EVALUATION

ANNEX II: SUMMARY OF DESK REVIEW AND EVALUATION APPROACH
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The summary of desk review and evaluation approach is the first deliverable of the Sustainable
Development Solutions, Corp. (SDS) as part of its contractual obligations to USAID-Philippines for
the Mid-term Performance Evaluation of the Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable Fisheries
(ECOFISH) Project. The report consists of the following:
Summary of secondary data review to date,
Detailed Evaluation Approach and Methodologies,
Site selection criterion and coverage of the study,
Data collection Instruments,
Team Organization and Coordination Arrangements,
Final Report Outline
2.0 ABOUT THE MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation
The mid‐term performance evaluation as stated in the contract will make use of the results chains
representing the Theory of Change (TOC) for ECOFISH project’s key strategies prepared by USAID
Office of Environment, Energy and Climate Change (OEECC) and Tetra Tech ARD with assistance
from the Measuring Impact (MI) project and USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and
the Environment, Forestry and Biodiversity Office (E3/FAB). The evaluation objectives are:
1) To investigate the evaluability of the evaluation questions relating to the final outcomes of
the ECOFISH project by determining if these are empirically feasible and practically oriented;
2) To document the implementation progress of the ECOFISH project in terms of achieving its
key results and analyze the factors and conditions that enhance or diminish the
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.
In this context, the accountability-related purpose of the ECOFISH mid-term performance
evaluation will focus on the following evaluation questions as set out in the Statement of Work -
SOL 492-15-000004.
To what extent and under what conditions…
13. Did an increased fish provision lead to better employment for fishing among households?
14. Did a reduction in pressures lead to increases in fish stocks?
15. Did increased enforcement effort and effectiveness lead to pressure reduction?
16. Have PPPs contributed to EAFM outcomes?
17. Are the enabling conditions in place to establish enterprises and for them to generate
Annex 2 - 1