SFMP interventions in the areas of awareness creation and capacity-building at the local level. This is evidenced as Ghana moved off the European Union Watch List of trafficking and returned to Tier 2 ranking in 2018. The project also produced key documents, including the anti-CLaT national strategy for the fisheries sector adopted by MOFAD (Strategy on Anti-CLaT in Fisheries) and situation assessment tools (CLaT Assessment Tool Workshop Report), which are critical for future CLaT prevention initiatives. SFMP also partnered with local institutions, including CEWEFIA, FoN, and the DAA, on anti-CLaT interventions, which are essential for sustainability. Evidence from interviews and FGDs indicate there have been significant positive changes regarding CLaT, with improved knowledge of legal and illegal CLaT practices. There is also improvement in attitudes that illegal practices are not acceptable, and perceptions of a decline in the prevalence of CLaT. This suggests SFMP and other donors active in this space have been successful in improving the situation: “The SFMP did a lot of campaigning on child labor and trafficking in this community. This in a way has helped reduce the incidence of child labor and trafficking. Yes, before SFMP most children were involved in fishing to the detriment of their education, but it has reduced drastically. Our children are now schooling for a better future. I can confidently say, unlike before, child labor and trafficking have now reduced in this area.” – Chief Fisherman, Ankaful, Central Region “SFMP also partnered with the media in the fight against CLaT. You know the media was also trained in the fisheries issue and the child labor and trafficking as well. So even the reporting, how they were able to report the issues well. They were trained in that, and that is why Joy News was always playing the documentary; TV3; Adom TV. They all helped in letting people understand that we have to prevent child labor and trafficking. This has helped in the fight against CLaT. Now people’s attitudes have changed as they see child labor as bad in the community.” – Project Manager, CEWEFIA “There has been a reduction in child labor in this community as most children now attend school. Few of them do not attend school due to hardships at home. I think the project did very well in helping us to understand the need to take the children from the sea.” – FGD Participant, Komenda Generally, SFMP was instrumental in creating awareness on the declining fish stocks through building a stakeholder matrix and interaction, and teaching fisherfolk and processors about the repercussions of illegal fishing practices, depletion of fish stocks, and CLaT. Gender Mainstreaming The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012 (Mathiesen, 2012) highlighted gender mainstreaming as one of the key issues facing the fisheries and aquaculture sector. In this regard, SFMP made significant contributions in gender mainstreaming in the Ghana fisheries sector. The project implemented a gender mainstreaming strategy, which aimed to increase gender equity in the fisheries sector. Gender mainstreaming activities were based on the premise that if both men and women demand good fisheries management practices, implementation would be timelier, more enduring, and more effectively diffused (Torell et al., 2019). Discussions with key informants and fisherfolk revealed that the training on leadership development, business skills development, and fisheries resource management increased women’s voices and participation in fisheries management. A gender impact assessment conducted in 2018 by Bilecki et al. (2018) found that SFMP made important progress toward gender mainstreaming. A significant achievement was the adoption at the national level of the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy for SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 20 the Fisheries Sector (MOFAD, 2016). This strategy strives to empower fisherfolk, especially women, by enabling their active participation in fisheries management. The next step is allocation of funds to carry out its key provisions. However, as of early 2021, MOFAD had yet to receive anticipated funding from the GoG for its implementation. Further, to provide access to credit, SFMP established 56 Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) with 94 percent women membership and facilitated micro-loans for “Ahotor” oven construction for 118 women processors. The role that SFMP played in mainstreaming gender in the fisheries sector is quite significant. For instance, the formation of DOPA is a big achievement for SFMP in promoting women’s leadership in fisheries management. The co￾management policy also requires the participation of women in co-management committees. On the whole, the gender mainstreaming efforts contributed to challenging socio-cultural norms about women’s role in fisheries. Women are now exposed to sustainable fisheries management and better equipped with the knowledge and leadership skills to advocate for good fisheries practices. Public-Private Partnerships SFMP leveraged PPPs using the SSG Advisors’ (Resonance) approach. A review of project documents, including the lessons learned event reports, showed the partnership strategy incorporated a number of principles (including promoting partnerships) aligned with both the project and private-sector interests and used a co-creation participatory design process. The PPP served as a mechanism that resulted in the development of two partnerships: 1) a micro-insurance product developed with Millennium Insurance; and 2) a fisher’s calling network with Tigo modeled after Vodafone’s “Farmers Club.” EQ1. b. To what extent has SFMP achieved its intended purpose in the additional 11- month cost extension to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID￾19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project’s ZOI? Adherence to COVID-19 Prevention Protocols Evidence gathered from project documents indicated that SFMP provided 249 handwashing stations and supplies to fish landing, marketing, and processing sites in 242 locations in all four regions along the coast. Each handwashing station had a trained advocate that maintained handwashing supplies and educated peers on safe practices. The project also implemented some social behavior change communication (SBCC) interventions along the entire coastline with a focus on preventing the spread of COVID-19 in fishing communities. Information and education materials focused on general information on COVID-19, symptoms, safety practices (handwashing, wearing of face masks, social distancing), precautionary measures for fisherfolk before and after fishing expeditions, breaking the cycle of spread, how to make a handwashing station, disposal of face masks, and care for reusable cloth masks. Through structured observations, the evaluation team assessed the effects of these interventions in 69 landing, marketing, and processing sites to check adherence to COVID-19 protocols as an entry point for understanding the extent to which SFMP contributed to the prevention of COVID-19. Spot observations on availability and functionality of handwashing facilities; adequacy of water, soap, tissue, and bins; number of people using handwashing facilities; observations on physical distancing; and wearing of face masks were used to draw conclusions. Interactions with fisherfolk and key informants revealed that adherence to COVID-19 protocols was very high at the early stages of SFMP intervention. Interactions with the fisherfolk on landing sites indicated that the deployment of the handwashing stations was critical in the success of SFMP’s SBCC strategy, as community members had the opportunity to practice the information received from the SBCC campaigns. Given the communal nature of landing and processing fish at fishing beaches, there were fears that the artisanal fisheries sector would be greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, SFMP’s COVID-19 SBCC campaign had a positive influence on the prevention of infection and spread of COVID-19 in 248 fish landing sites across 27 coastal districts. While adherence to the SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 21 COVID-19 safety protocols was high during the project implementation, at the time of the evaluation (August 2021, i.e., post intervention delivery), adherence to COVID-19 safety protocols had generally waned. Spot checks by the evaluation team on landing sites and processing centers revealed non￾adherence to key COVID-19 protocols on handwashing, physical/social distancing, and wearing of face masks. This raises questions about the sustainability of the SBCC actions implemented under the project. However, this needs to be understood within the context that the project was effectively implemented within seven months and SBCC ran for only about five months. Availability of Handwashing Facilities and Supplies Compared to the baseline (15.7 percent) (Asare and Morgan, 202014), there has been an over four-fold increase (62.3 percent) in the number of sites with handwashing facilities. However, only a few of the handwashing facilities were functional at the time of the evaluation (14.5 percent, n=10). This was an improvement over the situation at the baseline, as functional handwashing facilities have increased by over seven fold, from 2.2 percent at the baseline study to 14.5 percent at the time of the evaluation (Figure 7). There were one to four Veronica buckets at each site, depending on the site’s size. Figure 7: Functional Handwashing Facilities Figure 8: Adequacy of Water Adequacy of water, soap, tissue, and bins at landing, processing, and marketing sites have not improved much from the baseline (Figure 8). Results from the data collected showed 85.5 percent of the landing, processing, and/or marketing sites visited had no water at all in the available handwashing facility/Veronica bucket, 90 percent of the sites had no soap at all available for handwashing purposes, and 97 percent had no tissue or bin available. Thus, similar to the baseline survey, handwashing facilities found at the sites during the endline survey were generally observed either without or with almost￾finished supplies such as soap and water, and most had no dedicated person in charge of the facility, especially as the site advocates were no more actively working because of the closure. Number of People Utilizing Handwashing Facilities The number of people utilizing handwashing facilities/Veronica buckets at the fishing land sites did not improve much from the baseline. At the fish landing and processing sites where handwashing stations were sighted, only few persons were observed using the facility (Figure 9). In 97 percent of the sites (N=67), no one was seen to be utilizing the handwashing facility for the entire structured observation (30–45 minutes). The Western and Volta regions recorded the highest number of sites where utilization of handwashing facilities was very low. 14 Asare. M., Morgan, M. (2020). Spot Checks of Handwashing Stations Conducted in SFMP Selected Landing Sites under the COVID Intervention. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island and Development Action Association. GH2014_COV120_CRC. Pp. 23. 14.5% (N=10) 85.5% (N=59) Yes No 5.8% (N=4) 7.2% (N=5) 1.4% (N=1) 85.5% (N=59) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Adequate Not enough Running low No water SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 22 Figure 9: Utilization of Hand Washing Facilities Physical Distancing Direct observations into the physical distancing practice at the various sites indicated a general disregard for this protocol, a situation which is no different from the baseline. The general scene at most landing/ processing sites showed that only a few (4.3 percent) people stayed at a safe distance from one another (six feet apart) while carrying out their activities (Figure 10). Figure 10: Number of People Practicing Physical Distancing During the Site Visit Wearing of Face Masks Adherence to the protocol of wearing face masks was low (5 percent) across all sites. Most of the respondents without face masks were in Greater Accra (34.8 percent). This was closely followed by Central (29 percent), Volta (18.8 percent), and Western (13 percent). In addition to the observation, the evaluation team interviewed site advocates and randomly selected fisherfolk to obtain an insight into the extent to which fisherfolk adhered to COVID-19 prevention protocols. As shown in Figures 11 and 12, about two-thirds of respondents rarely practice the preventive protocols, including handwashing with soap under running water regularly (62.3 percent), social distancing (68.1 percent), putting on face masks when in public places (60.9 percent), and avoiding touching eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands (69.6 percent). 2.9% (N=2) 97.1% (N=67) Most of the people at the site None of the people at the site 4.3% (N=3) 95.7% (N=66) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Most of the people at the site None of the people at the site SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 23 Figure 11: Frequency of Practicing COVID-19 Protocols Figure 12: Adherence to COVID-19 Protocols Qualitative evidence gathered from the interviews and FGDs revealed some myths about adherence to COVID-19 prevention protocols: “When SFMP brought the handwashing basin to this beach, myself, together with one other person, were thoroughly trained on handwashing, so we in turn trained and educated others. Honestly, everyone around this beach practices the COVID prevention protocols, especially handwashing. SFMP has done us great…but adherence to the protocols have gone down now.” – FGD, Nungua Fisherfolk Economic Safety Net Program (Cash Transfer) SFMP, through the CT program, helped mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities. COVID-19 significantly affected about 40 percent of respondents. As part of the SFMP COVID-19 response in the final 11 months of the project, SFMP supported 1,905 extremely vulnerable fisheries￾dependent households to avoid extreme poverty. In this pilot activity, an unconditional CT was the vehicle for households to avoid extreme poverty by providing adequate resources to obtain a minimum food basket for the household. Each household received $208 (in its cedi equivalent) between 4.3% (N=3) 95.7%(N=66) Most of the people at the site None of the people at the site 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 2.90% 11.60% 5.80% 4.30% 2.90% 1.40% 2.90% 8.70% 26.10% 14.50% 26.10% 14.50% 62.30% 68.10% 60.90% 69.60% 0.00% 10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00% Practice Hand Washing with Soap Under Running Water Regularly? Practice Social Distancing? Put on Face Masks When You are In the Public Space? Avoid Touching Eyes, Nose and Mouth with Unwashed Hands? How often do you: Rarely Occasionally Most of the time Sometimes Always SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 24 December 2020 and March 2021. About a quarter of the respondents for the evaluation received the CT provided as a safety net to mitigate impact of COVID-19. Stories from the field showed that the COVID-19 CT helped mitigate the economic effects of COVID￾19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities, at least for the time when it was active. As shown in Figure 13, the top use of funds was to buy food for the household (35 percent), followed by expenses related to children’s education (23 percent), healthcare expenses (19 percent), and then starting/investing in a business not related to agriculture (6 percent). Figure 13: Use of Cash Transfers (Multiple Responses Allowed) Evidence gathered from the interviews and FGDs also indicate that CTs contributed to building household resilience against the shocks engendered by COVID-19. Recurrent themes across the interviews and FGDs were improved nutrition, improved emotional and mental health, household resilience, and diversified livelihoods. Improved Nutrition Accounts from interviews and FGDs indicate that CTs had a positive effect on household food security and nutrition. The CTs improved beneficiaries’ access to food and afforded them the opportunity to eat three meals a day compared to before being enrolled in the program. “The money also helped us a lot in terms of buying food for the children. It helped me in expenses on health and food. I am a widow, so I used the money to support home in terms of expenses on food.” – CT beneficiary, Komenda Improved Emotional Health and Well-Being An inherent theme across the interviews and FGDs was an improvement in fisherfolk’s emotional health and well-being. In all interviews and FGDs, participants used words/phrases such as “source of hope,” “big relief,” “happy,” “no longer worry,” “feel good,” “pressure on me [fisherfolk] has reduced,” and “no more struggle.” These indicate an improvement in the physiological and psychosocial health of CT recipients. “Those who received the cash transfer, especially the two people who told me, rejoiced and showered a lot of praises on the donors. It was a big relief for them! And then later on some came again, saying that because of this cash, they have been able to migrate or change from the fishing industry into a petty trading, which is also feeding. So, they were praying that it will continue.” – CT Focal Person, Elmina “When the money stated coming, were very happy. It was our only source of hope at the time as times 22.60% 35.50% 19.60% 2.80% 1.50% 0.60% 7.60% 5.80% 0.30% 0.30% 3.40% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Expenses related to children’s education. Food for household Healthcare expenses Acquisition of household equipment Fishing nets Canoes Other Fishing related expenditure Starting a business (non-agric. related) Social expenses (e.g. wedding, funeral, etc.) I don’t know Other SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 25 were hard. I pray they continue to support.” – FGD Participant, Moree Resilience Most CT recipients indicated the money contributed to building household resilience—the ability to manage and withstand shocks—which contributes to improving a household’s well-being. Across FGDs and interviews, participants noted that with CT, they were able to pay off debt, acquire productive capital (e.g., fishing nets and farm implements), and engage in a diversified livelihood (e.g., trading): “The money helped some of them to diversify their livelihoods from the fishing to trading and other things. Yes, for one woman immediately she received the money, she started preparing food for sale and the other one entered into bread selling. So, money really helped them to cope with the difficulties from the COVID-19.” – CEWEFIA Focal Person, Komenda The evaluation team found that the majority of names on the CT beneficiary list had not received any cash from the project. This created some level of apprehension among people as they registered their displeasure of not benefiting from the scheme even though their bio data was collected. Other key informants such as chief fishermen complained about their non-involvement in the selection or verification of the beneficiaries. It is therefore important that the community, and especially beneficiaries of economic safety net schemes, be part of the development of the criteria to be used in the selection process. Additionally, extensive awareness-creation and education should follow the development of the selection criteria. This approach would help in reducing inclusion and exclusion errors as well as misunderstandings and tension related to why some households get selected and others do not. Piloting Diversified Livelihoods As part of its COVID-19 support interventions, SFMP piloted three livelihood options (production of handwashing soap, baking of confections, and installation and repairs of digital TV and air conditioning) targeted at youth (18–35 years) to encourage them to explore income-earning opportunities outside of fishing. Project records indicate that 98 persons (96 females and 2 males) were trained in the production of soap and given start-up kits (chemicals and fragrances) to produce their first line of products. The project trained 60 women in the production, packaging, labeling, and pricing of these items, while 12 youth (11 males, 1 female) were also trained on the installation and repairs of digital TV and air conditioning. Interactions with some beneficiaries of the diversified livelihood activities indicated that they were generally happy with their respective alternative livelihood activities. However, some beneficiaries noted during the FGDs that the income earned was not adequate to take care of their household needs. The quantitative findings on the beneficiaries’ perceptions and satisfaction of the livelihood trainings and livelihoods program demonstrated mixed results. It showed few respondents perceived the livelihoods option to have positively impacted household income (4 percent), standard of living (1.8 percent), food security (2.8 percent), and vulnerability to shocks (2 percent). However, diversification of livelihood options, especially on a sustainable basis, requires adequate resources and time toward partnership nurturing and development. Scaling up this pilot intervention with adequate support (e.g., credit) and time would help fisherfolk have diversified livelihood opportunities as they rely on the already overstretched fishery as their primary source of income. 4.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why? 4.2.1 Findings Intended Factors SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 26 Across the interviews and FGDs, the involvement of fisherfolk (fishermen and fish processors) and other key fisheries stakeholders (including the FC, traditional rulers, chief fishermen, canoe owners, and various fisheries associations) in fisheries management and decision-making through initiatives such as fisher-to-fisher (F2F) dialogues and co-management plans were identified as key intended factors with potential for the adoption of sustainable fishing practices. Institutional collaboration and capacity￾building, and evidence-informed decision-making and practice were other intended enabling factors that contributed to the results achieved by SFMP. At the start of SFMP, there was little stakeholder involvement in policy formulation and regulatory management decision—mainly top-down. The F2F dialogues were useful platforms for ensuring ongoing communications between and among fisherfolk and policy makers (e.g., MOFAD and the FC) and provided key inputs into the development of the co￾management policy. As captured in the SFMP success stories,15 the dialogues enabled fisherfolk to confront some of their communities’ deep-rooted problems—such as over-fishing, weak enforcement, and non-compliance—that threaten the total fish catch (Robadue 2020). The prosecution chain workshops were another intended action by SFMP, which contributed to addressing IUU fishing. These workshops focused on reviewing the prosecution process and developing strategies to address challenges and forensic weaknesses in arrests and prosecutions. SFMP supported fisheries prosecutorial chain workshops by providing a platform that promoted improved inter-agency dialogue and collaboration to improve deterrence of fisheries-sector violations. A review of project documents shows the application of this process under the USAID Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance Initiative (ICFG) was successful in the Western Region (Coastal Resources Center. 2021). “Well for me, one good initiative under the SFMP that if sustained can contribute significantly to sustainable fishing practices, is the fisher-to-fisher dialogue and the co-management policy. I say this because with all the stakeholders on a common table to discuss matters of mutual interest, there is a kind of a shared vision to tackle a common enemy like IUUs. For instance, it was through the co￾management that they are able to do the first closed season, and the second one too.” – Project Manager, CEWEFIA A fisheries co-management policy16 was one of the key intended approaches that successfully facilitated the adoption of sustainable fishing practices. It was planned to involve all project actors, including the scientific community, to work in concert with the local fisherfolk, including women. SFMP provided both technical and financial support, and brought together stakeholders in the fisheries sector who contributed to the process of developing the co-management policy. The National Policy Framework on Fisheries Co-Management was endorsed and approved by the GoG at the tail end of SFMP, and the FC has started its implementation. The co-management policy set the stage for the FC’s approval of the first three co-management plans for coastal estuaries (i.e., Ankobra, Pra, and Densu Estuary Community￾Based Fisheries Management Plans) under SFMP. These approved plans provide use rights for specific fisheries in delineated geographic areas to local fisherfolk associations. With co-management plans in place, closed season for fishing was implemented for the first time with all stakeholders acting together. SFMP strategically collaborated with institutions and organizations overseeing the fisheries sector, including MOFAD and the FC. In this way, SFMP built and strengthened the capacity to facilitate stakeholder engagement in planning, policy, conflict resolution, and mediation. SFMP understood the governance structures and built interlinkages and networks, which contributed to the modest gains achieved. Discussions with the FC revealed that SFMP, through its collaboration with the commission, created and sustained support for the FC to formulate and carry out greater public engagement related 15 Robadue, D., editor. (2020). A Compilation of USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project Success Stories: 2014- 2020. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narra-gansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode. GH2014_ COM106_CRC. Pp. 58. 16 Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (2020) Co-Management Policy for the Fisheries Sector, Government of Ghana, pp. 41. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 27 to revision of fisheries policy and regulations. “SFMP has really contributed to strengthening institutional capacity through their regular meetings with different institutions. The Fisheries Commission in a way has been strengthened through SFMP. The FC for some time now has been having a number of meetings with us to discuss issues related to our fishing business.” – Nungua Respondent The capacity of fisher organizations was very weak at the beginning of the project, but has been strengthened to a limited extent under SFMP. This has been mostly attributed to the training and capacity-building activities implemented by the project. Currently, there are a considerable number of fisher dialogues with agencies among the associations. For example, the GNCFC, which used to give handouts, has moved on from input provider to demanding to be included in discussions on government and management measures. They now play advocacy roles for fisherfolk. SFMP’s STWG, which provided leadership, advice, expert opinions, and scientific evidence on policy and practice, was a key enabling factor. Interview participants noted STWG was the most trusted source of information supporting the implementation of reform initiatives, such as the closed season and registration of all artisanal vessels, focused upon transitioning from open access to regulated access. SFMP also developed the capacity of the Fisheries Scientific Survey Division (FSSD) to conduct its own stock assessments for the small pelagic fishery and supported efforts by partners to prepare scientifically sound fisheries co-management plans for the Densu, Ankobra, and Pra River estuaries. These have enormous potential for creating an enabling environment for sustainable fisheries management. Clearly, an increase in the level of involvement of fisherfolk and key fisheries stakeholders in the management of Ghana’s fisheries resources, coupled with strengthened institutional capacity, could help local fishers employ sustainable fisheries resources exploitation methods that could result in an improvement in the socio-economic development and well-being of fishing communities. SFMP developed and piloted curriculum on sea watch groups, which was later picked up by EU projects and the FC. The use of ideational mechanisms to inform the sea watch group, where some fishery sector actors (e.g., GNCFC and fisherfolk) were exposed to best practices and scientific knowledge, was strategic in eliciting local-level law enforcement to stem IUU activities. For instance, to build the capacity of GNCFC and other local fisher groups for fisheries law enforcement, SFMP collaborated with MOFAD, the FC, and WARFP to organize a study tour to the Philippines to observe firsthand how fishers in that country have been supporting law enforcement through the “Sea Watch” (Bantay Dagat) system. Lessons learned from the visit provided inputs for the Ghana pilot initiative that adopted the Bantay Dagat approach (SSG Advisors. 