EVALUATION

(PNP-MG) and Bantay Dagat groups. Data for the second indicator are also available with
agriculturists’ offices, but only on legal fishing methods and gears. The list of destructive and
unfriendly methods and gears still needs to be provided for the local enforcers to identify and
confiscate. Data quality for these two indicators appeared to be adequate with a baseline data
on fishery law enforcement capacity and response capabilities (established in Year 2), and
intensive monitoring on fishery that provides records on the number of different gear types
including dynamite fishing, use of toxic substances, and compressor fishing are in place.
For Evaluation Question 1: “To what extent and under what conditions did an
increased fish provision lead to better employment for fishing households? “ This question
was evaluated based on two key results: (i) fish provision, and (ii) better employment. In the
project design, “better employment” can only be achieved with operational and profitable
enterprises, or by shifting to jobs that are not depleting fishery resources, e.g. ecotourism and
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in growth centers near MKBAs. However, the key
drivers that will lead to “better employment” have not yet been fully instituted: (i) enabling
environment for enterprise development has been partially established, and (ii) critical elements
have remained inadequate (e.g., capital, technology and market).
Annex IV shows the evaluability of the 12 evaluation questions based on the assessment made
by the MPE team. Figure 3 shows key constraints and main challenges to achieve key results.
Objective 2: Implementation Progress and Factors Affecting Results Achievement
To document the progress of implementation progress in terms of achieving its key results,
and analyze the factors and conditions that enhance or diminish the achievement of these
results.
(1) Progress on Achieving Key Results
Key Result A: An average of 10% increase in fisheries biomass across the eight MKBAs.
Based on data gathered, ECOFISH Project was close to meeting its midterm target (Table 4),
with positive change in fish biomass, both inside and outside MPA, in VIP MKBA computed at
about 1.9 percent at midterm (2015) compared to the baseline estimate (2013). The MPE team
confirmed this project report, and also computed the change in fish biomass inside MPA only in
VIP MKBA at 7.3 percent at midterm using the methodology developed by FISH Project (2004-
2011). In SN MKBA, the team also confirmed the report on negative change in fish biomass
computed at -28.0 percent for both inside and outside MPA, -0.9 percent for inside MPA only.
These indicate that the project initiatives in VIP MKBA, particularly the enforcement of seasonal
closure policy for pelagic species, have produced positive results. In SN MKBA, the negative
change in fish biomass could be attributed partly to the temporary suspension of the inter-LGU
collaboration that lessened fisheries law enforcement effort, and partly to the technical skills of
field researches to apply the standard method fish visual census. In DR MKBA, the reported
negative change in fish catch per person (measured in terms of catch per unit effort, CPUE) was
computed at -35.8 percent.
18