533579261
ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT (APR)
FOR UNDP/GEF PROJECTS
2004
OFFICIAL TITLE:
Biodiversity Conservation and Management of the Bohol Islands Marine
Triangle
COUNTRY:
Philippines
UNDP PROJECT NUMBER:
PHI/OO/G37
GEF PROJECT NUMBER:
1359
DATE OF REPORT:
June 14, 2004
DATE OF LAST APR:
April 2003
1.
BASIC PROJECT IDENTIFIERS- Please enter all date (DD/MM/YEAR)
FOCAL AREA
Biodiversity
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME
OP2: Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
DATE OF ENTRY IN WP
05/DEC/00
PRODOC SIGNATURE DATE
15/MAR/01
DURATION (MONTHS)
60 months (5 years)
DATE OF FIRST DISBURSEMENT 1
August 14, 2001
CLOSING DATE
Original: MAR/06
Revised 1:
Revised 2:
1.1 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (To be filled by Regional Coordinating Unit)
As it appears in PIMS. Please adjust if required.
This project will ensure that options and existence values embodied in the globally significant Bohol
Marine Triangle (BMT) are conserved. A more effective, equitable and sustainable planning,
implementation, monitoring and enforcement of biodiversity conservation efforts will be established
through the following project outputs: (1) strengthened government and community institutions to
facilitate application of a coastal management framework, with the establishment and maintenance of
marine reserves a s a major component; (2) development and application of policies and guidelines that
will facilitate the elimination of destructive activities; (3) relevant and reliable information for
monitoring and inventory as basis to establish sustainable harvesting; (4) compliance with
environmental guidelines improved through a programme of education and awareness building; (5)
alternative conservation-enabling livelihood activities are sustained through established benefit sharing
and revolving fund schemes; (6) targeted ecosystem rehabilitation will improve overall ecosystem health
and contribute to improved well-being of local communities; (7) an Integrated Master Plan for BMT is
established and operationalized. The project will be accomplished through a community-based
conservation management and multi-sectoral partnership between the government, local industries,
non-government and people’s organization.
Has it been adjusted? :
NO:
1
To be filled in Headquarters
1
533579261
2: IMPACTS AND RESULTS RELATED TO THE NEW GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Impacts on:
Expanding protected
areas
Has the project
produced
impacts? Yes /
No / Not
applicable /
Planned
Yes
Quantitative Information of impact
(what are these impacts and how
much of them has been produced ?)
How was this measured /
How was the information
collected?
 Through the Project intervention,
MPAs were expanded, there was an
increase of 600%; from 14 has (2
MPAs) to 93.933 has (12 MPAs)
 Technical description
of the MPAs in the
municipal ordinances

Some paper MPA became
functional.
Improving management
effectiveness of
protected areas
Yes
 An increase in live hard coral
cover ranging from 1 to 8%;
 No reduction but an increase of
mangrove area up to 100 ha (beyond
baseline)
 Increase of fish abundance and
diversity both in inside and outside the
MPAs (restoration of depleted stocks)
 MPA Management Team
involvement and skills in the
management of the MPA improved.
Technical terms translated in layman's
terms and dialects skills such as fish
visual census, resource status
identification, snorkeling, data
gathering and analysis provided as part
of capability intervention.
 GPS measurement by
the Silliman University
Marine Laboratory
(SUML) Research and by
the Environment Legal
Action Center (ELAC)
Other comments on impacts
 Ecological impact- Improvement of health status of neighboring and related
habitats such as coral cover and diversity.
 Economic impact-It helps in the livelihood (increase in catch of fish and
other commercially important invertebrates) of the subsistence fisherfolk.
 It contributes aesthetic value of the resource, and that it contributes in the
increase of tourist visiting the area.
 Biodiversity
Monitoring and evaluation
System (FPE modified
BMS, integrating social
aspect)
 MPA Mngt. Teams of BMTP were always invited as Resource Speakers by
the MPA networks (LMMA) as recognized with advanced skills in management
and monitoring of MPAs.