2016). However, an area that requires further attention in participatory fisheries management and governance is empowering local communities to document IUU practices. A combination of local surveillance groups (piloted by SFMP under the Bantay Dagat approach) to strengthen the monitoring and reporting of illegal fishing would be critically important moving forward. The use of total allowable catches (TACs) can be used to control catch levels. This implies that all landings must be monitored and catch by species recorded in close to real time (e.g., through logbooks and sampling or a complete landings monitoring program). Further, women should be empowered through strengthened capacity to detect and reject illegal fish to discourage IUU. In the case of the COVID-19 support program, one of the key intended enabling factors was the design of the project, which was evidenced-based and theory-driven. The SBCC campaigns were based on behavior change theories (i.e., theory of reasoned action/planned behavior), and this contributed to the fisherfolk’s initial adherence to the safety protocols. Unintended Factors Key factors that constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices were conflicts between artisanal canoe fishermen and industrial fishing vessels (especially saiko), lack of political will to enforce SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 28 fishing laws, and limited alternative livelihoods. The GOG’s slow response to staff development and post-harvest activities also affected the project. Weak governance and internal politics in the two largest fisherfolk associations (GNCFC and NAFPTA) also affected project implementation. Across all four coastal regions, fisherfolk, chief fishermen, and other key stakeholders interviewed (including GITA and GNCFC) identified the conflict between canoe fishermen and industrial fishing vessels as a major constraining factor to sustainable fishing in Ghana. Participants observed that canoes and industrial boats compete for space in the already over-fished waters, with small-scale fishers venturing further afield in search of fish, and trawlers coming close to the shore—in some cases entering the zone reserved for artisanal fishers. Participants bemoaned the dire effects of saiko on sustaining the fish stock. It came up during the interviews that as industrial vessels (i.e., saiko) pillage Ghana’s coastline of vital fish stocks, it is the country’s artisanal fishing communities that are paying the price. Now faced with the menace of saiko and declining incomes and food insecurity, many of these fisherfolk are being driven to engage in illegal activities, such as the use of explosives, poisons, and light fishing. “There is only one truth. Every government that comes into power does not concentrate on fisherfolk and when they do, they only starve us [artisanal fishers] and chase us with the navy. What about the saiko? That is what the government should pay attention to. Saiko has destroyed our ocean. It is worrying because the trawlers catch all the fishes meant to be caught by us and use it for saiko. Government must support coastal communities by banning saiko because we are really suffering. The IUUs they say we engage in are a direct response to government’s failure to stop saiko because we also need to eat.” – Fisherman, Elmina “Saiko is the reason why most fishermen use light to fish because the government has given the Chinese the power to do these things that ruin our seas. They are making a living while we do not get fish and have children to care for. These days everyone is obliged to send their children to school. As a fisherman, how can my child go to school if my livelihood is bad? It is very simple, if saiko stops, all the other illegalities will stop. Saiko must be banned!” – GNCFC Member, Moree “The Chinese (i.e., saiko) and the light fishing people are worrying us. Out of 25 nets I took to sea, they’ve destroyed seven and I have 18 left. And the Chinese vessels and the saiko, they will come and destroy your net. They too should be banned from the sea.” – FGD Participant, Bentsir Saiko was said to be the most destructive form of illegal fishing, where trawlers target the staple catch of canoe fishers and sell this fish back to local communities at a profit. FGD participants noted that saiko steals jobs, threatens food security, and endangers Ghana’s economy. Fisherfolk argued that trawlers hoover up vast quantities of small pelagic fish such as sardinella—the main catch of the local canoe fishers. It was emphasized that if the government’s priority is to ensure the recovery of fish stocks and sustainability of the sector, then saiko must end. SFMP carried out several activities geared toward stopping IUU, including education, building stronger constituencies supporting regulatory reforms, and the organization of prosecution chain workshops to review the prosecution process and develop strategies to address challenges and forensic weaknesses in arrests and prosecutions. However, a major constraining factor to this effort was the lack of political will to enforce fishing laws. The accounts of various stakeholders at the community, district, regional, and national levels revealed that both artisanal fishers and industrial trawlers were emboldened to perpetrate illegalities due to weak law enforcement. Inadequate political commitment and support for prosecution of fisheries offenders were identified as major obstacles for successful prosecution of IUU offenders. Powerful traditional authorities, politicians, and political parties were cited as beneficiaries of the practice, that would often usurp the prosecutorial process to free culprits when they were arrested. An example of interference of politics and law enforcement is described by a respondent: SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 29 “SFMP came to support the fisheries sector, particularly in the fight against IUU and law enforcement. The project did well but the real problem was the issue of political will to back these initiatives. Without the political will to enforce the laws, the fisheries sector will collapse. The political space is critical, but SFMP did little here. The main issue of light fishing and saiko, are the most topical IUU issues but also has got some political twists. Law enforcement and politics are closely linked. The politicians will want numbers during elections and these numbers (i.e., fisherfolk), if you control them, you lose votes. If you don’t control, you are also not enforcing laws. The politician will sit down and weigh the options, then decide to go with where it is soft. In the case of the saiko, it is complicated. The political will is what is required if we are to succeed in restoring the small pelagic fish stock. The political space is not so geared toward getting these things stopped.” – Fisheries Researcher and Academic, UCC Limited access to alternative livelihood opportunities for fisherfolk was identified as another critical factor constraining efforts aimed at sustainable fishing management and practices. To reduce fishing capacity, fisherfolk need to have access to economically viable alternative livelihood opportunities. Promoting alternative livelihood options for artisanal fishing communities and diversifying local economies would help reduce dependence on fishing and needs to be built into any future fisheries initiatives focusing on sustainable fisheries management. Findings from the evaluation indicate artisanal fishers would consider alternative livelihoods if viable and economically attractive options were available. One innovative strategy that had the potential to contribute to livelihood diversification was the COVID-19 CTs given to some of the fisherfolk. Evidence gathered from CT beneficiaries indicate that while the intended purpose of the CT was to enable households to meet their immediate needs, most beneficiaries used it to kick-start productive activities such as trading. The use of GNCFC to target the beneficiaries was helpful, as it was already in touch with fisherfolk. However, to reduce errors of inclusion and avoid the problem of conflicts associated with the selection of beneficiaries, SFMP should reach out to social welfare officers in the program districts who already have rich experiences in targeting CT beneficiaries under the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) program. 4.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisherfolk in the decision￾making lead to artisanal fisherfolk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the reforms served their interest? 4.3.1 Findings SFMP made significant contributions in building the capacity of key fisheries sector organizations and actors, including the FC, civil society organizations (CSOs), and other local project partners. Across interviews, participants noted that F2F dialogues and various engagements with fishing organizations were critical in “elevating” their voices. Through SFMP, there are now considerable fisher dialogues with agencies and associations. For instance, GNCFC, which used to give handouts to fishmongers, has moved on from being just an input provider to being included in discussions on governing and management measures of the FC. They now play advocacy roles for fisherfolk, exerting greater influence and receiving more recognition. This empowerment taught to fisherfolk by SFMP has had a ripple effect in decision-making processes in policy deliberations on artisanal fisheries. Prior to that, most artisanal fisherfolk were unable to speak publicly, even on issues affecting them. Capacity Enhancement of the Fisheries Commission and Local Partners Interviews with the FC revealed that its capacity has been strengthened as it engages more with the artisanal fisherfolk on issues that affect them on a regular basis, and fisherfolk are able to speak on issues affecting them. The capacity of local partners, including DAA and CEWEFIA, has been enhanced and contributed to the improvement in post-harvest management and CLaT prevention. For instance, under SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 30 SFMP, CEWEFIA’s capacity was strengthened in post-harvest management, fundraising, financial management, and strategic planning. This translated into training over 1,823 women processors in post￾harvest management and business management. Additionally, about 1,195 fish processors were trained in hygienic handling of fish, fish processing, and storage that results in higher market values, decreased loss of processed products, and enhanced quality of products for consumers. Interviews with various key informants and FGD participants at the community level, however, pointed to mixed perceptions in terms of fisherfolk having a voice and influence in policy-making within the fisheries sector. While the leaders of local-level fishing associations mostly indicated SFMP gave them a voice in policy-making, some of their members and individual fisherfolk held opposite views. These individuals indicated that some of them still have some hurdles to overcome regarding the courage to speak in public. Their leaders, however, were able to better articulate what they wanted: “We belong to the GNCFC, and SFMP worked with us a lot. So through that I can say that we have been strengthened. In our work with SFMP, we had the opportunity to engage with other organizations such as NGOs, Fisheries Commission, amongst others.” – Oshiyie Fisherfolk FGD “A lot of changes and benefits. At first, we were unable to speak up in public and that affected our business a lot, but SFMP trained us and developed our advocacy skills. Now we are able to express our opinion to the sector minister among other authorities/officials. SFMP has really empowered and strengthened us. Through the SFMP, I have visited a number of countries such as The Gambia.” – President, Kokrobite Fish Smokers Association “I can say that SFMP has, in a way, strengthened our collaboration with institutions like the Fisheries Commission. When the FC is drafting a bill, they contact us for our views. We are able to channel our problems to the government. Even during the closed season, we had a meeting with government institution.” – Teshie Fisherfolk FGD Fisherfolk Participation in Public Discourses on Fishing The quantitative findings show that a significant number of fisherfolk interviewed (57 percent) feel comfortable speaking in public on issues of community concern including illegal fishing (57 percent) and proposing fishing rules (59.3 percent) (Figures 14 and 15). This is in contrast to the baseline, where 52 percent of women and 22 percent of men said they did not feel comfortable at all or could speak only with great difficulty. Figure. 14: Degree of Comfort Speaking in Public to Protest Illegal Fishing Activities 25.80%(N=153) 31.50%(N=187) 14%(N=83) 12.80%(N=76) 16%(N=95) 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% Yes, very comfortable Yes, fairly comfortable Yes, but with a little difficulty Yes, but with a great deal of difficulty No, not at all comfortable SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 31 Figure 15: Speaking Up in Public to Propose New Rules 22.90%(N=136) 36.40%(N=216) 13.10%(N=78) 10.80%(N=64) 16.80%(N=100) 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% Yes, very comfortable Yes, fairly comfortable Yes, but with a little difficulty Yes, but with a great deal of difficulty No, not at all comfortable Do you feel comfortable speaking up in public to propose new fishing rules needed to rebuild the fisheries Qualitative evidence gathered from KIIs and FGDs suggests that knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding illegal fishing activities have improved. This might have contributed to fisherfolk’s increased ability to speak in public about illegal fishing activities. For example, in the Greater Accra area, many chief fishermen who participated in KIIs indicated that fisherfolk, including women fishmongers and traders, are knowledgeable enough to identify fish that have been caught by light fishing (reddish eyes of the fish). In the Central Region’s Elmina area, women who smoke fish spoke against illegal fishing activities and indicated that sometimes the fish brought to them by fishermen were too soft or had gone bad due to the light used. Their attitudes toward colleagues who engaged in illegal practices is also changing toward collective responsibility and ensuring peer compliance with rules, regulations, and best practices. They readily pointed to practices that they considered to be illegal and undermining the fishing industry, including light fishing, the use of fine mesh, carbide, DDT, dynamite, and mono filament. At the outset of the project, there was evidence many respondents felt very reluctant to speak in public, fearing that they were going to investigate illegal fishing activities. Some respondents attributed this change to SFMP: “As women, SFMP has empowered us a lot. Through their series of trainings now when we talk, we are more than graduates. Most of us used be very shy, but through SFMP we can publicly voice our opinions, mobilize communities, etc. I am now able to even attend meetings at the ministry level. Through SFMP, child trafficking and child labor in the fisheries sector has reduced a lot. Even when we use children or ask them to help us, we pay them very well unlike before.” – President, Bortianor Tsokomey Fish Processors’ Association The 43 percent who said they could speak in public on illegal fishing activities but with some level of difficulty and those who were not at all comfortable cited reasons such as potential reprisal attacks and compromised positions or involvement in illegalities. For example, information gathered from the Central Region suggested that in many communities it was difficult to speak openly in public about illegal fishing activities due to potential reprisal attacks. This is captured by a respondent: “In this community, if you attempt speaking up in public against illegal fishing, the women engaged in fish processing will be hooting at you because they are beneficiaries” (Key Informant, Moree, Central Region). This suggests that there is restricted motivation to participate in shaping the fisheries policy process amongst some fisherfolk. In terms of having a voice in national policy deliberations, the majority of the fisherfolk (53.5 percent) believed they had limited voice at that level (Figure 16). This was primarily related to the incorporation of the voices of artisanal fisherfolk into closed season policy, which according to some respondents had apparently been fixed without adequate consultation and engagement. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 32 Figure 16: Artisanal Fisherfolk Have a Voice in Policy Deliberations 3.20%(N=19) 13.60%(N=81) 29.60%(N=176) 36%(214) 17.50%(N=104) 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Strongly agree Agree Indifferent Disagree Strongly disagree Some qualitative information obtained from KIIs supports this data. For example, in Moree in the Central Region, the fisherfolk, especially the fishermen, refused to talk to the survey team citing various reasons, including the exclusion of fishermen in the policy-making process that directly affects their lives. They emphasized that their exclusion from policy deliberation sometimes creates confusion about what is illegal and what is legal. For example, they mentioned that in the Central Region each community had its own practices deemed legal or illegal, and in the Moree area light fishing was considered illegal, whereas it was considered legal in Komenda and Elmina. The confusion in the fixing of closed season was also cited as a result of the exclusion of fisherfolk in policy deliberation. Respondents argued that the government did not involve them in the decision to choose June/July as the closed season. The period is their “cocoa season,” i.e., their harvest period, and government should have adequately engaged them in arriving at such a critical decision that affects their entire lives. There were extensive regional consultations supported by SFMP and the FC. Not everyone agreed with the closed season. While some communities were opposed to the idea, others were very supportive, and there was a good deal of controversy on the timing. Many disagreed with the initial May-June closure, which was also not recommended by STWG. The subsequent closed season was adjusted in timing and, with few issues in its implementation mostly due to fisherfolk demands, perhaps an example of adaptive management and learning. A closed season for all fleets and canoe fleets was held in 2021. There is also evidence to suggest fisherfolk may not have had effective voice in policy deliberations due to the use of English in policy engagements. According to some chief fishermen, while some of their members were involved in some policy initiatives, language was a barrier. In such meetings, English rather than “Mfantse” (their local language) was used, making it difficult for participants to understand. They suggested Mfantse (and other local languages) be used alongside English. Some chief fishermen narrated their experience at meetings where fishermen were responding, “yes sir,” to every policy proposal, but when explained in Mfantse, they objected to them. This means fisherfolk may be part of policy deliberations, but they are not effectively contributing to the shaping of policies. There was also the perception that even if fisherfolk spoke their opinions, they did not matter. There was a frequent belief that “government does not respect us; that is why we are not included in decision-making.” The above notwithstanding, there is evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of respondents (16.80 percent) believed they have sway in policy deliberations (Figure 16): “…. And the amazing thing is that our views are highly considered in the enactment of fisheries bills and policies. Our views are reflected in fisheries bills. For example, about this closed season, I remember we once attended a meeting at Cape Coast, and in that meeting we were asked to propose a month for the closed season. Honestly, the month I proposed was the month they accepted for the implementation of the closed season.” – NAFPTA member, Nungua, Greater Accra SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 33 Of the 16.8 percent of the fisherfolk who responded that they had a voice in policy deliberations, 98.3 percent of them attributed this to reforms under SFMP, including F2F dialogues. Co-management Co-management was one of the mechanisms to facilitate fisherfolk voices in fisheries policy and governance. By design, the co-management was planned such that all project actors, including the scientific community, would work in concert with the local fisherfolk, including women. However, the majority of the respondents (87.2 percent) said they were unable to confirm that the co￾management policy enabled local stakeholders to make direct contribution to the fisheries management decision-making process (Figure 17). The policy has yet to be implemented across the entire coastal region. If this question had been directed to the three areas where the community￾based fisheries management plans were developed with the involvement of local community members, the result could have been different. Figure 17: The Co-management Policy Enabled Local Stakeholders to Make Direct Contributions to the Fisheries Management Decision-Making Process 2.90%(N=17) 7.20%(N=43) 87.20%(N=518) 1.50%(N=9) 1.20%(N=7) 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Strongly agree Agree Indifferent Disagree Strongly disagree Discussion with SFMP revealed that during the co-management policy’s final socialization and education meetings, fishermen recommended prioritizing a small pelagic committee. This means the policy has not been a driver for enabling local fisherfolk to contribute to the decision-making process. Closed Season The closed season was one of SFMP’s key reforms. SFMP helped the GoG implement its first fishing closed season in 2019. While this happened at the tail end of the project, the 2021–2025 Fisheries Management Plan includes placing an emphasis on the closed season on all fleets as a viable strategy for rebuilding the depleted fish stock. A proposed closed season in 2020 was suspended due to COVID-19. While all participants agreed that there was a high compliance to 2021’s closed season, the major concern raised by fisherfolk was their voices were not adequately incorporated into the closed season policy initiative. Evidence gathered from the evaluation indicates while SFMP facilitated awareness￾creation on the need for the fishery closed season, the stakeholder engagements that led to the closed season were more of an elite consultation, i.e., engagements with national-level actors and some selected chief fishermen who rarely consulted with fisherfolk after attending meetings. Information gathered from KIIs and FGDs indicated that the process to arrive at the period for the closed season did not adequately consider the views of fisherfolk who wanted it to be implemented in May or June instead of July. The following quotes on closed season exemplify the frustration of fishers of not being adequately involved in the process of fixing of the period, as well as the negative effect it had on them: SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 34 “I would suggest that before subsequent closed seasons, the fisherfolk should be met to discuss it with us. Some were really affected by the closed season. The timing was very bad for us.” – FGD Participant, Oshiyie “I want to make it very clear that the closed season did not help us in any way at all. Our lives were miserable during the closed season. We could not even cater for our children’s education because we had no money.” – FGD Participant, Oshiyie “The closed season is not helpful at all, mainly because it was done at the wrong time and also during such seasons, the fisherfolk have no alternative livelihood to fall on. It really affected us negatively in many ways.” – FGD Participant, Akplabanya, Ada West District, Greater Accra Region Fisherfolk complained about the socio-economic impact of the closed season, for which they advocated for their active involvement in choosing the date to reduce its effects. SFMP’s study on the Socio￾Economic, Food Security, and Nutrition Impacts of the 2019 Canoe Fishery Closed Fishing Season in Ghana17 also reported temporary loss of household income and livelihoods for canoe fishing households during the closed season. 4.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 4 To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisherfolk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms? 4.4.1 Findings SFMP’s approach to livelihoods was targeted to women and youth in the fisheries sector. The original SFMP implemented a number of measures to strengthen the economic resilience of fisherfolk, including post-harvest processing and handling practices in the artisanal sector, as well as promotion of micro￾insurance and credit. Working with the Post-Harvest Unit of the Fisheries Commission, Ghana Standards Authority, and the Food and Drugs Authority, a Class 1 certification scheme was developed that certifies artisanal fish-smoking kitchens as meeting a minimal set of quality standards. Documents reviewed suggest there are 28 certified fish processing facilities as of January 2021. The certification scheme requires the use of the Ahotor smoker, which was developed by SFMP. This smoker is deemed to be more fuel-efficient and produces lower polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are known to be carcinogenic and therefore potentially harmful to fish smokers. SFMP further invested heavily in training fish processors and traders in improved fish handling and packaging, as well as in business skills development. Documents reviewed showed that about 1,195 persons (120 men and 1,075 women) were trained in hygienic fish-handling practices that reduce microbial contamination during processing. SFMP also built two model fish processing and training centers and developed the capacity of the processor associations who managed the facilities—DAA in Greater Accra and CEWEFIA in the Central Region. These centers continue to train women and produce improved fisheries products by association members for sale in Ghana and beyond. Part of the measures to strengthen the economic resilience of fisherfolk included support for the establishment of VSLAs and cooperation with Microfinance and Small Loans Center (MASLOC), the government-sponsored microfinance program giving discounted interest rates to provide financing mechanisms for women businesses. Documents reviewed suggested that 56 micro-savings entities (VSLAs) were set up, and 1,174 beneficiaries (1,103 female) participated in these group-based savings, micro-finance, or lending programs. As of November 2020, these groups saved 17 Ofori-Danson, P.K., Asiedu, B., Amponsah, S.K.K., Crawford, B. (2019). Assessment of the Socio-Economic, Food Security and Nutrition Impacts of the 2019 Canoe Fishery Closed Fishing Season in Ghana. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project. Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_SCI076_CRC. Pp. 109. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 35 $51,496 and originated loans to the tune of $16,136. A total of $ 92,876 in financing from MASLOC was accessed, benefiting 492 fish processing businesses. The evaluation found that these initiatives were all important, but were not entirely sufficient to strengthen the economic resilience of fisherfolk to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms. Feedback from SFMP staff, however, indicates the original SFMP was not designed to provide alternative or complementary livelihood options for fisherfolk, which may explain the limited progress on strengthening economic resilience of fisherfok under the original SFMP. In the case of the Ahotor oven, a major legacy of SFMP, several respondents shared positive narratives about it in terms of its contribution to improved fish processing. Evidence from project documents indicates there are over 700 Ahotor smokers in use in the coastal regions. Further, SFMP trained 56 artisans who could construct Ahotor smokers along the entire coastline. There are now six stove companies employing 19 artisans and 15 independent artisans who are currently constructing ovens. Yet, many respondents complained that it was costly and very time consuming, especially when processing large quantities of fish. However, the health benefits of using the Ahotor oven appear to override the capacity complaints. Consumer awareness of quality concerns and health risks for processed fish products is low. Price premiums and profit margins based on the value added of certification are unlikely to receive acceptance in the short-term. Due to these bottlenecks, respondents usually resorted to the traditional chorkor oven, and at other times, used the Ahotor oven for private and/or small occasions such as funerals and weddings. Key concerns shared by respondents include: “The Ahotor oven is expensive. When you put the cost aside, the nature of the work that women do requires good time management. It takes a long time to process the fish, while with the Chorkor, you put in more fire and it starts burning and very soon you see the fish cooked.” – FGD Participant, Central Region The microfinance and micro-insurance interventions exhibited great potential for strengthening the economic resilience of fisherfolk. The introduction of VSLAs has the potential to fill a critical gap in access to capital for fishmongers. There is high demand in fishing communities that have seen the benefits of VSLAs already established by SFMP. “When they [SFMP] started this Village Savings and Loan Association, they [the beneficiaries/VSLA members] were no more thinking about going to the banks to collect loans because of the high interest. Some were able to sponsor their children to go to junior or senior high school as a result of the VSLA. This has been very beneficial to the women fish processors.” – Project Manager, CEWEFIA Fishing households in Ghana are highly dependent on fishing-related livelihoods and typically have few, if any, non-fishing livelihood support. This makes them highly vulnerable to shocks such as those that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic or when management measures are implemented that curtail fishing-related income such as closed seasons. SFMP, as part of the COVID-19 response cost extension, tested three livelihood strategies by providing training and in-kind grant support for youth from fishing communities in three different livelihood options. The first was soap making, which SFMP selected to take advantage of the demand for handwashing soap driven by COVID-19 safety protocols. SFMP selected the other two livelihood options (baking of confections and snacks or installation and repair of satellite TVs and air conditioners) based on the results of initial stakeholder outreach to youth from fishing communities and apex fisheries organizations. Working through partners DAA, CEWEFIA, FoN, and HM, SFMP put out a call for applications for participation in livelihoods trainings, ultimately selecting 138 youth (aged 18–35) from fishing households. In order to remove male fishers from the fishery, the strategy will need to include livelihoods specifically tailored for these men to address unemployment. