EVALUATION

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE The midterm performance evaluation (MPE) of USAID/Philippines’ Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable Fisheries (ECOFISH) Project made use of the results chain describing the Theory of Change (TOC) for the project’s key strategies, as discussed below, to address three key evaluation objectives based on the Statement of Work (SOW) presented in Annex I: 1. To assess the evaluability of the 12 evaluation questions relating to final outcomes of the project by determining if these are empirically feasible and practically oriented; 2. To document progress of implementation progress in terms of achieving its key results, and analyze the factors and conditions that enhance or diminish achievement of these results; and, 3. To analyze the main challenges in implementing the relevant strategies, and the extent to which the project was able to address these challenges. Following USAID’s Evaluation Policy, the MPE also aimed to provide evidences and measures of achievements and challenges that the project stakeholders (i.e., USAID, Philippine government partners, Tetra Tech ARD as the contractor, and other implementing partners of the project, including civil society organizations [CSOs], academe and the private sector) could learn to improve effectiveness and achieve key objectives and targets of the project during the remaining two years of implementation. In July 2015, USAID/Philippines contracted the conduct of this MPE to Sustainable Development Solutions (SDS), a Philippine development consulting firm, which assembled a team of experts 1 (referred here as the MPE team) for this engagement. 1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The TOC-based results chain for the project with the key strategies specified the 12 evaluation questions that were assessed during this MPE: 1. To what extent and under what conditions did an increased fish provision lead to better employment for fishing among households? 2. To what extent and under what conditions did a reduction in pressures lead to increases in 1 SDS Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Team was composed of the Team Leader (Dr. Cleto L. Nañola, Jr.), Marine Biologist (Dr. Hilly Ann R. Quiaoit), Institutional Development Specialist (Ms. Milagros H. Tetangco), Economist (Mr. Virgilio E. Cabezon) and Statistician (Dr. Imelda G. Pagtolun-an). SDS President and Project Director (Mr. Renato S. Relampagos) and SDS Study Coordinator (Mr. Raymundo C. Lasam) provided overall guidance and administrative support, respectively. SDS in-house consultant (Luis P. Eleazar) assisted in the packaging and finalization of the Final Report. Nancy Villanueva-Ebuenga served as Contracting Officer’s Representative from USAID/Philippines 7
fish stocks? 3. To what extent and under what conditions did increased enforcement effort and effectiveness lead to pressure reduction? 4. How and to what extent and under what conditions have public-private partnerships (PPPs) contributed to ecosystems approach to fisheries management (EAFM) outcomes? 5. To what extent and under what conditions are the enabling conditions in place to establish enterprises and for them to generate household income? 6. To what extent and under what conditions did income from enterprises lead to decrease in household fishing effort? 7. To what extent and under what conditions did the provinces facilitate inter-local government units (inter-LGU) fisheries management interventions? 8. To what extent and under what conditions did increased capacity of national government agencies (NGAs) lead to implementation of national and local policies? 9. To what extent and under what conditions did LGUs move from fisheries management to EAFM? 10. To what extent did LGU policies and regulations lead to right sizing of fishing effort at the LGU level? 11. To what extent did social capital and leadership catalyze/create movement of LGUs from startup fisheries management to EAFM? 12. To what extent and under what conditions did the studies inform development of EAFM? USAID/Philippines identified Evaluation Questions 9, 10 and 11 to be prioritized for assessing the progress of and analyzing the challenges of project implementation. This signified the important role of LGUs in establishing EAFM in project sites at the local level. These questions looked at the capacity building of LGUs and other stakeholders, mobilization of social capital and leadership, and enforcement of local policies and regulations to enable LGUs to shift from fisheries management to EAFM in project sites. 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SITES ECOFISH Project is a five-year initiative aimed at improving the management of valuable coastal and marine resources and associated ecosystems that support local economies. To achieve this goal, the project seeks to: (i) conserve biological diversity, (ii) enhance ecosystem productivity, and (iii) restore profitability of fisheries in project sites using EAFM as a foundation of improved social, economic and environmental benefits. Tetra Tech ARD was contracted by USAID to implement the project in partnership with the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) and LGUs, covering eight (8) MKBAs in the Philippines: Calamianes Island Group (CIG), Lingayen Gulf (LG), Ticao Pass-Lagonoy Gulf-San Bernardo Strait (TP-LG-SBS), Danajon Reef (DR) South Negros (SN), Surigao del Sur and Surigao del Norte (SDN), Tawi-Tawi (TT), and Verde Island Passage (VIP) (Figure 1). This project started in June 2012 and is on its third year of operation at the time of evaluation. 8
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 and 12: B. To document the progress of impl
Page 13 and 14: o Fish visual census inside and out
Page 15: (5) Make the following EAFM benchma
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?