sanipaan marine park pride campaign project plan · recently conducted in preparation for the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Sanipaan Marine Park Pride Campaign Project Plan
Barangay Tambo, Island Garden City of Samal June 2011
2
Campaign Project Plan Table of Contents
A. Executive Summary
1. Introduction - Framing the problem
2. Campaign Theory of Change: a strategy for change - Table and narrative
3. Site summary 4. Project team & key strategic partners
B. Social marketing profile
1. Formative Research - TWG & Stakeholder meetings consensus workshop outputs; Directed Conversations; FGD; Photo voice
2. Concept Model
3. Results Chain
4. Establishing a baseline: quantitative survey
5. Understanding our audience
C. MPA Governance and Management plan (BROP) 1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Objectives
4. MPA profile
5. Action plan
6. Funding opportunities
D. Monitoring plan
E. Work Plan with Budget (In excel) F. Endorsement of this plan G. References and Acknowledgements
3
H. Appendices
A. Executive Summary
I. Introduction –Framing the Problem
Philippines as the centre of the center of global marine biodiversity Scientists refer to the 7,107 islands that make up the Philippines as the “center of the center” of global marine biodiversity. Its waters are home to whales, dolphins, 50 species of sea horses and over 2,000 species fish, including the largest fish in the world, the whale shark. Marine resources are also critical to the food security and livelihoods of Filipinos, as fish provide over 50% of their protein and support the livelihoods of millions of fishers and fish-related industries throughout the country. The Philippines is located in the Coral Triangle, a vast region in Southeast Asia made up of 18,500 islands and 647 million hectares of ocean. It is often referred to as the “nursery of the seas” because of the more than 500 speciesof coral and hundreds of thousands of hectares of sea grass and coastal mangrove forests that shelterr and sustain a level of marine diversity unmatched anywhereon the planet.
Species and Habitat Under Complex Threats
Today, however the global centerr of marine biodiversity in under extreme pressure. Over 40% of the reef and mangroves in the region have disappeared in the last 40 years. Near-shore overfishing is a serious threat to these natural resources, and revising the effects will require a significant change in human behavior. Less than five percent of the Philippines’ coral reef ecosystems are still in pristine health, and in some fishing grounds, biomass is less than 10% of what it was 50 years ago. Most near-shore fishing is conducted by subsistence fishers in coastal communities although illegal intrusion by commercial fishers into municipal waters are cause for concern.
A Campaign to Transform the Context
Developing local people to addressing the threat of overfishing is increasingly recognized as vital to long-term economic and environmental sustainabilty in the region. The vision behind this paln, and the current cohort of 12 campaign developed under the Rare Pride program in the Philippines, is to facilitate true community buy and ownership of the local marine protected areas building on the tools developed in 20 years of experience in MPA management in the Philippines and combining kit with the Rare pride methodology for social marketing. Through this strategy the objective is to get the local fishers population as well as the wider community in the barangays surrounding the MPA to take ownership in and understand the benefit of no-take-areas and support essential management activities such as enforcement and governance of the MPA.
4
Cohort Theory of Change: a strategy for change
In order to eliminate the principal threat of overfishing and destructive fishing the governance and enforcement infrastructures of the no-take-zone (NTZ) at 12 sites in the philippines will be strengthened via a proven self-assessment and planning tool, the Participatory Coastal Resources Assessment tool (PCRA). Key target audiences (local fishers and gleaners; the local community, the MPA enforcement team and local LGU officials) will be informed of the benefits of the No Take Zone (NTZ), the rules of the sanctuary, and the processes for becoming more engaged in the MPA management committee. Fishers and gleaners will come to believe in MPA as a tool for food security, and will support new reporting structures for arrest and prosecution of intruders. The conservation results will include increased perceived fish catch, increase in fish numbers and species richness, increase in invertebrates, and increase in coral reef health.
II. Sanipaan Marine Park Theory of Change K+ A+ IC+ BR => BC-> TR-> CR
The Community fishers and gleaners and the community residents e of Brgy Tambo will know the importance of the coastal and marine resources and the benefits that they will get in protecting the Marine Protected Area.
Increase the sense of ownership and belongingness of the community fishers and gleaners, community residents and the Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee of Brgy Tambo for MPA and willingness to support the declared Marine Protected Area.
The Community fishers and gleaners, community residents and the Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee will discuss with one another the significance of MPA ordinance & MPA to their livelihood.
1. Community fishers & gleaners, community residence and the Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee will: a. be trained on coastal-fishery law enforcement and a strong community-based enforcement team will be created. b. be trained on the basic knowledge on reporting and a mechanism on public information system for illegal activities in Sanipaan marine sanctuary will be created. 2. Improved governance and enforcement of Sanipaan Marine Park with the involvement of the other community residence.
a. Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee of Brgy. Tambo will be involved in governance and management of the Sanipaan Marine Park. b. Community residents of Brgy. Tambo will report to the local enforcers any activities in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. c. Community gleaners and fishers of Brgy Tambo will report to the local enforcers any activities in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary.
Reduce destructive
fishing inside the Sanipaan
Marine Sanctuary & within the Sanipaan
Marine Park.
Increase Fish biomass by 10% and coral cover by 1%, in 2 yrs.
time in Sanipaan Marine
Sanctuary.
5
Narrative Theory of Change To achieve the conservation result of increasing fish population by 10% and coral cover by 1% in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary destructive
and other illegal fishing will be reduced in two years’ time by changing the behavior of the fishermen in intruding and using all destructive
fishing methods in the core zone through the enforcement of the MPA laws, capacity enhancement on coastal law enforcement, basic
knowledge on public information and the creation of the community-based enforcement team and public information system. Community
fishers and gleaners, community residence and the BDC/MPA Management Committee will be informed on the importance of marine
resources and its benefits that they could get from conserving the area and the significance of MPA to their livelihood increases their sense
of belongingness and ownership to give their full support in the enforcement of MPA ordinance and confer with one another on their
involvement in MPA management.
III. Campaign Site Summary and Stakeholder Matrix
Project Name
Project Name PROTECTION, CONSERVATION of SANIPAAN MARINE PARK
Project Data Effective
Date
2011 June
Project Scope and Vision
Scope/Site Name SANIPAAN SHOAL
Scope/Site Description Barangay Tambo where Sanipaan Marine Park belongs is situated at the Northern part of Samal Island bounded barangay
Camudmud on the North, East by barangay San Isidro and on the south by Barangay Cogon. It is about 3km ride from
Poblacion accessible by motor or jeep
6
Vision Statement Text A tourist destination endowed with rich natural resources and with wide opportunities for economic, social and ecological
advancement of a peace loving and God- centered community.
Biodiversity Features
Biodiversity Area The Tambo Marine Protected Area (Sanipaan Marine Park) covers the whole Vanishing Island characterized by having
various types of marine habitats such as coral reefs, mangrove and seagrasses. It has a total area of 158 hectares and divided
into following sub-zones:
a. Marine Fish Sanctuary ( 28 hectares) a.1 Core zone – a “no take zone” wherein all fishing activities are highly prohibited. It covers 28 hectares of the
total fish sanctuary. a.2 Buffer Zone ( 50 meters from Core Zone): Areas outside the fish sanctuary are also a protected area.
b. Multiple Use/Sustainable Use Zone (6has.): Natural areas where the habitat and its associated biodiversity shall be conserved.
c. Mangrove Protection and Rehabilitation Zone (2.5 hectare.) d. Eco-tourism/Economic Zone (7has)
Biodiversity Background Results of the benthic percentage cover conducted last March 2008 showed that hard coral cover is higher inside the MPA site at 60% compared to outside with only 19%. Dead coral with algae outside the MPA recorded at 24% while soft coral cove is about 32%.
There are seven (7) occurrence of seagrass specie, they are Cymodocea rotunda, Halodule pinfolia, Halodule oniverses, Ehalus acoroides, Halaphila ovalis, Halophila ovalis, Halophila spinulosa, Thalssia hemprichii as per Hayuma survey result, 2000.
Figure 1. Graph showing the percentage cover of all benthic Lifeforms inside and outside the MPA
7
Figure 2 Fish abundance estimates inside and outside Tambo MPA
Tambo MPA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
HC DCA SSI R SC OT SP RCK SG Algae
% b
en
thic
life
form
co
ve
r
in
out
Tambo MPA
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
inside outside
fish
ab
un
da
nce
(co
un
t/5
00
m2
)
8
Fish biomass estimates inside and outside Tambo MPA
Protected Area Information
Protected Area
Categories
The city is in the height of implementing the MPA management plan where institutionalization of the barangay law enforcement that orientation on fishery laws and capability training on apprehension procedures and proper boarding was recently conducted in preparation for the deputization of brgy tanod as deputized fish wardens. Also the preparation of signing the memorandum of agreement among national law enforcers for the protection of the MPAs against the illegal user will be set in due time. The following are the main threats in the area:
Presence of dynamite fishing from neighboring community.
Cyanide fishing with the aide of compressor.
Pollution (solid. Liquid) from adjacent municipality/city
Resource use conflicts Development of beach resorts without approved development plan
Legal Status * RA 7160 – section 3 (i) Local Government Units shall share with the national government in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction. * RA 7160 – section 17 – Basic Services and Facilities.
Tambo MPA
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
inside outside
fish b
iom
ass e
stim
ate
(mt/km
2)
all species
target
9
* RA 8550 – section 16 municipal/city governments have jurisdiction over municipal waters. This jurisdiction includes responsibilities over the protection, management and conservation of municipal waters, coastal and riparian areas, and the enforcement of all fishery laws, rules and regulations and valid fishery ordinances.
* City Ordinance No. 2001-51 – An Ordinance for the Sustainable Management, Utilization, Development and Conservation of the Municipal Waters of the Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte and For Other Purposes Otherwise Known as the “Coastal and Marine Zoning Ordinance of the Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte”
* Barangay Development Plan of Barangay Tambo (BDC Resolution No. 04, s. of 2003 (dated Aug. 25, 2003); Sang. Brgy. Resolution No.32 s. 2003 (dated Sept 1, 2003) CDC Resolution No. 12 s. 2003 (dated Sept 11, 2003); SP Resolution No. 267-D s. 2003 (dated September 30, 2003)
* City Ordinance # 160, series of 2010 - An Ordinance for the Establishment and Management of the Island Garden City of Samal Marine Protected Areas and Providing Funds thereof.
Legislative Context
City Ordinance # 2010-160 (An Ordinance for the Establishment and Management of the Island Garden City of Samal Marine
protected Areas (MPAs) and Providing Funds Thereof
City Ordinance # 2008-142 (Comprehensive City Fisheries Ordinance of 2008)
Physical Description Physical Profile Geographical location Sanipaan Shoal is in Barangay Tambo and is situated at the Northern part of Samal Island bounded barangay Camudmud on the North, East by barangay San Isidro and on the south by Barangay Cogon. It is about 3km ride from Poblacion accessible by motor or jeep.
Topography and Slopes Approximately the slope of the coastal area of the barangay is 0-3% while the upland portion is 3-8%.
Soil Type Bolinao clay is the soil type of the barangay which is suitable for coconut and corn production.
10
Beaches and Other Spots The barangay has various sources in tourism development like the five caves particularly the bat cave, view decks, white sand beaches, the mangrove area and the vanishing island.
Barangay Beach Park Barangay beach park measures 100 meters on the lot of Maniog Agapito.
Fish landing Area Fish landing area has a stretch of 50 meter from the existing mangroves going to Maniog, Agapito property on the north.
Wind and Rainfall
As observed by residents in 2007, Amihan wind usually happens in January, February and December while Kanaway occurs in August. Also, both Kanaway and Habagat are observed in the months of May and June. Strong rains occur during the months of March up to early part of July, while moderate rains take place in December. Light rains are experienced the rest of the year.
Biological Description As per appraisal report in 2000 by the Hayuma Foundation it reveals a salient features that:
At least fifty three out of seventy three genera of corals known to be seen in the Philippines are observed in the extensive coral reefs of the Island Garden City of Samal. This relatively good coral cover to 28 families and 83 genera; and
Out of 13 species of sea grasses known to be presently thriving in Philippine waters, 9 species are observed in the municipal waters of the island Garden City of Samal, standing out from among the other known habitats where only a maximum of seven species could be found;
These findings all point to one thing – that the marine ecosystems of the Island Garden City of Samal are very strategic and crucial for the ecosystem of the entire Davao Gulf where Sanipaan shoal is located
Socio-Economic
Information
Barangay Tambo has a total land area of 545.2 hectares consisting of seven (7) sitios, wherein two of the sitios are situated along the coastal area. Of the total land area, 326 hectares is devoted to agriculture in which coconut is its main product and mango plays second, 207.1725 hectares is residential while 12 hectares are commercial and privately owned resorts.
Household income is mostly derived from traditional fishing, farming and medium scale employment. Various livelihood activities include domestic livestock raising, fish trading and retailing. Average monthly income per household is around Php 3,500.00.
CFARMO Fisherfolks’ registration records of Barangay Tambo showed that there are about 130 residents that are fishermen both full-time and part-time who operates various types of gear in the barangay. Apparently the most of the fishing gears
11
used are hook and line, fish nets, sibut scoop nets, pana spear gun and hand-line fishing.(check barangay profile) Species of fish which are caught regularly are snapper (katambak), mackerel (anduhaw), matambaka and squid. Peak fishing months is between April to June while lean months are during the northeast monsoon season from December to February.
There were about 115 fishing boats in the barangay, of which 60% are registered. Reported/recorded average fish catch for motorized banca is about 5.20 kilograms/CPUE (catch per unit effort), while that for non-motorized is 3.40 kilograms / CPUE.
Historical Description Sanipaan is a vanishing island. Years back it was fully planted with mangrove (pagatpat specifically) where most fishermen from the barangay and its neighboring community fished for their living. But 10-15 years later, mangroves were cut for firewood by some residents in the community that served also as their source of income.
A project SSS (Save Sanipaan Shoal) was launched in year 1999 initiated by the Philippine Business for Social Progress in partnership with the city government and other sectoral groups purposely for rehabilitation and conservation, where a series of mangrove planting was made. Another group from grassroots level was organized by the DENR, the CECSI with one of their objectives is the protection and rehabilitation of the Sanipaan Shoal. The Philippine Environmental Project Phase 2 (EcoGov2) has identified 6 MPA sites for its MPA enhancement program and one of which is MPA 1 composed of Barangay Tambo and Camudmud. Part of the technical assistance provided by the EcoGov2 is the formulation of the Barangay Tambo MPA Management Plan.
Barangay Tambo MPA is part of MPA 1 but in May of 2008 the Barangay Officials of the two Barangays (Tambo and Camudmud) decided to separate MPA 1 for better management. The Management Plan covers a period of five years 2008-2012. The plan outlines the policies and strategies for sustainable development, conservation, protection and management of Tambo MPA. Eight management programs was also described in the plan and spelled out the specific activities needed for effective and sustainable management of the Marine Protected Area. Barangay Tambo MPA was agreed by the planners to rename it as Sanipaan Marine Park and it was already adopted by the city ordinance # 156, series of 2010.
Cultural Description Sanipaan islet is also the worship place of the Sama tribe living in the barangay in the last decade. Sama are in the second
number population in the barangay.
Access Information The islet can be reached 5-minute ride by boat from the mainland Samal, It is just across from the shoreline of Barangay
Tambo where there has an old grown mangrove- pagatpat.
12
Visitation Information Tourists, guests and visitors may usually reach the vanishing island by boat from Davao City, Sasa km 11 wharf and or from
the Babak wharf thru a chartered boat.
Current Land Uses Based on the Revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the site is within the MPA 1 and the coastline of the barangay is Coastal
Tourism.
Management Resources The management of Tambo Marine Protected Area will be under only one management board, the Barangay Tambo MPA Management Board that shall be composed of the following composition:
Three (3) representatives from the Barangay Council
Two (2) fisherfolks representative
One (1) BFARMC Representative
One (1) BAFC Representative
One (1) Bat Cave Representative
One (1) Private Sector Representative (Resort Operator)
One (1) SK Representative
One (1) IP Representative
One (1)Religious Group representative
One (1) Lupong Tagapamayapa Representative
One (1) DepEd/Academe Representative
One (1) Women Secctor Representative
Roles and Responsibilities
BLGU
Exercise overall supervision in the implementation of the MPA
Monitor and evaluate the implementation activities of the MPA
Provide financial and logistic support to MPA management group at the barangay-level
MPA Coordinator
Oversee and supervise the implementation activities of the different Committees
Consolidate the annual plans and programs of the different Committees for presentation to the Barangay Tambo MPA Management Board
Consolidate the reports of the different Committees and submit to the
13
Barangay Tambo MPA Management Board
Make recommendations for the improvement of MPA implementation to the Barangay Tambo MPA Management Board for its consideration
Organize the different committee (e.g. livelihood, M & E, ecotourism,etc.)
To be appointed by the Barangay Tambo MPA Management Board
Barangay Tambo MPA Management Board
Plan out the MPA management programs and projects and policies
Review and approve the plans and programs for the management, protection and operation of the MPA
Source out funds (internal or external) to support the MPA plans and programs
Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the MPA management plan, programs and projects and performance of the MPA management group
Recommend priority programs and projects as well as relevant policies
Submit regular reports and updates to the BLGU and the CFARMO on the status of MPA management and implementation
Composition: Punong Barangay, Barangay Kagawad (Chair, Committee on Agriculture/Fisheries), Barangay Kagawad (Chair, Committee on Environment), BFARMC Chairman, fisherfolk representative, 1 representative from beach resort owners, 1 business sector representative, 1 religious sector representative and CLGU as advisor
IUCN Red-list Species
Red-List Species Giant Clam - Tridacna squamosa (IUCN lower risk) – harvested for food
Hawks bill Sea Turtle - Eretmochelys imbricate (IUCN critically endangered)- population declined due to over-exploitation of
adults and eggs and degradation of habitats
14
Other Notable Species
Other Notable Species none
Project Latitude 6 degrees 54 minutes to 7 degrees 11 minutes 28 seconds north
Project Longitude 125 degrees and 39 minutes 30 seconds to 125 degrees and 47 minutes 28 seconds East.
Country/Countries Philippines
States/Provinces Davao del Norte
Municipalities Island Garden City of Samal
Legislative Districts Babak District
Location Details Barangay Tambo is situated at the Northern part of Samal Island bounded barangay Camudmud on the North, East by
barangay San Isidro and on the south by Barangay Cogon. It is about 3km ride from Poblacion accessible by motor or jeep.
15
Location and Topography Human Stakeholders
Human Stakeholder
Population Size
The barangay has a total population of 2,550 with total households of 586.
Table 1. Total population and households per sitio.
Sitio Population Households
Site Map Reference
Comments Based on monitoring and evaluation of the marine habitat, 23% of corals cover is considered DC but still the fishermen
keep on fishing in the area especially the dynamite fishing. Also it is a favorite fishing ground of the commercial fishing. Also
one reason of the destruction of corals is the extraction of shell beneath the coral area.
16
Sitio Dunggas 210 52
Sitio Pigwatingan 563 132
Sitio Puting Bato 174 41
Sitio San Roque 383 86
Sitio San Francisco 350 85
Sitio San Jose 479 107
Sitio Monfort 391 83
MBN 2006
Social Context Barangay Tambo has a total land area of 545.2 hectares consisting of seven (7) sitios, wherein two of the sitios are situated along the coastal area. Of the total land area, 326 hectares is devoted to agriculture in which coconut is its main product and mango plays second, 207.1725 hectares is residential while 12 hectares are commercial and privately owned resorts.
Stakeholder Matrix (Project Team)
Given Name Surname Resource
ID
Organization Position Roles Email Phone
Given name Surname Initials or nickname
Name of the organization this person works for
Job title or work description (i.e. fisher,
stakeholder)
Team member, project leader, stakeholder, project
advisor, etc.
Email address Cell and office phone
numbers
Arnulfo Lacorte Allan BLGU stakeholder Project Leader none 09198485864
Johnel Montes Nel BLGU stakeholder MPA Coordinator [email protected]
09099106001
Ronito Cabunilas Boy BLGU stakeholder Proj. Leader on Law Enforcement
none none
Vicente Armidilla Enteng BLGU stakeholder Project Leader on IEC none 09277849216
17
Given Name Surname Resource
ID
Organization Position Roles Email Phone
Armando Jone Mando BLGU Stakeholder Project Leader on M&E none 09208928981
Ramil Margate Dagol BLGU Stakeholder Member none 09109720175
Pedro Pasco Boy BFARMC fisher Member none none
Organization Matrix
Name Role(s) Given Name Surname Email Phone
Name of organization that may be involved or integral to the success of the Pride campaign
Role that this organization might play in the Pride campaign
Primary contact’s given name
Primary contact’s surname
Email address Cell and office phone
numbers
Barangay Local Government Unit
Lead Organization Johnel Montes [email protected]
09099106001
Department of Education Support Group on IEC Jocelyn Lacorte none 0908335276
GKK (Gagmayng Kristohanong Katilingban
Support Group on IEC Raul Malakaw none none
BFARMC Support Group on CFLE Pedro Pasco none none
WWF Support NGO on Technical & Funding
James Lumanog 09195803646
SK (Sangguniang Kabataan) Support Group on IEC & M&E Ramil Margate none
Tambo Seaweeds Grower Coop. Support Group on CFLE Pedro Pasco none none
Holy Cross of Davao College Support Institution Julius Rodulfa
HOLCIM Philippines Support Group
Barangay Tambo Resort Owners Support Group Maria Zarex Amasol
18
Name Role(s) Given Name Surname Email Phone
Association
Support Group(technical/livelihood) Girley Gumanao
Audience
Audiences # of People in Audience Audience Summary
Short name for each target audience
Target audience population Full description of each target audience based on your formative research (literature review, in-depth interviews).
1. Community Fisher/Gleaner
218 Direct Resource User
2. Community Residence 441 Direct resource user and conservation result beneficiaries
3. BDC/MPA Mancom 32 Direct resource user and conservation result beneficiaries
Threats
The IUCN Threats Classification Scheme http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes/threats-classification-scheme-ver3 offers a hierarchical listing of the causes of species decline and gives the following major headings. 1 Residential and Commercial
Development
1.1 Housing and Urban Areas 1.2 Commercial and Industrial
Areas 1.3 Tourism and Recreation
Areas
5 Biological Resource Use
1.1 Hunting and Trapping Terrestrial Animals 1.1.1 Intentional Mortality (Human Use) 1.1.2 Incidental or Accidental Mortality (bycatch) 1.1.3 Persecution/control 1.1.4 Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded 1.2 Gathering Terrestrial Plants 1.2.1 Intentional mortality (human use) 1.2.2 Incidental or accidental mortality (bycatch) 1.2.3 Persecution/control
9 Pollution 9.1 Domestic and Urban Waste Water 9.1.1 Sewage 9.1.2 Run-Off 9.1.3 Type Unknown/Unrecorded 9.2 Industrial and Military Effluents 9.2.1 Oil Spills 9.2.2 Seepage from Mining 9.2.3 Type Unknown/Unrecorded 9.3 Agricultural and Forestry Effluents 9.3.1 Nutrient loads
19
1.2.4 Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded 1.3 Logging and Wood Harvesting 1.3.1 Intentional mortality (human use -
subsistence/small scale) 1.3.2 Intentional mortality (human use - large scale) 1.3.3 Incidental or accidental mortality (bycatch -
subsistence/small scale) 1.3.4 Incidental or accidental mortality (bycatch - large
scale) 1.3.5 Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded 1.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources 1.4.1 Intentional mortality (human use -
subsistence/small scale) 1.4.2 Intentional mortality (human use - large scale) 1.4.3 Incidental or accidental mortality (bycatch -
subsistence/small scale) 1.4.4 Incidental or accidental mortality (bycatch - large
scale) 1.4.5 Persecution/control 1.4.6 Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded
9.3.2 Soil erosion, sedimentation 9.3.3 Herbicides and pesticides 9.3.4 Type Unknown/Unrecorded 9.4 Garbage and Solid Waste 9.5Air-borne Pollutants 9.5.1 Acid Rain 9.5.2 Smog 9.5.3 Ozone 9.5.4 Type Unknown/Unrecorded 9.6 Excess Energy 9.6.1 Light pollution 9.6.2 Thermal pollution 9.6.3 Noise pollution 9.6.4 Type Unknown/Unrecorded
2 Agriculture and Aquaculture
1.4 Annual and Perennial non-timber crops
1.4.1 Shifting agriculture 1.4.2 Small-holder farming 1.4.3 Agro-industry farming 1.4.4 Scale
Unknown/Unrecorded 1.5 Wood & pulp plantations 1.5.1 Small-holder
plantations 1.5.2 Agro-industry
plantations 1.5.3 Scale
Unknown/Unrecorded 1.6 Livestock farming &
ranching 1.6.1 Nomadic grazing 1.6.2 Small-holder grazing,
ranching or farming 1.6.3 Agro-industry grazing,
6 Human Intrusions and Disturbance 6.1 Recreational Activities 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises 6.3 Work & other activities
10 Ecological Events 10.2 Volcanoes 10.2 Earthquakes/tsunamis 10.3 Avalanches/landslides
20
ranching or farming 1.6.4 Scale
Unknown/Unrecorded 1.7 Marine and Freshwater
Aquaculture 1.7.1 Subsistence/artisinal
aquaculture 1.7.2 Industrial aquaculture 1.7.3 Scale
Unknown/Unrecorded
3 Energy Production and
Mining
3.1 Oil and Gas Drilling 3.2 3.2 Mining & quarrying 3.3 3.3 Renewable energy
7 Natural System Modifications
7.1 Fire & fire suppression 7.1.1 Increase in fire frequency/intensity 7.1.2 Suppression in fire frequency/intensity 7.1.3 Trend Unknown/Unrecorded 7.2 Dams & water management/use 7.2.1 Abstraction of surface water (domestic use) 7.2.2 Abstraction of surface water (commercial use) 7.2.3 Abstraction of surface water (agricultural use) 7.2.4 Abstraction of surface water (unknown use) 7.2.5 Abstraction of ground water (domestic use) 7.2.6 Abstraction of ground water (commercial use) 7.2.7 Abstraction of ground water (agricultural use) 7.2.8 Abstraction of ground water (unknown use) 7.2.9 Small dams 7.2.10 Large dams 7.2.11 Dams (size unknown) 7.3 Other ecosystem modifications
11 Climate Change and Severe Weather 11.1 Habitat shifting and Alteration 11.2 Droughts 11.3 Temperature extremes 11.4 Storms and Flooding 11.5 Other impacts
4 Transportation and Service Corridors 4.1 Roads & railroads 4.2 Utility & service lines 4.3 Shipping lanes 4.4 Flight paths
8 Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species 8.1.1 Unspecified species 8.1.2 Named species 8.2 Problematic native species 8.3 Introduced genetic material
12 Unknown
21
Key Biodiversity Targets
Direct Threats Severity Contributing factors [including indirect threats]
Use the full IUCN classifications
above to make a list of all the
threats you consider the most
important to your site and to any
notable species within it.