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 36 4.5 EVALUATION QUESTION 5 To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes, likely to be adopted by the government or other actors after the project ends? 4.5.1 Findings Many activities were undertaken by SFMP during its program implementation. Some technical approaches included training and capacity-building programs for stakeholders in the fisheries sector, canoe registration, support for environmental police research leading to sustainable fisheries management, awareness creation of illegal fishing practices, and promotion of alternate fishing practices. SFMP made its stakeholders custodians of its policy interventions through constant engagement and securing representation on FC boards and committees addressing gender issues. There has been considerable involvement and engagement with the FC and relevant stakeholders of the sector and its Ministry. F2F dialogues supported by the project played a key role in building stronger constituencies supporting regulatory reforms, including fisherfolk’s buy-in into the canoe vessel registration. There are indications the FC will adopt F2F dialogues to enhance fisheries sector management and governance. SFMP-supported STWG contributed to the use of science in fisheries management decisions. Scientific recommendations provided by STWG contributed to the creation of the political will within MOFAD and the FC to declare closed seasons for the trawler, semi-industrial, and canoe sectors. The sustained use of science in fisheries management decisions will largely depend on the FC’s Fisheries Enforcement Unit (FEU), which is mandated to ensure regulations are enforced. As outlined in the national co￾management policy, the FC has indicated its commitment to sustaining the ad hoc project-supported STWG that modeled good co-management practices into formalized co-management institutions. The sustenance of the technical approaches will require the collective and collaborative efforts of all constituencies, agencies, institutions, and key stakeholders. The sustainability of closed seasons and possibly closed areas will more likely depend on the political will of current and successive governments. In the small pelagics, co-management governance frameworks were not operating formally prior to SFMP. The project worked toward that, and a National Co-Management Policy Framework was approved and adopted by the GoG. The approval of the co-management policy is an indication of the likelihood of adoption by the government. That is, fisheries co-management decisions will most likely continue to operate with sustained engagement of fisherfolk associations and policy implementors. The FC has a mandate to sustainably manage both marine and inland fisheries. SFMP made a significant contribution to implementing effective management measures, including canoe registration and the implementation of canoe sector closed seasons. The successful implementation of the 2021 closed season is a concrete demonstration of this key SFMP-attributable management practice post-project implementation. Discussions with the FC and other local government agencies suggest the likelihood of government adoption of the fisheries co-management decisions and outcomes following the approval of National Co-Management Policy Framework. This is reflected in responses to the questions related to the role of SFMP in strengthening collaboration with institutions and government agencies and sustainability of the fisheries management decisions: “ I can say that SFMP has, in a way, strengthened our collaboration with institutions like the Fisheries Commission. When they the FC is drafting a bill, they contact us for our views. We are able to channel our problems to the government. Even during the closed season, we had a meeting with government institution.” – Teshie Fisherfolk, FDG Participant “I would say that they have done their part in rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks; but it is left for the government to its rightful role in rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks. The government would take SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 37 bribe and free illegal fisher folks and all that. It is the government that has a greater role to play in rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks.” – President, Botianor Women Processors Overall, 78.80 percent of fishers interviewed received SFMP training on improved fish handling and/or practices, hygienic fish processing, small business development, training on public advocacy or leadership skills building, fisheries management, and/or fish biology and conflict management (Figure 18). Figure 18: SFMP Training Areas 12.30%(N=60) 20.70%(N=101) 14.80%(N=72) 22.30%(N=109) 12.50%(N=61) 13.50%(N=66) 3.90%(N=19) 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% conflict management hygienic fish processing small business development improved fish handling and/or processing practices fisheries management and/or fish biology training on public advocacy or leadership skills building other Interactions with various stakeholders across the fisheries value chain suggest that these capacity￾building initiatives are likely to be scaled up due to their immense potential in improving the livelihoods of fisherfolk, particular women. The training for the fishmongers included hygienic fish handling, fish packaging, storage, business development, and financial management. The training of fishmongers was rated as an activity likely to be adopted and scaled up by other local partners and actors: “We [CEWEFIA] trained them [the women] on hygienic fish handling, including how they will be able to handle the fish hygienically, package it well, be able to store it well, and buy quality fish and healthy one. We also trained them in business development and financial management ….. we taught them advocacy skills, leadership skills, and how to manage conflict and group dynamics. This can be scaled up.” – Project Manager, CEWEFIA, Western Region “We have received series of training from SFMP. We were trained on hygienic fish-handling methods, trained on VSLA to enhance our savings, book/record keeping among many other things. The VSLA will certainly continue after SFMP.” – Fish Processor and Organizer, Nungua Fish Processors Association, Greater Accra Canoe Registration The canoe registration started under WARFP and was completed by SFMP. The program is ongoing, and its main objective is to control the number of canoes on the seas. Findings from the evaluation indicate the likelihood of this continuing is very high. For instance, information obtained from the canoe registration is currently being used by the government for the distribution of premix fuel to the fishers. “The sea has become an open access and maybe from our traditional concepts they [fisherfolk] have the mentality that once the sea passes through their community it's automatically theirs. But it should be seen as a national asset and hence must be protected by the institution mandated to do it. So the initiative to register the canoe is a kind of a control measure, which is great! Every canoe has a number, so say if you own ten canoes then you would have ten numbers because we didn’t register the owners SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 38 but the canoes instead. It is a gradual process to get them out of this open-access situation because once we bring out the cards they can’t just go to sea without their cards and for those not registered now if they want to go to sea, they have to come to us [the FC] first to be registered. This is the only way we can regulate them, and the ultimate goal is to be able to control the number of canoes on our seas and this can be done if we can control both the exit and entry pathways. This is very high on FC’s agenda, so it will be scaled up.” – Fisheries Officer, Central Region Fisheries Commission Overall, implementation of the knowledge gained from SFMP’s technical approaches has brought a positive impact in the lives and livelihoods of the fishers as well as created a conducive policy environment for sustainable fisheries management. As such, these approaches to a large extent are likely to be adopted by the government and other actors after the project ends. 5.0 MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES MSC stories involved the collection of stories from project beneficiaries. The stories were collected by asking questions like: “In your own view, what is the most significant change that took place in your life by participating in the project?” “Why do you consider this to be the most significant change?” and “Why do you think this change is very significant?” MSC provided a method to find out which changes were valued by stakeholders—by selecting the MSC, project beneficiaries in effect identify what it is that they most value. Because stories were collected from different project stakeholders, the evaluation team was also able to examine differences in what was valued, a “for whom” analysis of valuing. MSC stories were captured across various SFMP domains. The most reported changes related to improved knowledge of IUUs and their effects on the small pelagic fisheries sector, increased knowledge of CLaT laws, improved hygienic processing and trading of fish, CT improved livelihoods, and improved enabling environment for sustainable fisheries management. Domain 1: Improved enabling environment for sustainable fisheries management For most of the key informants, including the chief fishermen, the co-management policy and canoe registrations were their MSC stories. These were said to have created an enabling environment for sustainable fisheries management even after SFMP. Some fisherfolk also mentioned the co-management policy as another innovation introduced by SFMP in the fisheries sector. The co-management policy is a national policy framework that sets the stage for greater participatory decision-making, including men and women stakeholders in the fishery, through formal co-management institutions. “SFMP made significant contributions to implementing effective management measures through the implementation of canoe registration and the co-management policy. These are major successes from the project.” – Executive Director, FC Domain 2: Closed season Information gathered from participants at all levels revealed there were no closed seasons prior to SFMP. Closed seasons were implemented for all fleets, including the canoe sector, for the first time, and for selected estuaries with new closures in 2021. “Before the project there was no close season. The project made everybody to understand the need to implement a proper closed season. Stakeholders understood the need for a dialogue on closed season. The dialogue has progressed earnestly, and as a key project impact, and this is no small success particularly in the rescheduling of the closed season.” Karen Kent, URI/CRC SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 39 “I can easily tell you right now that after the closed season the harvest has been good. I think is ok you see after the closed season what they we are getting at the coastal belt is really great. I think is ok than before, so when the government come in and stop all those illegal methods of fishing then I think everybody will be satisfied.” – Chief Fisherman, Anloga “Scientific recommendations provided by the Science and Technical Working Group established by the SFMP, as well as SFMP-supported stakeholder dialogues and negotiations created the needed political will within MOFAD and the Fisheries Commission to declare closed seasons for the trawl, semi-industrial, and canoe sectors. This for me is a significant change in the fisheries sector.” – Fisheries Manager, FC Domain 3: Improved knowledge of IUU Across all levels of stakeholders, improvement in fisherfolk’s knowledge about illegal fishing was rated as high under SFMP. “It was through the SFMP training that we got to know that fishes from light fishing are not good, not safe for consumption, and also some dangers (for example low prices) we stand to face in processing light fishes. SFMP taught us how to differentiate between light fish and normal fish. SFMP also organizes the chief fishermen and trains them. Through this training, our chief fisherman tried his best to ensure that no fisherman in this community practices light fishing. He (chief fisherman) ensured that no fish from light fishing would ever be allowed at our landing sites. So no light fishes ever come to our landing sites. As fish processors, we also make sure that we don’t buy light fishes.” – Fish Processor, Botianor, Greater Accra “One significant thing that happened under the SFMP was education about illegal fishing. On the side of the fishermen, SFMP usually gathered the fishermen and showed fishing-related videos (e.g. how saiko is done and its associated dangers, etc.). Indeed, in this community saiko is not practiced, but such videos provided fisherfolk intelligence on such fishing activities. These interactions and exposures were precursors for halting bad and illegal fishing practices to facilitate rebuilding the fish stocks.” – Fisheries Officer, FC, Western Region “The Fisheries Commission was initially not coming down. It is SFMP that opened the eyes of the fishermen, that they were able to know that they are not supposed to use obnoxious chemicals to catch fish and that, that light fishing was not a good thing, that it was illegal, and that the small nets were not supposed to be used to catch fish because. When you go to places like Axim, Ankobra, Asanta, Agona West, Akatakyi, Funko, New Amanfor have all decided to stop using obnoxious chemicals due to the awareness-creation under SFMP.” – Chief Fisherman, Komenda “Yes, there has been change in the attitudes of fisherfolk and also there has been sanity in the fisheries sector through SFMP. Most illegal fishing practices have stopped because of SFMP.” – Chief Fisherman, Tema, Greater Accra Domain 4: Improved hygienic processing and trading of fish Stories gathered from fishmongers and traders pointed to SFMP’s significant contribution to improvements in the post-harvest fisheries value chain. SFMP engaged women, built their capacity as entrepreneurs, and provided orientation on how they could make significant improvements on the cleanliness and safety of their products through training on Hygienic Handling of Fish: Class 1 Certification Guidelines. Fishers and fish processors interviewed who were members of VSLAs reported an improved saving culture. “Again, in the past we could keep the fresh fish down for some time before processing it, but through SFMP that attitude has changed. So now before the fish is brought from the landing sites, the necessary processing preparation have been made.” – Fish Monger, Moree, Central Region SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 40 “Fish handling and processing, particularly smoking of fish, has been adopted by the fish processors and the health benefits that it brings can be sustained by continued training by FC.” – Head of Post￾Harvest, FC “The processors also make sure that they always cover their heads, wear aprons, etc. when processing the fish. When you see us processing fish, we look like we are working in a factory. And all these changes were as a result of the SFMP training.” – Cecilia Agbesi, President, Bortianor Tsokomey Fish Processors’ Association “The Ahotor oven initiative under SFMP was excellent. Before the Ahotor oven was initiated, fish mongers were using unhygienic methods of smoking fish, which was very unhygienic. Compared to the Chokor oven, the Ahotor can smoke the fish hygienically and the fish can be stored for more than six months. They [SFMP] also introduced what is called the Class 1 certification, which ensures that fish processors and traders adopt high standards for hygienic fish handling and processing. This has promoted the consumption of healthy fish and improved market access to fish processors who use the Ahotor oven.” – Treasurer, NAFPTA, Central Region Domain 5: Sustainable fisheries management—management of oyster fisheries in the Densu River by women This is one of the largest achievements of the project—oyster fishing in the Densu River has been delegated to women. “Management of oyster fisheries in the Densu River by women. This remains one of the most striking achievements of the project; oyster fishing in the Densu River has been relegated to women and this has empowered them. The project enhanced the capacity of the women to the extent that they are now managing the entirety of the activities of oyster fishing in the river, including the management of the close season. This is very significant and demonstrate stakeholder ownership, a major achievement of the project.” – Program Manager, CEWEFIA, Central Region Domain 6: Increased knowledge on CLaT Across all stakeholder groups, respondents said SFMP contributed significantly to improving community knowledge on CLaT. “With the inception of SFMP, we became aware of child labor and trafficking through advocacy on radio and television. Also, security was tightened at the various borders when they saw vehicles with many children. These offenders get arrested.” – Treasurer, NAFPTA, Central Region “In a great way, there has been a transformation in child labor and trafficking, which for me is a significant change under the project. I can say that children’s involvement in fishing activities has drastically reduced. However, not every child would want to go to school. Some would want to learn a trade, so there is the need for such children to be supported. Though you may see some children around the landing site, especially during school vacation, I can say that there has been a great reduction in children involvement in the fishing activity and this transformation can be attributed to SFMP because of the education and sensitization they conducted.” – FGD Participant, Kokrobite, Greater Accra “The child labor and trafficking prevention is also another significant contribution from the project. It has also been able to open the eyes of the parents. Formerly, people didn’t really understand child labor and trafficking well. They were thinking that they have their own child and if they are telling their child to do A, B, or C, where lies the worry? For example, they can say that they are fishermen so they have to train their children in fishing so that when they grow up, they can also become fishermen. Some even train their children at the age of four. Others too will say they are fish processors so we must allow them to train their daughters in fish processing at the age of four or five so why should they take their children to SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 41 school. They don’t understand why their children should go to school, but with this program they are enlightened. But now, the story has changed significantly due to the project interventions.” – Project Manager, CEWEFIA 6.0 SUSTAINABILITY The evaluation conceptualized sustainability in three ways: sustaining SFMP components, sustaining SFMP impacts, and mainstreaming or incorporating active ingredients of the intervention into other programs. The findings show SFMP had strong elements and models that can be adopted, replicated, and scaled up. The capacity development component through awareness-creation activities on IUUs and CLaT, and capacity enhancement of MOFAD, the FC, and other fisheries associations make a formidable force for catalyzing information dissemination and diffusion of innovations for sustainable fisheries management post-SFMP. “In terms of sustainability, I will say that SFMP has been very instrumental in providing capacity-building for FC staff, and this would ensure that the gains made from their initiative would be sustained even in the times ahead. The training of marine police staff and education of the fisherfolk on abstaining from illegal fishing practices would further enhance the sustenance of the achievements of SFMP while providing opportunities for enhancing populations of pelagic stocks. Under the FC the Fisheries Enforcement Unit will continue to protect our marine fisheries to ensure sustainability.” – Senior Official, FC FC staff revealed the FC adopted sustainable approaches that would scale up SFMP’s gains. A prime example is the closed season. While it had difficult start and stops, a closed season was held in 2021 after the project ended for all fleets, including canoes, and timing was changed from original 2019 closure to a period more in line with SFMP’s STWG recommendations. There are strong indications from the FC that the closed season will be sustained. Further, the community-based plans and associated closed season in the pilot estuaries are also still being done, years after intervention stopped. Another key strategy to achieving sustainability was the strengthening of the policy and legal environment for more participatory governance of Ghana’s fisheries. SFMP supported the development of the fisheries co-management policy framework, which was approved in 2020. The co-management policy provides a clear road map for creating permanent institutional arrangements for fisherfolk’s participation in decision-making at all stages and allows for use rights to be granted. One sustainability consideration relates to the Fisheries Act and the need to amend it to consolidate the current gains. SFMP and WARFP cooperated and invested heavily in working with MOFAD and the FC to identify areas in need of change and to support improved management of Ghana’s fisheries sector. The process went very far through stakeholder consultation and all the way to approval by the Cabinet to start the formal process of submitting a bill to the Attorney General’s office. All the groundwork for the new language and permissions were done under SFMP. Getting the bill passed would be critical for sustainability of items such as the canoe licensing, limited access, and co-management policies. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 CONCLUSIONS SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 42 SFMP positively impacted efforts to rebuild the pelagic fisheries of the Ghanaian marine waters. SFMP publicized the main factors that contribute to the dwindling of Ghanaian marine fish stocks. Awareness￾creation is a precondition for addressing issues impacting the fisheries, especially in situations where IUU has been going on for a considerable period. The strategies by SFMP to try and halt these practices were relevant and effective. For example, some fisherfolk were unaware of the dangers of light fishing and its related health problems. SFMP caused MOFAD and fisherfolk to effect a closed season for the marine fisheries sector, which was observed by all. There were mixed feelings about its effectiveness over its short duration and timing in 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a perceived economic short￾changing of the fisherfolk, but SFMP swiftly provided a safety net to alleviate affected fisherfolk while piloting approaches for providing them skills and resources for alternative livelihoods. Fisherfolk learned soap making, bread baking, television repairs, etc. to facilitate income-earning during future closed seasons. Stakeholder engagements and participation in decision-making processes contributed to providing fisherfolk a voice in policy issues. It also raised fisherfolk’s expectations for their voice to be heard, which changed the attitude of the FC about the value of hearing them. For now, the outcomes of the interventions for rebuilding the fish stocks are less apparent, and more time is required to see changes. There is a need to sustain what SFMP has initiated over its project period and collect data and information on fish stocks in the future. Anecdotal reports from some fishermen suggest that there is some compliance with the use of proper mesh size netting for fishing. There is a sustained effort by MOFAD to wipe out light fishing in the Central Region, and it recently imposed sanctions on fishers at Elmina by withholding supply of premix fuel supplies and subsidies. The GoG should reconsider withdrawing fuel subsidies to minimize and control overfishing. SFMP’s assessment of Subsidies in Ghana’s Marine Fisheries Sector18 found that the premix fuel subsidy and tax waivers cost the GoG $44 million annually. There are better alternatives the subsidies could be spent on such as closed season safety nets and/or provision of alternative livelihoods to protect the fishery, e.g., SFMP’s CTs to poor fishing communities as part of its COVID-19 interventions. It is estimated that about $3 million per year is spent on subsidies. This amount can be used to create a safety net to support poor fishing households, especially in difficult times of closed fishing seasons. The SFMP subsidies assessment report also recommended phasing out subsidies in the marine fisheries sector and putting the money into alternative uses that would be more beneficial to fisherfolk (Tobey et al. 2016) 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS In line with the evaluation findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are made to inform the Ghana’s fisheries section policy and programming. Rebuild the small pelagic fish stock by creating an enabling environment that supports adaptive marine resources management. Revise and implement the National Marine Fisheries Management Plan and the Fisheries Act. Rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks of the marine waters of Ghana is an arduous task now that fishery exploitation has reached its existing unsustainable level. SFMP intervention put considerable brakes on the exploitation pattern, which was heading toward fishing to extinction. It is therefore recommended that the FC expedite action on the revision of the National Marine Fisheries Management Plan, which expired in 2019, and implement measures to safeguard the fisheries sector. Further, MOFAD and the FC are in the process of considering revisions of the Fisheries Act of 2002 and its amendments. Getting the Fisheries Act passed would be critical for the sustainability of items such as the 18 Tobey, J., A. K. Normanyo, P. Osei, K. Beran, & B. Crawford (2016). Subsidies in Ghana’s Marine Artisanal Fisheries Sector. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_POL059_CRC. Pp. 53. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 43 canoe licensing and limited access and co-management policies. Terminate open access and require vessel registration. The uncontrolled and open access to artisanal fisheries should be terminated and backed by law. To achieve this, all canoes and boats should be registered. This process has started already but needs to be completed. Current effort toward ending open access and reducing fishing effort should be intensified in both the artisanal and semi-industrial sub-sectors. This recommendation was made by SFMP in its reporting on status of small pelagic socks in 2017. The process can start with a canoe moratorium, then move to a reduction in fishing time for all fleets. The trawler sector fleet also needs to be reduced. Sustain the co-management policy. SFMP supported MOFAD and the FC to secure Cabinet approval for the co-management policy. In light of the continued depletion of the small pelagic fish stock due to ineffective management and unsound exploitation, it is impossible to succeed in the management of marine resources if this endeavor only relies on the government’s resources. Rather, there is an urgent need to rely on local communities through a co-management pattern. Support for the implementation and operationalization of the co￾management policy is urgent. This calls for the development of work plans, including budgets and activities, to implement the policy. Fishing communities should be actively involved in the implementation of co-management of the fishing sector. This will get them involved in decision-making and policy issues, and make them watchdogs over the IUUs in the sector. It is anticipated that successful implementation of the policy would ensure inclusivity in the management of the small pelagic fish stock and also promote voluntary compliance with management regulations and standards. Further, the co￾management policy makes provisions for the creation of co-management committees and scientific technical committees. It is recommended that USAID support the FC to step up and operationalize these management structures and institutionalize them for sustainable fisheries co-management. Support community-based fisheries management approaches. SFMP supported the development, adoption, and implementation of three community-based fishery management plans in three estuaries along the coast—the Ankobra, Pra and Densu estuaries—which followed a parallel process of development while partnering with the FC, a local NGO, local government, and fisherfolk. It is recommended that these co-management initiatives be sustained and scaled up nationwide to rally support for the marine fishery closed season. There is also the need to replicate the women’s shellfisheries co-management enhanced approach from the toolkit being developed under the USAID/Women Shellfishers and Food Security Project (nutrition and landscape pressure measures added) in all Ghana’s ecosystems with shellfisheries. Continue closed seasons. To sustain the closed season, there is a need to consider investments and linkages of fisherfolk to social intervention programs (e.g., school feeding and the GoG’s LEAP program) to offset the socioeconomic impact of closed seasons. SFMP’s assessment on Subsidies in the Marine Fisheries Sector also recommended the need to divert savings from pre-mix expenses to cash support for fisherfolk during closed seasons (Tobey et al. 2016). Early announcement (minimum of four months) of future closed seasons will give fishers adequate time to prepare for the closure. Further, the closed season should not be a standalone intervention, but rather implemented alongside effective enforcement of existing laws on IUU, including but not limited to mesh size control and bans on light fishing, dynamite, chemicals, saiko fishing, etc. before and after the closure. Apply Science and Research in Fisheries Management. Conduct stock assessments for the pelagic fishery. The FC, through its Marine Fisheries Department at Tema, should take a lead role in conducting stock SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 44 assessments periodically, possibly annually, and share these results with all stakeholders. The data will be useful in decision-making processes on strategic exploitation patterns of the fishery. The FC should consider the idea of involving the Department of Marine and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Ghana, Legon, the UCC Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences and the Department of Fisheries and Watershed Management of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) Kumasi. The co-management policy also makes provisions for the establishment of a Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) to provide sustainable mechanisms for stock assessments. The policy states that “the committee will assist the FC with independent data analyses and assessment of stock levels of some important fish species in Ghanaian waters.” This should be vigorously pursued and operationalized. Create Constituencies and Stakeholder Engagement. Institutionalize the Fisher-to-Fisher dialogue process. The evaluation findings point to the increased role played by F2F in increasing the agency and the voice of fisherfolk in fisheries sector decision-making processes. For instance, F2F played a key role in addressing issues, including the most opportune time to implement the 2020 fisheries closed season, implementation of the Canoe Identification Card, and strategies to stop illegal harvesting and transshipment of juvenile fish species by trawler vessels. It is recommended that F2F dialogues be institutionalized to ensure their sustainability. This can be achieved through setting up and operationalization of the co-management committees espoused in the co-management policy. Enforce fishing laws and regulations. Compliance with fishing laws and regulations would require continuous engagement with fisherfolk and stakeholders and F2F dialogues. This can be facilitated by the FC and MOFAD. Urgent action is needed for implementation of regulations to curb excessive fishing efforts and address overcapacity in all fleets. The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and FEU could team up in the enforcement of fishing laws at sea. Ghana’s VMS does not only track vessel movements, but also monitors logbooks, landing declarations, and catch certificates’ completion processes at sea (Fisheries Management Plan of Ghana 2015–2019). VMS data are important and help develop strategic actions for Ghana’s compliance with both domestic and international obligations as a flag, port, and market state. VMS should be upgraded to better track offenders. There is evidence that VMS, working with the Ghana Navy, has had its equipment jammed to hinder the location of an offending saiko vessel, and human observers have been captured and/or lost. (Fisheries Commission Board Personal Communication). The registration of canoes with electronic tags using Automatic Identification System (AIS) technology is recommended to monitor unacceptable practices at sea. Reduce the level of fishing effort. SFMP has openly exposed the unsustainable and illegal fishing practices that are depleting the small pelagic fish stocks in the Ghanaian marine waters and impoverishing those whose livelihoods are intricately linked to the fishing industry. The FC and GoG should continue the SFMP’s initiative to pursue a fisheries management agenda that seeks to considerably reduce the level of fishing effort with a desire to approach a Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The implementation of the fishing registration and Canoe Identification Card are critical in this regard. The fishing licensing program for artisanal fisheries should continue until all fishers are covered. The process should include continued education and dialogues with representatives. Restriction on new entrants to the fishery based on hard data and fishery statistics and fishing effort is recommended for sustainability. Deter illegal fishing and impose penalties for offenders. Evidence from the evaluation points to restricted progress on reducing illegal fishing, and a lack of deterrent fines and penalties by law enforcement agencies when the offender is caught. Illegal fishing practices remain a problem that future interventions need to focus on. Deterrent penalties should be SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 45 put in place by the FC and government to make illegal fishing an unlucrative business. Further, it is imperative for a high-level (presidential) order to stop IUU and illegal fish transshipment or saiko within the coastal waters of Ghana. High-level political support and the avoidance of political interference in the prosecutorial process is essential for the formal adoption of fishery reforms and law enforcement actions. This will, for instance, empower the FC and FEU to confidently enforce the fisheries laws required to promote sustainable fishing practices. Educate political parties. The evaluation findings indicate that political interference involving the hierarchy of political parties is one of the major factors affecting the enforcement of fisheries regulations and compliance of fisherfolk with regulations. It is therefore recommended that the FC and MOFAD organize workshops to educate political parties on the implications of their actions on the sector. Create closed areas and marine habitat protection areas. Several marine fishes spawn in estuaries and lagoons, especially the euryhaline species that traverse between fresh and marine waters. A strategic action to sustain the gains of SFMP would be the creation of marine habitat protection areas that seek to protect nursery areas and spawning grounds, particularly in estuaries and mangroves. Fishers along the coast of Ghana fish in both mangroves and lagoon areas. The fishers not capture only demersals but pelagic too, which are euryhaline. Some mangroves and lagoons have direct connections with rivers and streams, and therefore harbor pelagic species from the inflowing streams. The protection of those areas therefore remains relevant, although it is also true that the marine pelagics spend their entire life in the marine waters. Sustain Post-Harvest Improvements. Continue post-harvest management and trainings. To sustain SFMP’s achievements in reducing post-harvest fish losses, there is a need to focus on minimizing the damage to fish while at sea and enhance hygienic handling during processing. Fish processors have been trained by SFMP on these management practices. The FC’s Post-Harvest Division should continue training and monitoring progress with the new fish smoking methods introduced such as the Ahotor fish smoker, which also has health benefits. Post-harvest certification for implementing a CODEX-based prerequisite program using the improved fish smoking oven should continue to be operational for sustainable hygienic fish supply to meet international standards. In this case, MOFAD and the FC should engage the fisherfolk for completeness, drawing upon the successful methodologies employed and demonstrated by SFMP. Cross-Cutting Issues Continue anti-child labor and trafficking campaigns. Findings point to the effectiveness of SFMP’s anti-CLaT campaigns. USAID should continue to support local partners and NGOs with grants to tackle the menace of CLaT. Evidence gathered from the evaluation indicates that the use of Sunday school children is a powerful strategy in communicating CLaT to children. A church and/or faith-based CLaT initiative is worth supporting. Scale up gender mainstreaming. The evaluation findings show that the training on leadership development, business skills development, and fisheries resource management contributed to women’s empowerment and increased voice and participation in fisheries management. It is recommended that these interventions be scaled up. There is also the need to ensure effective implementation of the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy for the Fisheries Sector. Further, there is the need to scale-up the VSLAs established by SFMP to enhance women’s access to credit. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 46 Continue the COVID-19 Response. Intensify the SBCC campaign on COVID-19 preventive measures in fisheries communities. Evidence from the evaluation indicates that fisherfolk’s adherence to COVID-19 protocols has reduced. Some of fisherfolk have the perception that the disease no longer exists or the sea water is a cure. The COVID-19 SBCC materials developed by SFMP can be used by the FC to continue the education process. The reality is that COVID-19 is still prevalent, with new variants continuing to be discovered. It is therefore important for the FC to sustain SFMP’s COVID-19 response program. Expand the safety net program. The fisherfolk safety net program remains laudable, and it is recommended that the GoG continue it. The program should expand to explore other livelihood opportunities that meet the needs, barriers, and challenges of fisherfolk. Going forward, a dedicated fund should be set up to facilitate the economic crisis of fisherfolk during fishing closed seasons. Stronger partnerships with master tradesmen and technical and vocational opportunities should be cultivated for future safety net programs. Develop Alternative Livelihoods to Fishing. One of SFMP’s excellent initiatives was providing alternative livelihoods for fisherfolk to increase their economic resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. The idea should be revisited as it also helps to reduce fishing pressure. In the foreseeable future, the possibility of providing training in fisheries aquaculture (fish farming) and oyster production to fisherfolk could be explored as ways to provide alternative livelihoods. There is clearly overfishing in Ghanaian coastal waters as supported by data from SFMP and STWG. Livelihoods have been compromised as a result, and SFMP tried to address this partly through its COVID-19 safety net approach. For the long-term sustainability of the sector, one of the alternative livelihoods is fish farming or aquaculture, which is not expected be easy to develop. In addition to the academic training in fisheries and aquaculture, KNUST provides vocational training in fish farming to fish farmers in Ghana. In the near future, fisherfolk can be educated about fish farming as an alternative livelihood. There could be inertia in this turnaround, but it is not completely impossible where the resources are provided by the FC for new entrants to fish farming. It is worth noting that the FC has already started this initiative to reduce the fishing pressure. SFMP introduced a more efficient way of smoking fish that relies on the use of wood energy, and this should be sustained for health and safety. For environmental sustainability, establishing suitable fast-growing fuelwood plantations for use in fish smoking may also be considered in the wake of climate change effects instead of depending on forest trees for fuelwood. KNUST’s Department of Agroforestry and the Department of Silviculture and Forest Management could be potential partners as well. Fish smoking could be done sustainably without compromising ecological, climatic footprints, or human health. This would sustain the already started fish smoking, but also add to SFMP’s list of alternative livelihoods. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 47 REFERENCES Asare. M., Morgan, M. (2020). Spot Checks of Handwashing Stations Conducted in SFMP Selected Landing Sites under the COVID Intervention. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island and Development Action Association. GH2014_COV120_CRC. Pp. 23. Bilecki, D., E. Torell, and A. Owusu. 2018. A formative assessment of the USAID/Ghana SFMP Gender Mainstreaming Strategy. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). 66 pp. GH2014_GEN025_CRC, Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island and Hen Mpoano, Narragansett, RI. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Science, 2(1):40. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coastal Resources Center. (2014). Communications Strategy. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_COM001_CRC. Pp. 51 . Coastal Resources Center. (2021). Final Report, 2014 -2021. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project. Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_PGM357_CRC. Pp. 143. Crawford, B., L. Gonzales, D. Amin, B. Nyari-Hardi, Y.A. Sarpong. (2016) Report on the Baseline Survey of Small Pelagic Fishing Households along the Ghana Coast. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP) Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_PGM187_CRC. Pp. 122. Lazar, N., Yankson K., Blay, J., Ofori-Danson, P., Markwei, P., Agbogah, K., Bannerman, P., Sotor, M., Yamoah, K. K., Bilisini, W. B. (2020). Status of the small pelagic stocks in Ghana in 2019. Scientific and Technical Working Group. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_SCI083_CRC. Pp. 17. https://www.crc.uri.edu/download/GH2014_SCI083_CRC_FIN508.pdf Mathiesen, A. M. (2012) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture 2012." (2012). Geneva: FAO Mario Maderazo, SSG Advisors (2016). Supporting the Fisheries Commission’s Community Fisheries Watchdog Committees: Legal Review of the Bantay Dagat Program in the Philippines. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island and SSG Advisors. GH2014_POL051_SSG. Pp. 23. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 48 Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (2020)Co-Management Policy for the Fisheries Sector, Government of Ghana. Pp. 41. Ofori-Danson, P.K., Asiedu, B., Amponsah, S.K.K., Crawford, B. (2019). Assessment of the Socio￾Economic, Food Security and Nutrition Impacts of the 2019 Canoe Fishery Closed Fishing Season in Ghana. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project. Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_SCI076_CRC. Pp. 109. Robadue, D., editor. (2020). A Compilation of USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project Success Stories: 2014- 2020. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narra-gansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode. GH2014_ COM106_CRC. Pp. 58. SSG Advisors. (2016). Multi-Stakeholder Workshop to Design a Citizen Watch on Water Initiative for Fisheries Co-management in Ghana. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island and SSG Advisors. GH2014_POL017_SSG. Pp. 21. Torell, E., Bilecki, D., Owusu, A., Crawford, B., Beran, K., & Kent, K. (2019). Assessing the Impacts of Gender Integration in Ghana’s Fisheries Sector. Coastal Management, 47(6), 507-526. Tobey, J., A. K. Normanyo, P. Osei, K. Beran, & B. Crawford (2016). Subsidies in Ghana’s Marine Artisanal Fisheries Sector. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_POL059_CRC. Pp. 53. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 49 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK End line Performance Evaluation of USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of the performance evaluation is to determine the extent to which the USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project’s (SFMP) components and/or interventions have been successfully implemented and to confirm progress made towards achieving its intended goal to rebuild targeted fish stocks through the adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels. It also assesses how the project interventions have contributed to achieving USAID/Ghana’s CDCS DO.2, “Sustainable and Broadly￾shared Economic Growth”. The emerging results will inform decisions about future programming, as it will assist USAID/Ghana, implementing partners, and other relevant stakeholders with guidance to optimize the effectiveness of future programming in Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USERS The USAID/Ghana Mission will be the primary user of the evaluation report. The implementing partner, the University of Rhode Island and its sub-awardees, will use the evaluation findings to strengthen analysis of the lessons learned in the close-out reporting. The Government of Ghana (GoG) and other key sector stakeholders will also use the evaluation results as a guide for future interventions. In general, the best practices and lessons learned from stakeholders or beneficiaries during the implementation of the activity would also be insightful for decision makers who are involved in the design and implementation of future projects focused on Ghana’s marine fisheries. SUMMARY INFORMATION The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP) was originally a five￾year cooperative agreement project (October 2014-October, 2019). It was granted an initial no cost extension (November 1, 2019-September 31, 2020), and a second costed extension in May 2020 through April 30, 2021. The lead implementer is the Coastal Resources Center (CRC) at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography. It works in consortium with other international and local partners, including SNV Netherlands Development Organization, SSG-Advisors (now called Resonance Global), Hen Mpoano (HM), Friends of the Nation (FoN), the Central & Western Fishmongers Improvement Association in Ghana (CEWEFIA), Daasgift Quality Foundation (DQF), Development Action Association (DAA), and Spatial Solutions (SpS). SpS and DQF exited from the partnership after three years of the project’s implementation. The activity is designed to support the Feed the Future Strategy through the 2013-2019 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Intermediate Results (IRs) 2.1.1 on increased agricultural productivity (FtF IR 1.1)1, IR 2.4.2 (FtF IR 1.1)2, IR 2.23 and 2.34. Under IR 2.2 (FtF IR1.3), IR 2.3 (FTF IR 2). SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 50 SFMP was part of a project that included three activities that were designed based on the lessons learned by the USAID/Ghana Integrated Coastal and Fisheries Governance (ICFG) initiative (2009-14). As such, during much of its implementation, it coordinated closely with the two other activities in the USAID/Ghana Fisheries and Coastal Management Project. These two activities were the Coastal Sustainable Landscapes Project (CSLP) implemented by the U.S. Forest Service, and Fisheries and Coastal Management Capacity-building Project implemented by the University of Cape Coast/Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Science (UCC/DFAS). USAID mandated that SFMP develop a close link to the UCC project and that it should provide considerable support to the same. SFMP sought to rebuild targeted fish stocks through adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels. It supports the four intermediate results: (1) improved legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity and effort-reduction strategies; (2) improved information systems and science-informed decision- making, and (3) increased constituencies that provide the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. These components feed into (4) applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems. Table 1: Project Identification data Strategy/Project/Activity Name USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project USAID Office Economic Growth Office Implementers Coastal Resources Centre (CRC) at the University of Rhode Island (URI) Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-624-A-15-00001 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity (TEC) $25,987,826.00 Life of Strategy, Project, or Activity October, 2014 – April, 2021 Active Geographic Regions Central, Western, Greater Accra and Volta Regions Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO2: Sustainable and Broadly Shared Economic Growth, IR2.1: Increased competitiveness of major food chains IR 2.2 Improved enabling environment for private sector investment IR 2.3 Improved resiliency of vulnerable households & communities, reduced under￾nutrition IR 2.4: Increased government accountability responsiveness Required evaluation Yes External or internal evaluation External SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 51 1 This is a sub-IR under the USAID/Ghana CDCS 2013-2017 IR 2.1 – Increased competitiveness of major food chains 2 IR 2.4.2 – Improved local community management of natural resources 3 IR 2.2 – Improved enabling environment for private sector investment 4 IR 2.3 – Improved resilience of vulnerable households and communities and reduced undernutrition BACKGROUND A. Description of the Problem and Context The fisheries sub-sector is a major source of employment, livelihoods and a way of life not only for the coastal sector but also for the inland and aquaculture sectors. It has both forward and backward linkages to other economic activities. Many developing nations lack the capacity to utilize their coastal and marine assets, while preventing their overexploitation. Ghana is faced with growing challenges in managing coastal and marine resources, such as the dramatic decline of key fish stocks and the degradation of coastal habitats. Ghana’s marine resources, in particular its small pelagic fisheries, are severely overexploited, which threatens the food security of a large percentage of the population, and the livelihoods of over 130,000 people and many more fisheries dependent households. Ghana’s open access fisheries has resulted in overcapitalization of fleets, which is exacerbated by poor governance, weak enforcement of regulations, and operational subsidies that mask the true cost of fishing. The overexploitation of fisheries by the artisanal and industrial fleets is compounded by the prevalence of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing and the pollution of coastal ecosystems. Coastal ecosystems, especially estuaries, lagoons and their associated wetlands, are increasingly impacted by activities within their catchment areas, with deforestation, intensive agriculture, damming and irrigation all changing the nature of material fluxes (water, sediment, nutrients and pesticides). Clearly, fisheries and coastal resources are being impacted in ways that are depleting Ghana’s marine biodiversity. This is attributable to many factors, including deficiency in monitoring and enforcement of regulations, insufficient public investment to build the government's capacity for effective management, and weaknesses in public statistics, education and training, and applied research, and analysis. As a result, inadequate human resource capacity, weak governance and operational weaknesses limit the effectiveness of natural resource management in Ghana. Through a collaborative effort between SFMP’s stakeholders, the Mission, and USAID’s Office of Forestry and Biodiversity (FAB) in FY 2017, the analysis of the development challenge addressed by the activity was updated. This pause-and-reflect analysis led to a deeper understanding of the key relationships affecting the activity goals and their contribution to the biodiversity and human well-being focal interests, characterized as the direct challenges or threats to be addressed, and the main factors (both immediate and underlying) driving these threats. The resulting situation model (link to SFMP Mid-term Learning Questions Report) expanded the consortium’s understanding of the role of the SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 52 governance of management reforms for the small pelagic fisheries sector, and led to a subsequent political economy analysis5. These analyses provide a more complete understanding of the activity’s development challenge than envisioned in the original project description. SFMP supports the GoG’s fisheries management policies, particularly its objectives to end overfishing and rebuild the key small pelagic fish stocks. Adoption of sustainable fishing practices that address overfishing and IUU fishing is the only way Ghana can increase its catch from wild-caught local marine fisheries supply and bring profitability to the artisanal fishery, with the potential to benefit over 100,000 people directly and up to two million indirectly. The integrated set of activities under SFMP’s original five-year program includes: (1) improved legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity and effort reduction strategies; (2) improved information systems and science-informed decision-making, and (3) increased constituencies that provides the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. These components feed into (4) applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems. SFMP developed nested governance arrangements and management plans for fishery management units at different ecosystem scales, utilizing adaptive co-management approaches tailored to each unit. The focus at the national level is the small pelagic stocks, which are most important to food security and employment and are near collapse. National dialogues spotlighted this crisis and sought to build consensus for actions such as a closed season, closed areas, moratorium on fishing licenses and/or increased mesh sizes of nets to turn around this fishery. With support of fishers and governments, the objective was to see some improvements in fish biomass within the life-of-project. Under SFMP’s costed-extension period, new activities were added to address the COVID 19 pandemic in Ghana. They include (1) Fisher folk at three hundred landing sites, processing and/or fish markets sites better adhere to official COVID-19 disease prevention protocols; (2): Two thousand extremely vulnerable fisheries-dependent households avoid extreme poverty; (3): GoG has evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID-19; (4): Cross Cutting Areas: Private Sector Engagement and Partnerships; Gender and Youth; Building for Sustainability. The unanticipated outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana in March 2020, led to unforeseen developments which could have dire consequences for the artisanal fisheries sector, which is central to the livelihoods of 300,000 men and women in over 300 coastal communities. Due to the communal nature of fishing