 2003 Project Year End
Assessment
 MPAs installation was seen as effective strategy to negate effects of
unsustainable harvesting (e.g. commercial fishing)

Increasing interest and demand for MPAs.
 SUML assessment of
the MPA Management
Team Performance
 MPA Rating Guide (A.
White et al.)
 MPA Rating improved to level 2
and 3 from level 1.
Improving practices of
sustainable use of
biodiversity resources.
Yes
 Livelihood security at the
community level (development of
supplemental livelihood opportunities,
 Through the recent
Mid-term evaluation
conducted by the UNDP.
2
 Through this intervention, the fisherfolk (MPA Mngt. Team and the Peoples
Organizations), the resort and dive industry benefited from the eco-tourism as
the health of the resource improved.
533579261
Impacts on:
Has the project
produced
impacts? Yes /
No / Not
applicable /
Planned
Quantitative Information of impact
(what are these impacts and how
much of them has been produced ?)
How was this measured /
How was the information
collected?
Other comments on impacts
e.g., eco-tourism)
 Communities and organizations ‘
increased awareness on biodiversity
conservation were translated into
economic opportunities (ecotourismdolphin watching, snorkeling; and
organic farming,)
Changes in sectoral
policies, laws and
regulations to improve
biodiversity conservation
and sustainable use.
Yes
 Institutionalized management
processes and structure (comanagement as adaptive management
strategy)
 Legalization of the Bohol Marine
Triangle Management Board (BMTMB) as the steering body in the comanagement of BMT
 Developing legal instruments
(delineation of the municipal waters,
and to institutionalize the three (3)
municipalities covering the BMT as
one unit for effective law enforcement
 Information exchange and
networking (active member of Locally
Managed Marine Area Network
(LMMA))
 Co-management
Partnership Agreements
 Increased awareness and concern on the protection and conservation of the
BMT resource.
 Executive Order by the
Governor, prepared and to
be issued when the new set
of Chief Executives are in
place.
 Improved law enforcement and awareness of legal rights and
responsibilities.
 Issuance of intermunicipality municipal fish
warden deputization to
effect enforcement of laws
within BMT.
 Issuance of
Memorandum of
Agreement
 Integrated Population
Management
Sharing of benefits
between and/or in
countries, arising from
the use of genetic
resources
Yes
 Shell Expedition (Research on
Shell in the BMT by the French
Museum and the different research
institutions in the Philippines:
University of the Philippines Marine
Science
Institute
(UP-MSI),
University of San Carlos, (USC))
 Memorandum
of
Agreement issued by the
Department of Agriculture
for the aquatic resource.
 Marine
Species
Richness in the Context of
Indo-Pacific Biodiversity
Gradient PANGLAO 20033
 Improvement in the participation and decision-making –improved
governance towards holistic development.
533579261
Has the project
produced
impacts? Yes /
No / Not
applicable /
Planned
Impacts on:
Quantitative Information of impact
(what are these impacts and how
much of them has been produced ?)
How was this measured /
How was the information
collected?
Other comments on impacts
2004 (BMT Advocacy
Arm) was recognized as
member of the monitoring
team
to
the
Shell
Expedition.
Other impacts2
3.
Describe outcomes
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
SRF Goal (*):
SRF Sub Goal (*)
Strategic Area of Support (1)
Environmentally sustainable development to reduce human poverty
Sustainable environmental management and energy development to improve the livelihoods and security of the poor
Policy Framework
Outcome: Environment and natural resources (ENR) policies, frameworks and plans strengthened, rationalized and effectively
implemented
Strategic Area of Support (2)
Institutional Framework
Outcome: Improved capacity of national/ sectoral authorities to plan and implement integrated approaches to environmental
management and energy development that respond to the needs of the poor.