Rate the relative severity of
each threat on a scale of 1-
4, where 1=low,
2=medium, 3=high, 4 =very
high.
Sanipaan Marine Park * Corals * Seagrass * Mangroves * sand bars
Fishing & harvesting of aquatic resources
4
* Intrusion of illegal fishing like commercial, dynamite, compressor fishing * Lack of monitoring and surveillance
Pollution 3 Solid and liquid waste (Domestic, Urban and agricultural Waste) from mainland Mindanao
Human Intrusion & Disturbance 1 Development of beach resorts without approved development plan by influential person
Resource Use Conflicts
1 * Lack of monitoring and control; illegal entry, poverty, source of living, * Lack on information on protected areas.
Mining and quarrying
3 * Lack of monitoring and control; illegal entry, poverty, source of living, * Lack on information on protected areas.
22
IV. Project Team and Stakeholders
Lead Agency and Pride Conservation Fellow
#
Name
Position
Organization
Contact Details
Role in relation to Campaign
1 Edward M. Sisor City Administrator for External Affairs/OIC-CHRMO
City Government of Island Garden City of Samal
09088917335 Pride Campaign Supervisor
2 Lludeza M. Quesada Planning Officer III City ENRO - City Government of Island Garden City of Samal
09393186332 Pride Conservation Fellow
Strategic partners/key stakeholders
#
Name
Position
Organization
Contact Details
Role in relation to Campaign
1 Arnulfo Lacorte Barangay Captain BLGU 09198485864 MPA Management Board
2 Johnel Montes Barangay Kagawad BLGU 09099106001 MPA Coordinator During the planning phase of the campaign a Technical Working Group (TWG) and a management committee (ManCom) were formed/strengthened to help support the governance and management of the MPA. Please refer to the MPA Governance and management Plan (Section C of this document) for further details and composition of these bodies.
B. Social Marketing Profile
The planning work conducted was ground truthed with a range of key stakeholders and experts through stakeholder meetings, focus group discussions and one-on-one interviews. These helped to build a composite portrait of the campaign target audiences, and design the quantitative survey (section B4 and Appendix H) which was subsequently carried out across the campaign target area. The quantitative survey will both help us understand our primary audiences and allow us to establish a baseline for measuring change after the Pride campaign.
The formative research section below aims to provide a record of all qualitative research conducted, people spoken to and outputs. The sequences in which the results of the formative research are presented here do not necessarily correspond to the chronology in which the data was collected, and in some cases, multiple iterations of the research, such as directed conversations with target audiences were required.
23
1. Formative Research
a. Directed Conversation
The conversation carried out to assess the level of support and implementation of the project-Marine Protected Area.
The following questions asked to Barangay Captain Arnulfo Lacorte of Brgy. Tambo as member of Barangay Development Council: * The reason why for all the years that MPA was introduced by the concerned agency only just accepted and implement the project? * Is there a result after for how many months implemented the project? * In implementing the project, did you find from the members of the Barangay Council who have a negative support? How about the Barangay residence? * Is there enough resources (financial and in kind) in the implementation of the project? * Is there a development updates in the implementation of the project? Barangay Captain Arnulfo Lacorte enthusiastically responded that with the situation in Sanipaan, he accepted and implemented the project in 2008 with the guidance of the City Government thru the CFRM TWG and technical assistance of Ecogov where Sanipaan Marine Park management plan is in place. They implemented the management plan with the support of his barangay council and bantay dagat. The establishment of guardhouse and marker last September 2010 and the 24/7 guarding and patrolling of the sanctuary took place. As reported by the TWG that there is a big difference after three months based on underwater monitoring and he could even testify of the result because he always do the snorkeling to see what happen. He implements the project not only for his people in the barangay but also to the neighboring barangay since Sanipaan served as their fishing ground.
It is normal for an organization that there is someone from the Barangay Council did not give support in the implementation, he just respect their right but he kept on updating what transpired in the implementation every barangay council session and he is hoping that someday will give their support to the sanctuary. For other community residence especially who is living upland did not know about the SMS but the management committee has already the plans and schedules to do the information dissemination by purok.
It requires funds for the operation and maintenance of the project especially it is done daily and he sourced out from the barangay budget and the city budget but it is minimal and sometimes he used his personal money.
As per recommendation by the bantay dagat who actually observed the situation in the SMS that it is best to add markers with shed for better guarding since compressor fishing will attack during bad weather condition and it is far from guardhouse, for that they will stay to guard the intruders. He is very happy sharing that the bantay dagat at this time fully accepted the SMS especially the policies where they can work without
24
his supervision. It is also promising when some resort proposed sanipaan to be part of their tour package especially in snorkeling activity wherein their vision will be realized to be as one of the tourist destination. With the help of the city government, other national agencies in the enforcement, private sector and of course the people of the barangay to conserve the marine environment for the future generation. > The following questions asked to Mr. Allan Pasco, 30 years old, community fisher of Brgy. Tambo. * What do you think of establishing an MPA? * How many years are you engage in fishing? * What can you say about the size of the SMS? * How could you help SMS to be effective?
Allan Pasco shared that he go fishing since he was ten years old until this time. He currently use hook and line with an average catch of 2 kilos per fishing activity, three times a week. He also engaged in seaweed production as member of the fisherfolk cooperative. He said having that fish catch with family to feed is not enough, it is good for him that he is single and he just give to his parents as supplementary for their daily living.
For him establishing a marine protected area is good considering the existence of illegal fishing particularly compressor fishing which could damage the marine habitat. The people of Barangay Tambo especially the fishers could benefit SMS, it has long been introduced by the Dept. of Agriculture and as I observe it is just compliance of the department to implement the project not like now the barangay officials are involved in the implementation and even the barangay captain sometimes will guard the sanctuary. Also, MPA also help rehabilitate the damaged corals but it takes years. For the size of the SMS, he thinks that it is too big but if it is in the ordinance he cannot do about it, instead support what is present to succeed. He just hopes that the involvement of the barangay officials will sustain and fully stop the entry of the illegal fishers. For the attainment of the
25
objective of the project he always support especially that could help the people like him and he signified to help in guarding by reporting to the bantay dagat if there is intrusion in the SMS.
> The following questions asked to Vilma Marifosque, 36years old, community residence of Brgy. Tambo.
* Did you hear about Marine Protected Area? * Are you aware of the establishment of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? * Does the people of Barangay Tambo could benefit the MPA? * Do you have any suggestion about the implementation of the project?
Ms. Vilma Marifosque said that she heard about MPA and Sanctuary from her sister who is a “kagawad” in Brgy. Tambo. Just an information that it’s a project where the agencies need to implement as the usual implementation from the central government is to consume funds. As days goes hearing about sanctuary and MPA has a good intention, if it is implemented heartily and religiously by the implementer that it is for the people and the conservation of the environment. She had just learned a couple of months that they have MPA/sanctuary in their barangay because she does not care about updates in their barangay especially talking sea where she does not know how to swim. Considering the purpose of the project that is for the people and for environment she agreed that it has a great help for sustainable source of food and environmental protection especially that climate change is compelling now. She suggested that in needs a massive information dissemination especially to the people living uphill that they also the right to know as constituent of barangay Tambo.
26
2. Concept Models All Rare Pride campaigns start with building a concept model, which is a tool for visually depicting the situation at the project site. Through validation with several stakeholders and marine experts of Ecogov 2-Michelle Baird, the following concept model was developed illustrating the conservation target, indirect threats and contributing factors at Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. The model was created using the Miradi software. Miradi is being developed to assist conservation practitioners going through the adaptive management process outlined in the Conservation Measures Partnership's Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (www.miradi.org). It entails a standardized nomenclature and threat taxonomy developed by the IUCN. The following chart is what the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary concept model looks like once all of the direct and contributing factors to the SMS have been inputted. The connecting arrows highlight the relationship between the factors and how they impact different targets in the Saniapaan Marine Sanctuary.
27
3. Results Chain
Results chains clearly and concisely lay out the expected sequence of results that the campaign is expected to create all along our Theory of Change for
each of our target audiences. It is generally recognized that before adopting a new behavior a person moves through a series of stages. These stages can
be summarized as pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, validation, action, and maintenance. Not all individuals in a target segment will be in
the same stage of behavior change, so activities and messages will need to be tailored to the different stages at which the target audiences are.
Understanding the steps in our results chain has also helped narrow down our preliminary objectives for each target audience before we begin collecting
data.
28
The campaign’s proposed approach can be represented as three results chain, one for each audience to be targeted.
29
The basis for building the above results chains was the concept model illustrated in section B2 as well as the threat ranking and factor chains included that were subsequently developed in consultation with partners and stakeholders ( see Appendix H7 and H8).
4. Establishing a Baseline: Quantitative survey
After conducting qualitative research the city government conducted a quantitative survey of adults living in Barangay Tambo. This pre-campaign survey was conducted in March-April 2011 to gain a better understanding of the knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of the target audiences in relation to the MPA and desired behavior changes as well as to establish a baseline for measuring the impact of the campaign on these audiences through the campaign. The results from the KAP survey are the basis for the creation of SMART objectives relating to the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) components of the campaign’s Theory-of-Change (ToC). A second post campaign survey will be conducted at the end of one year of the campaign activities being implemented in May 2012 to measure any change in these KAP variables in order to assess the level of attainment of the SMART objectives. A full description of the results can be found in the Project Plan Appendix F4. The following table summarizes the number of people interviewed and the geographical distribution of the survey.
Geographic scope of survey The survey conducted in Barangay Tambo where Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary located. There are seven enumeration areas which is also the number of puroks in the barangay namely: Pigwatingan, Monfort, San Roque, San Jose, San Francisco, Dunggas and Puting Bato.
Survey Target Audience and Sample Size
N of people Desired Behavior Sample size at
95%CL and
3%CI
Sample size at
95%CL and
5%CI
Final
sample size
choice
TA 1 (specify who is included and how many people example) Community Fishers in Tambo (fishers, gleaners) - 218
Community fishers will no longer fish at the MPA no take zone
- - 218
TA 2 (specify who is included and how many people) Community Residence of Brgy. Tambo - 640 families
Community residence will report illegal activities and support about Sanipaan MPA regulations.
441
30
TA 3 (specify who is included and how many people) Brgy. Development Council and Management Committee of Sanipaan Marine Park. 32
BDC and Mancom will actively involved and participate in governance and management of the Sanipaan Marine Park.
- - 32
Total 691
Sampling methodology
TA1 Community Fishers of Brgy.
Tambo
TA2 Community Residence of Brgy. Tambo
TA3 Brgy. Tambo Development Council and Management Committee of Sanipaan
Marine Park
Stratified sampling
Geographic scope of survey
N of people in listed locality
N of TA in locality
% of total TA in locality
sample size for TA in locality
N of TA in locality
% of total TA in locality
sample size for TA in locality
N of TA in locality
% of total TA in locality
sample size for TA in locality
Barangay Tambo
2,550 218 100% 218 640 69.0% 441 32 100% 32
TOTAL 2,550 218 100%
218
640 69.0%
441
32 100%
32
Respondent selection
method
The enumerators should have a
copy of the lists of registered
fishermen from the City Fisheries
and Aquatic Resource
Management Office. The survey
will be conducted in the afternoon
since most of the fishers will go
fishing at night and they are still
The enumerators will target a number of
respondents based on the number of family
per purok. It will be conducted in every
house based on barangay household
vicinity map. It should be any adult of the
family respondents if any available during
the interview . Random sampling should be
The enumerators should have the list of
the latest names of the BDC members
and Management Committee. Survey
should be done door to door interview
anytime of the day.
31
having their rest in the morning. done door to door interview.
Survey planning
Total survey sample size 691
Time for enumerator to do one survey 45 min.
N of hrs enumerator works a day 8 hours
N of surveys one enumerator can do a day 8 respondents
N of enumerators available 7
N of surveys done a day by total n of enumerators 56
N of days needed to do survey 11
Additional days needed for travel if any -
Dates for training of enumerators & final survey testing March 18,19 &20
Beginning and end date of survey March 21, 2011-start April 20, 2011-end
N of people available to do data entry 2
Beginning date of data entry April 12, 2011
Date of completion of data entry May 5, 2011
Enumerator’s honorarium Php13,920.00
Orientation, pre-testing & planning Php 4,200
Questionnaire reproduction Php 10,000.00
32
33
5. Understanding our audience
The campaign identified three target audiences that has a great role and could help in marine conservation in Sanipaan Marine Park and in other way could help the attainment of the target conservation result. The following are: Community Fishers of Brgy. Tambo, Community Residence and the Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee.
TA1 - PRIMARY AUDIENCE – FISHERS (data from quantitative and qualitative research conducted for this campaign, see Appendix H4
What do we know about this group?
Most of the community fishers in Barangay Tambo live in Purok Pigwatingan accounted to 58.7% because it is a coastal purok while in Purok Puting Bato has the least number who got 0.9% because it is an upland purok. Out of 218 fishers 17% of them are 45-49 years old and 73.4% are male. Fishing as the primary source of income got 30.3% while gleaning got 16.5%, it shows that others who considered themselves as fishers, fishing is secondary source and supplemental source of income. 0.9% fishers and 1.4% gleaners are those who fish and glean in the No-Take-Zone.
Knowledge
Only 46.3% of the fishers understand the benefits of having a sanctuary while 46.8% did not know the benefits. Only 15.3% of them said that community cohesion is the benefits of having a NTZ while 45.3% believed that NTZ is the area for fish to reproduce. This shows that they lack knowledge about the NTZ and there is a need to exert efforts for them to have a full understanding.
Attitude
More than 50% of the fishers (68.7%) who agree that SMS rules and regulations need to be followed while 16.5% strongly agree but 27.8% said that it is difficult and 33.3% are not sure to follow the SMS rules such as fishing/gleaning/passing the NTZ maybe these fishers are the one who did not and refuse to understand the benefits that we can get of having a NTZ.
Practice
Most fishers/gleaners have not intruded in the SMS in the past six months which accounted to 67.4% while 11.8% talked to someone not to intrude in the SMS and only 1% considered not to intrude but do not want to do so and intend to follow in the next six months. This shows that most of them acknowledged their support to the SMS but needs to follow up for the full support.
As one of the behavior changes that we are going to realize is the involvement on whatever SMS related activities, 56.9% are not sure to get involve, 27.5% easy to get involve while 11% difficult to get involved. Most of them are not sure maybe because of some reason that we need to know.
Trusted sources
Of the listed options for the most trusted person of the fishers/gleaners to give information about the environment are the persons on the radio got 45.9%, television-44.9%, Barangay Captain -39.9%, Local Community Leaders- 34.4% and report from newspaper and magazine got 24.8% while Ms. Samal 2011 who is from Barangay Tambo got the least vote at 3.2%.
Media sources Radio, Television and the report from newspaper or magazine are the three top choices of the community fishers as media
sources.
Any other relevant 65.7% of the fishers voted BDC/MPA Mancom as the most trusted to govern the MPA. 38.7% of them preferred Rabbit fish
34
information (Danggit) as the flagship species. Change in weather pattern, increase in water temperature leading death corals and less fish and sea level rise are the top three ways which they believe could affect their community in the next 5-10 years.
Comments Community gleaners and fishers are in pre-contemplation stage of behavior where fishers and gleaners have low knowledge in the importance of the Sanipaan Marine Park and the benefits that they will get in protecting the area.
TA1-Stages of Behavior
TA2 - PRIMARY AUDIENCE – Local Community Residence (data from quantitative and qualitative research conducted for this campaign, see Appendix
H4
What do we know about this group?
Community residence comprise 68.8% of the total target audiences and distributed to all puroks. Most of the respondents are 55 or older of age where 61% are female and 39% are male and farming is the primary source of income which is 20.5% while female are mostly housekeeper. Only 1.1% of them who fish and glean while 0.7% who fish and 2.5% who glean.
Knowledge
Only 34.9 of the community residence knows the benefits of having a sanctuary while 59% did not. Most of them said that community cohesion is the benefits of having a NTZ got 79.7% while NTZ is the area for fish to reproduce got the least vote of 47.2%. This shows that they lack knowledge about the NTZ and there is a need to exert efforts for them to have a full understanding.
Attitude
The level of support of the community residence for increased enforcement of the regulation of the SMS is low where 76.9% responded that they do not support in increase enforcement.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
K A IC BC
Series1
35
Most of them wanted that the community residence of Brgy. Tambo will manage/govern the SMS with 59.2% voted and followed by 41.8% voted for BDC/Mancom.
Practice
To help report someone fishing/passing/ intruding the NTZ is one of the behavior change that we try to achieve , 64.3% of the community residence will report to the local enforcer, 19.5% for investigate and stop the illegal activity, 12.1% will not report and 4.1% will do nothing.
Trusted sources
Local community leaders got the highest of 49.3% votes as the most trusted person who can talk about the environment, followed by the Barangay Captain got 47.5% and person on the radio got 23.6% while least trusted is the law enforcement official got 0.5%.
Media sources
Radio, television, newspaper or magazine are the primary media source of the community residence.
Any other relevant
information
Only few of the community residents who have talk to anyone about the consequence of breaking the SMS rules and regulations where 86.1% did not able to do it. It shows that for those who can talk are wives of the bantay dagat, fishers and other members of the BDC/mancom. 70.2% of them preferred Scallop “paypay” shells as the flagship species. Change in weather pattern, increase in water temperature leading death corals and less fish and sea level rise are the top three ways which they believe could affect their community in the next 5-10 years.
Comments Community residents are in the pre-contemplation stage of behavior where only few of them knows about the importance and the benefits that they could get from having the MPA.
TA2 – Stages of Behavior
36
TA3 - SECONDARY AUDIENCE – Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee (data from quantitative and qualitative research
conducted for this campaign, see Appendix H4
What do we know about this group?
BDC/MPA Mancom are the legislators in the barangay and appointed as the management board of SMS which comprise 4.6% of the total target audiences. Most of the respondents are 30-34 of age where 9.4% are female and 90.6% are male and farming is the primary source of income which is 25% followed by in the local government which is 29.1% and 12.5% are skylab driver. Only 15.3% of them who fish and glean while 6.3% who fish and 3.1% who glean.
Knowledge
Most of the BDC/MPA Mancom have knowledge on the benefits of having a NTZ which is 67.7% and 22% do not know. There are members of this group have less knowledge on what we can get of having a NTZ though they voted evenly on the listed benefits. 58.1% voted that BDC/Mancom and 49.1% for community residence as the most trusted to manage the SMS while 93.8% responded that BDC/MPA Mancom will primarily enforce the SMS rules and regulations. This shows that they are consistent of what they want in the management of the SMS.
Attitude
Only 12.5% strongly agree, 25.0% agree that SMS rules and regulations are need to be followed while 28.1% strongly disagree and 34.4% disagree . It shows that there are still members who are hesitant to enforce the law considering that most of them are legislators and they think of the fishing ground of their people.
Most of the members (84.4%) who have attended the regular meeting and other SMS related activities and 3.1% for not sure
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
K A IC BC
Series1
37
Practice and not applicable. It shows that members of the group were always involve in any undertakings of the SMS.
Trusted sources
Local community leaders got the highest who is the trusted source of information about the environment which 63.1% followed by local environment official got 41.9% as well as for the Barangay Captain.
Media sources Radio, television, newspaper and barangay assembly are their source of information.
Any other relevant information
34.4% of them have not talk to anyone about their role in the management of the SMS, 18.8% was able to talk to Sanipaan fishers/gleaners, 15.6% talk to friend and neighbors, 12.5% talk to friends within the neighborhood, 9.4% talk to spouse/partner, 6.3% talk to others and 3.1% talk to their children 16 yrs. Old and older. 81.3% of them preferred Scallop “paypay” shells as the flagship species. Change in weather pattern, increase in water temperature leading death corals and less fish and sea level rise are the top three ways which they believe could affect their community in the next 5-10 years.
Comments BDC/MPA mancom are in the preparation stage of behavior where only few of them talk about their role in managing the MPA.
TA3 –Stage of Behavior
0
20
40
60
80
100
K A IC BC
Series1
38
6. Marketing Mix
The marketing mix below provides an outline of the big picture campaign strategy for promoting the desired behavior change to the
campaign target audiences.
The marketing mix is a tool developed in the field of marketing to define and communicate the strategy for selling a product. The marketing
mix identifies 5Ps: what is to be marketed and sold (PRODUCT), how much it will be sold for (PRICE), where it will be sold (PLACE), through
what channels and media it will be advertized (PROMOTION) and what will be the key promotional messages (POSITIONING).
The same tool can be applied in social marketing to achieve behavior change for an outcome that will benefit the community. In this case
the PRODUCT to be sold is the desired behavior change, the PRICE is the cost that the people doing the behavior change may incur in doing
so - whether financial, in terms of time loss or otherwise, the PLACE is the location where the target audiences will be reached by campaign
messages, PROMOTION identifies the channels and media through which the behavior change will be promoted, and POSITIONING are the
key messages used to promote the desired behavior change.
Marketing Mix Community: Barangay Tambo, Babak District, Island Garden City of Samal Target Audience: Underwater Gleaners and Fishers
Product Underwater gleaners and fishers will stop intruding in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary
Price Decreased income of the gleaners and fishers
Increased fishing inputs, time and effort
Compromised family basic needs
Lesser time spent for the family
Place At the barangay fish landing area located at Purok Monfort where gleaners and fishers jump off for gleaning and fishing activity.
At the variety stores in the barangay and urban center in Samal where fishers buy their inputs for fishing or sell their catch.
39
At their respective purok center, health stations and at the barangay hall where fishers and gleaners meet during their regular meeting.
At the basketball court and videoke place in their respective purok where they spent during off time from gleaning and fishing.
Promotion Communication strategies will be based on their stage of behavior change which is at the preparation stage. Radio, television and the report from newspaper or magazine are the three top choices of the community gleaners and fishers as trusted media sources. Other tools will be used to disseminate more the conservation message every hour, everyday are the billboards, posters and net bag showcasing the flagship specie that signify conservation in SMS. Mascot of the flagship specie will also be highlighted during community festival and barangay assembly.
Positioning The campaign is for the gleaners and fishers to stop intrusion (underwater gleaning and fishing) in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. In return they can enjoy the benefits of: Increased in spill over effect of fishes and crustaceans they can fish and glean in the
multiple use zone(outside the NTZ) in two years’ time. This will sustain income generated from fishing and gleaning so that fishers and gleaners can meet their basic needs over a long period of time.
Increased marine ecosystem that will attract more visitors in the MPA from divers to beachcombers. Family members of gleaners and fishers will have the opportunity to get into tourism-related and enterprises.
Community: Barangay Tambo, Babak District, Island Garden City of Samal Target Audience: Community Residents
Product Community residents will report the illegal intrusion in SMS to the enforcement team.
Price They will be blamed by the violators if intruders will be fined and penalized.
Possible threat from illegal intruders.
Time spent for surveillance or observation at the coastal area.
40
Additional social responsibility.
Place At the crossing road intersection going to barangay built up area and to coastal road where most of the community residents pass by.
At sarisari stores and loading stations, where resident buy their cellular phone loads
Tambo elementary school where parents and teachers usually meet to discuss community matters.
Water fetching/refilling stations where they usually go anytime of the day.
Government center where they pay their regular obligations (i.e. water bill, light bills) and received scheduled social services.
At their respective basketball court of puroks, videoke places and the chapel where they spent their leisure time or worship.
At the guardhouse, public and private resorts and business establishments where they go daily to work.
At the police station and community police centers where incidents are recorded.
Promotion Communication strategies will be based on their stage of behavior change which is at the pre-contemplation stage. Radio, television and the report from newspaper or magazine are the three top choices of the community residence as media sources. Other tools will be used to disseminate more the conservation message every hour, everyday are the billboards, posters and coin purse showcasing the flagship species that signify conservation in SMS. Mascot of the flagship specie will also be highlighted during community festival and barangay assembly.
Positioning The campaign is for the community residents to give their full support and promote sense of belongingness to the protection and conservation of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary by reporting illegal intruders that will bring: More recognition for Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary as primer diving destination that will lead the community residents
an opportunity to access supplemental livelihood therefore augment income from tourism related economies to help support family’s basic needs.
Become one of the best community-managed marine protected area in Davao Gulf area.
41
7. Creative Brief
Creative Brief is a strategic document that serves as the creative team’s guide for writing and producing campaign materials. The Creative
Brief describes the most important issues that should be considered in the development of the materials, including a definition and
description of the target audience or audiences; the rational and emotional appeals/benefits to be highlighted; and the style, approach, or
tone you want for the materials.
All the important findings from qualitative and quantitative research should really come together in the creative brief so that it may:
1. Provide direction and guidance to those developing materials (i.e. vendors)
2. Ensure that messages are perceived by target audiences as relevant and “personally” tailored
3. Ensure that materials are in line with the campaign’s strategic objectives
4. Ensure clarity and uniformity of material design (especially when multiple vendors are designing materials)
5. Provide a separate creative brief for each key target audience for campaign.
Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Pride Campaign 2011-2012
Problem Statement: Conservation Issues and campaign goals
The Tambo Marine Protected Area (Sanipaan Marine Park) covers the whole Vanishing Island characterized by having various types of marine habitats such as coral reefs, mangrove and seagrasses. These habitats are damaged due to underwater gleaning and cyanide fishing with the aid of compressor in Sanipaan Marine Park. A Rare Pride Campaign will be launched in Barangay Tambo, Island Garden City of Samal with the goal of stop intrusion (underwater gleaning and fishing) in SMS to increase in fishes and crustaceans in two years’ time.
