EVALUATION

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MKBA Province Municipality MPA Palawan Coron Siete Pecados Culion Bugor Busuanga Royukon-Sagrado Calamianes Island Group (CIG) Danajon Reef (DR) Southern Negros (SN) Verde Island Passage (VIP) Bohol Getafe Inabanga Tubigon Nasingan Cuaming Pangapasan Negros Oriental Siaton Tambobo Salag-Maloh Andulay Siit Batangas Calatagan Mabini Tingloy Bagong Silang San Teodoro-Twin Rocks Sto. Tomas-Pulang Buli The main limitations of this evaluation included: (i) non-availability of some key informants on agreed schedules, resulting in cancellation or reduction in time of actual interviews; (ii) only nine 9 of 12 planned FGDs with Bantay Dagat (Sea Warden) groups were conducted due to absence of these groups in three sample areas; and (iii) absence of supporting documents of some LGUs that claimed to have achieved EAFM Level 2 status during field verifications, leading to the conduct of independent assessment of LGUs’ progress towards EAFM using the project’s newly devised EAFM benchmark criteria. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings Overall, the project achievements are on track at midterm as summarized below according to the three main evaluation objectives. Objective 1: The fundamental assumptions regarding the extent and conditions to which ECOFISH Project interventions will achieve targeted key results related to the “10 percent increase in biomass” are empirically feasible and practically oriented. However, the assumptions related to the “10 percent increase in the number of people with new or better employment” are not definitive as a significant number of interventions is still underway at midterm. None of the 12 evaluation questions were answered by “NO”, indicating that all questions are on track to be answered by the end of implementation. Six (6) evaluation questions (EQ# 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12) were answered by “YES”, which means that all the indicators have been satisfied or these questions are already evaluable at midpoint. The six other questions (EQ#1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11) were answered by “MAYBE”, which indicates that some indicators have not been satisfied yet at midterm. However, ECOFISH Project has started to implement activities to ensure that the answers to these latter questions will become “YES” by the end of implementation. Objective 2: ECOFISH Project implementation is progressing and achieving results as planned. The factors and conditions to achieve the six key results are in place and enhanced, resulting in the project achieving most of its targets at midterm. Key Result A posted variable outcomes, as clarified in the Recommendations section: o Fish visual census inside MPA only: 7.3 percent (VIP), -0.9 percent (SN); 3
o Fish visual census inside and outside MPA: 1.89 percent (VIP), -28 percent (SN); and o Fisheries: -35.8 percent (DR). Key Result B achieved nearly 50 percent of target at midterm based on proxy indicators: o Expenditures: 37 percent (SN), 89 percent (CIG); o Sea food diet: 18 percent (SN), 89 percent (CIG); and o Enforcement: 40 percent (SN), 10 percent (CIG). Key Result C achieved more than 50 percent of target. Key Result D achieved more than 82 percent if target. Key Result E achieved more than 55 percent of target. Key Result F achieved more than 38 percent of target. Objective 3: The main challenges at midterm include: (i) demonstration of enabled, operating and earning social enterprise; and (ii) piloting of a market-based instrument to support LGUs’ capacity to shift from fisheries management to EAFM. Conclusions Using the TOC as reference, ECOFISH Project is able to set up the measures and processes to collect information that would allow USAID and its stakeholders to answer all the 12 evaluation questions by end of implementation. The desired economic outcomes can be achieved during the project life if it provides targeted and strategic interventions, with emphasis on one or two MKBAs to demonstrate operational and profitable social enterprises. ECOFISH Project is on track in delivering its key results. The accomplishment rates of the six key results are significant or above 50% of targets at midterm, and most targets are likely to be achieved within the project life. However, substantive efforts need to be devoted to increasing economic and livelihood outputs, such as operating profitable enterprises, and revenue and financing schemes for LGUs to reduce fishing pressures and provide alternative income options to fishing households. Under the leadership of BFAR, the project provided technical assistance in the development of FishR and BoatR, two of the most important innovations rolled-out to reduce fishing pressures not only in eight MKBAs but also throughout the entire country. The benchmark data on EAFM obtained from self-assessments of LGUs showed 19 of targeted 30 LGUs achieved EAFM Level 2 status at midterm. The MPE team’s independent assessment of LGUs’ progress from fisheries management to EAFM showed that only LGUs in VIP MKBA reached EAFM Level 2 benchmark criteria. The team noticed that some supporting documents (e.g., multi-institutional collaboration, gear-specific management and revenue measures enforced) were unavailable during field verification. Currently, the project is already looking at improving the self-assessment methodology. Nevertheless, these 19 LGUs are all gearing to demonstrate “right sizing” of fishing effort in line with the results chain indicated in the TOC. “Right sizing” was coined by ECOFISH Project to promote the concept of finding the balance between the ecological capacities of MKBAs and fishing activities in those areas. The project is presently developing a design to incorporate this concept as the core of the fisheries management plan for inter-LGU collaborations. Moreover, the project will have to focus on the remaining 11 LGUs to attain EAFM Level 2 status. 4