(*) The UNDP Country Office will fill out these fields
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Value in year 0
Indicator 1
 Biological
 CORAL
REEF
Mid-term
Target
2004
 Degrade
d habitats
End of
Project
Target
2006
 Rehabila
tated
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
 CORAL REEF
Increase of hard coral
2
Last year
Rating
This year
Rating
HS
HS
Other impacts may be environmental, social, institutional, economic, etc. Many should have already have been identified as indicators in the objectives and outcomes section of the logical
framework matrix. Note that you should NOT include discussion of results related to outputs, inputs or activities such as reporting on the number of workshops held, people trained, etc. The
focus is on actual measurable changes in condition.
4
533579261
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Value in year 0
and physical
parameters that
represent the
health of the
BMT
ecosystem are
stabilized and
increasing
beyond 1999
baselines.
%LHCC=5.6-51.8
Genera=26-50
 LARGE
MARINE
MAMMALS
=10 whales and
dolphins
=3 sea turtles
=1 whale shark
 FISH
SPECIES
=63 to 211
 BIRDS
48 species
 MANGROV
E Area
Balicasag=0
Pamilacan=0
Panglao=50 has
10 mangrove
species
2 mangrove
associated
species
 ALGAE
44 species
 SEAGRASS
7species
Mid-term
Target
2004
rehabilitated;
no reduction
of size for the
Mangrove
 Maintena
nce and
increase of
coral cover.
End of
Project
Target
2006
habitats fully
recovered.
 Spill
over effects
of the MPA
evident;
either by the
increase of
fish catches
and through
research.
 Biologica
l parameters
increased.
2003 Measure
cover from 0.60 to
5.20%
 Increase in mean
percent cover of
benthic categories
inside and outside
the sanctuaries
2004 Measure
 No reduction in size nor replanting done, but a
rehabilitation plan was formulated and to be
implemented within this year.
No survey done yet at this time of reporting as the
annual Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation will
have to be done this coming November 2004.
CONFIRMED
presence of rare
fish/mammals
MACROINVERTEBR
ATES
 156 species
MANGROVE
 24 mangrove
species
6 mangrove
associated species
 REEF FISHES
242 species
 BIRDS
Species=59
Family =27
addl.surveyed=45
I family of bird
added to the list
5
Last year
Rating
This year
Rating
533579261
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Value in year 0
Mid-term
Target
2004
End of
Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last year
Rating
This year
Rating
 MANGROVE
No reduction in size
nor replanting done
Species = 24 (true
mangroves)
= 6 mangrove
associated species
 ALGAE
131 species
 SEAGRASS
9 species
Indicator 2
 Increase in
the no. and
total area of
marine
reserves in the
BMT with
community
based and
multi-sectoral
conservation
planning,
implementatio
n, monitoring
and law
 MPAs=14
has, some are
paper MPA
 There are a
number, stand
alone efforts of
conservation
 Broad based
planning,
implementation
and monitoring
 Enforcement
is inconsistent
 Existing
MPAS with
improved
management
and
monitoring
systems
 Increase
of MPAs
(quantity and
hectarage) to
negate the
impacts of
commercial
fishing
 MPAs
management
improved
and
benefiting
the
communities
 All
MPAS
within the
BMT,
management
improving
and models
for
 MPA
Management Teams
were trained to
improve their
management and
monitoring.
 MPA Teams’
skills in managing
and monitoring
improved and were
sourced by other to
share their skills and
lessons.
 Co-management
approach were being
Total area of MPA increased to 93.93has (600%)
from the baseline of only 14 has.
Please indicate
rating
S
Only 3 MPAs were not covered by a Municipal
Ordinance but a Municipal Resolution was
formulated adopting the Barangay Ordinances of
those MPAs
27 resolutions were adopted to support the
barangay-level CBCRM
Other barangays went into the process of
community consultation prior to the adoption of the
plans
6
HS
533579261
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Value in year 0
enforcement
mechanisms
compared to
1999 baselines
data.