Target Audience Only 46.3% of the fishers and 34.9% of the community residents know the benefits of having a sanctuary
68.7% of fishers and gleaners and 2.8% of the community residents agree that SMS rules and
42
regulations need to be followed
Desired Action: What do we want target audience to do?
Underwater gleaners and fishers and community residents will support the SMS rules and regulations.
Barriers to Action: what might prevent the audience from taking the desired action?
Underwater gleaners and fishers lack of knowledge in MPA ordinance.
Only few underwater gleaners and fishers can say that there are benefits from the MPA.
Decreased income of the gleaners and fishers
They will be blamed by the violators if intruders will be fined and penalized.
Possible threat from illegal intruders.
Compromised family basic needs.
Increased fishing inputs, time and effort.
Benefit-Exchange/Reward: What reward(s) should the message promise the consumer?
Knowledge on the rules and regulations of SMS and the long term benefits for a well- managed sanctuary .
Increase the sense of ownership and belongingness of the community underwater gleaners and fishers ,
More fish for the children of the future
Sense of pride to talk to anyone about the benefits from MPA and the consequence of breaking the SMS rules and regulations
There will be sustainable source of fish and crustaceans.
Support: How can the promise be made credible?
Community leaders update on the status of biophysical monitoring.
Community leaders report on the status of law enforcement such as records of cases filed and number of apprehension during barangay assembly and regular meetings of the Bantay Dagat.
Community leaders report on the underwater gleaners and fishers participation and involvement in Sanipaan Marine Park. activities
Strong support of the Barangay Development Council in the management of the Marine protected Area.
Increase in fishes and crustaceans they can fish in the multiple use zone in two years’ time and increased visitors from divers and beachcombers that will lead to get into supplemental livelihood and additional income.
Will bring up the barangay more recognized as diving destination therefore increased income from tourism related economies.
Image: What image should distinguish the action?
Ownership and belongingness
24/7 guarding/patrolling
Empowering
Sense of pride
43
Reporting intrusion
Concerned of resources for future generations
Active participation and involvement of fishers and gleaners and community residents of whatever barangay activities.
Confident fishers fishing at the designated fishing area or in the multiple use zone.
Openings: What communication openings and vehicles should be used?
When they are at fiestas/festivals
When they are reading the local newspaper and Uswag-Samal Newsletter
When they are at home
When they are at church
When they are at People Organization regular meeting
When they are Loading, gleaning, boarding boat to Sasa and selling fish at the market
When they are driving, office, market and at the farm
When they are at the government center complying regulatory obligations
When they are spending leisure time in the resort and anywhere in the barangay
Mandatory: What are some creative, message and/or campaign elements that MUST be included in creative execution?
Include image of the flagship specie: Scallop (Paypay) Shells
Include the logo of the City Local Government Unit, Barangay Local Government Unit and Rare
Contacts for Sanipaan Marine Park Partners
Tagline
Campaign Materials: What materials do we want the creative team to produce?
Mascot of the flagship species * bumper sticker
Billboard * button pins
Posters/calendar with picture of the SMS
T-shirts
Song on the campaign Net bag (with tagline: I follow the rules of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary because it helps ensure our food for the
future. Join me in reporting.) Messaging Strategy If I support management and enforcement then I will have more to catch for today and for tomorrow.
I follow the rules of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary because it helps ensure our food for the future.
I value the future of my family, I fish outside the sanctuary.
44
Target Audience: Community Gleaners and Fishers and Community Residents
Knowledge
The community gleaners and fisher and the community residents know the benefits of Marine Protected Area. Attitude
The community gleaners and fisher And the community residents believe there are benefits to conserving and protecting Sanipaan Marine Park.
Interpersonal Communication The community gleaners and fishers and the community residents of Barangay Tambo talk to anyone on the significance of MPA to their livelihood.
Barrier Removal The community gleaners and fishers
and the community residents of
Barangay Tambo involve in
enforcement.
Behavior Change The community gleaners and fishers and the community residents will report to local enforcers any
activities in Sanipaan Marine Park.
If I support management and enforcement then I will have more to catch for today and for tomorrow.
I follow the rules of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary because it helps ensure our food for the future.
I value the future of my family, I fish outside the sanctuary.
1. Following the rules & regulations of the SMS will result in more fish and invertebrates in the multiple use zone. 2. Reporting intrusions will help restore fish stocks and coral cover in the long term. 3. Respect BDC/MPA mancom in the implementation of the SMS rules and regulations and its MPA Management plan. 4. A well-managed MPA will result in more invertebrates and fishes and increased visitors from divers & beachcombers that will lead to get into supplemental livelihood and additional income.
Messaging
Strategy
Key Message Ideas
1. Rules and regulations of the SMS will benefit the entire community, as this will regulate illegal entry and increase the coral cover & fish biomass. 2. It will also enable underwater gleaners and fishers of Barangay Tambo to fish and glean at the multiple use zone. 3. The presence of the 24/7 guarding and patrolling will protect intrusion.
Support Points
Smart Objectives (for
Underwater gleaners and
fishers)
45
Audience Persona: Fisher
I am Oscar Pelipet, 30 years old and I live in Purok Pigwatingan, Barangay Tambo, Island Garden City of Samal. I am a
fisher since I was ten years old where I follow the footsteps of my father being the eldest in the family. I currently use
hook and line in fishing with an average catch of 2 kilos per fishing activity for 3-5 hours, three times a week. We used to
fish at the Sanipaan Island with my father using non-motorized banca which is 0.5 kilometer away from home with an
average fish catch of 5kilos for 1-2 hours fishing effort 15 years ago. As years go by, our fish catch keep on declining
which led us to have a motorized banca so that we could go fishing as far as 5-8 kilometers from Sanipaan Island. I was
very happy and excited fishing when we had the motorized banca believing more fish catch thus better life for my younger
brothers and sisters and my parents too. I was supposed to get married in 2006 but it was not realized because my father
died of an illness. Being the eldest in the family, I have to help my mother to earn for a living. Considering the current cost
of living, declining source of marine resources and the policy of no fishing in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary I feel so worried if
I could provide their basic needs which I need to find ways that I could have a supplemental livelihood. As member of
Tambo Fisherfolk Cooperative I was able to access the seaweed production in a form of soft loan from the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources which I have to return the money in three years’ time.
With the establishment of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, I was so anxious at first because as I understand the
government is taking our freedom and privilege to access the Gods’ creation. When Mr. Ben Lamoste explained the
purpose of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary and as what had been said during our Barangay Fisheries Aquatic Resource
Management Council meeting that if there is no activity in the sanctuary the coral reefs will be rehabilitated and there will
be more fishes, for me is “to see is to believe” how about if I will help to realize the objective. I am hoping that it will
really help the poor fisherman like me that I will not fish as far as ten kilometers from home.
46
C. MPA Governance and Management Plan (BROP)
1. Abstract
In year 2000, Hayuma Foundation was commissioned by the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) to conduct a Resource Assessment in the municipal waters of the city. On the following year (2001), the legislative body of the Island Garden City of Samal (IGCS), enacted City Ordinance No. 2001-51 entitled “An ordinance for the sustainable management, utilization, development, and conservation of the municipal waters of the Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte and for other purposes,” otherwise known as the Coastal and Marine Water Zoning Ordinance of IGaCoS. An important part of the ordinance is the declaration of 15 marine protected areas (MPAs), which are strategically located all over the three districts of Samal City where Sanipaan is part of the identified MPA 1. (MPA Mgt. Plan) Marine Protected Areas are suggested as the most effective tool in fisheries management. They serve as safe haven for fish, invertebrates, and corals to breed and grow to improve fish biomass, abundance, diversity, and improve reef habitats.
The Philippine Environmental Project Phase 2 (EcoGov2) has identified 6 MPA sites for its MPA enhancement program in 2007 and one of which is MPA 1 composed of Barangay Tambo and Camudmud. Part of the technical assistance provided by the EcoGov2 is the formulation of the Barangay Tambo MPA Management Plan.
Barangay Tambo MPA is part of MPA 1 but in May of 2008 the Barangay Officials of the two Barangays (Tambo and Camudmud) decided to separate MPA 1for better
management. The Management Plan covers a period of five years 2008-2012. The plan outlines the policies and strategies for sustainable development, conservation,
protection and management of Tambo MPA. Eight management programs was also described in the plan and spelled out the specific activities needed for effective and
sustainable management of the Marine Protected Area. Barangay Tambo MPA was agreed by the planners to rename it as Sanipaan Marine Park and it was already
adopted by the city ordinance # 156, series of 2010.
Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary is one of the identified zones in Sanipaan Marine Park based on the approved MPA management plan in January 2010 with the technical
assistance of Ecogov2. It is managed by the Barangay Local Government Unit of Tambo headed by Punong Barangay Arnulfo Lacorte. Establishment of guardhouse and
installation of marker buoy took place in September 2010.
Based on perception survey conducted last year most of the community residence have no knowledge about the existence of Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. It is fortunate
enough for Barangay Tambo that it is one of the target sites of Rare Pride Campaign where knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) survey conducted in March-April 2011
in order to assess the level of acceptance and support from the community fishers, community residence and the BDC/MPA Mancom.
47
II. Introduction
The Philippines ranked first with the most number of MPAs in the world. About 25% of the worlds MPAs are found in the Philippines. However, 15% of these MPAs are
doomed to fail in an annual basis due to poor governance and weak enforcement (Aliňo 1998). In fact, during the Rare-initiated workshop in Cebu, on February 2010,
these 2 issues surfaced as the most pressing compared to pollution, sedimentation, land-use issues, and climate change. This workshop was attended by scholars and
experts in their fields in the Philippines.
Governance refer to the clarity of processes in selecting leaders to manage the MPA and enforcement [a subset of governance] refer to the capacity and availability of
logistics to perform such roles that involves the entire continuum such as deterrence, apprehension, case filing and decision. The poor selection of leaders and weak
capacity to enforce MPA boundaries and policies will result in the lack of community buy-in to support leaders and projects, unregulated unsustainable fishing activities
inside MPAs, and unpopular MPA boundaries and ownership. Subsequently, MPA benefits are not maximized and the community will lose pride over the local MPA.
Rare Pride Campaign is geared towards changing the behaviour of local fishers and community in order to stop intrusions into the MPA and gain greater community buy-
in for improved MPA governance and enforcement. The current plan seeks to strengthen the structures and processes supporting the MPA management and
enforcement so that the fishers and community are able to embrace these behaviour changes and take ownership of the MPA and the benefits that it can provide.
III. Objectives and Scope
1. To improve MPA enforcement processes by November 2011 [i.e. upgraded guardhouse, enforcement, protocols/plans, intelligence network and communication, logbook system]
2. To improve MPA governance system by November 2011 [i.e. regular meeting, increase membership, documentation, management planning, evaluation, monitoring team]
3. Improve MPA effectiveness rating to level 3 [enforced] by June 2012
IV. Tools
Three participatory assessment methods were used to assess current status of fisheries, management performance and community knowledge and practices namely
Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA), Technical Working Group (TWG) and Management Committee Organizational Development and planning workshops
and Knowledge- Attitude-Practice (KAP) survey.
1. PCRA is a critical assessment tool that takes into account the community as the main source of information and data gatherers. It has been widely used in the
Philippines since the birth of community-based resource management projects in over 3 decades now. This tool generated a whole suite of focused group
discussions [FGDs] not limited to fishery enforcement, resource map, MPA history and etc. The objective of which is to improve community buy-in right at start
of project and understand the fishery status in the locality.
48
2. MPA effectiveness rating system is a self-assessment tool initiated by CCEF and modified by EcoGov to determine management performance of MPA. It is a
system that came about to address the need to improve the overall quality of management-since most MPA face difficulty in enforcement due to poverty and
general lack of awareness about the coastal environment. This rating was administered on May 19, 2011 with the newly reconstituted MPA management body
[TWG and ManCom]. This tool generated conclusions on management status and management focus, collated documents supporting rating, and basis for
planning.
3. Organizational development is a conceptual, organization-wide effort to increase an organizations effectiveness and viability through an external facilitator. In
our case, we employed OD to assess the local organizations i.e. the TWG and ManCom vis a vis MPA management on separate dates. This workshops generated
action plan focusing on improving organizational performance and strengthening for improve MPA governance and enforcement.
5. MPA profile
1. Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment
a. Focus Group Discussion on Enforcement
The city ordinance #156, series of 2010 was officially implemented on September 6, 2010 where the guard house was established and marker buoy was installed. Prior
to the implementation there was a series of capacity building for the local enforcement team where Bantay Dagat was deputized by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources as a requirement for the legitimate community-based local enforcer. The 24/7 patrolling and guarding of the SMS was based on the Enforcement operation
plan.
In year one after the MPA establishment, there are three types of violations happened that came from the adjacent barangays and from Davao City. The following are
spearfishing with the aid of compressor, gill net fishing and beach seine. They were reported to the authorized agency like the police and the City Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Management Office. There is a decrease of 90% infringement in year two of implementation where compressor fishing from neighboring barangay was
apprehended and filed appropriate case in court as per City Ordinance #2008-142. A reward of Php3, 000 was given to the Brgy. Bantay Dagat per apprehended boat.
Table ___ Result of MPA Enforcement Focus Group Discussion
Year Number of Infringement
Types/forms of infringements’/ gear use
Intruders (form where, who, age group)
Course/s of action taken (apprehension, affidavit writing, litigation, imprisonment)
Forms of incentives/ disincentives
Year 1 (after MPA establishment)
-Spear fishing with the aid of compressor -Gill net fishing -Beach seine
Adjacent barangay Fishers from Davao City
Reported to authorized agency like the Police and Fisheries
none
49
Year 2 90% decrease Compressor fishing Fisher from neighboring brgy.
Apprehended and file appropriate case in court as per City Ordinance #2008-142
Rewards of 3,000 to the Brgy. Bantay Dagat per boat apprehended
At present, the local enforcement team has the basic equipment and facility only that they used in guarding and patrolling of the Sanipaan Marine
Sanctuary such as the guardhouse, 2 flashlights,1 M16 riffle, 1 shotgun, I cellphone all are serviceable while I small and I big boat are just newly repaired
and newly replaced engine. There are 21 Bantay Dagat assigned in rotation scheme.
Table ___Enforcement Structures, logistics and conditions
Structure in place/logistics present Number Condition/status Use/number of user
1. Guard house 1 Serviceable 21 assigned Bantay Dagat in rotation scheme
2. Boat 1 small, 1 big Newly repaired, newly replace engine
3. Flashlight 2 Serviceable
4. M16 riffle 1 Serviceable
5. Shot Gun 1 Serviceable
6. Cellphone 1 Serviceable
b. Focus Group Discussion on MPA Management History
Sanipaan is a vanishing island. Years back it was fully planted with mangrove (pagatpat specifically) where most fishermen from the barangay and its neighboring community fished for their living. But 10-15 years later, mangroves were cut for firewood by some residents in the community that served also as their source of income.
A project SSS (Save Sanipaan Shoal) was launched in year 1999 initiated by the Philippine Business for Social Progress in partnership with the city government and other sectoral groups purposely for rehabilitation and conservation, where a series of mangrove planting was made. Another group from grassroots level was organized by the DENR, the CECSI with one of their objectives is the protection and rehabilitation of the Sanipaan Shoal. Aside from conservation program, there were livelihood projects given to the fisherfolk organization as an additional livelihood such as mudcrab fattening, bangus production by the Department of Agriculture purposely fishers will not go on illegal fishing. As per testimonies from the beneficiaries that they were not the one who identify the project, they were just informed that is why it was failed and did not sustain because they lack the technical aspect of the project. At present there is an o- going seaweed culture from JICA as funder thru to the office of City Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management.
50
Table ____. History of the Management of Marine Resources
YEAR(S)
PROJECT or EVENT
GOALS
RESPONSIBLE
IMPLEMENTING
PARTY
OUTCOME
PUBLIC PERCEPTION
of PROJECT or EVENT
NOTES
1990 Mudcrab project Additional livelihood Dept. of Agriculture
Did not sustain
2002 Bangus project Additional livelihood DA and CAgrO Failed Organizational problem
2009 Seaweed Culture Additional Livelihood CFARMO On-going Selected beneficiaries
c. Threats and management challenges of the MPA
Hard Enforcement Soft enforcement Management Body
1. Use of cyanide and compressor fishing 2. Dynamite fishing operations
4. Intrusion of illegal fishing like commercial
1. Lack of funds for guard house and marker buoys maintenance
2. Lack of communication facilities– handheld radio / cell phone
3. Lack pumpboat and maintenance plan 4. Lack of monitoring and surveillance
1. Lack of understanding on roles and functions
2. Attendance during meetings 3. Lack on information on protected areas. 4. Lack of monitoring and control; illegal
entry, poverty, source of living,
2. Marine Protected Area Effectiveness Rating
The MPA rating for Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary was level 2 even though it had just officially established last September 2010. This rating is better understood in the
organizational development principles which include the management focus such as the lack of Education program sustained public awareness and compliance, lack of
evidence on the reduced Illegal and destructive fishing outside of MPA. Please refer to Table _._ for complete scores.
51
Table __. Management Focus Percentage Points
Management Focus Relevant indicators
Total Available points
Actual Score per Management Focus
Actual Score divided by Total Available Points
Management Plan 4, [10], 27, 38, [39] 9 7 77.8%
Management Body 5, [11], 20, 29,[32], 40 10 6 60.0%
Legal Instrument and support 6, [9], 37, 41 6 5 83.3%
Community Participation [1], [3], 8 7 7 100.0%
Financing [12], 19, 28, 35, 49 7 4 57.1%
IEC 7, 14,[ 23], [44], 45,[46] 12 2 16.7%
Enforcement [13], 15, [21], [25], [26], [30], [36]
19 10 52.6%
Monitoring and evaluation 2, 18, 24, 33, 34, 42, [43] 9 3 33.3%
Maintenance of infrastructure and site development
16, 17, 22, 31, 47, 48 6 3 50.0%
3. Technical Working Group (TWG) and Management Committee Vision/Mission and Composition
a. Technical Working Group
The City Environmental Program Implementing Team (CEPIT) was created by virtue of an Executive Order # 08 series 2008, Integrating all previously issued environment – related executive orders into a unified order comprising the Executive Committee and the Technical Working Group, defining and streamlining its duties and functions, and for other purposes. This was reconstituted last March 1, 2011 thru an Executive Order 02, series of 2011. The team was created for the purpose of providing guidance to the city government in management, utilization, protection and conservation of the city’s environment and natural resources. The composition of the CEPIT Executive Committee are: the mayor, vice mayor, Sangguniang Panlungsod Member chairperson on the Committee on Environment and Fisheries, Department Heads while the technical working group is composed of two categories such as the core technical working group and other support technical members. There were three major areas of concern of the city environmental technical working group to look into such as Upland Resources, Pollution Control and Coastal Resource Management.
52
City’s Vision Island Garden City of Samal 2017, The island, the garden, the city…
“The Urban Center in a Garden Setting”
City’s Mission
To pursue sustainable urbanization for the Island Garden City of Samal prudently putting in place appropriate urban amenities for a community of dignified constituents living in an atmosphere of good governance,
and keeping intact its natural endowments and cultural heritage.
CEPIT-TWG Mission
A committed and skilled TWG members working together to improve livelihood of fisherfolk through protection of coastal habitat by eliminating illegal fishing activities and increase community support/awareness and become
a nationally-recognized LGU in promoting MPA best practices through good governance. TWG Composition
Name Office and Position Contact Responsibilities
1. Mabel S. Deniega CMO - Licensing officer III 09394503637 Planning and IEC Group
2. Virgie Silawan CBO – Budgeting Assistant 09298792149 Planning and IEC Group
3. Teresita Esperanza City ENRO – Admin Officer III 09076166110 Planning and IEC Group
4. Randy Sinining CPDO – Zoning Inspector 09182677963 M &E Team
5. Rey Camacho City Tourism Unit- Tourism Optn Assistant 09306800372 M &E Team
6. Amado Asoy City Tourism Unit- Aquaculturist II 09293713526 M &E Team
7. Juniemar Montera CFARMO - Aquaculturist I 092039722382 M &E Team
8. Paulino Arafol City ENRO – EMS II 09295361601 Planning and IEC Group
9. SPO Cesar Barriga PNP-Samal - 09088914521 Enforcement
10. Lludeza M. Quesada City ENRO – Planning Officer III 09393186332 Planning and IEC Group
53
b. Management Committee
The MPA Management Committee was created based on the approved MPA Management Plan. Identification of person who will be assigned in a committee was deliberated in a Barangay regular session and formed into a resolution. The concerned assigned person in a committee was informed and called for a meeting by the MPA coordinator.
Name Office and Position Contact Responsibilities
1. Arnulfo L. Lacorte BLGU of Tambo 09198485864 Mancom Chairperson
2. Johnel L. Montes BLGU of Tambo 09099106001 MPA Coordinator
3. Armando G. Jone BLGU of Tambo 09208928291 M&E Com. Chair
4. Vicente A. Armidilla BLGU of Tambo 09277849216 Planning & IEC Com Chair
5. Pedro Pasco BFARMC - Mancom Member
6. Edmund Marzado Fisherfolk Association - Mancom Member
7. Allan Pasco Fisherfolk Association - Mancom Member
8. Teodoro Morallas BAFC - Mancom Member
9. Dr. Maria Zarex Amasol Resort Owners Association - Mancom Member
10. Norma Monfort Bat Cave Conservation - Mancom Member
11. Ramil Margate Sangguniang Kabataan - Mancom Member
12. Acmad Jaire Indigenous People - Mancom Member
13. Roden Maniyog Indigenous People - Mancom Member
14. Raul Malacao Religious Sector - Mancom Member
15. Pedro Florendo Religious Sector - Mancom Member
16. Ammic Baron DepEd - Mancom Member
17. Jocelyn Lacorte Women Sector - Mancom Member
18. Susan Balewes BLGU-Brgy Secretary - Mancom Member
Stakeholder Matrix (Project Team)
Given Name Surname Resource
ID
Organization Position Roles Email Phone
Given name Surname Initials or Name of the Job title or work Team member, project Email address Cell and office
54
Given Name Surname Resource
ID
Organization Position Roles Email Phone
nickname organization this person works for
description (i.e. fisher, stakeholder)
leader, stakeholder, project advisor, etc.
phone numbers
Arnulfo Lacorte Allan BLGU stakeholder Project Leader none 09198485864
Johnel Montes Nel BLGU stakeholder MPA Coordinator [email protected]
09099106001
Ronito Cabunilas Boy BLGU stakeholder Proj. Leader on Law Enforcement
none none
Vicente Armidilla Enteng BLGU stakeholder Project Leader on IEC none 09277849216
Armando Jone Mando BLGU Stakeholder Project Leader on M&E none 09208928981
Ramil Margate Dagol BLGU Stakeholder Member none 09109720175
Pedro Pasco Boy BFARMC fisher Member none none
Organization Matrix
Name Role(s) Given Name Surname Email Phone
Name of organization that may be involved or integral to the success of the Pride campaign
Role that this organization might play in the Pride campaign
Primary contact’s given name
Primary contact’s surname
Email address Cell and office phone numbers
Barangay Local Government Unit Lead Organization Johnel Montes [email protected]
09099106001
Department of Education Support Group on IEC Jocelyn Lacorte none 0908335276
GKK (Gagmayng Kristohanong Katilingban
Support Group on IEC Raul Malakaw none none
55
Name Role(s) Given Name Surname Email Phone
BFARMC Support Group on CFLE Pedro Pasco none none
WWF Support NGO on Technical & Funding James Lumanog 09195803646
SK (Sangguniang Kabataan) Support Group on IEC & M&E Ramil Margate none
Tambo Seaweeds Grower Coop. Support Group on CFLE Pedro Pasco none none
Holy Cross of Davao College Support Institution Julius Rodulfa
HOLCIM Philippines Support Group
Barangay Tambo Resort Owners Association
Support Group Maria Zarex Amasol
Davao del Norte State Colege Support Group(technical/livelihood) Girley Gumanao
6. Action Plan The MPA action plan was drafted during the MPA Effectiveness Rating held on May 19-20, 2011. The management focus that needs work formed as basis for the action
and specifically addresses each relevant indicators with strategies to achieve Level 3 ‘enforced’ by May 2012.
Critical Areas Relevant Indicators Smart Objectives Specific Activity Person Responsible
Time Frame Budget (Php)
Source of Funds Support needed
Management
Plan (78.8%)
#27-no need for review until 2013 #38-no need to review until 2013
Management
Body (60%) # 29-Management
body capable to run
the MPA
independently
to increase the capacity of the local mgt board to conduct resource assessment with minimal support from the city government
*conduct resource assessment with M&E team taking more responsibility
* bobong for TWG * Kgwd Jone for the Mancom
May 2011 and November 2011
40,000 -Annual Budget
-Supplemental
Budget
Technical
assistance
from DENR
* conduct training
for potential ten
* M&E group -TWG * M&E group -local mancom c/o Kgwd
1-Jul-11 30,000 city supplemental Technical
assistance
56
M&E members Jone from DENR
#32- Performance of
management body
regularly monitored
and evaluated with
community/stakehold
er participation
to embed performance monitoring in the system and processes of the mgt body
conduct mgt effectiveness rating
* Deza * Kgwd Jonel
Jul-12 20,000 annual budget for
next year
Legal
Instrument
and support
(83.3%
#37- Formal
commitment from the
Provincial Council
giving MPA stronger
political support
to get stronger support from provincial government
pass brgy resolution requesting for support from the provincial government.