and the related post-harvest activities, it was challenging to protect the health and safety of fisher folk in order to sustain seafood supply and distribution. Further complicating these challenges is the absence of effective and pragmatic approaches to deliver social and/or economic safety net packages to vulnerable fishing households to mitigate the secondary impacts of the pandemic. If these risks and challenges are not managed, the virus could quickly spread through fishing communities with devastating impacts, including loss of lives, and erode the gains of fisheries stakeholders supported by SFMP towards sustainable management of the fisheries. Description of the Intervention to be evaluated and Theory of Change SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 53 The project purpose is to “Rebuild targeted fish stocks, through adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels. To achieve sustainable practices and exploitation levels requires a reduced level of fishing effort, not only reduced capacity (i.e., a reduced number of boats), to end overfishing. Over the longer term these changes will lead to improved fish stocks and higher and more sustained fishing yields, signaling to stakeholders and beneficiaries the efficacy of the measures and the time lag between the measures and the improved biological outcomes that can enhance livelihoods. In order to build political will for the required reforms, SFMP will forge a campaign that builds constituencies for change among high-level decision makers and politicians as well as grassroots fishermen, fishmongers and processors. By attaining the following intermediate results and objectives SFMP’s purpose will be achieved: Rebuild targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels (IR1) Strengthened enabling environment for marine resources governance ● Improved legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity and effort reduction strategies (IR 2) Increased use of applied science to inform decision-making, law enforcement and the implementation of management plans ● Improved information systems and science-informed decision-making (IR 3) Improved Constituencies and political will for policy reform & implementation built, support and demanding use and conservation ● Increased constituencies that provides the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector (IR 4) Improved management of marine resources to conserve biodiversity and provide other benefits ● Applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems The above IRs will be attained through the following key activities: PROJECT IR1: Strengthened enabling environment for marine resources governance  Reform legislation for Fisheries Co-management-FY 15  Initiate National Fisheries dialogue-FY 15  Strengthen law enforcement-FY 15  Support National level Small-Pelagic management Plan-FY 15  Harmonize Regional Fisheries Policies-FY 15  Inform the U.S Government on key fisheries policies issues in Ghana-FY 15  Reduce Child Labor and Trafficking (CLaT) in Fisheries-FY 15  Organize National workshops on marine fisheries sector-FY 16  Address key policy issues in the marine fisheries Sector-FY 17  Reform key policy in the fisheries sector- FY 18 PROJECT IR2: Science and Technology Applied to Policy and Management SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 54  Organize Scientific and Technical Working Group-FY 15  Develop Innovate Information Communications Technology for Effective Fisheries Management– FY 15  Improve Fisheries Commission Data Systems and Stock Assessment Capacity-FY 15  Draw insights into Fisheries Supply Chain from Net to Plate-FY 15  Develop Environmental and Geographic Information System Data Hub-FY 15  Create the Scientific Foundation for Rebuilding Fish Stocks-FY 17  Assess Fishing Capacity -FY 16  Utilize advanced spatial Data Collection and Processing for mapping -FY 18  Monitor ecological and socio-economic impacts of the closed season-FY 20 PROJECT IR3: Creating Constituencies and Stakeholder Engagement  Develop National Communications Strategy for the Sustainable Fisheries Management Project-FY 15  Develop Strategic Communications Campaigns in support of Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development /Fisheries Commission policy initiatives for the small pelagic fisheries – FY 16  Develop SFMP Executive Level Communications -FY 15  Initiate Fisherman-to-Fisherman Dialogue – FY 17  Organize National Conference on Fisheries and Coastal Environment (CFCE) – FY 19 PROJECT IR4: Applied Management  Develop Small Pelagic Fisheries Management plan-FY 15  Develop Demersal fisheries management plan-FY 15  Integrate Fisheries Management and Resilience Plan for Ankobra Estuary-FY 15 Integrate Community Fisheries Management and Resilience Plans for  The Pra River Estuarine and Mangrove Ecosystems -FY 15  Improve Central and Western Region Livelihood Development Value Chain and Post- harvest -FY 16  Develop the Western Region Demersal Fisheries Management Initiative FY 16  Develop Action Association Fisheries Training Center-FY 17  Implement the National Marine Fisheries Management Plan with emphasis on small pelagics fisheries -FY 17  Develop Community-Based Management of the Oyster Fishery in the Densu Estuary- FY 17  Promote certification scheme to improve fish products adopted by the Fisheries Commission- FY 18  Strengthen capacity of fisheries post-harvest enterprises - FY 18  Implement of National Marine Fisheries Management Plan - FY 19  Implement Community-Based Fisheries Management – FY 19  Improve Value Chain and Post-Harvest fishing community – FY 19 SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 55 CROSSCUTTING PROJECT IR 5: Gender Equality and Empowerment  Develop Gender strategy and implement within SFMP and Fisheries Commission -FY 15  Implement learning initiative on access to finance, Women’s Empowerment and Sustainable Fisheries – FY 19 CROSSCUTTING PROJECT IR 6: Public Private Partnership Development  Implement Tigo Fishers’ Network’ for information communication- FY 16  New Micro–Insurance Plan Promises Reliable Future -FY 17 CROSSCUTTING PROJECT IR 7: Local Capacity Development  Build Capacity of Government of Ghana to strengthen efforts to effectively implement sustainable fisheries initiatives - FY 16  Build Capacity of Civil Society Organization to enhance implementation by SFMP local partners - FY 16  Build capacity of Ghanaian Institutions -FY 17 In FY 20 a costed extension was approved to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and an additional purpose was added: prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities and in the process contribute to building institutional structures and processes toward sustainable management of the fisheries resources of Ghana. This would be achieved through four additional COVID IRs.  (COVID 1) Fisher folk at three hundred landing sites, processing and/or fish markets sites better adhere to official COVID-19 disease prevention protocols.  (COVID 2) 2,000 extremely vulnerable fisheries-dependent households avoid extreme poverty.  (COVID 3) GoG has evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID-19.  (COVID 4) Cross Cutting Areas: Private Sector Engagement and Partnerships; Gender and Youth; Building for Sustainability. The key activities under each IR for the costed extension are detailed below. COVID 1: Fisher folk at 300 landing sites, processing and/or fish markets sites better adhere to official COVID-19 disease prevention protocols. ● Activity 1) design and deliver behavior change communications campaign COVID 2: Two thousand extremely vulnerable fisheries-dependent households avoid extreme poverty. ● Activity 1) validate GoG methodologies to ensure effective targeting and SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 56 monitoring of economic/food assistance programs, ● Activity 2) Pilot the delivery of safety net assistance programs to 2000 extremely vulnerable fisheries-dependent households. COVID 3: GoG has evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID-19. ● Activity 1) design, implement, and pilot strategies to sustain and diversify livelihood options for fishers in vulnerable communities. COVID 4: Cross Cutting Areas: Private Sector Engagement and Partnerships; Gender and Youth; Building for Sustainability The theory of change argues that IF the activities are successful in: (1) Improving legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity and effort-reduction strategies; (2) Improving information systems and science-informed decision-making; (3) Increasing constituencies that provide the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. These components feed into (4) Applying management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems; THEN it will: Rebuild targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels, which will contribute to achieving the USAID/Ghana’s CDCS DO.2: Sustainable and broadly shared economic growth. During the 2017 pause-and-reflect exercise the stakeholders also more fully mapped the activity’s theory of change (ToC). It was articulated through results chains for five of the activity’s seven intermediate results (IR)6. SFMP’s ToC is primarily focused on reducing fishing effort within the artisanal and (indirectly) the industrial fleets by enabling participatory and collaborative management to deliver fishery reforms that are socially equitable and perceived as legitimate by resource users, incentivizing compliance with new management rules that can shift the small pelagic fishery from decline to recovery. The pause-and-reflect exercise enabled URI to more fully identify the causal relationships as the hypotheses for achieving the IRs related to the social legitimacy of reforms, the influence of artisanal fisherfolk on the same, the improved resilience of the fisherfolk as an enabler of regulatory compliance, the achievement of a mandate and the capacity for effective fisheries management, and the key social and economic benefits such as reduced child trafficking and increased income for the women processors and traders. In mapping the ToC, the stakeholders also identified 20 results that were considered essential to achieve the activity’s purpose. Project Target Area And Target Beneficiaries The area of influence of the intervention is across Ghana’s Central, Western, Greater Accra and Volta Regions. In these regions over 100,000 men and women involved in the local fishing industry were expected to benefit from the activity and tens of thousands of metric tons of additional high-quality low- SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 57 cost food supply from fisheries could be regained via improved management of the marine fish stocks in Ghana’s waters. Key government clients of this project include the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (MOFAD), the Fisheries Commission (FC) and the Regional Coordinating Councils (RCCs) and associated districts in the Central and Western, Greater Accra and Volta Regions. The Marine Police are also being provided with direct support to build their capacity. Additional direct support is provided to the University of Cape Coast (UCC) and a number of local Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and women’s associations that are active in fisheries management issues and serve either as core or supporting partners in the implementation of this project. These organizations include the Densu Oyster Pickers Association (DOPA), the Development Action Association (DAA), Hen Mpoano, the Central and Western Fishmongers Improvement Association (CEWEFIA), the Ghana Canoe Fishermen’s Council (GNCFC), and the National Fish Processors and Traders Association (NAFPTA) EVALUATION QUESTIONS In order to guide the performance evaluation, the following critical learning questions linked to the project’s performance will be answered: 1. To what extent has the SFMP achieved its intended purposes of (1) rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels; and the additional 11 month cost extension (2) to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 2. What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why?7 For the original program, at a minimum, consider the efforts to (a) build effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations, (b) expand the use of science for management, (c) strengthen gender equity, and (d) collaborate with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. For the COVID-19 extension, at a minimum, the team should include the focus on diversifying livelihoods and providing economic assistance to vulnerable fishing households. 3. To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisherfolk in the decision-making lead to artisanal fisherfolk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the reforms served their interest? Why or why not? 4. To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisherfolk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms, and can they be sustained post-project? Why / why not? 5. To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes likely to be sustained and/or adopted by the Government or other actors after the project ends? EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A cross sectional design is proposed for the implementation of the final evaluation for the project. This will help the project collect information at a point in time to reflect the study population. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 58 In the design, the consultant is expected to adopt suitable systematic data collection techniques to avoid bias of any form and collect adequate and quality data. The consultant should consider the mixed methods (using both quantitative and qualitative methods) of data collection and analysis. Where primary quantitative methods are used, the consultant must ensure that the conclusions are based on statistically-representative sample with an acceptable level of uncertainty. The consultants should share all data collection tools with USAID for review and feedback and or discussion, with sufficient time, before they are applied in the field. They should utilize, to the extent possible various data collection methods including but not limited to the following: B. Review of existing Documentation: Project documents that should be reviewed may include but not limited to Project Appraisal Document, baseline reports, quarterly, annual progress reports and any other assessment reports related to the SFMP. C. Key Informant Interviews: The team is expected to hold interviews with a. The in-country and home-office staff of the prime implementer, the University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center (URI/CRC), including (as possible) the original staff; b. Key project partners, including SNV Netherlands Development Organization, Resonance, Hen Mpoano, Friends of the Nation (FoN), the Central & Western Fish Mongers Improvement Association in Ghana (CEWEFIA), Daasgift Quality Foundation (DQF), Development Action Association (DAA), and Spatial Solutions; c. Project beneficiaries, including the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (MOFAD), the Fisheries Commission (FC), the members of DAA and CEWEFIA, the University of Cape Coast, the Department of Town and Country Planning in the Central and Western Regions, the Ghana National Canoe Fishermen’s Council (GNFC), the National Association of Fish Processors and Traders Association (NAFPTA), and the Ghana Industrial Trawlers’ Association (GITA); d. and other Partners including private sector actors who have been engaged in the project implementation such as the MiLife Insurance Company. D. Survey of Beneficiaries: The team is expected to cover a statistically-representative sample of project beneficiaries and private sector entities who are beneficiaries of cash or in-kind grants from SFMP. Where appropriate, the survey design should demonstrate that the level of uncertainty is within the bounds to ensure adequate confidence in the conclusions from the survey. Personal Observation: The evaluation team is expected to visit selected physical investments supported by the SFMP and document how they are functioning and benefiting the beneficiaries. At a minimum these should include the DAA fisheries training center, the CEWEFIA fish processing training center, the GIS center in Central Region Town and Country Planning Department, and a sample of the value-chain and livelihoods investments. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 59 7 Please segment the findings according to the original project description and the supplemental COVID-19 PD. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Evaluation Work Plan Within two (2) weeks of the award of the contract, the lead evaluator shall present a draft evaluation work plan for approval to the USAID Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR), the METSS II Chief of Operations (CoO), and the SFMP Chief of Party. The evaluation work plan will include all the components of a sound evaluation design: a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the evaluation questions from the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; a set of draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments; a list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include sampling methodology and methods, including a justification of sample size and any applicable calculations); and an explanation of the limitations to the evaluation design. The evaluation work plan will also include 1. Draft schedule and logistical arrangements; 2. List of the evaluation team members, delineated by roles and responsibilities; 3. Evaluation milestones and timeline; 4. Anticipated schedule of evaluation team data collection efforts; 5. Locations and dates for piloting data collection efforts, if applicable; 6. Proposed evaluation methodology including selection criteria for comparison groups, if applicable. The data analysis plan should clearly describe the team’s approach for analyzing quantitative and qualitative data (as applicable), including proposed sample sizes, specific data analysis tools, and any software proposed to be used, with an explanation of how/why these selections will be useful in answering the evaluation questions for this task. Gender, geographic, and role (beneficiary, implementer, government official, NGO, etc.) disaggregation must be included in the analysis where applicable. The consultant must receive approval of the work plan before beginning field work. In-briefing Within 2 days of arrival (i.e., If Consultants are outside of Ghana) in Accra, the evaluation team will have an in-briefing with the AOR and relevant team members of the Office of Economic Growth, SFMP in-country staff and URI home office support staff and METSS II Project for introductions and to discuss the evaluation team’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and/or to adjust the Statement of Work (SOW), if necessary. Mid-term Briefing and Interim Meetings The evaluation team is expected to hold a mid-term briefing with the AOR and relevant team members of the Office of Economic Growth on the status of the evaluation, including potential challenges and emerging opportunities. The team will also provide the AOR with periodic briefings and feedback on the team’s findings, as agreed upon during the in-briefing. If desired or necessary, weekly briefings by phone can be arranged. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 60 Final Exit Briefing The evaluation team is expected to hold a final exit briefing prior to leaving the country to discuss the status of data collection and preliminary findings. The team will present the major finding of the evaluation to USAID partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID) through a PowerPoint presentation prior to the team‘s departure from the country. The team will consider partner comments and revise the draft report as appropriate. Draft Evaluation Report The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX, Final Report Format sub-section. The report will address each of the questions identified in Section IV of the SOW and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with METSS II Project. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, USAID/SFMP staff, METSS II Project and USAID/Ghana will have ten (10) working days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, and submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then submit a revised final draft report within five (5) working days. The USAID/SFMP staff, METSS II Project office and USAID/Ghana will review and send comments on this final draft report within ten (10) working days of its submission. Final Evaluation Report The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than six (6) business days to respond and/or incorporate the final comments from contributors (USAID/Ghana, METSS II Project and/or USAID/SFMP Staff). EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will consist of a team leader and two other experts. A representative from the USAID/Ghana Mission and METSS II Project may be delegated to work full-time with the evaluation team or to participate in selected evaluation activities Senior Technical Consultant (Lead): Qualification and Experience 1. This specialist should have at least a Master’s degree in natural resources management, or an applicable social science field. S/he should have at least five years’ senior level experience working in natural resources management in a developing country. 2. S/he should have extensive experience conducting both qualitative and quantitative evaluations / assessments and strong familiarity with fisheries management. Excellent oral and written skills are required. 3. S/he should also have experience leading evaluation teams and preparing high quality evaluation reports. S/he will be responsible for assessing and analyzing the project’s progress towards achieving its targets, factors for such performance, benefits/impact of the strategies, and compared with other options. S/he will suggest ways of improving performance in USAID’s future programming for the fisheries sector, if any. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 61 4. Good interpersonal and diplomatic skills. 5. S/he will provide leadership for the team, finalize the evaluation design, coordinate activities, and periodic meetings, consolidate the team’s input, and coordinate the assembling of final findings and recommendations into a high￾quality document. S/he will write the final report. S/he will also lead the preparation and presentation of the key findings and recommendations to the USAID/Ghana team and other major partners. Senior Evaluation Specialist: Qualification and Experience 1. This specialist should have a Master’s degree in agriculture, marine or fisheries science, or an applicable social science field. S/he should have at least five years’ experience working in the agriculture sector in Ghana. 2. Must have a minimum of five years conducting both qualitative and quantitative policy evaluations/assessments in developing countries. 3. Good interpersonal and diplomatic skills. 4. Excellent oral and written communication skills in English Other Team Member: Qualifications and Experience A proven record of leadership in research, sound technical knowledge and relevant experience in political science, or related relevant fields (particularly as it applies to fisheries management) program design and implementation, analysis and report writing; 1. Experience in conducting both qualitative and quantitative evaluations/assessments around improving capacity for service delivery and policy formulation in technical sectors from the perspective of the political economy of reform measures; 2. A proven team player experience; and 3. Excellent spoken and written skills in English. EVALUATION SCHEDULE A. Period of Performance Work is to be carried out over a period of approximately 12 weeks, beginning on or about March 16, 2021 with field work and draft report completed by May 14, 2021 and final report and close out concluding June 15, 2021 Table 2: Illustrative Schedule Timing (Anticipated Months) Anticipated Duration (Days) Proposed Activities March 16, 2021 Evaluation contract awarded to Consultants March 23, 2021 5 Consultants prepare and submit a detailed evaluation work plan to METSS II Project SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 62 March 26, 2021 1 Evaluation team (Consultants) conducts in-brief with METSS II, USAID and USAID/SFMP on evaluation work plan. March 29, 2021 6 USAID, METSS II and USAID/SFMP review evaluation work plan and submit. March 31, 2021 2 Evaluation team integrates comments into work plan and submits final document to METSS II Project. April 5, 2021 3 Evaluation team completes pre-testing of evaluation instruments/tools. April 10, 2021 5 Evaluation team trains evaluation/survey enumerators April 28, 2021 15 Collect data from evaluation respondents in the project target areas May 5, 2021 6 Data Analysis May 14, 2021 6 Write draft report and submit preliminary findings May 26, 2021 10 USAID, METSS II and USAID/SFMP review evaluation draft report and submit feedback to evaluation team May 31, 2021 3 Evaluation team incorporates comments and prepare final evaluation report June 15, 2021 3 Evaluation team Leader submit formatted Final Evaluation Report FINAL REPORT FORMAT The final evaluation report should include an abstract; executive summary; evaluation purpose; introduction; background of the project context and project being evaluated; the evaluation questions; the methodology; the limitations to the evaluation; key findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and lessons learned (if applicable). The evaluation report should be easily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. The findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. The Executive Summary should be 2-5 pages in length and present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. It should summarize key points (purpose and background, evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt). SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 63 The report should provide a brief Background information, which should include country and/or sector context; specific problem or opportunity the intervention addresses; and the development hypothesis, theory of change, or simply how the intervention addresses the problem. Describe the specific strategy, project, activity, or intervention to be evaluated including (if available) award numbers, award dates, funding levels, and implementing partners. The Evaluation Purpose and Questions should state the purpose of, audience for, and anticipated use(s) of the evaluation. Clearly state the evaluation questions in this section. Explain the evaluation or survey methodology in detail and clearly state sources of information. Disclose limitations to the evaluation, especially, those associated with the methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). NOTE: A summary of methodology can be included in the body of the report, with the full description provided as an annex. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations: Address all evaluation questions in this Statement of Work (SOW) or document why some evaluation questions and/or comments from METSS II Project or USAID/SFMP or USAID/Ghana have not been addressed for approval.  If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females, and youth versus general population.  Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. If recommendations are included, separate them from findings and conclusions. Recommendations should be supported with specific findings and should be action-oriented, practical and specific.  Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methods (e.g., in sampling; data availability; measurement; analysis; any potential bias such as sampling/selection, measurement, interviewer, response, etc.) and their implications for conclusions drawn from the findings.  The evaluation report should also contain a page or two visualizations of the evaluation findings or infographics that will help USAID to better communicate the results of the evaluation quickly. A similar visualization was created by the mid-term pause and reflect activity.8 Annexes to the report must include: ● Evaluation SOW (updated, not the original, if there were any modifications); ● Evaluation methods; ● All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; ● All sources of information or data, identified and listed; ● Statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team, if applicable; SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 64 ● Signed disclosure of conflict-of-interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of or describing existing conflicts of interest; and ● Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. The final version of the evaluation report will be submitted to USAID/Ghana and METSS II Project in hard copy as well as electronically. The report format should be restricted to Microsoft products and 12- point Times New Roman font type should be used throughout the body of the report, with page margins 1” top/bottom and left/right. The main report should not exceed 35 pages, excluding the executive summary, references and annexes. The evaluation team leader shall incorporate METSS II Project, USAID/SFMP and USAID/Ghana’s comments and submit the final report to USAID in electronic format (Microsoft Word) as well as printed and bound copies (Three copies in English) no later than six working days of the receipt of the comments. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT The draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure quality. ● Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well￾organized effort to objectively evaluate the project; ● Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, The Executive Summary should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report; ● Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID/SFMP Staff, METSS II Project, USAID/Ghana; 8 Copies of these visualization can be obtained upon request from the METSS II Project distinctly, and succinctly; ● Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information or data properly identified; ● Limitations to the evaluation should be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.); ● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions; ● Conclusions should be specific, concise, and include an assessment of quality and strength of evidence to support them supported by strong quantitative and/or qualitative evidence; SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 65 ● If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females; and ● If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. ● The recommendations should focus on future programming based on the experience and lesson learned from the current activity. ● The recommendations should ideally reflect the political-economic context in which they are implemented. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT Logistical Support The Project together with METSS II will support the evaluation team identify key documents, and arrange for meetings with key stakeholders. The evaluation team is responsible for arranging other meetings as identified during the course of the evaluation and may request support from USAID/SFMP (for information, but not logistics) and METSS II project. In all these arrangements the USAID/Ghana AOR and EG Office M&E Specialist should be notified prior to each of these meetings. The consultants should make arrangements for accommodation, vehicles needed for site visits, and meetings, and/or contact METSS II Project to make the arrangements with reasonable notice, if necessary. However, the evaluation team members will be required to make their own payments for lodging, meals and incidental expenses. The METSS II Project will make available their conference room or another convenient location upon request of the evaluation team as work space. The evaluation team is, however, expected to use their own computers. Technical Direction Technical direction during the performance of the evaluation contract will be provided by the METSS II projects’ Chief of Operations (CoO) and USAID/Ghana AOR, who will be the point of contact for the Consultant’s Evaluation Team during performance. The AOR is the only USG official authorized to make changes to the terms and conditions of the evaluation contract. In the event that the Consultant believes that it is required to perform activities outside the evaluation contract, they must immediately contact/inform the AOR before performing these tasks. The Consultant will not be paid any amount in excess of the evaluation budget set forth in the evaluation contract. CRITERIA EVALUATING THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Technical proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined below. Technical Evaluation Criteria Points Technical Approach 50 SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 66 Personnel 50 Total Possible Evaluation Point 100 Applicants/Consultants should note that these criteria and sub-criteria serve: (a) as the standard against which the proposal will be evaluated, and (b) to identify the significant matters that Applicant should address in their proposal. The specific evaluation criteria are as follows: Technical Approach – (50 points) The technical approach should address the following sub-criteria which will be considered in the evaluation of the proposal: ● A clear strategy to address the evaluation questions, and achieve the evaluation requirements. ● Degree or extent to which the Applicant’s technical approach strategy, methodology and activities has the potential to accomplish the tasks within the implementation period. ● Clear description of anticipated challenges/risks and of how they will be addressed. ● An illustrative work plan with timeframes and durations for mobilizing staff, field work, data analysis, and reporting. The work plan should demonstrate logical linkages between task areas and timeframes that combine a strong balance of rigor and reflection. Personnel (50 points) Clear, concise and defined proposed key personnel, their role, responsibilities, qualifications and relevant experience. Include the CVs of proposed key personnel, illustrating experience in similar assignments, and references. Refer to Section VII for the required qualification and experience of the required team members for the evaluation. Cost Proposal Evaluation The contract award will be made on a best value basis, where all non-cost (technical) factors will be significantly more important than cost. The consultants should have the structure that will allow it to provide the best value and greatest results at the lowest cost. The price proposal of the contract period shall be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and realism to determine the appropriate cost for the work, including the firm’s understanding of the work, and their ability to perform the work. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 67 ANNEX 2: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED IN THE SFMP FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: KEY INFORMANT AND FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS No. Name Organization/Community Function/Role Central Region 1 Matilda Agyakamah Fisheries Commission Snr. Fisheries Manager/Acting Director 2 Godfred Hanu Fisheries Commission Zonal Officer/ Fisheries Research Manger 3 Peace Abla Gavor NAFPTA President 4 Rebecca Eshun NAFPTA Treasurer 5 Dr. Isaac Okyere UCC Senior Lecturer 6 Nicholas Smith CEWEFIA Project Manager 7 Kwaku Awotwe GNCFC/Komenda Fisherman 8 Nana Badu GNCFC GNCFC President & Chief Fisherman 9 Nana Kwame Ankaful Fisherman 10 Hon. Kwamina Badu Moree Assemblyman/Fisherman 11 Fernyi Kweigya VII Moree Chief Fisherman 12 Kwesi Abeku Moree Fisherman 13 Kwabena Akyer Moree Fisherman 14 Nana Fynn Bonsu III Moree Fisherman 15 Napoleon Otoo Moree Fisherman 16 Nana Ama Ekuma Moree Fishmonger 17 Jonh Otoo CEWEFIA Focal Person 18 Peter Aful GNCFC Member 19 Nana Afful Bonsu III GNCFC Fisherman 20 Ama Asabeng British Komenda Fishmonger 21 Emelia Epson British Komenda Fishmonger SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 68 No. Name Organization/Community Function/Role 22 Efua Twoba British Komenda Fishmonger 23 Mary Sam British Komenda Fishmonger 24 Abena Esua British Komenda Fishmonger 25 Georgina Awotwe British Komenda Fishmonger 26 Bridgit Mensah British Komenda Fishmonger 27 Cecilia Arthur British Komenda Fishmonger 28 Agnes Duodo British Komenda Fishmonger 29 Cecilia Eshun British Komenda Fishmonger 30 Nana Arkong British Komenda Community Leader 31 Isaac Donkor Jojo_Ackon CEWEFIA Focal Person & Assemblyman 32 Lawrencia Obeng CEWEFIA – Elmina Project Officer/Focal Person Greater Accra 33 Naomi Korkor Tema Fish Processors Association President of the Association 34 Charlotte Adgei- Tema Fish Processors Association Association’s Vice President/Fishmonger 35 Cynthia Comley Adgetey Tema Fish Processors Association Association’s Secretary/Fishmonger 36 1. Cynthia Adgeley Adgei Tema Fish Processors Association Association’s Treasurer/Fishmonger 37 Juliana Mantey Tema Fish Processors Association Fishmonger 38 Mercy Armah Tema Fish Processors Association Fishmonger 39 Nii Adotei Akwei IV Korbrobite Chief Fisherman 40 Nii Saka Addo Korbrobite Fisherman 41 Joshua Armah Korbrobite Secretary/Fisherman 42 Emmanuel Aryeetey Korbrobite Fisherman SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 69 No. Name Organization/Community Function/Role 43 Nii Oti Bortey Nungua Chief Fisherman 44 Roland Bli-Nao Nungua Fisherman/Canoe Owner 45 Ayi Lasey Nungua Fisherman/Canoe Owner 46 Wrady Borla-Bio Nungua Fisherman 47 Armah Okoo Nungua Fisherman/Canoe Owner 48 Frederick Bortey Borketey￾Nungua Fisherman/Canoe Owner 49 Beatrice Borley- Nungua Organizer (Nungua Fish Processors Association)/Fish Processor 50 Nii Tetteh Coppoe Oshiyie Chief Fisherman 51 Jonathan Tapeah Copson Oshiyie Vice Chief Fisherman 52 Samuel Tettey- Oshiyie Senior Fisherman 53 Hugbe Tettey Assan Oshiyie Fisherman 54 Rebecca Dede Oshiyie Fishmonger 55 Nii Adgei Teshie Chief Fisherman 56 Nii Mensah Teshie Fisherman/Chairman of Teshie Fishers Association 57 Nii Armah Zimbabue Teshie Fisherman/ Canoe owner 58 Theophilus Sowah Teshie Secretary to the Teshie Fishers Association 59 Madam Beatrice Quaye Teshie Fish monger 60 Tetteh Nartey Teshie Fisherman/ Canoe owner 61 Okai Laryea Teshie Fisherman 62 Cecilia Agbesi Bortianor Tsokomey President of the Fish Processors’ Association, Accra. 63 Nene Joseph Tetteh IV: Goi Chief Fisherman & Vice Chairman of the Ghana National Canoe Fishermen Council (GNCFC), Greater Accra region. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 70 No. Name Organization/Community Function/Role 63 Nii Nene Agbokey Tei IV: Lekpongunor Chief Fisherman and Chairman of Zone Three Fishing Society 65 Nii Adieteh Motor III Tema Chief Fisherman of Tema 66 Edward Amesimeku Ada Deputy Chief Fisherman of Azizanya 67 Comfort Addo President of the Kokrobite Fish Smokers’ Association 68 Arthur Dadzie Esq Accra Executive Director, FC 69 Mr. Manu Accra Head, Post-harvest Division, FC 70 Ralph Quaye Accra HR, FC 71 Brian Crawford CRC, USA (URI) CRC (URI) 72 Armah Accra NAFAG 73 Mr. Owusu Accra GITA 74 Doris Owusu Accra Rep. Resonance 75 Karen Kent CRC, USA (URI) CRC, USA (URI) Western Region 76 Josephine Laryea Takoradi Fisheries Officer 77 Matilda Jakamri Takoradi Fisheries Officer 78 James Assibey Ahanta West Fisherman 79 Kwame Sika Shama Fisherman 80 Mark Okrah Ahanta West Chief fisherman SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 71 No. Name Organization/Community Function/Role 81 Bukari Asuma Shama Fisherman 82 Kwadwo Badu Panyin Shama Fisherman 83 Kwame Gyappiah Shama Fisherman 84 Seidu Kwabena Sam Shama Chief fisherman 85 Egya Kwabena Soom Benstir Fisherman 86 Egya Maamunaa Benstir Fisherman 87 Egya Kwesi Anyackon Benstir Fisherman 88 Egya Kwesi Abaka Benstir Fisherman 89 Kofi Taakor Benstir Fisherman 90 Kofi Nortey Aboadze Fisherman 91 Kwesi Amuanoo Aboadze Fisherman 92 Peter Kwabena Essel Aboadze Fisherman Volta Region 93 Joy manyo Anloga GNCFC Focal person 94 Daniel fiagbezi Tegbi GNCFC Focal person 95 Rubby adukpoh Dzelukpe NAFPTA Focal person 96 Nancy tsagli Kedzi NAFPTA Focal person 97 Fafali sosu Kedzi GNCFC Focal person 98 David eglu Adafienu GNCFC Focal person 99 Mathias gator Hedzranawo GNCFC Focal person SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 72 No. Name Organization/Community Function/Role 100 Ernestine alipui Hedzranawo NAFPTA Focal person 101 David metsiado Kedzi Chief Fisherman 102 Sossi fafali precious Kedzi GNCFC Focal person 103 Ernestina alikpi Hedzranawo NAFPTA Focal person 104 Agnes morlai dzakpor Hedzranawo NAFPTA Focal person 105 Veronica Akpedugzi Hedzranawo NAFPTA Focal person 106 Rejoice Alikpi Hedzranawo NAFPTA Focal person 107 Beatrice Amevor Mary Hedzranawo NAFPTA Focal person 108 Antoinnet Daavi Abotsi Hedzranawo NAFPTA Focal person 109 Dzorkpe yvonne Adafienu Fishermonger 110 Mensah aku aunty Adafienu Fishmonger 111 Yaw amekudzi Adafienu Fisherman 112 Dzakpashie donyo Adafienu Fisherman 113 Sebastian mensah Adafienu Fisherman 114 Afatsawo torsu Adafienu Fisherman 115 Morthi ami Adafienu Fisherman 116 Akpene isagli Adafienu Fisherman 117 Amesuwo davor Adafienu Fishmonger 118 Enyonam adzakey Adafienu Fishmonger 119 Kuenyedzi bella Adafienu Fishmonger SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 73 No. Name Organization/Community Function/Role 120 Mawuena dobetorwoka Adafienu Fishmonger 121 Nuwortsi beatrice Adafienu Fishermonger 122 Mary tarbolo Adafienu Fishermonger 123 Agboletey grace Adafienu Fishmonger 124 Venolia samami Adafienu Fisherman 125 Hattoh prosper Adafienu Fishmonger 126 Mabel esor Adafienu Fisherman 127 David anani eglu Adafienu Fishmonger 128 Elizabeth semaxa Adafienu Fisherman 129 Afitor semaxa Adafienu Fisherman 130 Adugba Tsagli Adafienu Fisherman 131 Agblavitor apevienyeku Adafienu Fisherman SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 74 ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE MODULE 1: ORIGINAL SFMP Note to enumerator: This section of the questionnaire focuses on the original SFMP and should be administered to fisherfolks who may or may not have benefited from the COVID-19 support program. A 1.1 ENUMERATOR IDENTIFIER A 1.2 REGION: ☐Volta ☐Greater Accra ☐Central ☐Western A 1.3 DISTRICT: A 1.4 COMMUNITY/ VILLAGE NAME: Informed Consent NOTE TO ENUMERATOR: YOU NEED TO OBTAIN VERBAL CONSENT FROM THE RESPONDENT BEFORE YOU CAN ADMINISTER THE SURVEY. CAREFULLY READ ALOUD THE CONSENT FORM AND CLARIFY ANY AMBIGUITIES. ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION BASED ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE RESPONDENT. Consent Statement: Thank you for taking the time to participate in this evaluation study. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from an organization called BIRD, KNUST. Our team is conducting a final performance evaluation of the SFMP, which was funded by USAID. We would like to conduct a brief interview today to learn about your perspectives on the performance of the SFMP. This information will be used in a report for USAID that will be publicly available. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to take part if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you do not feel comfortable doing so. The purpose of this evaluation is to improve the performance of projects like SFMP. The information may be used by other organizations as well. There is no direct benefit to USAID for your participation in this study. The purpose is only to help us improve the services of projects like the SFMP. If you chose to participate, your responses will remain anonymous. The interview is expected to take about 1 hour. Do you have any questions? You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact Prof. Steve Amisah at 0277402633 or steveamisah1@yahoo.co.uk By answering “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent statement, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation, and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this interview? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 75 ◻ Yes, I will participate. ◻ No, I will not participate. A 1. 5 TYPE OF FISH DEPENDENT HOUSEHOLD: ☐Male and Female Adult ☐Female Adult Only ☐Male Adult Only A 1.6 MAIN RELIGION OF FISH DEPENDENT HOUSEHOLD: ☐No Religion ☐Christian ☐Islam ☐Traditionalist ☐Other (specify) A 1.7 MAIN ETHNIC GROUP OF FISH DEPENDENT HOUSEHOLD: ☐Akan ☐Ga ☐Ewe ☐Fanti ☐Ahanta ☐Nzema ☐Other (specify) B. Household Demographics NOTE TO ENUMERATOR: ALL APPLICABLE QUESTIONNAIRE SECTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AND SENIORMOST GENDER--OPPOSITE HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AS SEPARATE SURVEY ENTRIES. B 2.1 IS THE RESPONDENT THE ADULT MALE DECISION MAKER OR ADULT FEMALE DECISION MAKER ☐Adult male decision maker ☐Adult female decision maker ☐None B 2.2 WHAT IS THE RESPONDENT'S SEX? ☐Male ☐Female SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 76 B 2.3 WHAT IS THE RESPONDENT'S AGE IN YEARS? B 2.4 WHAT IS THE RESPONDENT'S CIVIL OR MARITAL STATUS? ☐Never Married/Single ☐Informal/Consensual Union/Living together ☐Married ☐Separated ☐Divorced ☐Widowed B 2.5 CAN THE RESPONDENT READ AND WRITE IN EITHER ENGLISH, THE LOCAL LANGUAGE, OR BOTH? ☐Yes ☐No B 2.6 HAS THE RESPONDENT EVER ATTENDED SCHOOL? ☐Yes ☐No B 2.7A WHAT IS THE HIGHEST QUALIFICATION COMPLETED BY THE RESPONDENT? ☐None ☐MSLC ☐BECE ☐SSCE/WASSCE ☐ O’Level☐ A’ Level ☐Certificate ☐SSCE/WASSCE ☐GCE A Level/O’ Level ☐Tech/Prof Cert ☐Tech/Prof Dipl ☐HND ☐Bachelors ☐Masters ☐Doctorate ☐Diploma ☐Other (specify) C. Fishing Practices (data from this section will be compared to the baseline to gauge any potential changes in the fishing practices, fisheries reforms, closed season, gender equality etc. – it addresses part of Evaluation questions 1, 2, 3 & 4) C3.1. COMPARED TO 5 YEARS AGO, HAS THE LEVEL OF LIGHT FISHING AMONG FISHERMEN IN YOUR COMMUNITY: ☐Don’t Know ☐Decreased a lot ☐Decreased somewhat ☐Stayed about the same ☐Increased somewhat ☐Increased a lot SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 77 C3.2 COMPARED TO 5 YEARS AGO, HAS THE USE OF FINE MESH NETS AMONG FISHERMEN IN YOUR COMMUNITY: ☐Don’t Know ☐Decreased a lot ☐Decreased somewhat ☐Stayed about the same ☐Increased somewhat ☐Increased a lot C3.3 COMPARED TO 5 YEARS AGO, HAS THE LEVEL OF BOMB (DYNAMITE) FISHING AMONG FISHERMEN IN YOUR COMMUNITY: ☐Don’t Know ☐Decreased a lot ☐Decreased somewhat ☐Stayed about the same ☐Increased somewhat ☐Increased a lot C3 .4 COMPARED TO 5 YEARS AGO, HAS THE LEVEL OF CARBIDE OR POISONOUS CHEMICAL FISHING AMONG FISHERMEN IN YOUR COMMUNITY: ☐Don’t Know ☐Decreased a lot ☐Decreased somewhat ☐Stayed about the same ☐Increased somewhat ☐Increased a lot C3.5A HOW AWARE ARE YOU OF GHANAIAN FISHING REGULATIONS? ☐Barely/Not at all ☐Somewhat aware ☐Very much aware SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 78 C3.6 I WILL READ YOU A LIST OF FISHING PRACTICES. FOR EACH, PLEASE TELL ME IF IT IS ILLEGAL UNDER GHANA FISHING LAW. [ENUMERATOR: CHECK ALL THAT RESPONDENT SAYS ARE ILLEGAL] ☐Set gill nets ☐Monofilament nets (i.e. Rubber Nets, Sika Ye Abrantie) ☐Nets with mesh sizes smaller than 2.5cm ☐Beach seines ☐Fishing with lights ☐Nets with mesh sizes greater than 10cm ☐Catching of sword fish ☐Fish transferred from trawlers to canoes and then brought to shore (i.e. Saiko) ☐Catching of sea turtles ☐"Ali Poli Watcha" nets ☐Use of dynamite ☐Drift gill nets C3.7 ARE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FISHING VESSELS CONDUCTING ILLEGAL FISHING ACTIVITIES NEAR YOUR COMMUNITY, SUCH AS LIGHT FISHING, DYNAMITE FISHING, CARBIDE FISHING, USING FINE MESH NETS OR TRAWLERS OPERATING SHORE? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) ☐Large Foreign industrial fishing boats ☐Ghanaian trawlers ☐Inshore china-- boats ☐Canoes C3.8 HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEE THE MARINE POLICE OR FISHERIES COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS PATROLLING THE BEACHES IN YOUR COMMUNITY? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.9 HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEE THE NAVY OR MARINE POLICE PATROLLING IN THE SEA? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 79 ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.10 HOW OFTEN DO ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE REASONS FOR THE FISHERIES LAWS? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.11 WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU FEEL REFLECTS YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE FISHERY: ☐If the fishing laws are followed by all fishermen, it will increase fish catches in the future ☐The current fishing laws if followed by all fishermen, will not increase the fish catches in the future ☐Don't Know C3.12 WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT A FISHERMAN WILL BE ARRESTED FOR ILLEGAL FISHING (SUCH AS LIGHT FISHING OR DYNAMITE FISHING)? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.13 WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT A FISHERMAN, IF ARRESTED, WILL HAVE GEAR CONFISCATED, PAY A FINE, OR GO TO JAIL? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 80 C3.14 TO WHAT EXTENT DO PEOPLE HIGH UP (SUCH AS POLITICIANS) INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF FISHERMEN IF THEY ARE ARRESTED TO GET THEM OFF WITH NO JAIL, NO FINE, OR RELEASE OF CONFISCATED GEAR? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.15 IF YOU SEE A FISHERMAN WHO LIVES IN YOUR COMMUNITY USING ILLEGAL FISHING METHODS (SUCH AS LIGHT FISHING OR DYNAMITE FISHING), WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WOULD YOU MOST LIKELY DO? ☐Nothing and ignore it ☐Tell them to stop using those fishing methods ☐Stop socializing with them if they were my friend ☐Report them to the chief fisherman ☐Report them to the police C3.16 DO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS EVER ACCEPT PAYMENT FROM FISHERMEN TO NOT ARREST THEM FOR ILLEGAL FISHING (SUCH AS LIGHT FISHING FISHING)? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.17 HOW OFTEN ARE YOU ASKED FOR YOUR OPINION ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING LAWS BY THE FISHERIES COMMISSION? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 81 C3.18 HOW OFTEN ARE YOU ASKED FOR YOUR OPINION ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING LAWS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.19 HOW OFTEN ARE YOU ASKED FOR YOUR OPINION ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING LAWS BY CHIEF FISHERMEN OR TRADITIONAL LEADERS? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES IN YOUR COMMUNITY DO YOU BELIEVE ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR PARENTS TO ALLOW? C3.20 CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 15 YEARS: ☐Working on a fishing vessel ☐Selling fish or smoking fish after school ☐Selling or smoking fish during any time of the day ☐Parent taking payment from a person who promises to take care of the child at a location outside of the community C3.21 CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF AT LEAST 15 BUT BELOW 18 YEARS: ☐Working on a fishing vessel ☐Selling fish or smoking fish after school ☐Selling or smoking fish during any time of the day ☐Parent taking payment from a person who promises to take care of the child at a location outside of the community SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 82 C3.22 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW WIDESPREAD IS THE PRACTICE OF PARENTS ALLOWING CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 15 YEARS TO GO FISHING? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.23 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW WIDESPREAD IS THE PRACTICE OF PARENTS ALLOWING CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 15 YEARS TO WORK DURING SCHOOL HOURS SMOKING FISH? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.24 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW WIDESPREAD IS THE PRACTICE OF PARENTS ALLOWING CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 15 YEARS TO WORK DURING SCHOOL HOURS SELLING FISH? ☐Don’t Know ☐Not at all/Never ☐Rarely ☐Frequently ☐All the time C3.25 SOMETIMES PARENTS IN FISHING COMMUNITIES TAKE PAYMENTS FROM A PERSON WHO PROMISES TO TAKE CARE OF A CHILD AT A LOCATION OUTSIDE YOUR COMMUNITY. IN YOUR OPINION, HOW WIDESPREAD IS THIS PRACTICE? ☐Many families in the community do this ☐Only a few families in the community do this ☐No one in the community ever does this WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES DO YOU BELIEVE ARE ILLEGAL UNDER GHANA'S LABOR LAWS? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 83 C3.26 CHILDREN BELOW THE AGE OF 15 YEARS: ☐Working on a fishing vessel ☐Selling fish or smoking fish after school ☐Selling or smoking fish during any time of the day ☐Parent taking payment from a person who promises to take care of the child at a location outside of the community C3.27 CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF AT LEAST 15 BUT BELOW 18 YEARS: ☐Working on a fishing vessel ☐Selling fish or smoking fish after school ☐Selling or smoking fish during any time of the day ☐Parent taking payment from a person who promises to take care of the child at a location outside of the community D. FISHING EFFORTS, CAPACITY BUILDING AND APPLIED MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS Note to Enumerator: THIS SECTION RELATES TO REDUCTION IN FISHING EFFORTS, CAPACITY BUILDING AND APPLIED MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS D4.1 OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS, WOULD YOU SAY FISHING EFFORT (i.e, HOURS AND DAYS FOR FISHERY ACTIVITIES) IN GENERAL HAS… ☐ Reduced ☐ Remained the same ☐ Increased ☐ Don’t know D4.2 IF FISHING EFFORT HAS REDUCED, WHICH OF THE ACTIVITY REGULATIONS ARE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE ACHIEVED THE NEEDED EFFORT REDUCTIONS IN THE ARTISANAL FLEET? ☐ Closed season ☐ Capping vessel number, size ☐ Gear regulations ☐ Expanded fishing holidays ☐ Other D4.3 HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY TRAINING UNDER THE SFMP? ☐Yes ☐No SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 84 D4.4 IF YES, IN WHAT AREAS DID YOU RECEIVE TRAINING IN UNDER THE SFMP? ☐conflict management ☐hygienic fish processing ☐small business development ☐improved fish handling and/or processing practices ☐fisheries management and/or fish biology ☐training on public advocacy or leadership skills building ☐other (specify) WHAT HAS BEEN THE EFFECT OF THE TRAINING ON YOUR BUSINESS? D4.5 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING INTERVENTIONS HAVE YOU BENEFITED FROM UNDER SFMP? ☐ Ahotor ovens ☐ Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) ☐ Class 1 Certified Fish Processing Kitchens ☐ Estuary management plans ☐ Other (specify) D4.6 TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE CHOSEN INTERVENTION YOU BENEFITTED FROM HELP YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS? (TICK ALL THAT APPLY) Improved Remained the same Decreased Household Income Standard of living Food security/Hunger Vulnerability to shocks D4.7 DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE CLOSED SEASON? ☐Yes ☐No SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 85 D4.8 DID YOU COMPLY WITH THE CLOSED SEASON? ☐Yes ☐No D4.9 THE CLOSED SEASON WAS BENEFICIAL… ☐Strongly agree ☐Agree ☐Indifferent ☐Disagree ☐Strongly disagree D4.10 THE CLOSED SEASON WAS EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED – I.E., HIGH VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE ☐ Strongly agree ☐ Agree ☐ Indifferent ☐ Disagree ☐ Strongly disagree D4.11 WHAT HAS BEEN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE CLOSE SEASON ON YOUR HOUSEHOLD? ☐ Increase in the value of landed catch ☐ Increase in household income ☐ Decrease in the value of landed catch ☐ Decrease in household income ☐ Increase in food insecurity ☐ Other D4.12 SHOULD THERE BE SUBSEQUENT CLOSED SEASONS? ☐ Yes ☐ No D4.13 IF NO, WHY? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 86 D4.14 HOW COMFORTABLE ARE YOU IN ADVOCATING PUBLICLY FOR A CLOSED SEASON AMONG YOUR FELLOW PEERS (FISHERMEN, PROCESSORS, TRADERS – USE WHICH APPLIES TO THIS RESPONDENT)? Very comfortable Somewhat comfortable Somewhat uncomfortable Very uncomfortable Don’t know D4.15 DO YOU SUPPORT DO THE FOLLOWING MEASURES TO MANAGE MARINE RESOURCES IN GHANA? closed seasons. ☐ Quite support it ☐ Somewhat support it ☐ Neither support nor oppose it ☐ I oppose it ☐ Strongly oppose it Setting quotas for fishermen ☐ Quite support it ☐ Somewhat support it ☐ Neither support nor oppose it ☐ I oppose it ☐ Strongly oppose it Limiting the number of licenses for fishermen ☐ Quite support it ☐ Somewhat support it ☐ Neither support nor oppose it ☐ I oppose it ☐ Strongly oppose it Limiting the amount of time people spend fishing ☐ Quite support it ☐ Somewhat support it ☐ Neither support nor oppose it SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 87 ☐ I oppose it ☐ Strongly oppose it E. Influencing policy in the fisheries sector E5.1 DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE SPEAKING UP IN PUBLIC TO PROTEST ILLEGAL FISHING ACTIVITIES? ☐No, not at all comfortable ☐Yes, but with a great deal of difficulty ☐Yes, but with a little difficulty ☐Yes, fairly comfortable ☐Yes, very comfortable E5.2 DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE SPEAKING UP IN PUBLIC TO PROPOSE NEW FISHING RULES NEEDED TO REBUILD THE FISHERY? ☐No, not at all comfortable ☐Yes, but with a great deal of difficulty ☐Yes, but with a little difficulty ☐Yes, fairly comfortable ☐Yes, very comfortable E5.3 OVER THE PAST 5 FIVE YEARS, ARTISANAL FISHERFOLK HAVE HAD AN EFFECTIVE VOICE IN POLICY DELIBERATIONS… ☐ Strongly agree ☐ Agree ☐ Indifferent ☐ Disagree ☐ Strongly disagree E5.4 IF AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE, WHAT MIGHT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS? ☐ Reforms initiated under SFMP (e.g., such as fisher-to-fisher dialogue, co-management etc) ☐ Other (specify) E5.5 OVER THE PAST 5 FIVE YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN A REDUCTION IN POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF FISHERIES REGULATIONS… ☐ Strongly agree ☐ Agree ☐ Indifferent SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 88 ☐ Disagree ☐ Strongly disagree E5.6 IF AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE, WHAT MIGHT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS? ☐ Reforms initiated under SFMP (e.g., such as fisher-to-fisher dialogue, co-management etc) ☐ Other (specify) E5.7. THE CO-MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS ENABLED LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS’ DIRECT CONTRIBUTION TO THE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ☐ Strongly agree ☐ Agree ☐ Indifferent ☐ Disagree ☐ Strongly disagree E5.8.OVERALL, SFMP HAS CONTRIBUTED TO IMPROVED AND SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES PRACTICES IN GHANA? ☐ Strongly agree ☐ Agree ☐ Indifferent ☐ Disagree ☐ Strongly disagree E5.9. ARE THERE ANY GAPS THAT THE SFMP IS NOT TARGETING? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, what are these? F. Decision Making – Gender equity "NOW I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT VARIOUS ASPECTS OF HOUSEHOLD LIFE." F6.1 DO YOU NORMALLY PARTICIPATE IN DECISION MAKING REGARDING FISHING, FISH SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 89 PROCESSING OR MARKETING? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Sometimes F6.2 WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE REGARDING GETTING INPUTS FOR FISHING, WHO IS IT THAT NORMALLY TAKES THE DECISION? ☐Main male or husband ☐Main female or wife ☐Husband and wife jointly ☐Someone else in the household ☐Jointly with someone else inside the household ☐Jointly with someone else outside the household ☐Someone outside the household / other ☐Household does not engage in activity / Decision not made F6.3 WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE REGARDING THE TYPE OF FISHING, WHO IS IT THAT NORMALLY TAKES THE DECISION? ☐Main male or husband ☐Main female or wife ☐Husband and wife jointly ☐Someone else in the household ☐Jointly with someone else inside the household ☐Jointly with someone else outside the household ☐Someone outside the household / other ☐Household does not engage in activity / Decision not made F6.4 WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE REGARDING TAKING FISH SMOKING OR PROCESSING, WHO IS IT THAT NORMALLY TAKES THE DECISION? ☐Main male or husband ☐Main female or wife ☐Husband and wife jointly ☐Someone else in the household ☐Jointly with someone else inside the household ☐Jointly with someone else outside the household SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 90 ☐Someone outside the household / other ☐Household does not engage in activity / Decision not made F6.5 WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE REGARDING TAKING FISH TO THE MARKET (OR NOT), WHO IS IT THAT NORMALLY TAKES THE DECISION? ☐Main male or husband ☐Main female or wife ☐Husband and wife jointly ☐Someone else in the household ☐Jointly with someone else inside the household ☐Jointly with someone else outside the household ☐Someone outside the household / other ☐Household does not engage in activity / Decision not made F6.6 WHEN DECISIONS ARE MADE REGARDING YOUR OWN (SINGULAR) WAGE OR SALARY EMPLOYMENT, WHO IS IT THAT NORMALLY TAKES THE DECISION? ☐Main male or husband ☐Main female or wife ☐Husband and wife jointly ☐Someone else in the household ☐Jointly with someone else inside the household ☐Jointly with someone else outside the household ☐Someone outside the household / other ☐Household does not engage in activity / Decision not made MODULE 2: COVID-19 SUPPORT PROGRAM G. Effect of Safety Net Assistance to Poor and Vulnerable Fisheries Dependent Households SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 91 Effect of COVID-19 on economic activities G7.1 INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH COVID-19 AFFECTED YOUR LIVELIHOOD/ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ☐ COVID-19 did not affect or interrupt my economic activities ☐ COVID-19 affected me somewhat. ☐ COVID-19 affected me a lot ☐ COVID-19 had no effect on economic activities ☐ Do not know. Please explain how you were affected by COVID-19? G7.2 ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CASH TRANSFER COMPONENT OF THE SFMP PROJECT? ☐ Yes ☐ No G7.3 DID YOU BENEFIT FROM THE CASH TRANSFER COMPONENT OF THE SFMP PROJECT? ☐ Yes ☐ No G7.4 IF YES, HOW HAS YOUR HOUSEHOLD USED THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CASH TRANSFER PROJECT? ☐ Expenses related to children’s education. ☐ Food for household ☐ Healthcare expenses ☐ Acquisition of household equipment ☐ Fishing nets ☐ Canoes ☐ Other Fishing related expenditure ☐ Starting a business (non-agric. related) ☐ Social expenses (e.g. wedding, funeral, etc.) ☐ I don’t know ☐ Other (specify) G7.5 DID YOU EXPERIENCE ANY CHALLENGE IN ACCESSING THE CASH TRANSFER? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, what challenge did you face? G7.6 INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SAFETY NET ASSISTANCE OF THE SFMP HELPED YOU TO REDUCE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF COVID 19 ON ECONOMIC SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 92 ACTIVITIES. ☐ Do not know. ☐ It did not help. ☐ Stayed the same. ☐ It somewhat helped. ☐ It helped a lot. H. Effect of Diversified Livelihoods Pilot intervention H8.1 DID YOU BENEFIT FROM THE DIVERSIFIED LIVELIHOODS PILOT INTERVENTION COMPONENT OF THE SFMP PROJECT? ☐ Yes ☐ No H8.2 IF YES, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING LIVELIHOOD OPTIONS DID YOU BENEFIT FROM? (TICK ALL THAT APPLY) Options Yes No Production of handwashing soap Bakery/ Flour confectionery Installation and repairs of digital TV and air conditioning Completed apprenticeships Production of alternative product on Ahotor oven Apprenticeship Others H8.3 TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE CHOSEN DIVERSIFIED LIVELIHOOD OPTION [BENEFITTED FROM] HELP YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS? (TICK ALL THAT APPLY) Improved Remained the same decreased Household Income Standard of living Food security/Hunger Vulnerability to shocks SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 93 H8.4 DID YOU EXPERIENCE ANY CHALLENGE WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE DIVERSIFIED LIVELIHOOD OPTION COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT? ☐ Yes ☐ No Explain H8.5 WOULD YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK IN THE CHOSEN LIVELIHOOD OPTION [BENEFITTED FROM/SELECTED ABOVE]? ☐ Yes ☐ No Reason COVID-19 Prevention Protocols Note to enumerator: STRUCTURED OBSERVATION: THIS SECTION ASSESSES THE ADEQUACY AND UTILIZATION OF HANDWASHING FACILITIES (VERONICA BUCKETS), AND ADHERENCE TO PHYSICAL/SOCIAL DISTANCING AND THE WEARING OF FACE MASKS AT THE FISH LANDING, PROCESSING AND MARKETING SITES. A 1.1 ENUMERATOR IDENTIFIER A 1.2 REGION: ☐Volta ☐Greater Accra ☐Central ☐Western A 1.3 DISTRICT: A 1.4 COMMUNITY / VILLAGE NAME: A1.5 LANDING BEACH NAME A1.6 WHAT IS THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY AT THE SITE? ☐Fish landing ☐Processing ☐Marketing ☐Fish landing and Processing ☐Marketing and Processing A 1.7 ARE HAND WASHING FACILITIES AVAILABLE AT THE SITE? ☐Yes ☐No A1.8 HOW MANY VERONICA BUCKETS ARE ON SITE? ------------------ -------- SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 94 ☐ Fish landing, processing and marketing A1.9 ARE THE VERONICA BUCKETS ENOUGH? ☐Yes ☐No A1.10 ARE ALL HANDWASHING FACILITIES FUNCTIONAL? ☐Yes ☐No A 1.11 IF NO, HOW MANY ARE FUNCTIONAL? ------------------------ A1.12 ADEQUACY OF WATER ☐Not enough ☐Running low ☐ Adequate A1.13 ADEQUACY OF SOAP ☐Not enough ☐Running low ☐ Adequate ☐ A1.14 ARE TISSUE AND BIN AVAILABLE AT ALL HANDWASHING FACILITIES? ☐Yes ☐No A1.15IF NO, HOW MANY STATIONS HAVE THESE AVAILABLE? ------------------------ A1.16 ARE PEOPLE UTILIZING THE HAND WASHING FACILITIES AT THE SITE? (please observe and tick as appropriate) ☐None of the people at the site ☐A few of the people at the site ☐About half of the people at the site ☐Most of the people at the A1.17 WHO USES THE HANDWASHING FACILITY AT SITE? ☐Mostly men A.1.18 ARE PEOPLE STAYING 6 FEET APART FROM EACH OTHER ON SITE AT THE TIME OF VISIT? A1.19. WHAT IS THE DENSITY OF PEOPLE AT SITE? ☐Low ☐Medium A1.20 HOW MANY PEOPLE ON SITE ARE WEARING FACE MASKS? (please observe and tick as appropriate) SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 95 ☐Mostly women ☐Equal number of men and women ☐ No physical distancing ☐ Minimal physical distancing ☐High adherence to physical distancing ☐High ☐None of the people at the site ☐A few of the people at the site ☐About half of the people at the site ☐Most of the people at the site INTERVIEWS OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS AT LANDING SITES A21. DO YOU PRACTICE HAND WASHING WITH SOAP UNDER RUNNING WATER REGULARLY? ☐ Rarely ☐ Occasionally ☐ Sometimes ☐ Most of the time ☐ Always A22. DO YOU PRACTICE SOCIAL DISTANCING? ☐ Rarely ☐ b. Occasionally ☐ c. Sometimes ☐ Most of the time ☐ e. Always A23. DO YOU PUT ON FACE MASKS WHEN YOU ARE IN THE PUBLIC SPACE? ☐ Rarely ☐ Occasionally ☐ Sometimes ☐ Most of the time ☐ Always A24. DO YOU AVOID TOUCHING EYES, NOSE AND MOUTH WITH UNWASHED HANDS? ☐ Rarely ☐ Occasionall y ☐ Sometimes ☐ Most of the time ☐ Always SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 96 ANNEX 4: INTERVIEW GUIDES KII Guide – URI, UCC and Local Implementing Partner staff Interview date: Interviewer: Name(s): Institution: Title(s): Consent Statement: Thank you for taking the time to participate in this evaluation study. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from an organization called BIRD, KNUST. Our team is conducting a final performance evaluation of the SFMP, which was funded by USAID. We would like to conduct a brief interview today to learn about your perspectives on the performance of the SFMP. This information will be used in a report for USAID that will be publicly available. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to take part if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you do not feel comfortable doing so. The purpose of this evaluation is to improve the performance of projects like SFMP. The information may be used by other organizations as well. There is no direct benefit to USAID for your participation in this study. The purpose is only to help us improve the services of projects like the SFMP. If you chose to participate, your responses will remain anonymous. The interview is expected to take about 1 hour. Do you have any questions? You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact Prof. Steve Amisah at 0277402633 or steveamisah1@yahoo.co.uk By answering “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent statement, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation, and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this interview? ◻ Yes, I will participate. ◻ No, I will not participate. Project relevance and design Policy alignment: 1. Were project objectives realistic and consistent with national development framework (i.e., sustainable fisheries management) as well as the needs of the fisherfolk? 2. Were the project components adequate to address the identified problems? 3. How coherent was the project with respect to the policies, programs and projects undertaken by the Government and other development partners? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 97 4. How was the internal coherence of the project in terms of synergies and complementarity between objectives, components, activities and inputs? Participatory design 5. Was the project design participatory? Did it take into consideration the inputs and needs of key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fisheries Commission, executing agencies, and the expected beneficiaries and their grassroots organizations? Learning Approach 6. Did the project benefit from available knowledge (for example, the experience of other similar projects in the country) during its design and implementation? 7. Overall project coherence: In general, were project design and implementation approach appropriate for achieving the project’s objectives? 1. To what extent has the SFMP achieved its intended purposes of (1) rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels; and the additional 11-month cost extension (2) to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.1. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to the adoption of improved fishing practices? 1.2. How has the policy environment for sustainable fisheries management changed over the past 5 years? What has been the unique contribution of the SFMP in shaping fisheries sector policies? 1.3. Compared to 5 years ago, how will you describe the extent of law enforcement in the fisheries sector? 1.4. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to creating an enabling legal environment that supports the implementing of co-management, use rights, capacity and effort-reduction strategies? 1.5. How has the SFMP contributed to improving information systems and science-informed decision￾making in the fisheries sector? 1.6. To what extent did the SFMP contribute to rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks? 1.7. How did the SFMP contribute to women’s empowerment and the prevention of child trafficking and child labor in fisheries? 1.8. To what extend did the COVID-19 support interventions help to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.9. In what ways did the cash transfer component of the SFMP help to mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities? 2. What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why? For the original program, at a minimum, SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 98 consider the efforts to (a) build effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations, (b) expand the use of science for management, (c) strengthen gender equity, and (d) collaborate with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. For the COVID-19 extension, at a minimum, the team should include the focus on diversifying livelihoods and providing economic assistance to vulnerable fishing households. Factors influencing building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations. 2.1. In what ways did SFMP contribute to building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? 2.2. How did the fisher-to-fisher dialogue help in building effective constituencies for reform and strengthening fisheries organisations? 2.3. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that influenced building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? Rank these. 2.4. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that affected the adoption of sustainable fishing practices? Rank these. Factors influencing the use of science and technology for fisheries management. 2.1. To what extent did SFMP contribute to the use of research evidence in fisheries management? 2.2. What factors have enabled or constrained the application of science and technology in fisheries management? Factors influencing strengthening gender equity. 2.3. In what ways did SFMP contribute to strengthening gender equity? 2.4. What factors have enabled or constrained gender equity in the fisheries sector? Rank these. Collaboration with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. 2.5. How has the SFMP contributed to strengthening institutional capacity and collaborative management and governance in the fisheries sector? 2.6. In what ways did SFMP collaborate with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.7. What were the factors that enabled or constrained collaboration with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.8. In what ways could SFMP improve collaborations with government actors, development partners and other relevant USAID programs in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.9. How has the project enabled GoG to get evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID -19? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 99 3. To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisher folk in the decision-making lead to artisanal fisher folk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the reforms served their interest? Why or why not? 3.1. Which local fishing associations have had their membership engaged and/or strengthened by the SFMP? 3.2. In what ways did such engagements lead to the strengthening of the local fishing associations? 3.3. In what ways did such engagements contribute to local people having more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations? 3.4. Have such voices local people now have (if indeed they have) served their interest? If yes, how? And if no, why? 3.5. Are local fisherfolks now confident to speak in public about issues relating fisheries sector policy reforms including illegal fishing? If yes, what are the reasons? If no, explain. Would you attribute this to SFMP? 3.6. Between women and men, who are more confident in speaking in public on issues affecting the welfare of fisher folks? Explain 4. To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisher folk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms, and can they be sustained post-project? Why / why not? 4.1. What has been the effects of the COVID-19 support program on vulnerable fisherfolks? 4.2. How did the COVID-19 support program contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolk? 4.3. In what ways did the post-harvest management contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolks? 4.4. What has been the effects of the microfinance and micro insurance interventions on fisherfolks? And how can these be scaled up? 4.5. How has the activities of SFMP helped you to improve and sustain the productivity of your fisheries business? 4.6. To what extent did SFMP’s approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of your fisheries business helped in making you conform to good fisheries practices? 4.7. In your own view, what is the most significant change that took place in your life by participating in the Project?” “Why do you consider this to be the most significant change?”; and “Why do you think this change is very significant?”. 5. To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes likely to be sustained and/or adopted by the Government or other actors after the project ends? 5.1. What have been the key innovations from the SFMP? 5.2. Have these innovations been replicated and scaled up and, if so, by whom? If not, what are the realistic prospects that they can and will be replicated and scaled up by the Government, other donors and/or the private sector? 5.3. How would you describe the level of stakeholder buy-in, acceptance and ownership of the SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 100 measures and reforms instituted by the SFMP? Consider fisher folks, trawl fishers, governmental and non-governmental agencies etc 5.4. Was there any allocation of funds to support surveillance, monitoring and enforcement of fisheries laws? In no, why? If yes, how did this contribute to the sustainability of outcomes? 5.5. To what extent are the results of the project sustainable? 5.6. What measures were put in place to ensure the sustainability of the project and its benefits (i.e., the exit strategy)? 5.7. What are the lessons learned from the project? What worked well and what did not work so well? 5.8. Are there any gaps that the SFMP is not targeting? If yes, what are these? 5.9. If you were in a position to change anytime about the SFMP, what would you change? 5.10. What recommendations do you have to improve the performance of similar projects in the future? KII Guide – SFMP and USAID Staff Interview date: Interviewer: Name(s): Institution: Title(s): Consent Statement: Thank you for taking the time to participate in this evaluation study. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from an organization called BIRD, KNUST. Our team is conducting a final performance evaluation of the SFMP, which was funded by USAID. We would like to conduct a brief interview today to learn about your perspectives on the performance of the SFMP. This information will be used in a report for USAID that will be publicly available. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to take part if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you do not feel comfortable doing so. The purpose of this evaluation is to improve the performance of projects like SFMP. The information may be used by other organizations as well. There is no direct benefit to USAID for your participation in this study. The purpose is only to help us improve the services of projects like the SFMP. If you chose to participate, your responses will remain anonymous. The interview is expected to take about 1 hour. Do you have any questions? You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact Prof. Steve Amisah at 0277402633 or steveamisah1@yahoo.co.uk By answering “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent statement, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation, and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this interview? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 101 ◻ Yes, I will participate. ◻ No, I will not participate. Project relevance and design Policy alignment: 1. Were project objectives realistic and consistent with national development framework (i.e., sustainable fisheries management) as well as the needs of the fisherfolk? 2. Were the project components adequate to address the identified problems? 3. How coherent was the project with respect to the policies, programs and projects undertaken by the Government and other development partners? 4. How was the internal coherence of the project in terms of synergies and complementarity between objectives, components, activities and inputs? Participatory design 5. Was the project design participatory? Did it take into consideration the inputs and needs of key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fisheries Commission, executing agencies, and the expected beneficiaries and their grassroots organizations? Learning Approach 6. Did the project benefit from available knowledge (for example, the experience of other similar projects in the country) during its design and implementation? 7. Overall project coherence: In general, were project design and implementation approach appropriate for achieving the project’s objectives? 1. To what extent has the SFMP achieved its intended purposes of (1) rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels; and the additional 11-month cost extension (2) to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.1. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to the adoption of improved fishing practices? 1.2. How has the policy environment for sustainable fisheries management changed over the past 5 years? What has been the unique contribution of the SFMP in shaping fisheries sector policies? 1.3. Compared to 5 years ago, how will you describe the extent of law enforcement in the fisheries sector? 1.4. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to creating an enabling legal environment that supports the implementing of co-management, use rights, capacity and effort-reduction strategies? 1.5. How has the SFMP contributed to improving information systems and science-informed decision￾making in the fisheries sector? 1.6. To what extent did the SFMP contribute to rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 102 1.7. How did the SFMP contribute to women’s empowerment and the prevention of child trafficking and child labor in fisheries? 1.8. To what extend did the COVID-19 support interventions help to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.9. In what ways did the cash transfer component of the SFMP help to mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities? 2. What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why? For the original program, at a minimum, consider the efforts to (a) build effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations, (b) expand the use of science for management, (c) strengthen gender equity, and (d) collaborate with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. For the COVID-19 extension, at a minimum, the team should include the focus on diversifying livelihoods and providing economic assistance to vulnerable fishing households. Factors influencing building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations. 2.1. In what ways did SFMP contribute to building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? 2.2. How did the fisher-to-fisher dialogue help in building effective constituencies for reform and strengthening fisheries organisations? 2.3. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that influenced building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? Rank these. 2.4. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that affected the adoption of sustainable fishing practices? Rank these. Factors influencing the use of science and technology for fisheries management. 2.5. To what extent did SFMP contribute to the use of research evidence in fisheries management? 2.6. What factors have enabled or constrained the application of science and technology in fisheries management? Rank these. Factors influencing strengthening gender equity. 2.7. In what ways did SFMP contribute to strengthening gender equity? 2.8. What factors have enabled or constrained gender equity in the fisheries sector? Rank these. Collaboration with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. 2.9. How has the SFMP contributed to strengthening institutional capacity and collaborative management and governance in the fisheries sector? 2.10. In what ways did SFMP collaborate with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 103 2.11. What were the factors that enabled or constrained collaboration with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.12. In what ways could SFMP improve collaborations with government actors, development partners and other relevant USAID programs in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.13. How has the project enabled GoG to get evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID -19? 3. To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisher folk in the decision-making lead to artisanal fisher folk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the reforms served their interest? Why or why not? 3.1. Which local fishing associations have had their membership engaged and/or strengthened by the SFMP? 3.2. In what ways did such engagements lead to the strengthening of the local fishing associations? 3.3. In what ways did such engagements contribute to local people having more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations? 3.4. Have such voices local people now have (if indeed they have) served their interest? If yes, how? And if no, why? 3.5. Are local fisherfolks now confident to speak in public about issues relating fisheries sector policy reforms including illegal fishing? If yes, what are the reasons? If no, explain. Would you attribute this to SFMP? 3.6. Between women and men, who are more confident in speaking in public on issues affecting the welfare of fisher folks? Explain 4. To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisher folk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms, and can they be sustained post-project? Why / why not? 4.1. What has been the effects of the COVID-19 support program on vulnerable fisherfolks? 4.2. How did the COVID-19 support program contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolk? 4.3. In what ways did the post-harvest management contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolks? 4.4. What has been the effects of the microfinance and micro insurance interventions on fisherfolks? And how can these be scaled up? 4.5. How has the activities of SFMP helped you to improve and sustain the productivity of your fisheries business? 4.6. To what extent did SFMP’s approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of your fisheries business helped in making you conform to good fisheries practices? 4.7. In your own view, what is the most significant change that took place in your life by participating in the Project?” “Why do you consider this to be the most significant change?”; and “Why do you think this change is very significant?”. SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 104 5. To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes likely to be sustained and/or adopted by the Government or other actors after the project ends? 5.1. What have been the key innovations from the SFMP? 5.2. Have these innovations been replicated and scaled up and, if so, by whom? If not, what are the realistic prospects that they can and will be replicated and scaled up by the Government, other donors and/or the private sector? 5.3. How would you describe the level of stakeholder buy-in, acceptance and ownership of the measures and reforms instituted by the SFMP? Consider fisher folks, trawl fishers, governmental and non-governmental agencies etc 5.4. Was there any allocation of funds to support surveillance, monitoring and enforcement of fisheries laws? In no, why? If yes, how did this contribute to the sustainability of outcomes? 5.5. To what extent are the results of the project sustainable? 