Page 1 and 2: 1 EVALUATION Midterm Performance Ev
Page 3 and 4: MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
Page 5 and 6: TABLES Table 1: Relationships Betwe
Page 7 and 8: ANNEXES Annex I : Evaluation Statem
Page 9 and 10: OEECC PO PES PNP PNP-MG PPP SBS SDN
Page 11: B. To document the progress of impl
Page 15 and 16: (5) Make the following EAFM benchma
Page 17 and 18: fish stocks? 3. To what extent and
Page 19 and 20: Final Outcomes Build Foundation Imp
Page 21 and 22: 3. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIO
Page 23 and 24: 3.2 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Four MK
Page 25 and 26: 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS The KII a
Page 27 and 28: (PNP-MG) and Bantay Dagat groups. D
Page 29 and 30: Figure 3: Theory of Change and its
Page 31 and 32: Balayan Bay in 2014; and (ii) Fiber
Page 33 and 34: which has strong implications for f
Page 35 and 36: of the management body has temporar
Page 37 and 38: Their numbers increased to 19 LGU a
Page 39 and 40: about its enforcement for lack of a
Page 41 and 42: As noted earlier, the planned pilot
Page 43 and 44: these standard procedures, but cons
Page 45 and 46: scheme beyond the pilot stage. In s
Page 47 and 48: ANNEXES
Page 49 and 50: ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WO
Page 51 and 52: EAFM nationwide. This approach to a
Page 53 and 54: Implement Best Practices Tasks Deli
Page 55 and 56: The evaluation will be carried out
Page 57 and 58: IX. Evaluator’s Qualifications an
Page 59 and 60: - Pictures and other visual materia
Page 61 and 62: ANNEX II: SUMMARY OF DESK REVIEW AN
Page 63 and 64:
assessment. Tasks Deliverables 6. D
Page 65 and 66:
Name of Staff Virgilio Cabezon Dr.
Page 67 and 68:
Activities LOE Time line and TETRA
Page 69 and 70:
evaluability of the evaluation ques
Page 71 and 72:
• Focusing on operational concern
Page 73 and 74:
Approaches Quantitative Analysis Pa
Page 75 and 76:
organizations; and other implementi
Page 77 and 78:
2) To what extent and under what co
Page 79 and 80:
FGD participants 2 FGD sessions per
Page 81 and 82:
Documents Reviewed Report (MTR)-02-
Page 83 and 84:
ANNEX II: WORKPLAN 4.0 WORKPLAN The
Page 85 and 86:
4 Draft debriefing presentation 5 F
Page 87 and 88:
ANNEX III Data Collection Instrumen
Page 89 and 90:
7. Has there been a decrease in the
Page 91 and 92:
Guide Questions: KII - MAO/Municipa
Page 93 and 94:
23. Is monitoring system for coasta
Page 95 and 96:
14. Are there established enterpris
Page 97 and 98:
FGD Guide Questions Informant’s N
Page 99 and 100:
18. Was there a change in the numbe
Page 101 and 102:
provide in relation to your fishing
Page 103 and 104:
elated conflict, how is this resolv
Page 105 and 106:
7. Draft/Legitimized Biophysical Mo
Page 107 and 108:
ANNEX IV: THE 12 EVALUATION QUESTIO
Page 109 and 110:
Tons/km2 w/in MPA available standin
Page 111 and 112:
2. To what extent and under what co
Page 113 and 114:
Reef fish biomass per MPA (relative
Page 115 and 116:
P/A for MFG Yes. This will monitor
Page 117 and 118:
value of confiscated materials Numb
Page 119 and 120:
Gaps/ Recommendations Ecofish must
Page 121 and 122:
Number in MFG Yes only enumerates t
Page 123 and 124:
TA hours by type Hrs Purchase order
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
many others. These things are part
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
etc.to make a sound conclusion, esp
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Result area: LGU & stakeholders ado
Page 139 and 140:
fisheries management plan implement
Page 141 and 142:
management area established P/A Sea
Page 143 and 144:
Number Budget allotment Yes Yes thi
Page 145 and 146:
Supportive external mentors present
Page 147 and 148:
12. To what extent and under what c
Page 149 and 150:
ANNEX V Findings on the 12 Evaluati
Page 151 and 152:
to EAFM outcomes? Currently there a
Page 153 and 154:
closure for pelagic fish in VIP MBK
Page 155 and 156:
esources for coastal resources and
Page 157 and 158:
ANNEX VI Sources of Information
Page 159 and 160:
Province MKBA MPA/Municipality Grou
Page 161 and 162:
Lemery San Teodoro, Mabini Sto. Tom
Page 163 and 164:
Table D. Members of the MPE Team an
Page 165 and 166:
FGD Results Table E. FGD results Ta
Page 167 and 168:
Table E8. Was there decrease in the
Page 169 and 170:
Total 29 100 28 100 23 100 31 100 1
Page 171 and 172:
ANNEX VII EAFM Benchmark Results
Page 173 and 174:
Government or NAMRIA Score 1 1 2 1
Page 175 and 176:
Benchmark Table F3. Fisheries monit
Page 177 and 178:
Benchmark Table F4. Fisheries law e
Page 179 and 180:
partner LGUs Score 2 2 2 2 Benchmar
Page 181 and 182:
egularly funded management activiti
Page 183 and 184:
leverage financial and services sup
Page 185 and 186:
Benchmark Table F8. Network of Mari
Page 187 and 188:
Level 3: MPA network arrangements i
Page 189 and 190:
Fisheries use zoning plan presented
Page 191 and 192:
Level 3: Local constituencies for f
Page 193 and 194:
Level 3: Multi-institutional collab
Page 195 and 196:
monitored • Species-specific mana
Page 197 and 198:
Level 2: Gear-specific management m
Page 199 and 200:
Level 2: Mangrove management plan d
Page 201 and 202:
(guardhouse, flashlights etc.) -Pub
Page 203 and 204:
Level 3: Seagrass management sustai
Page 205 and 206:
Level 2: Revenue-generating measure
Page 207 and 208:
showing counterparting budget from
Page 209 and 210:
Level 3: Coastal environment-friend
show all

EVALUATION

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?