Hon. Allan Lacorte Jun-11 1,000 Barangay MOOE Support
from the
City Council
present proposal on mpa to the provincial board
Hon. Allan lacorte and Hon. SP member Richard Guindolman
1-Jul-11 - - Support
from the
City Council
Financing
(57.1%)
#28 - Budget from LGU
or from other sources is
being allocated and
accessed for 2 or more
consecutive years
* expand collection system on EUF from Php 2,000 to Php 3,000 per month
* hire collector with honorarium to be taken from gross collection
* kgwd Jonel and Kgwd Armidilla * TWG
Jul-11 “it depends on what is agreed in Brgy Council”
Self Liquadating TWG
technical
support
* deputize collector
* kgwd Jonel and Kgwd Armidilla * TWG
Jul-11 -do- -do- TWG
technical
support
# 35-Environment friendly enterprise and/or fees collected as a sustainable financing strategy #49-Revenues from enterprise and/or fees sustained and accounted for
* explore possible enterprise for the MPA
* design tour package with souvenir item
* Kgwd Armidilla * Kgwd Jonel
Jun-11 5,000 Barangay MOOE Technical
support
from city
tourism
57
Enforcement
(52.6%)
#26- Illegal and
destructive fishing
reduced outside of MPA
* ensure the operational plan of the CFLET is implemented
* discuss leadership with mayor
Kap Lacorte Jun-11 - - Legal advice from the City Legal office
> Training/ refresher course for Bantay Dagat
Enforcers functioning
with a clear
enforcement system
that has a plan,
defined roles and
increased support
and resources that
guards the MPA at all
times
From September 2011 to June 2012 there is a 60% increase in the number of reports received by the enforcement team
Coordination
between
CENRO/CFARMO
and BFAR, activity
designing,
preparation of
logisctics, ground
work in the
community
Bobong & Ronito Cabunilas
August 29, 2011 7,500.00 Rare BR Funds Technical
support
from BFAR
> Installation of logbook
in the guardhouse
From September 2011 to June 2012 there is a 60% increase in the number of reports received by the enforcement team
Orientation
meeting,
purchaselogbook,
prepare matrix,
weekly vists to
check logbook
entries,
consolidation of
report, feeding
back during
ManCom
Bobong & Ronito Cabunilas
August 31, 2011 2,500.00 Bobong & Ronito
Cabunilas TWG
technical
support
> Establish community
surveillance/intelligence
network
From September
2011 to June 2012
there is a 60%
increase in the
Coordination
between
CENRO/CFARMO
and BFAR, activity
PB Lacorte, Ronito Cabunilas & Bobong
November 2011
25,000.00 Rare funds Community
coordination
58
number of reports
received by the
enforcement team
designing,
preparation of
logisctics, ground
work in the
community
> Conduct 24/7
patrolling
Enforcers functioning
with a clear
enforcement system
that has a plan,
defined roles and
increased support
and resources that
guards the MPA at all
times
Ensure all time
visibility in the
MPA guardhouse
to increase
detterence and
timely reporting
of incidents/
activities occuring
in the MPA and
vicinity
MANCOM, MPA enforcers, PNP
maintenance 102,000.00 Rare BR funds And
LGU Funds
>Repair/Maintenance
of guardhouse
From September 2011 to June 2012 there is a 60% increase in the number of reports received by the enforcement team
Ensure worthiness and function of the particular structure that safely houses MPA guards
MANCOM, TWG Twice a year 50,000 Rare BR Funds Technical
Support from
CEO
> installation of
billboards and sinages
90% decrease in intrusions from adjacent village community members into the MPA by year 2
Processing of regulatory requirements in the procurement of needed materials and labor;
MANCOM, TWG 1t least 3 times a year
25,000 Rare BR Funds Carpentry
work from
CEO
Monitoring
and evaluation
(33.3%)
Evaluation of ecological
and socio economic
impact conducted and
feedback mechanisms
are in place
* install feedback mechanism at purok center and barangay hall
* put up box for feedback at purok centers & barangay hall
Barangay Secretary Jul-11 5,000
Barangay MOOE
Carpentry
work from
CEO
59
>Conduct biophysical
monitoring [community
survey and MERF]
Level 3 by June 2012 [those sites with level 3 can either maitain or improve]
Coordination between CENRO/CFARMO and MERF, activity designing, preparation of logisctics
Juniemar Montera & Johnel Montes
June 20122
Coordination between CENRO/CFARMO and MERF, activity designing, preparation of logisctics
Technical
support
from MERF
> Conduct MPA
Effectiveness Rating
Level 3 by June 2012 [those sites with level 3 can either maitain or improve]
PB Lacorte and Johnel Montes
August 2012 10,500 Coordination between CENRO/CFARMO and MERF, activity designing, preparation of logisctics
Technical
support
from MERF
Maintenance of
infrastructure
and site
development
(83.3%)
Expansion strategies or
enhancement programs
initiated
* expansion strategy on clam seeding for tourism purposes and address climate change vulnerability
* discuss implementation with DNSC
* Kgwd Jonel * Kgwd Mando Jul-11 2,000
Barangay MOOE
Technical assistance from DNSC
#48-Support facilities
constructed/added * expand guardhouse into a learning center
* improvement & repair of guardhouse
* Kap Lacorte & CEO
Sept 2011 in time for SM launch 100,000
Rare
LGU
Carpentry
work from
CEO
* production of colaterals October 2011 50,000
Rare LGU
TWG technical support
* maintenance of marker buoy
* improvement and repaqir of marker buoy
* Kap Lacorte & CEO
Projected twice a year (2011 & 2012 100,000
Rare LGU
Engineering work from CEO
* additional establishment of signages
*construction of billboards/ signages
* Kap Lacorte & CEO
September 2011 50,000
Rare LGU
Engineering work from CEO
60
Monitoring
Progress of the BR implementation strategy will be measured against the specific SMART objectives outlined in the action table above. The overall success of the Governance and Management Plan will be measured through the EcoGov/CCEF MPA effectiveness rating tool. The goal of the Plan, in combination with the Rare pride campaign is to up 1 level higher from present or achieved level 3 “Enforced” by May 2012. The monitoring plan of the Pride campaign foresees the monitoring of a number of additional metrics to assess the progress on barrier removal, behavior change and threat reduction:
% of members of Mgt Committee belonging to listed categories (local village leaders, influential family members, local women’s associations, private sector
representatives, local religious groups, civil service and the youth sector)
% of days per month that there is a record of 24/7 guarding coverage in log book
Increase in arrest for year 1
Number of attendees of Barangay Assemblies
Monthly activities conducted by enforcement team (outreach, market denial, foot patrols, meetings with community intelligence partners, etc.)
average n of reports of intrusions received per month by the enforcement team
N of intrusions from local versus outside fishers
Decrease in intrusions from community and adjacent village
Decrease in illegal and destructive fishing
For more details on the frequency and methods for data collection please refer to the campaign monitoring plan.
Feasibility and Impact
This action plan underwent expert validation and approval process. The planning workshop was facilitated by an external auditor, Rodolfo Santos, PhD. He has a long
history of organizational development facilitation in organizations of various level and scale in the Philippines following a diverse business model. The tool used in
planning i.e. MPA Effectiveness Rating is a standard tool in the Philippines to assess management performance of MPAs which has been published by White et al. 2001
and was further enhance by EcoGov Philippine and UP-MSI [MEAT]. The action plans was an output of the 2 day workshop participated by the TWG, ManCom local
fishers, enforcers, LGU department heads who are considered experts in their localities thereby producing a ground truth strategies. Since this will be integrated in the
61
Project Plan where LAP/LCE endorsement is affixed, the same signature will suffice for approval. This action plan will be validated back to the community after a series of
iterations during module 3 to serve as the road map to achieve Level 3 status by June 2012.
D. Monitoring Plan ( please refer excel spreadsheet folder for excel version)
Target
Audience
Result Chain Survey Question Baseline Target
Smart Goals Pre-campaign
(baseline)
Target Desired pp change
(specify if increase or decrease)
TA 1
Community
Fishers
Community fishers and gleaners of Brgy. Tambo will know the importance of the Sanipaan Marine Park and the benefits that they will get in protecting the area.
(B) (Ask only of those who said yes to previous question) What local community benefits are there from having the no-take area nearby? You can tell me up to 3 that you know. (Do NOT read out answers but tick as appropriate or add to other) [ ] more fish [ ] area for fish to reproduce [ ] bigger fish [ ] bigger or better coral/ habitat for fish [ ] more fertile fish
53% 78% 25pp increase
K
By the end of 2012, there is
statistically significant increase in
the number of community fishers
and gleaners that can enumerate
benefits of MPA of having more fish,
area for fish to reproduce, bigger
fish and better habitat for fish from
53..3% to 76.3% (a 25 percent point
increase)
TA1
Community
Fishers
Community fishers and gleaners of Brgy. Tambo can say there are benefits from the MPA
(24) (A) Are there any benefits to the local community from having a no-take area nearby? (If respondent answers YES then please also ask next question. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
46% 66% 20pp
increase A
By the end of 2012, there is statistically significant increase in the number of community fishers and gleaners that can say yes that there are benefits in conserving & protecting the Sanipaan Marine Park from 46% to 66% (a 20pp increase)
62
TA1
Community
Fishers
Community fishers and gleaners of Brgy. Tambo will discuss with anyone about the consequences of breaking the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations
(37) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "the consequences of breaking the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this.
39% 69% 30pp
increase I
C
By the end of 2012, there is a statistically significant increase in the number of community fishers and gleaners of Barangay Tambo that can talk to anyone on the significance of MPA to their livelihood from 39% to 69% ( 30 percentage point increase)
TA1
Community
Fishers
Community fishers and gleaners regularly involved in the fishery law enforcement.
(41) During the past 6 months, would you say that you have been regularly involved in the fishery law enforcement, occasionally involved in the fishery law enforcement, or not involve in the fishery law enforcement with the creation of barangay bantay dagat of a no-take fishing area in your Sanipaan Sanctuary. (A) [ ] Regularly involved
6% 50% 44 pp
increase B
R
By the end of 2012, the community fishers and gleaners will be involved in enforcement from 6% to 50% (44 percentage point increase)
TA1
Community
Fishers
Community fishers will not intrude in the no take zone.
(19) am going to read you a list of 6 statement about whether or not you have gone fishing or gleaning in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. I want you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you: [ ] I have not fished/gleaned in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months
44 % 74% 30pp
increase B
C
By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of Brgy Tambo Fishers and Gleaners who stopped fishing and gleaning in the Sanipaan MPA from 44% to 74% (a 30 percentage point increase).
TA1
Community
Fishers
Decrease in number of intrusion in SMS as shown by: KAP survey Blotter reports
(20) I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about whether or not you have gone fishing /gleaning/passing in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. I want you
67%
80%
2
13 pp
decrease
T
R
> By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of Brgy Tambo Fishers and Gleaners who will not fished/gleaned/passed in the Sanipaan MPA from 67% to 80% (a
63
to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you: [ ]I have not fished/gleaned/ passed in the past 6 months Blotter reports
11
13 percentage point increase). >By the end of 2012, significant decrease in the number of intrusions from community members (fishers and gleaners) and adjacent barangay fishers into the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary and within the Sanipaan Marine Park from 11 blotters in 2010 to 2 blotters in 2012 .
TA1
Community
Fishers
Increased biodiversity and coral health of Sanipaan Marine Park. MERF
(32) Has your catch increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary?
16.7% 30 % 13 C
R
>By the end of 2012, significant increase in the number of fishermen who said there is an increase of their fish catch as a result of SMS >Increased fish biomass by 10% and coral reef cover by 1.0% in 2012.
TA2
Community
Residence
Community residence of Brgy. Tambo will know the importance of the coastal & marine resources and the benefits that they will get in conserving and protecting the area and MPA rules & regulations.
(B) (Ask only of those who said yes to previous question) What local community benefits are there from having the no-take area nearby? You can tell me up to 3 that you know. (Do NOT read out answers but tick as appropriate or add to other) [ ] more fish [ ] area for fish to reproduce [ ] bigger fish[ ] bigger or better coral/habitat for fish [ ] more fertile fish
42% 72% 30pp
increase K
By the end of 2012, have statistically significant increase in the number of the community residence who can state the importance and the benefits that they can get of the coastal and marine resources in Sanipaan Marine Park from 42% to 72% (a 30 percentage point increase).
TA2
Community
Residence
Community residence of Brgy. Tambo increase their level of support to the SMS rules and regulations.
q.28 What is your level of support for increasing the enforcement of the regulations of the Sanipaan
Marine Sanctuary? [ ] strongly support
58.5% 85% 26 pp
increase A
By the end of 2012, have significantly increase in the number of community residence in Brgy. Tambo strongly support the increase of enforcement of the regulations in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary from 58.5 % to 85% (a 26 percentage point increase)
64
TA2
Community
Residence
Community residence of Brgy. Tambo will discuss with anyone about the consequences of breaking the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations.
(37) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "the consequences of breaking the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this.
16% 50% 35pp
increase I
C
By the end of 2012, there is a statistically significant increase in the number of community residence of Barangay Tambo that can talk the consequence of breaking the SMS rules and regulations from 16% to 50% ( 35 percentage point increase)
TA2
Community
Residence
Community residence regularly involved in the fishery law enforcement.
(41) During the past 6 months, would you say that you have been regularly involved in the fishery law enforcement, occasionally involved in the fishery law enforcement, or not involve in the fishery law enforcement with the creation of barangay bantay dagat of a no-take fishing area in your Sanipaan Sanctuary. (A) [ ] Regularly involved
1.1% 30% 29pp
increase B R
By the end of 2012, the community residence will be involved in enforcement from 1.1% to 30% (29 percentage point increase)
TA2
Community
Residence
Community Residence of Brgy. Tambo will report to the law enforcers on whatever illegal activities in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary.
(43) If you seen illegal fishing activities within the MPA, what possible action will you do? [ ] Report to concerned agency
64.3% 85% 21pp
increase B C
By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of community residence in Brgy. Tambo will report to the concerned agency whenever they can see illegal activities within the MPA from 64.3% to 85% (a 21 percentage point increase).
TA2
Community
Residence
Decrease in number of intrusion in SMS as shown by: KAP survey and Blotter reports
(20) I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about whether or not you have gone fishing /gleaning/passing in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. I want you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one
34% 11
50%
2
26 pp
increase T R
>By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of community residence of Brgy Tambo who will not fished/gleaned/passed in the Sanipaan MPA from 34% to 50% (a 26 percentage point increase). >By the end of 2012, have a
65
statement best represents you: [ ]I have not fished/gleaned/ passed in the past 6 months Blotter reports
significant decrease in the number of intrusion of illegal fishers, community members and adjacent barangay destructive fishers into the Sanipaan Marine Park from11 blotters in 2010 to 2 blotters in 2012.
Increased biodiversity and coral health of Sanipaan Marine Park.
Increased fish biomass and coral reef cover.
MERF Survey Results, Reef monitoring results (community)
C R
Increased fish biomass by 10% and coral reef cover by 1.0% in 2012.
TA3 Barangay Development Council/ MPA Management Committee
Tambo Barangay Development Council and Management Committee of Sanipaan Marine Park will know the importance and their role in the protection of the coastal and marine resources of Sanipaan Marine Park
(31) Who would you trust most to head and govern the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? (Choose one only) * BDC/MPA mancom
58.1% 83% 25pp
increase K
By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the percent of BDC of Tambo and MPA Management Committee who will govern Sanipaan Marine Park from 58.1% to 83% (a 25 percentage point increase).
TA3 Barangay Development Council/ MPA Management Committee
BDC of Brgy. Tambo and Management Committee of Sanipaan Marine Park increase their sense of ownership and belongingness for MPA on marine resources & willingness to support the declared MPA.
(27) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements associated with poor governance of the
Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary: (G) The Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary regulations need to be followed by all people who go into the sanctuary. *strongly agree & agree
93.8% 95% 1.2pp
increase A
By September 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the percentage of BDC of Brgy Tambo and MPA Management Committee who can state that they "strongly agree" and "agree" that the SMS regulations need to be followed" from 93.8% to 95% (a 1.2 percentage point increase)
TA3 Barangay Development Council/ MPA
BDC of Brgy. Tambo and MPA Management Committee will talk to anyone the significance of their role in the management MPA.
(38) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "your own role in managing the Sanipaan Marine Park"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have
65.6% 85% 20pp
increase I C
By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of Tambo BDC and MPA Management Committee who can speak to anyone about their role in
66
Management Committee
talked to about this.
managing the SMS from 65.6% to 85% (a 20 percentage point increase).
TA3 Barangay Development Council/ MPA Management Committee
Improved governance and enforcement of Sanipaan Marine Park with the Barangay Development Council and Management Committee and get involved in whatever SMS related activities.
(33) I am going to read to you a number of activities, and I would like you to tell me whether you would find it easy or difficult for you to do that activity. > (A) Attend at least 6 meetings of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Management Committee in 12 months * [ ] Easy
84.4% 90% 5.6pp
increase B R
By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of Tambo BDC and MPA Management Committee who will attend meetings and other SMS related activities from 84.4% to 90% (a 5.6percentage point increase).
TA3 Barangay Development Council/ MPA Management Committee
Tambo Barangay Development Council and the Management Council are involve in governance and management of the Sanipaan Marine Park.
q.30 Who should primarily enforce the rules and regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary?
93.8% 94% 0.2pp increase
B C
By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of Tambo BDC and the Management Committee will enforce the rules and regulations of the SMS from 93.8% to 94% (a 0.2 percentage point increase).
TA3 Barangay Development Council/ MPA Management Committee
Decrease in number of intrusion in SMS as shown by: KAP survey, Blotter reports
(20) I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about whether or not you have gone fishing /gleaning/passing in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. I want you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you:[ ]I have not fished/ gleaned/ passed in the past 6 months > Blotter reports
34% 11
50%
2
26 pp
increase T R
> By the end of 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of community residence of Brgy Tambo who will not fished/gleaned/passed in the Sanipaan MPA from 34% to 50% (a 26 percentage point increase). > By the end of 2012, have a significant decrease in the number of intrusion of illegal fishers, community members and adjacent barangay destructive fishers into the Sanipaan Marine Park from11 blotters in 2010 to 2 blotters in 2012.
67
TA3 Barangay Development Council/ MPA Management Committee
Increased biodiversity and coral health of Sanipaan Marine Park.
MERF Survey Results, Reef monitoring, results (community)
Increased fish biomass 10% and coral reef cover by 1.0% in 2012.
68
E. References and Acknowledgements
69
References Margoluis, R. A. & Salafsky N. (1998) Measures of Success, Island Press, Washington DC.
Jenks B. (2001) An island under threat;; 96pp Sear on Press
Lola Marine Sanctuary Document
Sanipaan Marine Park Management Plan
Barangay Tambo Profile
Acknowledgements Several people played a vital role in the realization of this project plan document. I would like to thank the following:
First, the Rare people for considering IGaCoS as one of the 12 sites for this Rare opportunity, sharing the Rare skills and knowledge and Rare encouragement to engage in this kind of endeavor for the good of the people in Samal Island;
The 11 CF for the time, encouragement and support; The Barangay stakeholders especially the Barangay Officials for undying support of the various activities; My LAP, Hon. Aniano P. Antalan, Edward Sisor for the generous support and enthusiasm; CFRM-TWG for sharing their hectic time and capability; My three daughters, Mirzi Dora, Rafaella Sigrid and Mya Helena for the inspiration and unconditional love;
… Without their wisdom and invaluable support, this could not be realized in due time.
And above all, we thank Almighty God for reasons too numerous to mention!
70
F. APPENDICES
1. Fisheries profile
Estimated Annual Catch of Different Fishing Gears in Barangay Tambo, Babak District, Island Garden City of Samal
Fishing gear No. of user in the brgy.
No. of gisher fear in the brgy.
Ave. Catch rate (kg/trip)
No. of Fishing days
No. of Fishing months
Est. Annual Catch (M.T)
% total
1.) Multiple hand line (Palangre)
25 75 4.5 kilogram
18 8 16.2 M.T 24.41%
2.) Fish Trap (Bobo) 15 47 2.5 kilogram 12 12 5.4 M.T 8.13%
3.) Gleaning at day (Panginhas)
70 70 2 kilogram 10 12 16.8 M.T 25.32%
4.) Gleaning at night (Panulo)
50 70 1.5 kilogram 10 12 9 M.T 13.56%
5.) Spear Fishing (Pamana)
4 8 4 kilogram 25 7 2.8 M.T 4.22%
6.) Fish Coral (Bungsod) 5 5 4.5 kilogram 8 10 1.8 M.T 2.7%
7.) Single hook and line (Palagdas/Labyog/Tonton)
55 150 1 kilogram 10 12 6.6 M.T 9.9%
8.) Squid jigging (Subid Nokos)
30 90 2 kilogram 5 5 1.5 M.T 2.26%
9.) Gill net (Longgot) 4 4 10 kilogram 10 4 1.6 M.T 2.4%
10.) Scoop net for anchovy (Pamulinaw)
90 90 5 kilogram 5 2 4.5 M.T 6.78%
11.) Pahubas 3 3 2 kilogram
2 12 0.144 M.T 0.21%
TOTAL= 66.344 M.T
99.99%
71
trend diagram
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
yr
catch
FISHING CALENDAR When they do fish and what gear they use
72
GEARS Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Palangre
Bobo
Panginhas
Panulo
Pamana
Bungsod
Pasol Labyog
Pasol/ Tonton (Undak)
Undak Nokos
Longgot
Pamulinaw
Pasol/ Palagdas
Pahubas
73
2. Executive Order for TWG & Mancom
74
75
3. Survey Questionnaire
Encoding # _____
Philippines/PEP2 Reef Rangers Baseline Survey (2010)
Hello, my name is ..................., and I am working with the ............... We are conducting a survey of people in this area about the natural environment. We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey by answering a few questions about the environment. Whatever information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and your name and answers will not be shown to or shared with any other person except for those people who are working on the survey. Your answers will help us to plan and implement a communication program.
You must be at least 15 years old in order to participate in our survey.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any individual question or all of the questions. However, your views are important to us and I hope you will participate. May I begin the interview now?
Respondent agrees to be interviewed (If no, keep tally on separate sheet of paper) [ ] Yes
Section 1. Background information filled in prior to the interview without asking the respondent
[ ] Interviewer: Name _______________________________________________________________ Barangay: Tambo Enumeration area (EA): [ ] Purok Monfort [ ] Purok Puting bato [ ] Purok San Roque [ ] Purok San Jose [ ] Purok San Francisco [ ] Purok Dunggas [ ] Purok Pigwatingan Date (month/day/year): ________________ Survey period: [ ] Pre campaign - Baseline (March 2011) Gender of respondent: [ ] Male [ ] Female Sampling methodology: [ ] TA 1- Fishers/Gleaners [ ] TA 2- Community Residence
[ ] TA 3- Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee Section 2. Socioeconomic and Demographic Questions
"To begin, I would like to ask you some questions about yourself"
(1) Which of the following statements best describes you [choose that apply]:
76
[ ] Fisher outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary [ ] Fisher in SAnipaan Marine Sanctuary [ ] Gleaner outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary [ ] Gleaner in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary [ ] Neither gleaners or fishers [ ] None of the Above
(2) Where do you live in relation to the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? [ ] I live in Barangay Tambo [ ] I live outside Barangay Tambo but residing within Samal [ ] Not residence of Samal [ ] Other ________________
(3) How old were you at your last birthday? [ ] 15 to 19 [ ] 20 to 24 [ ] 25 to 29 [ ] 30 to 34 [ ] 35 to 39 [ ] 40 to 44 [ ] 45 to 49 [ ] 50 to 54 [ ] 55 or older
(4) What is your highest level of education attained? [ ] No school attended [ ] Primary level [ ] Elementary level [ ] High School level [ ] High School Graduate [ ] College level [ ] College graduate [ ] Refused to answer
(5) If you belong to a religion, please tell me which religion.
[ ] Roman catholic [ ] Iglesia Filippina Indipendente (IFI) [ ] Iglesia Ni Kristo [ ] Baptist [ ] Protestant [ ] Muslim [ ] Protestant [ ] Refuses to answer [ ] None [ ] Other ________________
(6) What is your primary occupation or sector in which you work? [ ] Farming [ ] Fishing [ ] Gleaning [ ] Small business (shop keeper or sales person) [ ] Office work [ ] Factory or manufacturing [ ] Food preparation or restaurant [ ]Education [ ] Housework [ ] Student [ ] Not currently employed [ ] Other private company [ ] Non-governmental organization [ ] Self- employed [ ] Government (local) [ ] Government (state or national) [ ] Resort Owner/Employee [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
(7) What is your secondary occupation or sector in which you work? [choose one only] [ ] Farming [ ] Fishing [ ] Gleaning [ ] Small business (shop keeper or sales person) [ ] Office work [ ] Factory or manufacturing [ ] Food preparation or restaurant [ ] Education [ ] Housework [ ] Student [ ] Not currently employed [ ] Other private company [ ] Non-governmental organization [ ] Self employed [ ] Government (local) [ ]Government (state or national) [ ] Resort Owner/Employee [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (8) How many people live in your household? [ ] 1 (me) [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7 [ ] 8 [ ] 9 [ ] 10 [ ] More than 10
77
[9] How many families in the household? [ ] 1 (me) [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7 [ ] 8 [ ] 9 [ ] 10 [ ] More than 10
(10) In the past calendar year, from January to December, what is your best estimate of the total income earned by all family members . Again, this information will not be shared with anyone. [ ] Below 30,000 Pesos [ ] Between 30,000 and 50,000 [ ] Between 50,001 and 75,000 [ ] Between 75,001 and 100,000 [ ] Greater than 100,000 Pesos [ ] Not sure [ ] Refused
(11) What percentage of this annual income comes from fishing? [ ] 0% [ ] 1 - 20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] 81 - 100%
(12) What percentage of this annual income comes from gleaning? [ ] 0% [ ] 1 - 20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] 81 - 100% Section 3. Trusted Sources of Information & Media Access/Exposure
(13) People hear information about the environment from many different sources. I am going to read you a list of sources from which you might hear information about the environment, and I would like you to tell me whether you would find that source "Most trustworthy, Very trustworthy, Somewhat trustworthy, or Not trustworthy.