5.6. What measures were put in place to ensure the sustainability of the project and its benefits (i.e., the exit strategy)? 5.7. What are the lessons learned from the project? What worked well and what did not work so well? 5.8. Are there any gaps that the SFMP is not targeting? If yes, what are these? 5.9. If you were in a position to change anytime about the SFMP, what would you change? 5.10. What recommendations do you have to improve the performance of similar projects in the future? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 105 KII Guide –MoFAD, FC, GNFC, NAFPTA, and GITA Interview date: Interviewer: Name(s): Institution: Title(s): Consent Statement: Thank you for taking the time to participate in this evaluation study. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from an organization called BIRD, KNUST. Our team is conducting a final performance evaluation of the SFMP, which was funded by USAID. We would like to conduct a brief interview today to learn about your perspectives on the performance of the SFMP. This information will be used in a report for USAID that will be publicly available. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to take part if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you do not feel comfortable doing so. The purpose of this evaluation is to improve the performance of projects like SFMP. The information may be used by other organizations as well. There is no direct benefit to USAID for your participation in this study. The purpose is only to help us improve the services of projects like the SFMP. If you chose to participate, your responses will remain anonymous. The interview is expected to take about 1 hour. Do you have any questions? You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact Prof. Steve Amisah at 0277402633 or steveamisah1@yahoo.co.uk By answering “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent statement, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation, and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this interview? ◻ Yes, I will participate. ◻ No, I will not participate. Project relevance and design Policy alignment: 1. Were project objectives realistic and consistent with national development framework (i.e., sustainable fisheries management) as well as the needs of the fisherfolk? 2. Were the project components adequate to address the identified problems? 3. How coherent was the project with respect to the policies, programs and projects undertaken by the Government and other development partners? 4. How was the internal coherence of the project in terms of synergies and complementarity between objectives, components, activities and inputs? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 106 Participatory design 5. Was the project design participatory? Did it take into consideration the inputs and needs of key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fisheries Commission, executing agencies, and the expected beneficiaries and their grassroots organizations? Learning Approach 6. Did the project benefit from available knowledge (for example, the experience of other similar projects in the country) during its design and implementation? 7. Overall project coherence: In general, were project design and implementation approach appropriate for achieving the project’s objectives? 1. To what extent has the SFMP achieved its intended purposes of (1) rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels; and the additional 11-month cost extension (2) to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.1. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to the adoption of improved fishing practices? 1.2. How has the policy environment for sustainable fisheries management changed over the past 5 years? What has been the unique contribution of the SFMP in shaping fisheries sector policies? 1.3. Compared to 5 years ago, how will you describe the extent of law enforcement in the fisheries sector? 1.4. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to creating an enabling legal environment that supports the implementing of co-management, use rights, capacity and effort-reduction strategies? 1.5. How has the SFMP contributed to improving information systems and science-informed decision￾making in the fisheries sector? 1.6. To what extent did the SFMP contribute to rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks? 1.7. How did the SFMP contribute to women’s empowerment and the prevention of child trafficking and child labor in fisheries? 1.8. To what extend did the COVID-19 support interventions help to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.9. In what ways did the cash transfer component of the SFMP help to mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities? 2. What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why? For the original program, at a minimum, consider the efforts to (a) build effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations, (b) expand the use of science for management, (c) strengthen gender equity, SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 107 and (d) collaborate with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. For the COVID-19 extension, at a minimum, the team should include the focus on diversifying livelihoods and providing economic assistance to vulnerable fishing households. Factors influencing building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations. 2.1. In what ways did SFMP contribute to building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? 2.2. How did the fisher-to-fisher dialogue help in building effective constituencies for reform and strengthening fisheries organisations? 2.3. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that influenced building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? Rank these. 2.4. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that affected the adoption of sustainable fishing practices? Rank these. Factors influencing the use of science and technology for fisheries management. 2.5. To what extent did SFMP contribute to the use of research evidence in fisheries management? 2.6. What factors have enabled or constrained the application of science and technology in fisheries management? Rank these. Factors influencing strengthening gender equity. 2.7. In what ways did SFMP contribute to strengthening gender equity? 2.8. What factors have enabled or constrained gender equity in the fisheries sector? Rank these. Collaboration with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. 2.9. How has the SFMP contributed to strengthening institutional capacity and collaborative management and governance in the fisheries sector? 2.10. In what ways did SFMP collaborate with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.11. What were the factors that enabled or constrained collaboration with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? Rank these. 2.12. In what ways could SFMP improve collaborations with government actors, development partners and other relevant USAID programs in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.13. How has the project enabled GoG to get evidence on approaches for effective livelihood assistance to fishing communities affected by COVID -19? 3. To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisher folk in the decision-making lead to artisanal fisher folk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the reforms served their interest? Why or why not? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 108 3.1. Which local fishing associations have had their membership engaged and/or strengthened by the SFMP? 3.2. In what ways did such engagements lead to the strengthening of the local fishing associations? 3.3. In what ways did such engagements contribute to local people having more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations? 3.4. Have such voices local people now have (if indeed they have) served their interest? If yes, how? And if no, why? 3.5. Are local fisherfolks now confident to speak in public about issues relating fisheries sector policy reforms including illegal fishing? If yes, what are the reasons? If no, explain. Would you attribute this to SFMP? 3.6. Between women and men, who are more confident in speaking in public on issues affecting the welfare of fisher folks? Explain 4. To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisher folk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms, and can they be sustained post-project? Why / why not? 4.1. What has been the effects of the COVID-19 support program on vulnerable fisherfolks? 4.2. How did the COVID-19 support program contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolk? 4.3. In what ways did the post-harvest management contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolks? 4.4. What has been the effects of the microfinance and micro insurance interventions on fisherfolks? And how can these be scaled up? 4.5. How has the activities of SFMP helped you to improve and sustain the productivity of your fisheries business? 4.6. To what extent did SFMP’s approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of your fisheries business helped in making you conform to good fisheries practices? 4.7. In your own view, what is the most significant change that took place in your life by participating in the Project?” “Why do you consider this to be the most significant change?”; and “Why do you think this change is very significant?”. 5. To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes likely to be sustained and/or adopted by the Government or other actors after the project ends? 5.1. What have been the key innovations from the SFMP? 5.2. Have these innovations been replicated and scaled up and, if so, by whom? If not, what are the realistic prospects that they can and will be replicated and scaled up by the Government, other donors and/or the private sector? 5.3. How would you describe the level of stakeholder buy-in, acceptance and ownership of the measures and reforms instituted by the SFMP? Consider fisher folks, trawl fishers, governmental and non-governmental agencies etc 5.4. Was there any allocation of funds to support surveillance, monitoring and enforcement of fisheries SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 109 laws? In no, why? If yes, how did this contribute to the sustainability of outcomes? 5.5. To what extent are the results of the project sustainable? 5.6. What measures were put in place to ensure the sustainability of the project and its benefits (i.e., the exit strategy)? 5.7. What are the lessons learned from the project? What worked well and what did not work so well? 5.8. Are there any gaps that the SFMP is not targeting? If yes, what are these? 5.9. If you were in a position to change anytime about the SFMP, what would you change? 5.10. What recommendations do you have to improve the performance of similar projects in the future? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 110 KII & FGD Guide – Fisherfolks Interview date: Interviewer: Name of Participants Participant category: Fishermen, traders, processors Consent Statement: Thank you for taking the time to participate in this evaluation study. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from an organization called BIRD, KNUST. Our team is conducting a final performance evaluation of the SFMP, which was funded by USAID. We would like to conduct a brief interview today to learn about your perspectives on the performance of the SFMP. This information will be used in a report for USAID that will be publicly available. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to take part if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you do not feel comfortable doing so. The purpose of this evaluation is to improve the performance of projects like SFMP. The information may be used by other organizations as well. There is no direct benefit to USAID for your participation in this study. The purpose is only to help us improve the services of projects like the SFMP. If you chose to participate, your responses will remain anonymous. The interview is expected to take about 1 hour. Do you have any questions? You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact Prof. Steve Amisah at 0277402633 or steveamisah1@yahoo.co.uk By answering “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent statement, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation, and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this interview? ◻ Yes, I will participate. ◻ No, I will not participate. Project relevance and design Policy alignment: 1. Were project objectives realistic and consistent with national development framework (i.e., sustainable fisheries management) as well as the needs of the fisherfolk? 2. Were the project components adequate to address the identified problems? 3. How coherent was the project with respect to the policies, programs and projects undertaken by the Government and other development partners? 4. How was the internal coherence of the project in terms of synergies and complementarity between objectives, components, activities and inputs? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 111 Participatory design 5. Was the project design participatory? Did it take into consideration the inputs and needs of key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fisheries Commission, executing agencies, and the expected beneficiaries and their grassroots organizations? Learning Approach 6. Did the project benefit from available knowledge (for example, the experience of other similar projects in the country) during its design and implementation? 7. Overall project coherence: In general, were project design and implementation approach appropriate for achieving the project’s objectives? 1. To what extent has the SFMP achieved its intended purposes of (1) rebuilding the targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels; and the additional 11-month cost extension (2) to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.1. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to the adoption of improved fishing practices? 1.2. How has the policy environment for sustainable fisheries management changed over the past 5 years? What has been the unique contribution of the SFMP in shaping fisheries sector policies? 1.3. Compared to 5 years ago, how will you describe the extent of law enforcement in the fisheries sector? 1.4. In what ways have the SFMP contributed to creating an enabling legal environment that supports the implementing of co-management, use rights, capacity and effort-reduction strategies? 1.5. How has the SFMP contributed to improving information systems and science-informed decision￾making in the fisheries sector? 1.6. To what extent did the SFMP contribute to rebuilding the small pelagic fish stocks? 1.7. How did the SFMP contribute to women’s empowerment and the prevention of child trafficking and child labor in fisheries? 1.8. To what extend did the COVID-19 support interventions help to prevent the spread and mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities in the project zone of influence? 1.9. In what ways did the cash transfer component of the SFMP help to mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19 among vulnerable households in fishing communities? 2. What were the key intended or unintended factors that enabled or constrained the adoption of sustainable fishing practices, and why? For the original program, at a minimum, consider the efforts to (a) build effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations, (b) expand the use of science for management, (c) strengthen gender equity, SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 112 and (d) collaborate with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. For the COVID-19 extension, at a minimum, the team should include the focus on diversifying livelihoods and providing economic assistance to vulnerable fishing households. Factors influencing building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations. 2.1. In what ways did SFMP contribute to building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? 2.2. How did the fisher-to-fisher dialogue help in building effective constituencies for reform and strengthening fisheries organisations? 2.3. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that influenced building effective constituencies for reform and strengthen fisheries organizations? Rank these. 2.4. What were the factors (enabling or constraining) that affected the adoption of sustainable fishing practices? Rank these. Factors influencing the use of science and technology for fisheries management. 2.5. To what extent did SFMP contributed to the use of research evidence in fisheries management? 2.6. What factors have enabled or constrained the application of science and technology in fisheries management? Rank these. Factors influencing strengthening gender equity. 2.7. In what ways did SFMP contributed to strengthening gender equity? 2.8. What factors have enabled or constrained gender equity in the fisheries sector? Rank these. Collaboration with other government actors and development partners focused on coastal and marine fisheries. 2.9. How has the SFMP contributed to strengthening institutional capacity and collaborative management and governance in the fisheries sector? 2.10. In what ways did SFMP collaborate with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.11. What were the factors that enabled or constrained collaboration with government actors and development partners in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 2.12. In what ways could SFMP improve collaborations with government actors, development partners and other relevant USAID programs in implementing the COVID-19 prevention and safety net project? 3. To what extent did strengthening the fishing organizations and engaging more fisher folk in the decision-making lead to artisanal fisher folk having a more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations, as measured by the extent to which the reforms served their interest? Why or why not? 3.1. Which local fishing associations have had their membership engaged and/or strengthened by the SFMP? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 113 3.2. In what ways did such engagements lead to the strengthening of the local fishing associations? 3.3. In what ways did such engagements contribute to local people having more effective voice and greater influence in national policy deliberations? 3.4. Have such voices local people now have (if indeed they have) served their interest? If yes, how? And if no, why? 3.5. Are local fisherfolks now confident to speak in public about issues relating fisheries sector policy reforms including illegal fishing? If yes, what are the reasons? If no, explain. Would you attribute this to SFMP? 3.6. Between women and men, who are more confident in speaking in public on issues affecting the welfare of fisher folks? Explain 4. To what extent were the approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of the fisher folk sufficient to achieve their support for the key fisheries management reforms, and can they be sustained post-project? Why / why not? 4.1. What has been the effects of the COVID-19 support program on vulnerable fisherfolks? 4.2. How did the COVID-19 support program contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolk? 4.3. In what ways did the post-harvest management/improvement contribute to building the economic resilience of the fisherfolks? 4.4. What has been the effects of the microfinance and micro insurance interventions on fisherfolks? And how can these be scaled up? 4.5. How has the activities of SFMP helped you to improve and sustain the productivity of your fisheries business? 4.6. To what extent did SFMP’s approaches to strengthen the economic resilience of your fisheries business helped in making you conform to good fisheries practices? 4.7. In your own view, what is the most significant change that took place in your life by participating in the Project?” “Why do you consider this to be the most significant change?”; and “Why do you think this change is very significant?”. 5. To what extent are the activity’s technical approaches, including but not limited to limiting fisheries capacity, level of effort, illegal methods, and increasing the use of science in fisheries management decisions and outcomes likely to be sustained and/or adopted by the Government or other actors after the project ends? 5.1. What have been the key innovations from the SFMP? 5.2. Have these innovations been replicated and scaled up and, if so, by whom? If not, what are the realistic prospects that they can and will be replicated and scaled up by the Government, other donors and/or the private sector? 5.3. How would you describe the level of stakeholder buy-in, acceptance and ownership of the measures and reforms instituted by the SFMP? Consider fisher folks, trawl fishers, governmental and non-governmental agencies etc 5.4. Was there any allocation of funds to support surveillance, monitoring and enforcement of fisheries laws? In no, why? If yes, how did this contribute to the sustainability of outcomes? 5.5. To what extent are the results of the project sustainable? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 114 5.6. What measures were put in place to ensure the sustainability of the project and its benefits (i.e., the exit strategy)? 5.7. What are the lessons learned from the project? What worked well and what did not work so well? 5.8. Are there any gaps that the SFMP is not targeting? If yes, what are these? 5.9. If you were in a position to change anytime about the SFMP, what would you change? 5.10.What recommendations do you have to improve the performance of similar projects in the future? SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report ANNEX 5: PROJECT RESULTS ACHIEVED: 2015–2020 Results chain/Indicators Baseline (2015) Cumulative Actual Results (2020) Remarks (rating of performance relative to baseline/LOP) Project Goal: Rebuild targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels Number of hectares in areas of biological significance and/or natural resource showing improved biophysical conditions as a result of USG assistance (EG.10.2-1) Baseline established 610,930 ha 1.a Biomass to produce MSY (Bmsy) (Project indicator) Baseline established declining 1.b Fishing Mortality at MSY (Fmsy) (Project indicator) Baseline established Increasing Number of indirect project Beneficiaries (Project indicator) 0 138,423 (22 percent women) High performance IR 1: POLICY: Strengthened enabling policy and legislative environment for improved marine resources governance Number of agricultural and nutritional enabling environment policies completing the following processes/steps of development as a result of USG assistance in each case (EG.10.2-5) (Project indicator - CLaT strategy developed and implemented High performance Co- Management Policy developed and approved by Government High performance - Three community-based co￾management plans (Pra, Ankobra and Densu) developed High performance SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report and piloted Gender mainstreaming strategy developed and approved by FC/MoFAD High performance Demersal fisheries management plan was dropped in FY18 plan step 1 Low performance IR 2: SCIENCE AND RESEARCH: Increased use of science and applied research to inform decision￾making See Crosscutting Indicators IR 3: CONSTITUENCIES: Constituencies and political will for policy reform & implementation built Number of information products disseminated in local media reports, radio shows, conference papers, and research studies (Project indicator 2). 0 229 High performance IR 4: APPLIED MANAGEMENT: Improved management of marine resources to conserve bio- diversity & provide other benefits Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance (EG.3.2-25) 0 622,714 marine & estuarine hectares High performance Number of hectares of biologically significant areas under improved natural resource management as a result of USG assistance (EG,10.2- 0 622,714 marine & estuarine hectares High performance Number of DAs supported with USG Assistance (Ghana CDCS, IR 0 6 High performance SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report 2.3 indicator) Improvement in fisheries enforcement and prosecutorial chain to counter IUU fishing (increase/decrease in prosecutions and percent that lead Evidence from the evaluation indicates limited progress towards improving fisheries enforcement and prosecutorial chain to counter IUU fishing Low performance Number of climate vulnerability assessments conducted as a result of USG Assistance (EG 4.5.1) 0 3 High performance Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance (EG.3.2-24) (Note: FY19 and prior reported as E.G. 3.2- 17) 0 108,856 High performance Number of individuals participating in USG-assisted group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs (EG.4.2-7) 0 401 High performance Number of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including farmers, receiving business development services 0 6062 High performance Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance, (EG.3.2-27) Note: FY17 and FY18 results shown here were under old EG.3.2- 6 0 $ 92,876 High performance Number of members of producer organizations and community￾based organizations receiving USG assistance (Project indicator 4) 0 17,975 High performance Number of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including farmers, receiving agricultural-related credit as a result of USG assistance (Project indicator 5) 0 492 out of LOP target of 600 representing 82 percent High performance Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), 0 6 (DAA, CEWEFIA, GNCFC, Target achieved SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report producers organizations, water users associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG GITA, NAFAG, NAFPTA) (Good rating of performance) SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report Cross Cutting Indicators Number of institutions with improved capacity to develop and implement managed access fisheries management plans 0 17 High performance Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive 0 95 percent High performance Value of new private sector investments in select value chains (FTF 4.5.2-38 Old) 0 $67,455.23 High performance Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of Feed the Future assistance (FTF 4.5.2(12) Old)_ 0 2 Good performance Number of days of USG funded technical assistance in NRM and/or biodiversity provided to counterparts or stakeholders (EG 4.8.1-28 Old) 0 3767 High performance Number of people receiving USG supported training in natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation, and climate change, disaggregated by gender (EG.10.2-4) 0 10,463 (57 percent male, 43 percent female) High performance Number of person hours of training in natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation supported by USG assistance (FtF 4.8.1-29) (old) 0 102,087 High performance Number of individuals who have received USG-supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food 0 10,632 Good performance Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree￾granting agricultural sector productivity or food security training (RAA) EG.3.2-2 0 5 (1 male and 4 females) High performance SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs (EG.3.2) 0 7325 High performance Number of service providers that receive training, technical assistance, or capacity building in victim-centered or trauma-informed services (PS.5.1-24) 0 656 High performance COVID 1: Strategic Area (Fisher folk at 300 landing sites adhere to COVID-19 prevention protocols Number of sites (landing beaches, processing centers or fish markets) obtaining hygiene equipment and supplies adhering to COVID-19 prevention protocols (Project indicator 7a) 0 153 landing beaches, processing centers or fish markets High performance Number of sites showing improvement in adherence to social distancing and other good practices (Project indicator 7b) 0 148 landing beaches, processing centers or fish markets High performance Number of functional Social Media Groups (Project indicator 7c) 21 groups/700 persons Average performance COVID 2: Strategic Area (Cash transfers for 2000 fisheries￾dependent households) US$ disbursed per household/person (Project indicator 8a) 2020: 0 $396,240 to 1905 hh over 4 months (Avg. $51 per hh per month. Avg $208 per hh over 4 months.) High performance percent of targeted households with steady or decreasing hunger and steady or increasing diet.(Project indicator 8b) 2020: 0 100 percent* High performance Number of methodologies for targeting and monitoring of economic assistance validated (Project indicator 8c) 2020: 0 2 (female-led and male-led Approaches to safety net program) High performance SFMP Endline Performance Evaluation – Final Report COVID 3 Strategic Area (Sustainable and Diversified Livelihoods) Number of livelihood approaches tested and their effectiveness (Project indicator 9) 2020: 0 5 (handwashing soap production, baking of confectionary, Digital TV and air-conditioning installation and repair, Good performance Source: Coastal Resources Center. (2021) – SFMP Final Report