(A) Person on the radio [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(B) Person on television [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(C) Report in newspaper or magazine [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(D) National government environment officials (DENR/BFAR) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(E) Local government environment officials (City ENRO/CFARMO/CMO) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (F) Local community leaders (Barangay Captain/Brgy. Kagawad/BDC) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(G) Religious leaders (Pastor/Imam/PSL) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
78
(H) Friends or family members [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(I) Teachers [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(J) Information on poster or billboard [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(K) Information in printed booklet [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(L) Information from puppet show (Theater Show) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(M) Information from public meeting (Barangay assembly/Purok meeting) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(N) Conservation group volunteer (Kinaiyahan Foundation/Conservation International) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(O) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(P) Miss Samal 2011 (Miss Vanessa Marzado) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(Q) Bantay dagat/Barangay Police/Tanod [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(R) MPA Coordinator (Barangay Kagawad Johnel Montes) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (S) Barangay captain (Brgy Captain Arnulfo Lacorte) [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(T) Information received via sms on your phone [ ] Trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know
(U) What person would you trust the most (from list above or other) if they told you something about the environment?
79
[ ] Person on the radio [ ] Person on television [ ] Report in newspaper or magazine [ ]Information from puppet show (Theater Show) [ ] Information in printed booklet [ ] Miss Samal 2011 (Miss Vanessa Marzado) [ ] Barangay captain (Brgy Captain Arnulfo Lacorte) [ ] MPA Coordinator (Brgy. Kgwd. Johnel Montes) [ ] Information received via sms on your phone [ ] National government environment officials (DENR/BFAR) [ ] Bantay dagat/Barangay Police/Tanod [ ] Local government environment officials (City ENRO/CFARMO/CMO) [ ] Friends or family members [ ] Religious leaders (Pastor/Imam/PSL) [ ] Information on poster or billboard [ ] Teachers [ ] Local community leaders (Barangay Captain/Brgy. Kagawad/BDC) [ ] Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer [ ] Conservation group volunteer (Kinaiyahan Foundation/Conservation International) [ ] Information from public meeting (Barangay assembly/Purok meeting) [ ] Other __________ [ ] N/A
(14) In the past month, would you say that you usually watched television? [ ] Never [ ] Up to 3 days per week [ ] 4 to 6 days per week [ ] 7 days per week
(A) Which TV stations do you watch most of the time? Please tell me up to 3 TV stations that you like to watch. [ ] ABS-CBN [ ] GMA [ ] ABC 5 [ ] No favorite [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch [ ]Other _________
(B) When you watch TV during the week, Monday to Friday, what are the most likely times for you to watch TV? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are most likely to watch. [ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. [ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [ ] After 10:00 p.m. [ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen
(C) When you watch TV during the weekend, Saturday to Sunday, what are the most likely times for you to watch TV? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are most likely to watch. [ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. [ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [ ] After 10:00 p.m. [ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen
(15) In the past month, would you say that you usually listened to the radio? [ ] Never [ ] Up to 3 days per week [ ] 4 to 6 days per week [ ] 7 days per week
(A) When you listen to the radio, which radio stations are your most preferred stations? Please indicate up to 3 stations that you listen to the most. [ ] DXDC [ ] Love Radio [ ] Bombo Radio [ ] Radio Ukay [ ] DXAB [ ] Other ________________
(B) When you listen to the radio, what is your favorite type of program that you like to listen to? Please indicate up to two program types that you like to listen to.
80
[ ] Local music [ ] International music [ ] News [ ] Sports [ ] Talk shows [ ] Dramas[ ] Religious [ ] No favorite [ ] Don't listen to radio [ ] Other ________________
(C) When you listen to the radio during the week, Monday to Friday, what are the most likely times for you to listen to the radio? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are most likely to listen. [ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. [ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [ ] After 10:00 p.m. [ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen
(D) When you listen to the radio during the weekend, Saturday and Sunday, what are the most likely times for you to listen to the radio? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are likely to listen. [ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. [ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [ ] After 10:00 p.m. [ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen
(16) In the past month, would you say that you usually read a newspaper or magazine? [ ] Never [ ] Up to 3 days per week [ ] 4 to 6 days per week [ ] 7 days per week
(A) Which newspaper or magazine do you usually read. Please tell me up to three publications that you read most often. [ ] Daily Enquirer [ ] Manila Bulletin [ ] Sunstar-Davao [ ] Bandera [ ] No favorite [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't read [ ] Other ________________
(17) I am going to list some different types of media programs, and I would like you to tell me how much you like each program type. Do you like it the most, like it a lot, like it a little, or not like it? (A) Tagalog Love Melodies: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (B) Classic Oldies Music: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (C) Traditional Music: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (D) Local news: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (E) National news: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (F) International news: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (G) Sports: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (H) Religious programs: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (I) Talk show programs: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (J) Dramas: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (K) Comedy: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (L) Puppet shows: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked (M) Locally-produced video: [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked
81
(N) What other types of media programs do you like to watch, listen to, or read about? _________________________________________________________________________
(18) Of the following entertainers who would you listen to most if they produced a song or jingle about the environment? (CONSIDER ESPECIALLY ARTISTS THAT YOU THINK YOU MAY BE ABLE TO WORK WITH TO PRODUCE A SONG WITH OR WHOSE STYLE YOU COULD REPRODUCE IN A SONG) [ ] Bren Enumerables [ ] Dodong Dinglasa [ ] Ivy joy Damag [ ] ____ Labor [ ] Inday Tanini [ ] Joey Ayala [ ] Pelita Corales [ ] None [ ] Other ________________
Section 4. Assign Respondent to Stage-of-Behavior-Change
(19) Do you glean or fish or both? (choose one only) [ ] yes I glean [ ] yes I fish [ ] yes I glean and fish [ ] no I don't glean and don't fish [ ] N/A
(20) (If respondent said no I don't fish and I don't glean in previous question then don't ask question and select "behavior is not relevant to this respondent") I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about whether or not you have gone fishing /gleaning/passing in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. I want you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you: [ ] I have never considered stopping fishing/gleaning/passing in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. [ ] I have considered stopping fishing/gleaning/passing but do not want to stop doing so [ ] I intend to stop fishing/gleaning/passing but have not done so yet [ ] I have talked to someone about stopping fishing/gleaning/passing . [ ] I have only gone fishing/gleaning/passing a few times in the past 6 months [ ] I have not fished/gleaned/passed in the past 6 months [ ] Behavior is not relevant for this respondent
(21) I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about reporting illegal activities to the Bantay Dagat of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. I would like you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you: [ ] I have never considered reporting illegal activities of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary [ ] I have considered reporting illegal activities and support the policies but don't want to do so [ ] I intend to report illegal activities and support the policies [ ] I have talked to someone about reporting illegal activities and support the policies. [ ] I often report illegal activities and support the MPA policies but not at all times. [ ] I have always report the illegal activities and support the MPA policies [ ] Behavior not relevant to this respondent
(22) I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about following regulations and allocate funds for the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. I would like you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you: [ ] I have never considered following the regulations and allocate funds for the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary
82
[ ] I have considered following the regulations and allocate funds but don't want to do so [ ] I intend to follow the regulations and allocate funds. [ ] I have talked to someone about following the regulations allocate funds in the past 6 months. [ ] I often follow the regulations and allocate funds but not at all times. [ ] I have always followed the regulations and allocate funds in the past 12 months. [ ] Behavior not relevant to this respondent
Section 5. Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Knowledge SMART Objectives
Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the local environment and wildlife that live in this area.
(23) Please state below whether you believe each regulation is either true or false as a Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies:
(A) Only members of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Management Committee can harvest fish inside the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary.[ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (B) No-one can fish or collect shells inside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (C) It is legal to use cyanide/dynamite outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (D) Anyone can glean inside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, just fishing is not allowed. [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (E) It is legal to use cyanide and dynamite to catch fish in the buffer zone around Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary . [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (F) The elected officials are allowed to take fish from the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary when they visit. [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (G) After 3 years of no fishing being allowed, the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary can be harvested again. [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure
(24) Some of the questions I am going to ask you are about the no-take fishing area that is going to be or has been created in your local area. A no-take fishing area is a clearly identified area where no fish are allowed to be caught at any time by anyone.
(A) Are there any benefits to the local community from having a no-take area nearby? (If respondent answers YES then please also ask next question. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(B) (Ask only of those who said yes to previous question) What local community benefits are there from having the no-take area nearby? You can tell me up to 3 that you know. (Do NOT read out answers but tick as appropriate or add to other) (COHORT QUESTION - need to choose format B or C for this question) [ ] more fish [ ] area for fish to reproduce [ ] bigger fish [ ] bigger or better coral / habitat for fish [ ] more fertile fish [ ] bank of the sea / food security [ ] better regulation/management of fishing activities [ ] no more destructive fishing in that area [ ] community ownership [ ] new skills [ ] better/new access to tourism [ ] better community cohesion [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
(25) I am going to read you a list of people, and I would like you to tell me for each one how much you believe they have been involved during the past 6 months in important management decisions, such as in determining the size and location of your local no-take fishing area. Were these individuals regularly involved, occasionally involved, or never involved?
83
(A) National Government officials: [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (B) City Government officials: [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (C) Barangay Government Officials: [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (D) Local fishers: [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (26) I am going to read you a list of people, and I would like you to tell me for each one how much you believe that during the past 6 months they have been able to determine the regulations for your local no-take fishing area. Were these individuals the most important decision makers, involved but not the decision makers, or not involved in decision-making? (COHORT QUESTION)
(A) National Government officials: [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (B) City Government officials : [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (C) Scientists and/or fisheries experts: [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (D) Barangay Government Officials [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (E) Local fishers: [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
Section 6. Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Attitude SMART Objectives
(27) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements on the possible impacts on the local community if the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies are not strictly observed by fishers:
(A) Less and smaller fish can be caught outside the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree (B) Fish prices will continue to increase . [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree (C) Illegal fishers from outside will be encouraged to come in and blast fish within the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary
[ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree (D) The corals begin to die when the fish are taken away. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree (E) The local community will be poorer and less united. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree (F) We will catch less fish. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree
(27) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements associated with poor governance of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary:
(A) It is the main role of BDC and mancom in the Rules and Regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Samctuary. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree (B) No-one knows who is managing the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree
(C) Fishers know who and when guarding takes place and so are able to enter SMS when the guards are not there [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree
84
(E) There is no 24/7 boat patrolling to chase after the illegal fishers, so the illegal fishers just come and ignore the rules knowing they won't be caught [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree
(F) Only men are involved in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, so the interests and concerns of women or youth are be ignored . [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree
(G) The Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary regulations need to be followed by all people who go into the sanctuary. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree
(28) What is your level of support for increasing the enforcement of the regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? [ ] Strongly do not support the increase in enforcement [ ] Do not support the increase in enforcement [ ] Support the increase in enforcement [ ] Strongly support the increase in enforcement [ ] Unsure
(29) What do you think of the location of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? [ ] In the right place [ ] In the wrong place [ ] Unsure [ ] N/A
(30) OPTIONAL Who should primarily enforce the rules and regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? (CHOOSE ONE ONLY) [ ] Coastguard [ ] Fishers/Gleaners [ ] Bantay dagat (licensed enforcers) [ ] National Police [ ] Local village officials [ ] Other ________________
(31) Who would you trust most to head and govern the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Management Committee? (Choose one only) [ ] Community members [ ] Fishers/Gleaners [ ] National Police [ ] Non-government officials [ ] Local village officials [ ] Local government officials [ ] National government officials [ ] Private sector [ ] Academic Sector [ ] Other ________________
(32) Has your catch increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? (If the person does not fish or glean mark as NA) [ ] Decreased [ ] Increased [ ] Stayed the Same [ ] N/A
(33) I am going to read to you a number of activities, and I would like you to tell me whether you would find it easy or difficult for you to do that activity.
(A) Attend at least 6 meetings of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Management Committee in 12 months. [ ] Easy [ ] Difficult [ ] Not sure [ ] Not applicable (B) Run a Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Committee every month. [ ] Easy [ ] Difficult [ ] Not sure [ ] Not applicable (C) Follow the MPA regulations such as no intrusion. [ ] Easy [ ] Difficult [ ] Not sure [ ] Not applicable
(34) I am going to read you a number of statements about the management of the local no-take area. For each statement, I would like you to tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with it. (COHORT QUESTION)
(A) There is a clear plan for how the no-take area will be managed. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (B) Barangay Tambo fishers regularly participate in management decisions of the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK
85
(C) Local people know boundaries of the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (D) There was not enough planning done before the no-take area was established. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (E) There is enough money and other resources to fully manage and enforce the rules of the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (F) The rules of the no-take area are regularly enforced so that violators are caught and punished. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (G) The rules of the no-take area are unclear and local fishers don't understand them. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (H) The rules of the no-take area are designed more to protect the fish than to help the fishers. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (I) The infrastructure, equipment and facilities to enforce the rules of the no-take area are adequate. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (J) There is an adequate communications program about the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (K) Staff of the no-take area are adequately traine. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (L) There is a regular management effectiveness assessment conducted for the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (M) Research and monitoring activities of the no take area are adequate. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (N) There are no current problems with the no-take area management. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK
Section 7. Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Interpersonal Communication SMART Objectives
(35) CUSTOMIZE to IC objectives in TOC - In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about benefits to the community of a well enforced sanctuary? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to barangay elder or local authority [ ] Talked to National government environmental officials [ ] Talked to Non-government environment officials [ ] Talked to Local government environmental officials [ ] Talked to a Sanipaan Fisher or Gleaner [ ] Talked to anyone within the neighborhood [ ] Other _____________________________________________________________________________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(36) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about the need for improved governance of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in order to benefit their community? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to barangay elder or local authority [ ] Talked to National government environmental officials [ ] Talked to Non-government environment officials [ ] Talked to Local government environmental officials [ ] Talked to a Sanipaan Fisher or Gleaner [ ] Talked to anyone within the neighborhood [ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed?
(37) OPTIONAL, CUSTOMIZE In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "the consequences of breaking the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this.
86
[ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to barangay elder or local authority [ ] Talked to National government environmental officials [ ] Talked to Non-government environment officials [ ] Talked to Local government environmental officials [ ] Talked to a Sanipaan Fisher or Gleaner [ ] Talked to anyone within the neighborhood [ ] Other ________________ (A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed?
(38) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "your own role in managing your local marine resources"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to barangay elder or local authority [ ] Talked to National government environmental officials [ ] Talked to Non-government environment officials [ ] Talked to Local government environmental officials [ ] Talked to a Sanipaan Fisher or Gleaner[ ] Talked to anyone within the neighborhood [ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed?
Section 8. Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Behavior SMART Objectives
(39) I am going to read you a list of different types of fishers, and for each one, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing someone like that fishing in this area in the past 6 months (show the NTZ on a map of the area but don't mention whether it is NTZ or not. (SHOW MAP LABELLED)
(A) Subsistence fishers from your barangay. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (B) Subsistence fishers from nearby barangay. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (C) Subsistence fishers from outside areas. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (D) Small scale commercial fishers from your barangay. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember E) Small scale commercial fishers from nearby barangay. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (F) Small scale commercial fishers from outside areas. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (G) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (H) Large-scale industrial fishers using large trawls, purse seiner [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (I) Sports / Game fishers targeting Tuna, Bill fish, marlins etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember
(J) Other resource users specializing in target fish such as aquarium fish, mollusks (trochus) and live fish etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember
(40) I am going to read you a list of different types of fishers, and for each one, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing someone like that fishing in this area in the past 1 year (show an area that is NOT a NTZ on a map of the area but don’t mention whether it is NTZ or not) - HOW MAP LABELLED B
(A) Subsistence fishers from your village. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember
87
(B) Subsistence fishers from nearby villages. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (C) Subsistence fishers from outside areas. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (D) Small scale commercial fishers from your villag. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (E) Small scale commercial fishers from nearby village. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (F) Small scale commercial fishers from outside areas. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (G) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (H) Large-scale industrial fishers using large trawls, purse seiner. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (I) Sports / Game fishers targeting Tuna, Bill fish, marlins etc. [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (J) Other resource users specializing in target fish such as aquarium fish, mollusks (trochus) and live fish etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember
(41) During the past 6 months, would you say that you have been regularly involved in the fishery law enforcement, occasionally involved in the fishery law enforcement, or not involve in the fishery law enforcement with the creation of barangay bantay dagat of a no-take fishing area in your Sanipaan Sanctuary. [ ] Regularly involved [ ] Occasionally involved [ ] Never involved [ ] Don't know / not applicable
(42) In the past 6 months, have you attended any training/seminars regarding the creation of the of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Enforcement team? [ ] Report to concerned agency [ ] Outrightly stop the illegal activity [ ] Outrightly educate the villators [ ] Will not report
(43) If you seen illegal fishing activities within the MPA, what possible action will you do? [ ] Report to concerned agency [ ] Outrightly stop the illegal activity [ ] Outrightly educate the villators [ ] Will not report
(44) In the past 12 months, have you attended the reef assessment of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? If so, about how many times in those 12 months did you attend?
[ ] participated 2-5 times [ ] participated 5 times [ ] participated more than 7 times [ ] Never participated [ ] Do not know about the activity
(45) - In the last six months have you heard of anyone caugth and penalized for breaking the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations? [ ] Yes [ ] No
(46) If you were to report someone who has broken the rules & regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, who would you report them to? [ ] Local police [ ] Local law enforcement [ ] Barangay Captain [ ] Municipal mayor [ ] Next door neighbor [ ] Husband/Wife. [ ] Would Not Report [ ] Other ________________
Section 9. Understand Barriers & Benefits of Behavior Change
(47) . What benefits might there be in establishing a Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Committee ? (Write in one or more answer, None or Don’t Know) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (48) What barriers might there be in establishing a Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Committee ? (Write in one or more answer, None or Don’t Know) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
88
(49) If you were to encourage a friend to stop intruding in the MPA to fish, what would you suggest would be a good incentive? [ ] receive public recognition by the Mayor [ ] receive public recognition in the media [ ] be celebrated at a fiesta [ ] receive an award [ ] knowing that you are protecting the food security of the children in the community [ ] more and bigger fish in the future [ ] Other ________________
(50) If you were to encourage a friend to take part in the MPA management meetings, what would you suggest would be a good incentive? [ ] receive public recognition by the Mayor [ ] receive public recognition in the media [ ] be celebrated at a fiesta [ ] receive an award [ ] knowing that you are protecting the food security of the children in the community [ ] more and bigger fish in the future [ ] Other ________________ Section 10. Exposure to Campaign Activities & Messages
(51) I am going to ask you about a number of ways in which you may or may not have seen or heard about the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. For each method, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing or hearing that source in the past 6 months. (A) Tagalog Love Melody. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (B) Classic Oldies Music. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (C) Traditional Music. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (D) Local News. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (E) National News. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (F) International News. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (G) Sports. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (H) Religious Media Program. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (I) Talk Show Program. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (J) Drama. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (K) Comedy. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (L) Puppet Show. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (M) Locally Produced Video. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (N) Poster or Billboard. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (O) Printed Booklet. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (P) Public Meeting (Festival). [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (Q) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (R) sms on your phone. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(52) Of all of the different ways in which you remember seeing or hearing about Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, which one, if any, did you think had the most impact on you? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
89
(53) Of all the different ways in which you learned about Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, what do you think was the most important message that you learned from them? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 11. Ground truthing - no objective
(54) Please have a look at the 4 photographs labeled A,B,C,D. Which of the sea creatures shown on the photograph do you like best?
FRAGSHIP SP QUESTION - 2nd OPTION [ ] A - Paypay shell (scallop) [ ] B-Mandarin fish [ ] C-Buttefly fish [ ] D- Danggit [ ] others _____________________ (55) I am going to read you a number of strategies that might help solve any possible current problems in the management of your local no-take area. For each strategy, I would like you to tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that it would help solve any current problems with managing the no-take area. COHORT QUESTION
(A) Increased local community involvement in management of the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (B) Limiting involvement in management of the no-take area to fishers only. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (C) Increased and strict law enforcement of the no-take area rules by Police / Navy and Enforcers. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (D) Increased and strict law enforcement of rules by local community fishers with enforcement rights. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (E) Develop new rules for the no-take area in a process that includes the whole community. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (F) Change the size and/or the location of the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (G) Make sure that local fishers have the exclusive right to fish in the areas around the no-take area. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK Climate Change (60) Do you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), disagree (D), strongly disagree (SD), Not sure/Don’t know (NS/DK) with the following statement:
(A) Climate change is not going to cause any problems in my community. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (B) Climate change is already a problem in my community. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (C) Climate change is likely to become a real problem for my community in the coming 5-10 years. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (D) If our local NTZ is well managed it will help buffer some of the effects of climate change in the future. [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK
(61) Name up to 3 ways in which you believe climate change could affect your community in the next 5-10 years (DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS - SELECT UP TO 3) [ ] sea level rise [ ] increased water temperature leading death of corals and less fish [ ] increase of typhoon frequency [ ] increase of typhoon strength, less reliable work and crops [ ] more people from the upland will move to the coastal areas in case of crop failure [ ] change in weather patterns [ ] less rain [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A Thank you for all of your help in responding to this anonymous questionnaire survey
90
Options for Flagship Specie.
A. Paypay Shell B. Mandarin Fish C. Butterfly Fish D. Danggit “Rabbit Fish”
4. Survey results
Q1: Respondent agrees to be interviewed (If no, keep tally on separate
sheet of paper)
Respondent agrees to be interviewed (If no, keep tally on separate sheet of paper)
Counts Percents
Percents
0 100
Yes 691 100.0%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
The total respondents of KAP survey in Barangay Tambo is six hundred ninety one (691).
91
Q2: Interviewer (INSERT NAMES OF ENUMERATORS PRIOR TO PRINTING SURVEY):
Interviewer (INSERT NAMES OF ENUMERATORS PRIOR TO PRINTING SURVEY):
Counts Percents
Percents
0 100
Fe Uy 168 24.3%
Perla Marsado 114 16.5%
Nemelyn Macachor 108 15.6%
Juana Canillo 103 14.9%
Susan Marzado 74 10.7%
Conchita Damag 73 10.6%
Catherine Apat 51 7.4%
Vilma Cabunilas 0 0.0%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
As listed there are eight (8) enumerators who are Barangay Health Workers (BHW) but one of them was not able to do it because she was sick during the conduct of survey. It was just right considering
that there are seven enumeration areas that is proportion to the number of enumerators.
Q3: Barangay:
92
Barangay:
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Tambo 691 100.0%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
There are a total of 691 target respondents of KAP survey in Barangay Tambo.
Q4: Enumeration area (EA):
Enumeration area (EA):
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Purok Pigwatingan 168 24.3%
Purok Monfort 115 16.6%
Purok San Roque 111 16.1%
Purok San Jose 102 14.8%
Purok San Francisco 71 10.3%
Purok Dunggas 71 10.3%
Purok Puting bato 53 7.7%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
There are seven puroks in Barangay Tambo which is the enumeration area of KAP survey. Purok Pigwatingan has the greatest number of respondents where most of the fishers/gleaners lived followed by Purok Monfort and Purok San Roque.
93
Q5: Date (month/day/year):
Date (month/day/year):
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Mar 14, 2011 5 0.7%
Mar 21, 2011 269 38.9%
Mar 28, 2011 285 41.2%
Apr 4, 2011 103 14.9%
Apr 11, 2011 28 4.1%
Other 1 0.1%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
The survey started on March 14, 2011 and ends up on April 11, 2011. It took almost a month of survey because of unfavorable weather condition that hampers the enumerators’ schedule.
Q6: Survey period:
Survey period:
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Pre-Campaign-Baseline (March 2011) 690 100.0%
Totals 690 100.0%
Mean --
Only one respondent who were not able to go through the pre-campaign baseline survey.
Q7: Gender of respondent:
94
Gender of respondent:
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Male 361 52.2%
Female 330 47.8%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
There are 361 or 52.2% who are male respondents and 330 or 47.8% are female in the pre-campaign baseline KAP survey in Barangay Tambo.
Q8: Sampling methodology
Sampling methodology
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
TA2-Community Residence 441 63.8%
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 218 31.5%
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 32 4.6%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
There are a total of 691 target respondents of KAP survey in Barangay Tambo composed of 218 commun ty fishers/gleaners, 441 community residence/families and 32 Barangay Development Council/MPA Management Committee.
Q9: Which of the following statements best describes you [choose that apply]:
(1) Which of the following statements best describes you [choose that apply]:
95
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
None of the above 395 57.2%
Fisher outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary 126 18.2%
Gleaner outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary 94 13.6%
Neither Fisher or Gleaner 67 9.7%
Fisher in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary 5 0.7%
Gleaner in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary 4 0.6%
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
Out of 691 respondents, there are 126 or 18.2% described themselves as fishers outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, 94 or 13.6% as gleaner outside SMS, 67 or 9.7% are neither fisher or gleaner, 5 or 0.7% are fishers in SMS and 4 or 0.6% gleaner in SMS while 395 or 57.2% described that they did not belong to the given statements.
Q10: Where do you live in relation to the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary?
(2) Where do you live in relation to the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary?
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
I live in Barangay Tambo 689 99.7%
4 1 0.1%
Matina 1 0.1%
I live outside Barangay Tambo but residing within Samal Island 0 0.0%
Not residence of Samal Island 0 0.0%
Other 0 0.0%
96
Totals 691 100.0%
Mean --
Out of 691 respondents, 689 or 99.7% live in Barangay Tambo.
Q11: How old were you at your last birthday?
(3) How old were you at your last birthday?
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
55 or older 135 19.6%
35 to 39 94 13.6%
30 to 34 86 12.5%
25 to 29 82 11.9%
45 to 49 80 11.6%
40 to 44 74 10.7%
20 to 24 62 9.0%
50 to 54 52 7.5%
15 to 19 25 3.6%
Totals 690 100.0%
Mean --
Most of the respondents are from 55 or older age bracket which is 135 or 19.6% and the least number are from 15-19 old age bracket which is 25 or 3.6%.
Q12: School
(4) School
Counts Percents Percents
97
0 100
Elementary level 265 38.4%
High School level 198 28.7%
High School Graduate 73 10.6%
College level 49 7.1%
Primary level 45 6.5%
College graduate 32 4.6%
Refused to answer 21 3.0%
No school attended 7 1.0%
Totals 690 100.0%
Mean --
Elementary level is most respondents educational attainment which accounts to 265 or 38.4% while 7 or 1.0% had never attended school.
Q13: Religion
(5) Religion
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Roman catholic 592 85.8%
Iglesia Ni Kristo 43 6.2%
Muslim 16 2.3%
Baptist 12 1.7%
E.F.B Moncadista 9 1.3%
Born Again 6 0.9%
98
Protestant 5 0.7%
Iglesia Filippina Indipendente (IFI) 2 0.3%
Refuses to answer 2 0.3%
None 1 0.1%
A.G. 1 0.1%
Jehovahs Witness 1 0.1%
Other 0 0.0%
Totals 690 100.0%
Mean --
Roman Catholic is the religion that most of the respondents which accounts to 592 or 85.8% followed by Iglesia ni Kristo 43 or 6.2% and 16 or 2.3% are Muslim.
Q14: What is your primary occupation or sector in which you work?
(6) What is your primary occupation or sector in which you work?
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Farming 140 20.3%
Housekeeper 91 13.2%
Not currently employed 71 10.3%
Fishing 68 9.9%
Self employed 54 7.8%
Gleaning 36 5.2%
laborer 33 4.8%
99
Small business (shop keeper or sales person) 30 4.4%
Driver 27 3.9%
Housework 14 2.0%
Government (local) 12 1.7%
Student 11 1.6%
Other private company 8 1.2%
Mason 8 1.2%
Skylab-Motor 6 0.9%
Other 69 10.0%
Not Applicable 13 1.9%
Totals 688 n/a
Mean --
There are 68 or 9.9% are fishers and 36 or 5.2% are gleaners as the primary occupation of the total respondents while farming is the most primary occupation that accounts to 140 or 20.3%.
Q15: What is your secondary occupation or sector in which you work? [choose one only]
(7) What is your secondary occupation or sector in which you work? [choose one only]
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Not currently employed 133 19.5%
Gleaning 104 15.2%
Fishing 62 9.1%
Small business (shop keeper or sales person) 19 2.8%
Farming 17 2.5%
Self employed 14 2.1%
100
housekeeper 13 1.9%
driver 6 0.9%
no work 6 0.9%
laborer 4 0.6%
Housework 3 0.4%
livestock raiser 3 0.4%
Food preparation or restaurant 2 0.3%
Student 2 0.3%
Fish Vendor 2 0.3%
Other 14 2.1%
Not Applicable 284 41.6%
Totals 682 n/a
Mean --
Gleaning is the most responded as their secondary occupation which is 104 or 15.2% except for those who answered not currently employed and not applicable which possible are the housekeeper and those who do not have an alternate source of income.
Q16: How many people live in your household?
(8) How many people live in your household?
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
4 155 22.5%
3 154 22.4%
5 119 17.3%
2 74 10.8%
6 62 9.0%
7 53 7.7%
101
1 (me) 22 3.2%
10 18 2.6%
9 15 2.2%
8 13 1.9%
More than 10 3 0.4%
Totals 688 100.0%
Mean --
Most household of the respondents are having 4 people living which is 155 or 22.5% while 3 or 0.4% has more than 10 people in one household.
Q17: How many families in the household?
(9) How many families in the household?
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
1 625 90.8%
2 59 8.6%
3 3 0.4%
4 1 0.1%
5 0 0.0%
6 0 0.0%
7 0 0.0%
8 0 0.0%
9 0 0.0%
10 0 0.0%
More than 10 0 0.0%
Totals 688 100.0%
102
Mean --
Out of 691 respondents, 625 or 90.8% has only one family in one household while 1 or 0.1% have four families in one household.
Q18: In the past calendar year, from January to December, what is your best estimate of the total...
(10) In the past calendar year, from January to December, what is your best estimate of the total income earned by all family members that currently live in the same home with you. Again, this information
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
Below 30,000 Pesos 399 57.8%
Not sure 146 21.2%
Between 30,000 and 50,000 66 9.6%
Refused 49 7.1%
Between 50,001 and 75,000 11 1.6%
Between 75,001 and 100,000 11 1.6%
Greater than 100,000 Pesos 8 1.2%
Totals 690 100.0%
Mean --
There are 399 or 57.8% respondents have a total annual income of below Php30,000 while only 8 or 1.2% have an income greater then Php100, 000.
Q19: Copy of What percentage of this annual income comes from fishing?
(11) Copy of What percentage of this annual income comes from fishing?
Counts Percents Percents
103
0 100
0% 550 79.7%
1 - 20% 69 10.0%
21 - 40% 22 3.2%
41 - 60% 21 3.0%
81 - 100% 15 2.2%
61 - 80% 13 1.9%
Totals 690 100.0%
Mean --
Only 69 or 10.0% of the total respondents that 1-20% of their income comes from fishing while 15 or 2.2% are 81-100% of their income from fishing.
Q20: What percentage of this annual income comes from gleaning?
(12) What percentage of this annual income comes from gleaning?
Counts Percents Percents
0 100
0% 538 78.1%
1 - 20% 71 10.3%
21 - 40% 42 6.1%
41 - 60% 27 3.9%
61 - 80% 9 1.3%
81 - 100% 2 0.3%
Totals 689 100.0%
104
Mean --
Only 71 or 10.3% of the total respondents that 1-20% of their income comes from gleaning while 2 or 0.3% are 81-100% of their income from gleaning.
Target Audience by Enumeration Area
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence 63.8%, 441
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 31.5%, 218
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 4.6%, 32
Enumeration area (EA): Purok Monfort
18.8%; 83 12.4%; 27 15.6%; 5
Purok Puting bato 10.0%; 44 0.9%; 2 21.9%; 7
Purok San Roque 18.6%; 82 6.9%; 15 43.8%; 14
Purok San Jose 20.4%; 90 3.7%; 8 12.5%; 4
Purok San Francisco 12.5%; 55 6.9%; 15 3.1%; 1
Purok Dunggas 10.9%; 48 10.6%; 23 0.0%; 0
Purok Pigwatingan 8.8%; 39 58.7%; 128 3.1%; 1
Totals 100.0%; 441 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 32
Target Audience by Age
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence 441
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 218
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 32
105
(3) How old were you at your last birthday? 15 to 19
3.6%; 16 3.7%; 8 3.1%; 1
20 to 24 9.8%; 43 8.7%; 19 0.0%; 0
25 to 29 12.3%; 54 11.9%; 26 6.3%; 2
30 to 34 13.0%; 57 9.6%; 21 25.0%; 8
35 to 39 14.5%; 64 12.8%; 28 6.3%; 2
40 to 44 9.8%; 43 11.9%; 26 15.6%; 5
45 to 49 8.9%; 39 17.0%; 37 12.5%; 4
50 to 54 6.8%; 30 7.8%; 17 15.6%; 5
55 or older 21.4%; 94 16.5%; 36 15.6%; 5
Totals 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 32
Target Audience by Sex
Sampling methodology Overall
TA2-Community Residence 63.8%
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 31.5%
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 4.6%
Gender of respondent: Male
39.0%; 172 73.4%; 160 90.6%; 29 52.2%; 361
Female 61.0%; 269 26.6%; 58 9.4%; 3 47.8%; 330
Totals 100.0%; 441 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 32 100.0%; 691
Target Audience by Primary Source of Income
106
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 218
TA2-Community Residence 441
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 32
(6) What is your primary occupation or sector in which you work? Farming
19.3%; 42 20.5%; 90 25.0%; 8
Fishing 30.3%; 66 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Gleaning 16.5%; 36 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0
Small business (shop keeper or sales person) 1.8%; 4 5.5%; 24 6.3%; 2
Office work 0.0%; 0 0.7%; 3 0.0%; 0
Food preparation or restaurant 0.5%; 1 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Housework 0.5%; 1 3.0%; 13 0.0%; 0
Student 0.0%; 0 2.3%; 10 3.1%; 1
Not currently employed 5.5%; 12 13.5%; 59 0.0%; 0
Other private company 0.0%; 0 1.8%; 8 0.0%; 0
Self employed 3.2%; 7 10.3%; 45 6.3%; 2
Government (local) 0.5%; 1 0.9%; 4 21.9%; 7
Government (state or national) 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 3.1%; 1
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 218
TA2-Community Residence 441
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 32
Resort Owner/Employee 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0
Caretaker 0.5%; 1 0.7%; 3 0.0%; 0
Carpenter 1.4%; 3 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Construction 0.9%; 2 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0
Driver 2.3%; 5 4.8%; 21 3.1%; 1
Gardening 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 3.1%; 1
107
Handycraft 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0
Housekeeper 1.4%; 3 20.1%; 88 0.0%; 0
laborer 7.3%; 16 3.7%; 16 3.1%; 1
Mason 0.9%; 2 1.4%; 6 0.0%; 0
no work 0.0%; 0 1.1%; 5 0.0%; 0
Seaweeds Grower 0.9%; 2 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0
Security Guard 0.0%; 0 0.7%; 3 3.1%; 1
skylab (motorcycle) driver 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 3.1%; 1
Skylab-Motor 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 12.5%; 4
Triciboat driver 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0
Tuba producer 0.5%; 1 0.7%; 3 3.1%; 1
Other 3.7%; 8 3.0%; 13 3.1%; 1
Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 2.7%; 12 3.1%; 1
Totals *; * *; * *; *
Target Audience in relation to Fishing or Gleaning
(19) Do you glean or fish or both? (choose one only) Totals
yes I glean yes I fish yes I glean and fish no I don't glean and don't fish Not Applicable
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 218
39.9%; 87 20.6%; 45 35.8%; 78 1.8%; 4 1.8%; 4 100.0%; 218
TA2-Community Residence 441
2.5%; 11 0.7%; 3 1.1%; 5 49.0%; 214 46.7%; 204 100.0%; 437
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 6.3%; 2 3.1%; 1 15.6%; 5 37.5%; 12 37.5%; 12 100.0%; 32
108
32
Target Audience by Description of their Activities in Relation to SMS
Sampling methodology Overall
TA2-Community Residence 63.8%
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 31.5%
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 4.6%
(1) Which of the following statements best describes you [choose that apply]: Fisher outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary
0.7%; 3 54.1%; 118 15.6%; 5 18.2%; 126
Fisher in SAnipaan Marine Sanctuary 0.7%; 3 0.9%; 2 0.0%; 0 0.7%; 5
Gleaner outside Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary 0.2%; 1 41.7%; 91 6.3%; 2 13.6%; 94
Gleaner in Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary 0.0%; 0 1.4%; 3 3.1%; 1 0.6%; 4
Neither Fisher or Gleaner 14.1%; 62 0.0%; 0 15.6%; 5 9.7%; 67
None of the above 84.4%; 372 1.8%; 4 59.4%; 19 57.2%; 395
Totals 100.0%; 441 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 32 100.0%; 691
Trusted Person as the Source of Information
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(A) Person on the radio trustworthy
24.5%; 108 42.7%; 93 21.9%; 7
Not sure/Don't know 10.0%; 44 8.7%; 19 6.3%; 2
somewhat or not trustworthy 65.5%; 288 48.6%; 106 71.9%; 23
109
Totals 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 32
(B) Person on television trustworthy
33.0% 56.0% 21.9%
Not sure/Don't know 6.4% 7.4% 6.3%
somewhat or not trustworthy 60.6% 36.6% 71.9%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(C) Report in newspaper or magazine trustworthy
15.7% 30.7% 15.6%
Not sure/Don't know 8.9% 11.0% 9.4%
somewhat or not trustworthy 75.5% 58.3% 75.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
Mean - - -
(D) National government environment officials trustworthy
28.2% 40.4% 46.9%
Not sure/Don't know 6.6% 11.0% 3.1%
somewhat or not trustworthy 65.2% 48.6% 50.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(E) Local government environment officials trustworthy
28.0% 33.5% 40.6%
Not sure/Don't know 8.4% 11.9% 3.1%
somewhat or not trustworthy 63.6% 54.6% 56.3%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
110
Mean - - -
(F) Local community leaders trustworthy
42.5% 43.8% 50.0%
Not sure/Don't know 3.4% 6.5% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 54.1% 49.8% 50.0%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
Mean - - -
(G) Religious leaders (Imam/PSL/Pastor) trustworthy
42.3% 50.0% 40.6%
Not sure/Don't know 2.7% 2.8% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 55.0% 47.2% 59.4%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(H) Friends or family members trustworthy
23.0% 35.3% 21.9%
Not sure/Don't know 4.8% 6.0% 6.3%
somewhat or not trustworthy 72.2% 58.7% 71.9%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(I) Teachers trustworthy
33.0% 47.0% 28.1%
Not sure/Don't know 2.7% 3.2% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 64.3% 49.8% 71.9%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
111
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
Mean - - -
(J) Information on poster or billboard trustworthy
6.4% 11.9% 12.9%
Not sure/Don't know 12.5% 21.1% 6.5%
somewhat or not trustworthy 81.1% 67.0% 80.6%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(K) Information in printed booklet trustworthy
5.5% 11.9% 3.1%
Not sure/Don't know 13.4% 21.1% 12.5%
somewhat or not trustworthy 81.1% 67.0% 84.4%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(L) Information from puppet show trustworthy
4.8% 6.0% 9.4%
Not sure/Don't know 17.1% 29.8% 12.5%
somewhat or not trustworthy 78.1% 64.2% 78.1%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
Mean - - -
112
(M) Information from public meeting (Brgy/Purok General Assembly) trustworthy
36.1% 38.2% 43.8%
Not sure/Don't know 3.0% 4.6% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 60.9% 57.1% 56.3%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(N) Conservation group volunteer trustworthy
14.1% 19.7% 21.9%
Not sure/Don't know 9.6% 10.1% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 76.3% 70.2% 78.1%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(O) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer trustworthy
6.7% 6.4% 3.1%
Not sure/Don't know 20.6% 31.2% 15.6%
somewhat or not trustworthy 72.7% 62.4% 81.3%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
Mean - - -
(P) Miss Samal -Vanessa Marzado trustworthy
24.6% 18.8% 37.5%
Not sure/Don't know 12.3% 14.2% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 63.1% 67.0% 62.5%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
113
(Q) Bantay dagat trustworthy
41.1% 31.7% 40.6%
Not sure/Don't know 6.1% 14.2% 3.1%
somewhat or not trustworthy 52.7% 54.1% 56.3%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(R) MPA Coordimator (Kgwd. Johnel Montes) trustworthy
50.9% 37.2% 59.4%
Not sure/Don't know 5.5% 9.6% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 43.6% 53.2% 40.6%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
Mean - - -
(S) Barangay Captain (PB Arnulfo lacorte) trustworthy
60.1% 54.1% 62.5%
Not sure/Don't know 2.5% 6.9% 0.0%
somewhat or not trustworthy 37.4% 39.0% 37.5%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
(T) Information received via sms on your phone trustworthy
5.0% 8.7% 6.3%
Not sure/Don't know 16.9% 28.4% 21.9%
somewhat or not trustworthy 78.1% 62.8% 71.9%
Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean - - -
114
The Barangay Captain is the most trusted person as the source of information for the three target audiences who got 54% from TA1, 60.1% from TA 2 and 62.5% from TA3 followed by Religious leaders got 50% and teachers got 47% from TA1, MPA coordinator got 50.9% & 50.4%, local community leaders got 42.5% & 50.0% from TA2 and TA3rspectively. For their somewhat or not trustworthy are information from booklet, billboard and Miss Samal got 67% from TA1, the local environment officials got 83.6% from TA2 and information from billboard got 84.4% from TA3.
Trusted Sources of Information about the Environment by Target Audience
Sampling methodology Overall
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 31.5%
TA2-Community Residence 63.8%
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 4.6%
(U) Is there any other person you would trust if they told you something about the environment? Who would that be? person on radio
45.9%; 100 23.6%; 104 16.1%; 5 30.3%; 209
person on television 44.5%; 97 22.0%; 97 12.9%; 4 28.7%; 198
report in newspaper or magazine 24.8%; 54 20.5%; 90 3.2%; 1 21.0%; 145
law enforcement official 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 2
national government environment official 5.0%; 11 7.3%; 32 16.1%; 5 7.0%; 48
local government environment official 6.4%; 14 19.3%; 85 41.9%; 13 16.3%; 112
local community leaders 34.4%; 75 49.3%; 217 61.3%; 19 45.1%; 311
religious leaders 22.0%; 48 18.0%; 79 9.7%; 3 18.9%; 130
friends or family members 8.3%; 18 5.0%; 22 9.7%; 3 6.2%; 43
teachers 8.7%; 19 3.2%; 14 3.2%; 1 4.9%; 34
information on poster or billboard 0.9%; 2 1.6%; 7 3.2%; 1 1.5%; 10
information from puppet show 0.0%; 0 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0 0.6%; 4
115
information from public meeting or festival 10.6%; 23 15.5%; 68 19.4%; 6 14.1%; 97
conservation group volunteer 9.6%; 21 2.3%; 10 3.2%; 1 4.6%; 32
Barangay captain 39.9%; 87 47.5%; 209 41.9%; 13 44.8%; 309
MPA manager 10.6%; 23 19.3%; 85 12.9%; 4 16.3%; 112
Bantay dagat 12.4%; 27 22.7%; 100 32.3%; 10 19.9%; 137
Miss Samal 2011 - Vanessa Marsado 3.2%; 7 7.5%; 33 0.0%; 0 5.8%; 40
Other 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0
Not Applicable 0.5%; 1 1.1%; 5 0.0%; 0 0.9%; 6
Totals *; * *; * *; * *; *
Person on the radio who got 45.9% is the most trusted person as the source of information about the environment for the community fishers while the local community leaders who got 49.3% and 61.3% for the community residence/families and BDC/MPA Mancom respectively.
Responses on Knowledge on the Benefits of Having a No Take Zone per Target Audience
Knowledge - Fishers and Gleaners (TA1)
(A) Are there any benefits to the local community from having a no-take
area nearby? (If respondent answers YES then please (B) also ask next question)
Totals
Yes No Don't know
Overall 40.0%; 275 6.5%; 45 53.5%; 368 100.0%; 688
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
46.3%; 101 6.9%; 15 46.8%; 102 100.0%; 218
TA2-Community Residence 34.9%; 153 6.2%; 27 59.0%; 259 100.0%; 439
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
67.7%; 21 9.7%; 3 22.6%; 7 100.0%; 31
There are 101 or 46.3% of the fishers/gleaners, 153 or 34.9% of the community residence, 21 or 67.7% of the Barangay Development council/MPA management committee
116
that have knowledge on the benefits of having a No-Take-Zone while 259 or 59.0% of the community residence said they do not know about No Take Zone.
Percentage Counts of Responses on what Benefits of a NTZ per Target Audience
Sampling methodology Totals
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
TA2-Community Residence
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
Percentage and Counts of Target Audiences Responses What Benefits they can get having a No Take Zone on Q78:(Ask only of those who said yes to previous question) What local community benefits are ther more fish
36.3%; 74 55.9%; 114 7.8%; 16 100.0%; 204
better community cohesion 15.3%; 18 79.7%; 94 5.1%; 6 100.0%; 118
no more destructive fishing in that area 35.5%; 33 57.0%; 53 7.5%; 7 100.0%; 93
bigger or better coral / habitat for fish 40.5%; 34 47.6%; 40 11.9%; 10 100.0%; 84
bank of the sea / food security 37.5%; 30 52.5%; 42 10.0%; 8 100.0%; 80
better/new access to tourism 43.4%; 33 50.0%; 38 6.6%; 5 100.0%; 76
better regulation/management of fishing activities
40.8%; 29 54.9%; 39 4.2%; 3 100.0%; 71
more fertile fish 40.4%; 23 57.9%; 33 1.8%; 1 100.0%; 57
area for fish to reproduce 45.3%; 24 47.2%; 25 7.5%; 4 100.0%; 53
community ownership 31.4%; 16 56.9%; 29 11.8%; 6 100.0%; 51
117
bigger fish 33.3%; 8 54.2%; 13 12.5%; 3 100.0%; 24
new skills 28.6%; 2 57.1%; 4 14.3%; 1 100.0%; 7
Other 26.8%; 66 72.4%; 178 0.8%; 2 100.0%; 246
There are 24 or 45.3% of the community fishers said that the benefits of having a no take zone is the area for fish to reproduce while better community cohesion got 79.7% from the community residence and new skills which is 14.3% from the BDC/MPA mancom.
Percentage count of TA1 responses on the result of fish catch with the existence of SMS
(33) Has your catch increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? (If the person does not fish or glean mark as NA)
Totals Freq Error*
Decreased Increased Stayed the Same Not Applicable
Overall 3.8%; 26 11.8%; 81 32.5%; 223 52.0%; 357 100.0%; 687 ±3.8%
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
6.9%; 15 16.7%; 36 64.8%; 140 11.6%; 25 100.0%; 216 ±6.5%
TA2-Community Residence 2.3%; 10 7.1%; 31 18.2%; 80 72.4%; 318 100.0%; 439 ±4.3%
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
3.1%; 1 43.8%; 14 9.4%; 3 43.8%; 14 100.0%; 32 ±17.5%
There are 140 or 64.8% of the community fishers/gleaners said that their fish catch stayed the same with the existence of Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, 36 or 16.7% said increased fish catch and 15 or 6.9% said decreased fish catch.
Perception of TA who find it or easy or difficult to attend SMS ManComm meeting and other activities
(A) Attend regular meetings and other activities of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Management Committee
Totals
Easy Difficult Not sure Not applicable
Overall 34.2%; 236 15.2%; 105 40.0%; 276 10.6%; 73 100.0%; 690
118
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
27.5%; 60 11.0%; 24 56.9%; 124 4.6%; 10 100.0%; 218
TA2-Community Residence 33.9%; 149 17.7%; 78 34.3%; 151 14.1%; 62 100.0%; 440
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
84.4%; 27 9.4%; 3 3.1%; 1 3.1%; 1 100.0%; 32
There are 60 or 27.5% of the community fishers/gleaners, 149 or 33.9% of the community residence and 27 or 84.4% of the BDC/MPA mancom said that it is easy to attend SMS mancom meeting and other activities while 24 or 11.0%, 78 or 17.7%, 3 or 9.4% respectively said that it is difficult to attend.
Percentage count of TA1 responses on the SMS intrusion with possible action to undertake
(43) During the past 6 months if you seen someone fishing/gleaning/passing activities in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, what possible action will you do?
Totals
Report to local enforcers Investigate and stop the illegal activity
Do nothing Will not report
Overall 59.4%; 406 20.6%; 141 4.8%; 33 15.1%; 103 100.0%; 683
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
53.5%; 115 16.7%; 36 7.0%; 15 22.8%; 49 100.0%; 215
TA2-Community Residence 64.3%; 281 19.5%; 85 4.1%; 18 12.1%; 53 100.0%; 437
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
32.3%; 10 64.5%; 20 0.0%; 0 3.2%; 1 100.0%; 31
There are 115 or 53.5% of the community fishers and 281 or 64.3% of the community residence will report to local enforcers whenever they could see someone intruding in Sanipaan marine Sanctuary while 20 or 64.5% of the BDC/MPA mancom will investigate and stop the illegal activity.
Percentage count of TA1 who have intruded in SMS in the past six months
Overall Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
TA2-Community Residence
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
119
(20) I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about whether or not you have intruding in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. I want you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which I have considered not to intrude in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary.
6.8%; 46 5.4%; 11 6.6%; 29 18.8%; 6
I have considered not to intrude, but do not want to do so. 1.6%; 11 1.0%; 2 1.8%; 8 3.1%; 1
I intend to follow the rules and regulation in the SMS in the next 6 months.
1.2%; 8 1.0%; 2 1.4%; 6 0.0%; 0
I have talked to someone about not to intrude and support the policies in the past 6 months.
7.1%; 48 11.8%; 24 3.9%; 17 21.9%; 7
I have only gone intruding a few times in the past 6 months. 6.7%; 45 4.9%; 10 6.8%; 30 15.6%; 5
I have not intruded in the past 6 months. 44.0%; 296 67.5%; 137 34.0%; 149 31.3%; 10
Behavior not relevant to this respondent. 32.5%; 219 8.4%; 17 45.4%; 199 9.4%; 3
Totals 100.0%; 673 100.0%; 203 100.0%; 438 100.0%; 32
There are only 10 or 4.9% of the community fishers/gleaners, 30 or 6.8% of the community residence and 5 or 15.6% of the BDC/MPA mancom who have gone intruding SMS in the past six months.
Response of TA1 on talking about the consequence of breaking the SMS rules and regulations
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA2-Community Residence TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(38) OPTIONAL, CUSTOMIZE In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "the consequences of breaking the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations"? If you have, please tell me all of the people Have not talked to anyone
61.0%; 133 86.1%; 377 21.9%; 7
120
Talked to spouse/partner 4.6%; 10 1.4%; 6 12.5%; 4
Talked to parents/in-laws 0.9%; 2 0.9%; 4 3.1%; 1
Talked to your children age 16 or older 0.9%; 2 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Talked to friends/neighbor 19.7%; 43 5.7%; 25 21.9%; 7
Talked to Non-government environmental Officials
0.5%; 1 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Talked to Sanipaan Fishers or Gleaners 6.9%; 15 3.0%; 13 18.8%; 6
Talked to anyone within the neighborhood
4.6%; 10 1.8%; 8 15.6%; 5
Others 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 3.1%; 1
Other 0.9%; 2 0.0%; 0 3.1%; 1
Totals 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 438 100.0%; 32
There are 133 or 61.0% of the community fishers/gleaners, 377 or 86.1% of the community residence and 7 or 21.9% of the BDC/MPA mancom who have not talk to anyone about the consequence of breaking the SMS rules and regulations.
Percentage count who agrees that there's adequate equipment & facilities to enforce the SMS laws
Sampling methodology
TA2-Community Residence TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
The infrastructure, equipment and facilities to enforce the rules of the no-take area are adequate SA
8.0%; 35 11.1%; 24 18.8%; 6
A 55.5%; 244 70.5%; 153 53.1%; 17
D 28.2%; 124 13.4%; 29 21.9%; 7
SD 6.6%; 29 5.1%; 11 6.3%; 2
121
NS/DK 1.8%; 8 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0
Totals 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 217 100.0%; 32
There are 153 or 70.5% of the community fishers/gleaners, 244 or 55.5% of the community residence and 17 or 53.1% of the BDC/MPA mancom who agrees that there is adequate equipment & facilities to enforce the SMS laws while 11 or 5.1% of TA1, 29 or 6.6% of TA2 and 2 or 6.3% of TA3 who strongly disagree.
Percentage count of TA responses on talking to anyone about their role in managing the SMS
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA2-Community Residence
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(39) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "your own role in managing your local marine resources"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. Have not talked to anyone
79.3%; 172 88.8%; 390 34.4%; 11
Talked to spouse/partner 4.1%; 9 2.3%; 10 9.4%; 3
Talked to parenst/in laws 0.5%; 1 1.1%; 5 0.0%; 0
Talked to your children aged 16 or older 0.9%; 2 0.5%; 2 3.1%; 1
Talked to friends/neighbor 8.8%; 19 2.5%; 11 15.6%; 5
Talked to Non Government Environmental officials 0.9%; 2 0.7%; 3 0.0%; 0
Talked to Sanipaan fishers/gleaners 2.8%; 6 3.0%; 13 18.8%; 6
Talked to anyone within the neighborhood 2.8%; 6 0.5%; 2 12.5%; 4
dont know 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Other 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 6.3%; 2
Totals *; * *; * *; *
There are 172 or 79.3% of the community fishers, 390 or 88.8% of the community residence and 11 or 34.4% of the BDC/MPA mancom who have not talked to anyone about their role in managing the SMS.
122
Percentage count of responses on SMS R&R need to be followed per TA
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
TA2-Community Residence
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(E) The Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations need to be followed by all people who go into Strongly Agree
16.4%; 35 26.4%; 116 46.9%; 15
Agree 68.7%; 147 44.5%; 196 46.9%; 15
Disagree 12.6%; 27 26.1%; 115 3.1%; 1
Strongly Disagree 2.3%; 5 3.0%; 13 3.1%; 1
Totals 100.0%; 214 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 32
There are 147 or 68.7% of the community fishers, 196 or 44.5% of the community residence and 15 or 46.9% of the BDC/MPA mancom who agree that SMS rules and regulations need to be followed while 5 or 2.3% of TA1, 13 or 3.0% of TA2 and 1 or 3.1% of TA3 strongly disagree.
Percentage count of responses on the most trusted to manage SMS per TA
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
TA2-Community Residence
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(32) Who's role is to head and govern the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? Community Residence of Brgy. Tambo
29.2%; 63 52.5%; 231 41.9%; 13
Fishers/Gleaners 2.3%; 5 1.1%; 5 0.0%; 0
National Police 0.0%; 0 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0
123
Non-government officials 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
BDC/MPA Mancom 65.7%; 142 41.8%; 184 58.1%; 18
Local government officials 1.4%; 3 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
National government officials 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Private sector 0.5%; 1 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
none 0.9%; 2 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0
Other 0.0%; 0 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0
Totals 100.0%; 216 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 31
There are 142 or 65.7% of the community fishers and 18 or 58.1% of the BDC/MPA mancom considered that BDC/MPA Mancom as the most trusted to manage the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary while 231 or 52.5% of the community residence considered that the Community Residence of Barangay Tambo is the most trusted to manage the SMS.
Percentage count of responses on who primarily enforce the SMS rules & regulations per TA
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA2-Community Residence TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(31) Who should primarily implement the rules and regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? Coastguard
0.5%; 1 1.6%; 7 3.1%; 1
Fishers/Gleaners 4.7%; 10 1.6%; 7 0.0%; 0
National Police 2.8%; 6 1.4%; 6 0.0%; 0
Brgy. Devt. Council and MPA mgt. Committee 91.1%; 195 93.4%; 411 93.8%; 30
I don't know 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0
none 0.5%; 1 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0
Other 0.0%; 0 0.9%; 4 3.1%; 1
Totals 100.0%; 214 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 32
There are 195 or 91.1% of the community fisher/gleaners, 411 or 93.4% of the community residence and 30 or 93.8% of the BDC/MPA mancom believe that Barangay
124
Development Council/MPA management committee will primarily enforce the SMS rules and regulations.
Percentage count of responses on the intrusion in SMS & Possible action to undertake per TA
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA2-Community Residence TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(43) During the past 6 months if you seen someone fishing/gleaning/passing activities in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary, what possible action will you do? Report to local enforcers
53.5%; 115 64.3%; 281 32.3%; 10
Investigate and stop the illegal activity 16.7%; 36 19.5%; 85 64.5%; 20
Do nothing 7.0%; 15 4.1%; 18 0.0%; 0
Will not report 22.8%; 49 12.1%; 53 3.2%; 1
Totals 100.0%; 215 100.0%; 437 100.0%; 31
Percentage count on reporting violations in SMS per TA
Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA2-Community Residence
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(21) I am going to read you alist of 6 statements about reporting illegal activities to the bantay dagat and supporting the rules and regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary. I would like you to listen I have never considered about reporting illegal activities in the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary.
15.7%; 34 10.5%; 46 9.4%; 3
I have considered reporting illegal activities but do not want to do so 10.6%; 23 7.5%; 33 3.1%; 1
I intend to report and support the policies in the next 6 months 14.3%; 31 13.4%; 59 43.8%; 14
125
I have talked to someone about to report and support the policies in the past 6 months.
8.8%; 19 8.2%; 36 12.5%; 4
I have only gone reporting and support the policies a few times in the past 6 months 3.7%; 8 2.0%; 9 6.3%; 2
I have reported and supported the policies in the past 6 months 27.2%; 59 2.3%; 10 15.6%; 5
Behavior not relevant to this respondent 19.8%; 43 56.1%; 247 9.4%; 3
Totals 100.0%; 217 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 32
There are 59 or 27.2% of the community fishers who have reported violations and supported the policies in the past six months, 59 or 13.4% of the community residence and 14 or 43.8% of the BDC/MPA mancom who will intend to report and support the policies in the next six months.
Percentage Count of Responses on the increase & strict law enforcement of SMS rules per TA
(D) Increased and strict law enforcement of rules by local community fishers with enforcement rights Totals
SA A D SD NS/DK
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
17.9%; 39 71.1%; 155 9.2%; 20 1.4%; 3 0.5%; 1 100.0%; 218
TA2-Community Residence 27.3%; 120 54.8%; 241 15.0%; 66 1.8%; 8 1.1%; 5 100.0%; 440
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 64.5%; 20 32.3%; 10 3.2%; 1 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 100.0%; 31
There are 155 or 71.1% of the community fishers/gleaners and 241 or 54.8% of the community residence who agrees on the increase and strict enforcement of SMS rules while 20 or 64.5% of the BDC/MPA mancom strongly agree.
Percentage Count of TA2 Responses on the support and spoken of SMS protection & its ordinance
Overall Sampling methodology
126
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner TA2-Community Residence TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
(37) In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about the need for improved governance of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary in order to benefit their community? If you have, please tell me all of the people Have not talked to anyone
75.1%; 517 65.1%; 142 84.2%; 369 18.8%; 6
Talked to spouse/partner 4.7%; 32 6.9%; 15 2.7%; 12 15.6%; 5
Talked to parents/in-laws 2.0%; 14 1.4%; 3 1.8%; 8 9.4%; 3
Talked to your children age 16 or older 1.3%; 9 0.5%; 1 1.6%; 7 3.1%; 1
Talked to friends or neighbors 9.9%; 68 17.0%; 37 4.6%; 20 34.4%; 11
Talked to Local Government environmental Officials
0.4%; 3 0.9%; 2 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0
Talked to Sanipaan Fishers or Gleaners 3.1%; 21 2.8%; 6 3.0%; 13 6.3%; 2
Talked to anyone within the neigborhood 2.6%; 18 5.0%; 11 1.1%; 5 6.3%; 2
Others 0.4%; 3 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 3.1%; 1
Other 0.4%; 3 0.5%; 1 0.2%; 1 3.1%; 1
Totals 100.0%; 688 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 438 100.0%; 32
There are 142 or 65.1%of the community fishers/gleaners and 369 or 84.2% of the community residence who have not talked to anyone on the support and spoken of SMS protection and its ordinance while 11 or 34.4% of the BDC/MPA mancom who were able to talked to friends or neighbors on the support and SMS protection and its ordinance.
Percentage count of TA 2 Responses on the Level of Trust in Managing the SMS
Overall Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
TA2-Community Residence
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
127
Who's role is to head and govern the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary? Community Residence of Brgy. Tambo
44.7%; 307 29.2%; 63 52.5%; 231 41.9%; 13
Fishers/Gleaners 1.5%; 10 2.3%; 5 1.1%; 5 0.0%; 0
National Police 0.6%; 4 0.0%; 0 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0
Non-government officials 0.3%; 2 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
BDC/MPA Mancom 50.1%; 344 65.7%; 142 41.8%; 184 58.1%; 18
Local government officials 0.7%; 5 1.4%; 3 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
National government officials 0.3%; 2 0.0%; 0 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
Private sector 0.4%; 3 0.5%; 1 0.5%; 2 0.0%; 0
none 0.9%; 6 0.9%; 2 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0
Other 0.6%; 4 0.0%; 0 0.9%; 4 0.0%; 0
Totals 100.0%;
687 100.0%; 216 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 31
Percentage count of TA3 responses on the involvement of any SMS related activities
Overall Sampling methodology
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 31.5%
TA2-Community Residence 63.8%
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 4.6%
128
(A) Attend regular meetings and other activities of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary Management Committee Easy
34.2%; 236 27.5%; 60 33.9%; 149 84.4%; 27
Difficult 15.2%; 105 11.0%; 24 17.7%; 78 9.4%; 3
Not sure 40.0%; 276 56.9%; 124 34.3%; 151 3.1%; 1
Not applicable 10.6%; 73 4.6%; 10 14.1%; 62 3.1%; 1
Totals 100.0%; 690 100.0%; 218 100.0%; 440 100.0%; 32
Percentage count of TA3 on the Level of Support in SMS Law Enforcement
Overall Level of support for increased enforcement on Q99:What is your level of support for increasing the enforcement of the regulations of the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary?
Unsure Support the increase in enforcement
Strongly support the increase in enforcement
Strongly do not support the increase in enforcement
Do not support the increase in enforcement
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
31.5%; 218 26.2%; 72 39.8%; 68 29.6%; 47 37.7%; 26 23.1%; 3
TA2-Community Residence 63.8%; 441 72.7%; 200 56.1%; 96 58.5%; 93 58.0%; 40 76.9%; 10
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee
4.6%; 32 1.1%; 3 4.1%; 7 11.9%; 19 4.3%; 3 0.0%; 0
Totals 100.0%; 691 100.0%; 275 100.0%; 171 100.0%; 159 100.0%; 69 100.0%; 13
Percentage count of TA responded to follow the SMS regulations as to no intrusion in the NTZ
Overall Follow the MPA regulations such asfishing/gleaning/passing the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary
Easy Not sure Difficult Not applicable
Sampling methodology TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner
31.5%; 218 35.7%; 120 33.3%; 57 27.8%; 30 14.9%; 11
TA2-Community Residence 63.8%; 441 57.1%; 192 65.5%; 112 69.4%; 75 81.1%; 60
129
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 4.6%; 32 7.1%; 24 1.2%; 2 2.8%; 3 4.1%; 3
Totals 100.0%; 691 100.0%; 336 100.0%; 171 100.0%; 108 100.0%; 74
Percentage Counts of TA Responses on the SMS Rules and Regulations that Need to be Followed
(C) Illegal fishers from outside will be encouraged to come in and blast fish within the Sanipaan Marine Sanctuary
Totals
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Overall 2.2%; 15 10.5%; 72 53.3%; 367 34.0%; 234 100.0%; 688
Sampling methodology TA2-Community Residence
1.4%; 6 11.4%; 50 53.6%; 236 33.6%; 148 100.0%; 440
TA 1-Fishermen/Gleaner 2.3%; 5 6.5%; 14 55.6%; 120 35.6%; 77 100.0%; 216
TA3-Brgy Development Council/MPA Mgt Committee 12.5%; 4 25.0%; 8 34.4%; 11 28.1%; 9 100.0%; 32
Preference of Target Audiences of Flagship Species
(54) Please have a look at the four (4 photographs labeled A, B, C, D. Which of the sea creatures shown on the photograph do you like best? FLAGSHIP QUESTION - 2nd option A - Paypay Shell (scallop)
60.5%; 417
B - Mandarin Fish 41.2%; 284
C - Butterfly Fish 37.4%; 258
D - Danggit 55.2%; 380
Other 1.3%; 9
Not Applicable 2.2%; 15
130
Totals *; *
Of the total respondents, there are 417 or 60.5% selected “Paypay” (scallop) as the flagship specie that symbolizes conservation for Sanipaan Marine Park.
131
5. MPA Effectiveness Rating
a. by EcoGov
MPA MEAT
(Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool)
(The MPA MEAT is a harmonized version of the MPA Report Guide of the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc. (CCEF, White et al. 2004) as modified by the Philippine Environmental Governance Project 2 (EcoGov2), (Arceo et al. in prep),
facilitated by the MPA Support Network (MSN) through the CTI (Coral Triangle Initiative) Support Project or CTSP.)
MPA MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT TOOL
MPA Type:
Locally-managed MPA
NIPAS seascape (for NIPAS sites, please skip this page and proceed to the next)
MPA Information for single MPAs or locally-managed MPAs (provide maps if available)
MPA Name:
Complete name
SANIPAAN MARINE PARK (SMP)
Short name
SANIPAAN OR VANISHING IS.
Location:
Sitio, Barangay(s) BARANGAY TAMBO
Municipality(ies) ISLANDD GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL (IGACOS)
Province DAVAO DEL NORTE
Boundary Coordinates (longitude &
latitude)
Point 1 7o09'10.69"N; 125o40'52.67"E
Point 2 7o09'17.84"N; 125o40'35.29"E
Point 3 7o09'49.36"N; 125o40'40.80"E
Point 4 7o10'.10.81"N; 125o40'35.30"E
Point 5 7o10'21.35"N; 125o40'51.59"E Point 6 7o10'2.38"N; 125o40'7.08"E
Point 7 7o09'48.62"N; 125o41'7.47"E
Point 8 7o09'31.93"N; 125o41'2.63"E
132
Write coordinates on a separate page if space provided is not enough
Size: Hectares 158 HECTARES
MPA Type: Sanctuary/ Reserve/
Combination IT IS A SANCTUARY AND RESERVE
Ecosystem Protected:
Coral Reef/ Mangrove/ Seagrass etc. CORAL REEF, SEAGRASS, MANGROVES
Year Established: Year indicated in municipal/
city ordinance 2008 - HC 64%
Legislation: Name and code of ordinance/
RA City Ord. No. 2010-160
Evaluation date: mm/dd/yyyy 03/19/2011
Evaluator(s) details:
Name Affiliation Email address(es) Contact number(s)
Johnel Montes Barangay Kag./MPA Coordinator - Barangay Tambo
[email protected] 09099106001
Lludeza Quesada* CRM focal person IGACOS LGU [email protected] 09393186332
Arnulfo Lacorte Barangay Captain 09198485864
Juniemar Montera CRM-TWG [email protected] 09203972382
LEVEL 1 – MPA IS ESTABLISHED (17 Items, 24 Points)
Criteria/ Guide Questions
Allowable Points
Actual Points
Remarks/ Means of Verification
1.1. Establishment based on a Participatory Process (3/3) MPA established with the participation of the community based on informed decisions.
1.1.1 MPA concept explained to stakeholders 1 1 Public Hearing was conducted in 2008 Was the MPA concept explained to the stakeholders?
Affected stakeholders are oriented on MPA concepts and benefits
Minutes of consultations and public hearings
Activity report on the consultation
Proceedings of the consultation
133
1.1.2 MPA accepted and approved by the community or
local government 1 1 Attendance of public hearing
Was the MPA accepted by the community (for local MPAs) or local governments (for NIPAS marine areas)?
Public consultation on site selection should be conducted in order to gain community
approval and acceptance.
Resolution(s)
Minutes of meeting
1.1.3 BASELINE ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED* (0 or 3
only) 3 3
Data presented in SMP management plan page 9
Were the stakeholders engaged in baseline assessment using standard methods/any acceptable methods?
Baseline assessment survey includes biophysical assessment and community profile.
Biophysical assessment report
PCRA/PRA report
Technical reports of consultants
BMS Names of local participants
1.2. Adoption of a Legitimate Management Plan (5/5) Management plan is adopted and legitimized by the LGU or Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) or similar legal body
1.2.1 Management Plan Drafted 1 1 Copy of the SMP management plan
Is the management plan drafted? Any draft of management plan
1.2.2 MPA/NIPAS plan prepared in a consultative and
participatory manner 1 1
Attendance of MPA planning
Was the MPA/NIPAS plan prepared in a consultative and participatory manner? Documentation of public consultation about the MPA plan
1.2.3 Functions of MPA management body explained
through IEC 1 1
Are the functions of the MPA management body and benefits from the MPA explained through initial IEC activities? IEC materials
1.2.4 MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTED* 3 3 Section 12 of the city ordinance (City Ord. No. 2010-
160)
Is the management plan finalised and adopted? (“0” or “3” only) Management Plan
Adoption document
1.3. Legislations (Municipal Ordinance/ Presidential Proclamation or Republic Act) (5/5) Legal instrument has been enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan (for locally managed MPAs) or Philippine Congress (for MPAs under NIPAS) or other legislative bodies
1.3.1 Legal instrument declaring the MPA drafted 1 1
Copy of the ordinance Is the legal instrument declaring the MPA drafted?
The Barangay Ordinance is in place and Municipal Ordinance is drafted for
community-based MPAs. For NIPAS sites, a Presidential Proclamation or the Republic Act is drafted.
Draft or final ordinance, resolution,
Draft RA
1.3.2 Consultations on legal instrument with
stakeholders conducted 1 1
Minutes of public consultation facilitated by the city councils
134
Were there public hearings/community consultations on the legal instrument declaring the protected area?
Minutes of public consultations
Resolutions of endorsement
Criteria/ Guide Questions
Allowable Points
Actual Points
Remarks/ Means of Verification
1.3 Legislations (cont.)
1.3.3 LEGAL INSTRUMENT APPROVED* (0 or 3 only) 3 3
SMP management plan was approved by the SP in 2010
thru city ordinance no. 2010-160
Is the legal instrument establishing the MPA approved?
Legal document establishing the MPA should be approved. For locally, managed MPAs, a Municipal Ordinance declaring the MPA should have been enacted. For Protected Areas under the NIPAS, a Presidential Proclamation should have been
signed or the Republic Act should have been enacted by Congress
Municipal Ordinance declaring the MPA for the locally managed MPAs,
Presidential Proclamation or Republic Act declaring the Protected Area for the
NIPAS sites 1.4. Management body formed and functional (11/11)
Management body has been formed and is functional
1.4.1 Management body determined and identified 1 1 List of members of the
different mgt committees
Have the members of management body been determined and identified?
The management core group should have been identified (e.g. BFARMC, MFARMC, and PAMB).
Documents showing members of the management body
Minutes of meeting
List of members of PAMB
Appointment document of the PAMB members
1.4.2 MANAGEMENT BODY FORMED AND ROLES CLARIFIED* (0
or 3 only) 3 3
Barangay Resolution No. 25 series of 2011
Is the management body formed and the roles of the members clarified? (“0” or “3”)
Minutes showing committees
Organizational chart
Enabling documentation
1.4.3 BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR* (0 or 3
only) 3 3
Barangay allocated 60,000 in 2009; 2010 budget was 70,000
Is the budget for at least one year of implementation allocated? (“0” or “3”)
Approved Work and financial plan for the PA from the DENR/LGU
General Appropriations Act showing allocation of funds to NIPAS (similar form
for LGUs)
1.4.4 IEC activities coordinated by the management body 1 1
135
Signboards/IEC plan
Are Information and Education and Education (IEC) activities coordinated by the management body? Are signboards/billboards posted in the coastline/ shoreline where the MPA is located?
IEC plan or similar document Signboards/billboards
1.4.5 MPA boundaries delineated 1 1 Picture of installation of
markers Are the MPA’s boundaries properly delineated in the most appropriate manner and installed?
MPA boundaries should be marked by anchor buoys, marker buoys and/or boundary marks made with appropriate and
sturdy materials. For large areas like NIPAS marine areas where placing marker buoys is impractical, information materials (e.g., banners, posters, billboards) that clearly show the boundaries of the NIPAS and zones established should
be present.
Buoys
Maps on billboards, banners, posters
1.4.6 PA enforcers identified 1 1 List of members identified in the organizational structure
Are the MPA enforcers identified? List of enforcers
1.4.7 Biophysical monitoring activities coordinated by the
management body 1 1 Monitoring report
Are biophysical monitoring activities coordinated by the management body? Biophysical monitoring Report
TOTAL SCORE 27 27
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS & indicated by an asterisk (*) Minimum Score of 20 points including Thresholds
LEVEL 2 - MPA MANAGEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY STRENGTHENED (at least 2 years since after establishment) (9 ITEMS, 15 POINTS)
Criteria/ Guide Questions
Allowable Points
Actual Points
Remarks/ Means of Verification
2.1 The MPA is effectively strengthened
2.1.1 Enforcement plan, or its equivalent, in place 1 1
Copy of enforcement plan
Is an enforcement plan, or its equivalent, in place? Enforcement plan
2.1.2 Marine enforcement group trained 1 1 Certificate of Attendance
Is there training on marine enforcement for community enforcers or park rangers (for NIPAS marine areas)?
Training report with names of participants
Certificate of attendance
Deputization ID of Bantay Dagat or Fish Wardens
2.1.3 PATROLLING AND SURVEILLANCE CONDUCTED REGULARLY* (0
or 3 only) 3 3
Enforcers attendance Patrol logbooks
136
Are patrolling, surveillance, and other violation detection measures (e.g., watchtowers, radars, community reporting, etc.) being conducted regularly?
Attendance of patrollers
Patrol logs
Dispatch order of the multi-sectoral enforcement team
Back to office report
Report of the violation detection measure
Mission Order
2.1.4 VIOLATIONS DOCUMENTED * (0 or 3 only) 3 3
Logbook
Are violations report / apprehension being documented properly?
If the report shows no violations observed in the regular patrolling, the score is 3 (assumption is that reporting is being done)
Back to office report of the patrolling team
Logbook
Violation reports
Police blotter
Barangay logbook
2.1.5 CASES FILED or VIOLATORS PENALIZED* (0 or 3 only) 3 3
Apprehension report Are cases filed for apprehended violators? OR Are apprehended violators penalized?
If the report shows no violations observed in the regular patrolling, the score is 3 (assumption is that reporting is being
done). Are violators penalized through imposing of fines, and other penalties provided for in the ordinance or any enabling law?
Case reports
Legal documents
List of Violators penalized
Record of Fines Collected
List/Pictures of Gears Confiscated
2.1.6 Funds accessed and used 1 1 Coming from the City Government
Are available funds accessed for MPA management?
Funds should have been expended for the MPA management Expenditure reports
Financial Statements
2.1.7 Infrastructures maintained 1 1 Guard house and markers
Are the MPA billboards, boundary markers/anchor buoys maintained?
Site Visit
Expenditure on maintenance of billboards/buoys/ etc
2.1.8 IEC program conducted to sustain public awareness and
compliance 1 1
Attendance sheet of the IEC activities conducted
Is the IEC program implemented to sustain public awareness and compliance?
Activity report with attendance sheet
Violations Report showing decline of violation
2.1.9 Participatory biophysical monitoring in the last three (3) years 1 1
Is the participatory biophysical monitoring being conducted regularly?
Biophysical surveys should have been conducted at least in the last three (3) years. Surveys should be properly documented, with the data kept safely for review and updating purposes. For NIPAS sites, Biodiversity Monitoring System should have
been reported at least every three years.
Data or report in the last three years
TOTAL SCORE 15 15
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS & indicated by an asterisk (*) Minimum Score of 11 points including Thresholds
137
LEVEL 3 – MPA MANAGEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY SUSTAINED (for at least 5 years) (11 ITEMS, 21 POINTS)
Criteria/ Guide Questions
Allowable Points
Actual Points
Remarks/ Means of Verification
3.1 The MPA management is effectively sustained for at least 5 years The MPA is effectively sustained if it has been effectively strengthened for at least 5 years from year of establishment. There is an evident increase/ positive effects on the coastal resources that are seen on documented biophysical surveys. The LGU and members of the management body are committed and actively oversee various
MPA activities.
3.1.1 Management plan and ordinance reviewed and updated 1 0
Was the MPA management plan reviewed or updated in response to emerging needs and challenges?
Updated management plan or amendments to the plan
Minutes of meeting that reviewed the plan
3.1.2 FUNDS GENERATED OR ACCESSED FOR LAST 2 YEARS* (0 or 3 only) 3 3 Budget from the LGU and
ECOGOV project Are financial sources generated or accessed for the last 2 or more consecutive years? (e.g., budget from LGU/ IPAF or from
external sources) “0” or “3” only Audited expenditure report for last 2
years
3.1.3 Management body able to supervise management activities of the
MPA and access technical assistance, if necessary 1 1
Technical assistance from the BFAR, DENR and other partner
institutions
Is the management body able to supervise management activities (e.g. enforcement, budgeting, financial management) of the MPA and access technical assistance, if necessary?
Letters with reply from partner
Reports with other partners
3.1.4 ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM FULLY OPERATIONAL IN THE LAST FIVE
CONSECUTIVE YEARS* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Is the enforcement system fully operational? (“0” or “3” only)
The enforcement support structures are maintained and patrolling activities sustained for the last 5 or more consecutive years.
Logbook with records of patrolling apprehensions
Structures and equipment: headquarters, boat, comm. devices,
GPS, etc.
3.1.5 IEC program enhanced 1 0
Is the IEC program enhanced?
IEC materials are regularly reproduced or updated and disseminated.
IEC program progress report
IEC materials
3.1.6 PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF THE MANAGEMENT BODY
CONDUCTED REGULARLY* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Is the performance monitoring of the management body conducted regularly? (“0” or “3” only)
Performance monitoring (such as but not limited to the conduct of MEAT) as defined in the management plan or every 2 years
Performance evaluation report or any commonly used report
evaluating the performance of the management body
Number of resolutions passed by the
138
PAMB (for NIPAS)
3.1.7 REGULAR PARTICIPATORY MONITORING* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Is there a regular participatory biophysical monitoring? (“0” or “3”)
Biophysical surveys should have been conducted at least in the last five (5) years. Surveys should be properly documented, with the data kept safely for review and updating purposes. For NIPAS sites, Biodiversity Monitoring System should have been
reported at least every three years.
Monitoring data showing trends
Attendance sheets with locals during monitoring
3.1.8 Socioeconomic monitoring conducted regularly 1 0
Is socio-economic monitoring conducted regularly?
“Regular” as defined in the management plan or at least every year. Minimum socioeconomic data (e.g., income, livelihood activities, population, resource use)which may be used by the management body to adjust management plans and strategies
Socio-economic data showing trends
3.1.9 Sustainable financing strategy established 1 1
Environmental User’s Fee
Is there an internally generated revenue scheme?
Resolution or ordinance imposing fees
Financial report inc. income statement, expenditure report,
revenue report
Financial guidelines
Criteria/ Guide Questions
Allowable Points
Actual Points
Remarks/ Means of Verification
Level 3 cont…
3.1.10 VIOLATORS PROSECUTED AND SANCTIONED* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Are the prosecution process requirements, if any, satisfied by the MPA management body? (“0” or “3” only)
Violations are prevented or duly prosecuted and sanctioned. Requirements for the prosecution undertaken by the MPA management body.
Logbook and validated with key informant interviews
Court decision
3.1.11 Feedback system in place (for monitoring) 1 0
Is there a feedback system in place? Minutes of public hearings
Consultation / feedback report reports
TOTAL SCORE 21 5
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS & indicated by an asterisk (*) Minimum Score of 16 points including Thresholds
LEVEL 4 - MPA MANAGEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY INSTITUTIONALIZED (managed effectively for at least 7 years) (11 ITEMS, 21 POINTS)
139
Criteria/ Guide Questions
Allowable Points
Actual Points
Remarks/ Means of Verification
4.1 MPA Managed effectively for at least 7 years The MPA will be considered as institutionalised if it has been effectively managed for at least 7 years since establishment. There is an evident increase/ positive effects on the coastal resources that are seen on documented biophysical surveys. The LGU and members of the management body is committed and actively oversees various
MPA activities. The Provincial Council have also been actively involved in the management and maintenance of the MPA. For NIPAS sites, they are institutionalized if active collaboration with local governments are in place.
4.1.1 Political support from the provincial council or LGUs 1 0
Is there a formal commitment from the Provincial Council (for locally managed MPAs) or from local governments (for NIPAS marine areas) giving MPA stronger political support?
The Provincial Council or local governments (for NIPAS) are committed to give the MPA institutional support to strengthen enforcement and collaboration. Political support: budget, manpower, technical support.
Contracts/ MOA/ MOU
Annual Investment Plan (AIP)
SP Resolution committing/ providing support to the MPA/ NIPAS site
4.1.2 MPA MANAGEMENT PLAN INCORPORATED IN BROADER
DEVELOPMENT PLANS* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Is the MPA management plan or GMP for NIPAS incorporated in broader development plans? (“0” or “3” only)
The MPA is incorporated within the long-term LGU area-wide development plan, e.g. Comprehensive Land Use Plan [CLUP], Provincial Development Plan [PDP], etc.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
Provincial Development Plan (PDP)
Regional plan
4.1.3 Management body capable of outsourcing funds 1 0
Is the management body able to outsource funds for the MPA/NIPAS marine area (Programs, Projects and Activities for NIPAS areas; external to the local or national governments)? Proposals submitted (received copy)
4.1.4 Coordination with LGUs and other groups clearly defined and
formalized 1 1
MOA with the different enforcement agencies (PNP, AFP,
Task Force Davao, etc) Is coordination with appropriate national & local agencies on CRM/MPA policies and with other LGUs achieved? Are the
accountabilities and working relationships among collaborating institutions clearly defined and formalized? MOA
4.1.5 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
CONDUCTED* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Are ecological and socio-economic impact assessments conducted?
Assessment of resource status and long-term trends (at least in the last seven consecutive years)conducted. Analysis of change in local economy and long-term trends of user groups conducted. Results should be presented to stakeholders.
Trends and temporal assessments of ecological and socio-economic aspects
4.1.6 PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION LINKED TO
AN INCENTIVE SYSTEM* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Is the performance monitoring and evaluation linked to an incentive system? (“0” or “3” only)
Recognition/awards are regularly being given to outstanding members, law enforcers, etc. Incentives can also include priority for granting of available loans or alternative livelihood opportunities.
Awards /Recognition received
Announcement of competition / performance incentives
Criteria/ Guide Questions
Allowable Points
Actual Points
Remarks/ Means of Verification
Level 4 cont…
140
4.1.7 IEC SUSTAINED OVER SEVEN YEARS* (“0” OR “3”) 3 0
Is the MPA IEC program sustained over seven years? (“0” or “3” only)
IEC program progress reports for 7 years
IEC long term plan
4.1.8 Management body can adjudicate certain cases 1 0
Does the management body adjudicate administrative cases?
Proceedings of the adjudications
Letters of complaints
Key informant interview
4.1.9 Expansion strategies or resource enhancement programs
initiated 1 0
Are expansion strategies or resource enhancement programs initiated?
MPA coverage (for local MPAs) is expanded, e.g. from a sanctuary to a park; or scope of conservation activities is heightened, e.g. coral reef restoration, culturing of clams, etc. For NIPAS marine areas, resource enhancement activities
are implemented.
Reports
Key Informant Interview
4.1.10 Support facilities constructed 1 0 Are there support facilities / infrastructure constructed or added?
Facilities to support MPA enterprises are constructed (e.g., guardhouse, visitors’ educational/training center, watchtower)
Site visit
4.1.11 MPA FINANCIALLY SELF-SUSTAINING IN THE LAST SEVEN (7)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS* (0 or 3 only) 3 0
Is the MPA financially self-sustaining in the last seven consecutive years? (“0” or “3”)
Revenues (internally generated and/or outsourced from external sources) should be enough to cover operating expenses of the MPA in the last seven (7) consecutive years
Audited financial report for the last seven years
TOTAL SCORE 21 1
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS & indicated by an asterisk (*) Minimum score of 16 points including Thresholds
MPA Summary of Scores
MPA LEVELS ACTUAL SCORES
1 – Established
2 – Strengthened
3 – Sustained
4 – Institutionalized
TOTAL
141
To assess aspects of MPA management that needs to be improved, fill up the table below. Add up the answers MPA MEAT as grouped in each parameter (as indicated in the second column) to get the actual score.
Parameters Items in the MEAT Allowed Points Actual Score
Management Plan 1.2.1; 1.2.2; 1.2.4; 3.1.1; 4.1.2 8 Management Body 1.2.3; 1.4.1; 1.4.2; 3.1.3; 3.1.6; 4.1.1; 4.1.4 11 Legal Instrument 1.3.1; 1.3.2; 1.3.3 5 Community Participation 1.1.1; 1.1.2 2 Financing 1.4.3; 2.1.6; 3.1.2; 3.1.9; 4.1.3; 4.1.11 12 IEC 1.4.4; 2.1.7; 2.1.8; 3.1.5; 4.1.7 7 Enforcement 1.4.5; 1.4.6; 2.1.1; 2.1.2; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.1.5; 4.1.4; 3.1.10; 4.1.8 20 Monitoring and Evaluation 1.1.3; 1.4.7; 2.1.9; 3.1.7; 3.1.8; 3.1.11; 4.1.5; 4.1.6 14 Site Development 4.1.8; 4.1.10 2 Total 81
MPA MEAT RATING REFERENCE TABLE
MPA LEVEL (based on minimum
indicators)
# OF ITEMS
Achievable Points
MANAGEMENT STATUS The scores are indicative thresholds that accumulate through time.
The levels below are indicative names used to establish levels of performance
Minimum Score including Thresholds Cumulative/ Overall Score
1 – Established [Yr 1+]
17 27 20/27 0-24 – Fair MPA is Established
2 – Strengthened [2 Yrs +]
9 15 11/15
Cumulative points=31 25-39 – Good MPA Management is Effectively Strengthened
3 – Sustained [5yrs +]
11 21 16/ 21
Cumulative points = 48 40-61 – Very Good MPA Management is Effectively Sustained
4 – Institutionalised 5 [7 yrs +]
11 21 16/ 21
Cumulative points=64 62-81 Excellent MPA Management is Effectively Institutionalized
TOTAL 48 81 64
b. Enhanced Ecogov/CCEF MPA effectiveness rating and analysis
Met/Needs work
No. Criteria/Activity Satisfied Evidence (delete those that are not available in the site and add additional evidence if available)
142
LEVEL 1 – MPA IS INITIATED [Gisugdan ang paghunahuna sa MPA]
3 1 accepted [Ang concepto/hunahuna sa MPA gipasabot ug nasabtan] 2008public consultation, series, prez sa ubang lurar like apo island and hilutungan, gihimo ang minutes sa meeting nasa sa secretary
(Orientation on MPAs for affected stakeholders from various sectors conducted. Social acceptance sought through community consultations /public hearings composed of representatives from various sectors) [Pagpasabot unsa ang MPA ngadto sa lain-laing sector sa katilingban. Nakuha ang pag-uyon sa katawhan pinaagi sa community consultation/public hearings nga gilangkoban sa matag sector]
1 2 Site surveyed using standard methods with baseline assessment complete, conducted in a participatory process
Ecogov people did the survey, report sa TWG
(Reports completed on fish abundance, coral cover and profile on community and coastal management) [Kompleto ang baseline nga datos sa gidaghanon sa isda, kabag-on sa corals, kinatibuk-ang impormasyon sa katilingban, ug mga kalihokan sa pagdumala sa kabaybayonan]
3 3 ance [Napili na ang lugar tukuran sa MPA nga gikauyonan sa katilingban]
same consultations as above
(Based on PCRA with public consultations) [Gamit ang proseso sa PCRA ug Ecogov inubanan sa public consultations]
1 4 Preliminary management plan drafted [Pagpanday sa pasiunang management plan] 2008 to 2012 five years, naay kopya ang barangay ug ang TWG ug ecogov
(Management plan should include policies, structures & responsibilities, strategies & programs, financial plan and M&E) [Ang management plan naglangkob ug mga polisiya, istructura ug katungdanan, mga kalihokan ug programa, plano sa panalapi ug Monitoring and Evaluation]
1 5 Management body membership tentatively determined [Ang mga miembro sa Management Body nailhan na pero dili pa hingpit]
twg, local management committee sa barangay level, naa pay mpa coordinator
143
(Management core group starting to conduct regular meetings with proper documentation) [Ang pasiunang grupo nga magdumala nagsugod na sa pagpahigayon ug meetings ug dunay haom nga dokomentasyon]
1 6 Resolution and/or ordinance drafted [Ang resolusyon o ordinansa gipanday na] jan 2010, MO naay kopya sa barangay, for 6 mpas…..
1 7 Education program raising awareness about MPA functions and benefits started [Pagsugod sa programa sa edukasyon aron mapalambo ang kahibalo bahin sa kaayuhan sa MPA]
minutes and attendance of forums from 2009 to karon
(Conducted a series of public education activities) [Pagpahigayon ug sunod-sunod nga nga paghatag ug pagtulon-an sa kadaghanan]
LEVEL 2 – MPA IS ESTABLISHED [Natukod na ang MPA]
1 8 Community acceptance gained and documented [Ang pag-dawat sa katilingban naangkon ug nakasulat]
naa kopya naa sa barangay sec, series of 2009
(Documented through public consultation documents, e.g. barangay resolution) ) [Nakasulat kini ug miagi ug public consultation, pananglit barangay resolution]
3 9 rdinance passed and approved by the Municipal Council [And ordinansa gipasa ug gitugotan sa Municipal Council]
3 10 [Ang Management plan gisagop ug gipaluyuhan ug balaod sa LGU]
ordinansa declaring the mpa, gi-attach ang mgt plan didto
(Adoption of management plan supported by resolution/ ordinance; plan went through community consultations with multi-sectoral stakeholders prior to approval/ legitimization) [Ang management plan gisagop pinaagi sa resolution o ordinansa; ang plano niagi ug community consultations uban ang lain-laing sector ayha pa ang pagtugot o supporta sa ordinansa]
144
3 11 [Ang Management body naumol na ug naglihok] twg, cepit, mpa coordinator sa brgy level
(Composition of management group and committees identified; roles & responsibilities clarified and accepted; initial meetings conducted ) [Ang naglangkob sa management group ug mga comitiba nailhan na; ang papel ug katungdana klaro ug gidawat; pasiunang panagtagbo gipahigayon]
3 12 [Pagtagana ug budget para sa unang tuig nga kalihokan] city - 50 sanipaan lang, brgy, 60 T supplemental na ang uban, different depts just access funds from their budgets
(LGU has committed a budget for the establishment and implementation of the MPA) [Ang LGU mi-comit ug budget para sa pagtukod ug pagpatuman sa MPA]
3 13 [Gisugdan na ang kalihokan sa pagpatuman sa MPA] 20 bds, 1 vol, 20 paid at 200 per mo, 1 2500 per mo caretaker sa guardhouse
(Regular guarding of the marine sanctuary initiated.)
1 14 IEC activities conducted [Ang mga kalihokan sa IEC gipahigayon na] through community consultations
(e.g. Dissemination of MPA rules & regulations; initial stakeholder knowledge assessment conducted) [Pagpakatap sa mga balaod ug regulasyon; pagpahigayon ug pagduki-duki ]
1 15 Boundaries delineated [Ang utlanan sa MPA klaro] sa core zone, 28 hectares, boya container, kawayan
(Anchor buoys, marker buoys and/or boundary marks installed) [Mga pataw para sa pagangkla, pataw nga timailhan sa utlanan]
1 16 Signboards/billboards posted [Nibarog na ang signboards ug billboards] naay signboard sa guardhouse, ug sa floating marker
(Should show either map/zones, rules & regulations and/or other relevant details) [Ang mga signboards/billboards nagpakita up mapa, mga balaod ug uban pang mahinungdanong detalye]
145
1 17 MPA outpost or other structures constructed [Ang mga katukuran alang sa pagpasikad sa balaod natokod na]
guardhouse, made f drum kawayan, nipa
(Guardhouse and/or other MPA-related structures constructed) [Ang guardhouse o uban pang klase sa katukuran nga nga dunay kahilambigitaman sa MPA]
1 18 Biophysical monitoring includes local participation [Ang pagduki-duki sa mga buhilaman sa dagat gipahigayon uban ang local nga pag apil-apil]
kap, kg mando, 20 cvos, trained in 2010 and 2011, kuyog sila sa mga divers sa city
(Locals were trained to do biophysical surveys using standard methods) [Nabansay na ang mga local nga lumolopyo aron pagbuhat sa pagduki-duki sa mga buhilaman sa dagat gamit ang standard nga pamaagi]
LEVEL 3 – MPA IS ENFORCED [Ang MPA gipasikad/gipatuman]
1 19 Budget from LGU or from other sources allocated and is accessible for MPA management [Ang budget sa LGU ug uban pang kakuhaan gitagana ug pwede makuha alang sa pagdumala sa MPA]
city govt and barangay ug city, private donate ug kahoy, wallclock, kitchen utensils, atop, flashlights
(There is a legal document by the LGU or an agreement with the private sector allocating budget for MPA management; financial reports being prepared and reported) [Adunay legal nga dokomento o kasabotan tali sa LGU ug pribadong sector aron pagtagana ug budget alang sa pagdumala sa MPA; and mga report sa financial nga aspeto]
1 20 Management body active and supported by legal instrument [Ang Management body actibo na ug gipaluyuhan ug balaod-legal nga documento]
naa sa mgt plan that specifies role of barangay council, ug naay EO 02-s 2011, reconstituting CEPIT and streamlining its functions
(Implements the management plan including enforcement and monitoring activities based on prepared annual operational plan; regularly convenes for meetings; provides a venue to manage conflict or resolve issues) [Ang Management plan gipatuman-naglangkob ug enforcement-pagpasikad sa balaod ug pagbalik tan-aw nga nagsumikad sa gihan-ay nga operational plan; paghimo ug panagtigom; pagtagana ug panahon aron totkan ug solbaron ang mga issues]
146
3 21 community volunteers, records maintained and open to everyone [Hiniusang pagbantay ug pagmatngon gipahigayon na inubanan sa enforcement group (PNP) ug local nga voluntaryo; mga record padayon gibuhat ug abre alang sa tanan]
patrol logbook photocopies presented, apil ang pnp
(Enforcement group supported by legal instrument; enforcement plan regularly prepared and being implemented, e.g. day/night shifts, by mandated enforcement group with assistance from local community volunteers) [Ang grupo nga tigpasikad sa balaod gipaluyohan ug balaod; dunay gisubay nga enforcement plan-adlaw gabii nga pagbantay]
1 22 MPA billboards, boundary markers/anchor buoys maintained [Mga billboards, timailhan sa mga utlanan-mga pataw]
ang naanod gina-islan
(Funds allocated for maintenance of enforcement support structures. May be part of municipal CRM budget) [Pondo gitagana alang sa mga katukuran kalabot sa enforcement]
0 23 naay iec plan sa mgt plan for 5 years, 2x a year activity, una ang purok leaders then we need to go down sa mga purok na
(A long term IEC program is currently being implemented in support of enforcement and the general MPA objectives)
1 24 Regular participatory biophysical monitoring being conducted [Kanunay nga pagpahigayon ug pagduki-duki sa mga buhilaman sa dagat]
randy ang nagakapot sa reports, regularly done since 2008 tabang sa ecogov, pero next week naay sked
(Documented surveys conducted at least once annually using standard methods) [Ang resulta sa survey nakasulat; gibuhat ang survey matag tuig]
3 25 effectively stopped inside the sanctuary zone [Ang panagat sulod sa MPA nahunong na] 24/7 guarding na, wala na sa record na nagsulod, naay compressor mag-attempt, pero dili kasulod
(No fishing-related violations/apprehensions reported inside MPA for the past year or if violations occurred these have been prevented or duly dealt with such that no overall adverse effect on the ecosystem has resulted) [Wala nay nabalita nga nanagat; mga kalapasan o nadakpan sulod sa MPA sa milabay nga tuig; kung dunay nisulod kini napugngan aron dili makahatag ug kadaot sa dagat]
147
0 26 [Ang illegal ug makadaot nga panagat mikunhod gawas sa MPA]
reports sa logbook wala na makita sa tambo, pero naa pa sa ubang baryo kay 3.25 km ra ang length sa coast sa barangay
(Violations/apprehensions reported at least or at minimum within 5 km from the MPA boundaries have been reduced by 80% for the past year. This Implies that baseline violation reports have been estimated or gauged or at least based on the previous year) [Mikunhod (80%) na ang nabalita nga kalapasan sulod sa 5 ka kilometro gikan sa utlanan sa MPA]
LEVEL 4 – MPA IS SUSTAINED [Ang MPA nagmalungtaron]
0 27 MPA management plan and/or ordinance reviewed/updated in a participatory process [Ang management plan ug ordinansa gibalikan ug tan-aw inubanan ang processo sa katilingban]
(Management plan and/or ordinance amended with the participation of various stakeholders) [Ang management plan ug ordinansa giamendahan uban ang pagapil-apil sa kadaghanan]
28 Budget from LGU or from other sources is being allocated and accessed for 2 or more consecutive years [Ang budget gikan sa LGU ug uban pang kakuhaan gitagana ug pwede magamit sulod sa duha ug daghang pang katuigan nga pagpatuman sa pagdumala]
(Financial reports being regularly prepared, audited and reported; proper procurement & contracting procedures are strictly being followed and transparent, e.g. reports are accessible and reported) [Ang mga report pinansiyal giandam sa kanunay; haom/sakto ug klaro nga pagpamalit ug gamit-nagsubay sa balaod; and reports makita sa tanan]
29 Management body capable to run the MPA independently [Ang Management body adunay kahanas sa pagpadagan sa pagdumala sa MPA]
(Management body supervises/facilitates management activities [enforcement, budgeting & financial management, M&E, IEC, etc.] and coordinates activities with partners) [Ang management body mao ang nangulo sa mga kalihokan sa pagdumala ug pakiglambigit sa mga partners-pagpasikad sa balaod, pagdumala sa pondo]
0 30 [Ang pagpasikad sa balaod hingpit nga naglihok]
148
(Mandated enforcement group implementing regularly prepared enforcement plan; enforcement support structures maintained & patrolling activities sustained for 2 consecutive years or more; effective reporting system in place) [Ang grupo nga gitahasan sa balaod kanunay nag andam ug enforceement plan; giatiman ang mga katukuran (guardhouse ug pumpboat ug uban pa) ug namalahutayon ang sulod sa duha ka tuig o daghan pang katuigan; epektibong nga pagbalita sa mga panghitabo]
31 MPA billboards, boundary markers/anchor buoys maintained [Mga billboards, timailhan sa mga utlanan-mga pataw]
(Site development structures and equipment maintained for 3 consecutive years or more)[Giatiman ang mga billboard ug mga buya]
32 participation [Ang dagan sa pagdumala sa management body kanunay gisubay ug balikan ug tan-aw inubanan sa katilingban]
(Performance monitoring program in place and conducted regularly for 2 consecutive years or more; reporting system for ordinary citizens to complain w/o fear of consequences available and widely known) [Natukod na ang programa sa pag monitor ug gibuhat kada duha ka tuig o daghan pang katuigan; adunay reporting system sa mga mulo sa katawhan ]
33 Annual participatory biophysical monitoring and timely feedback of results being implemented for 2 consecutive years or more, monitoring team accountable for reliability of results [after 2 years from establishment or the baseline reference up to the evaluation period] [Tinuig nga pagbalik tan-aw sa estado sa buhilaman sa dagat-kini gibuhat sulod sa duha ka tuig o daghang pang katuigan; ang monitoring team mao ang mupahigayon aron insakto and datos nga mareport ug makuha]
nahunong ng mawala na ang haribon
(Documented surveys using standard methods; reports available; results posted in billboards) [Nakasulat ang mga resulta sa survey gamit ang standard methods; and mga reports mabasa ug kini nakapatik sa mga billboards]
34 Socio-economic monitoring regularly conducted, monitoring team accountable for timely feedback and reliability of results
149
(Fisheries and/or socio-economic variables being regularly monitored by local monitoring team; data summaries/reports are available and easily accessible)
35 Environment friendly enterprise and/or fees collected as a sustainable financing strategy sancutary café run by LGU
(Environment-friendly products/goods sold to tourists, impose collection of user-fees, etc.)
36
(No violations/apprehensions reported inside and within 5 km of the MPA boundary or violations prevented or duly prosecuted and sanctioned for 2 consecutive years or more)
LEVEL 5 – MPA IS INSTITUTIONALIZED
37 Formal commitment from the Provincial Council giving MPA stronger political support
(Gives MPA institutional support to strengthen enforcement and collaboration)
38 Management plan refined with stakeholder participation for adaptive management
(Incorporates further refinements after gaining much experience and lessons to improve strategies)
3 39 apil na, naay subsector sa revised CLUP 2009
(MPA incorporated within the long-term LGU area-wide development plan)
1 40 Management body capacitated for fund sourcing
(Can prepare and submit proposals to seek financial assistance from external sources e.g. funds sourced by local management bodies)
1 41 Effective coordination with appropriate national & local agencies on CRM/MPA policies and with other LGUs achieved; accountabilities and working relationships among collaborating institutions clearly defined and formalized
denr, bfar, pnp, msn, univs,
(Coordination on implementation and resolution particularly of issues that transcend local boundaries including MPA networking with other MPAs etc.)
150
42 Evaluation of ecological and socio-economic impacts conducted and feedback mechanisms are in place
(Assessment of resource status and long-term trends conducted; Analysis of change in local economy and long-term trends of user groups conducted; Reports of these studies have been completed and reported back to stakeholders and/or conference or symposia)
43 awards given every November depending on the case filed.
(Recognition/awards are regularly being given to outstanding members, law enforcers, etc.; incentives can also include priority for granting of available loans or alternative livelihood opportunities; feedback mechanisms for the communities such as suggestion box, complaint desk in the LGU, village assembly, are available)
44
(Information dissemination activities sustained according to long-term IEC program; citizens can conveniently access MPA-related info and LGU-disseminated materials such as minutes of meetings, leaflets, etc.)
45 Advanced IEC materials developed and disseminated with assistance from partners and/or private sector grants (e.g. video production)
46 cate for MPAs
(After much experience, members are ready to share learnings and impart knowledge; presence of identified group that conducts tours and capable of giving talks on MPAs; paper/s written on their success stories published)
47 Expansion strategies or enhancement programs initiated
(MPA coverage is expanded, e.g. from a sanctuary to a park; or scope of conservation activities is heightened, e.g. coral reef restoration, culturing of clams, etc)
48 Support facilities constructed/added sanctuary café as information center
(E.g. tourism facilities, guardhouse expanded into an education/training center, etc.)
49 Revenues from enterprise and/or fees sustained and accounted for 10T per year income ball park figure
(Existing sustainable financing mechanisms are well-managed and well-documented; financial reports easily accessible)
151
6. Letters of Support
152
7. Threat Ranking Threat ranking was formulated based on concept model diagram where issues and problems were laid down as an output during the conduct of Focus Group Discussion and one on one interview. The threat ranking helped identify the priority threat to be addressed by the campaign, based on scope, severity and irreversibility of the threat at the site.
153
8. Factor Chain
The factor chains subsequently served to illustrate the causal sequence of factors that lie behind the primary threat and the target groups that the campaign needs to reach to address the threat.