Indicator 3
 Incidence
of mangrove
conversion,
sand
quarrying,
blast fishing,
coral reef
destruction is
significantly
reduced,
beyond 1999
baseline by
year
 Guidelines
exist at the
national level
but have not yet
been adapted
for application
within the
municipalities of
BMT.
 Threats are
related not to
willful abuse
but due to lack
of awareness of
the
environmental
values
Mid-term
Target
2004
 Mixed of
bottom-up
and top
down
approaches
of planning
 Integrate
d within
BMT CRM
plans into
development
s and with
budget
appropriatio
ns
 Through
intensified
education
and
awareness
campaign to
address
unwillful
destruction
and illegal
practices.
 Capabilit
y building
intensified in
provision of
tools and
techniques
End of
Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
replicating.
 Lessons
on improved
management
shared by
the capable
resource
managers to
others.
adopted increasingly
towards a holistic
approach
The 2 municipal CRM plans were in the process of
community consultation prior to their integration to
the municipal development plans, which will be
supportive then to the master planning.
 Tenure
issues
related to
mangrove
conversion
are
addressed.
 Unsustai
nable
harvesting
such as
commercial
fishing, reef
destructionrelated are
reduced.

 Initiatives and
preparatory activities
(research,
consultation to
concerned agencies)
were done to address
issues on resource
destruction.
 Consultations to
the commercial fisher
sector done to
educate on the
negative impacts of
unsustainable
harvesting.
 Sand mining activities were reduced through a
policy action resulted from the barangay level
CRM planning.
 Participatory
resource
valuation
being
conducted to educate stakeholders of the value of
the resource for their better appreciation and
decision to protect.
 Intensification of legal education being done.
 Continue and intensification of capability
building of resource wardens and advocacy arms.
 Municipal ordinances being harmonized
towards an integrated enforcement within BMT
and treating BMT waters as one.
7
Last year
Rating
This year
Rating
S
HS
533579261
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Value in year 0
Mid-term
Target
2004
End of
Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last year
Rating
This year
Rating
towards
resolution of
addressing
threats (e.g.
commercial
fishing)
Project Comment on rating
Overall rating
HS
An overall rating of Highly Satisfactory was earned by the Project based on the measures or indicators asked and importantly based on the Midterm Evaluation (MTE)
results/findings that the Project accomplished excellently on the majority of its target output and just needed to have strategic focus on two components.
Further, the MTE found out based on the Silliman University Marine Laboratory (SUML) survey results that the biodiversity parameters for BMT generally improved. Fish
density inside and outside the MPAs increased as a result of the better management of the resource. Further, because of said efforts, the aesthetic sense of the resource
attracted more eco-tourist. Consequently , it has a positive impact on the life of the key stakeholders that resulted to an increasing support to the Project..
CO Comment
RC Comment
PTA Comment
3.2
OUTCOMES.3-
CO agrees with the Highly Satisfactory (HS) rating.
Outcome 1: Strengthened government and community institutions will facilitate the application of a coastal management framework, with the establishme nt and maintenance
of marine reserves as a major component.
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
This
year
Rating
4
3
Please use the same format to report on additional outcomes in case the project has more than three.
4
Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each rating
8
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
Indicator 1:
No. and total area of
marine reserves
legalized
Y123456
C 2 3 5 8 10 12
T. Area 50-100 has)
Indicator 2:
No. of trained core
groups undertaking
regular conservation
planning, monitoring
and enforcement
activities.
Y 1 2 3 4 5 onwards
No 3 6 6 6 6
Indicator 3:
No. of barangay
level CBRM plans
formulated in a
participatory
process and
integrated in the
Master Plan
Y 12 34
No. 3 6 12
Indicator 4:
Number of resolutions
adopted to support
barangay level CBRM
 2 MPAs (Pamilacan
and Balicasag)
 Poor community
participation and
inadequate community
resource management
capacities contribute to
poor local management.
The LGUs in the BMT have
set aside resources for
CBRM programs. These are
inadequate to have a
significant impact on the
whole BMT. These efforts
are mainly undertaken
without the benefit of close
coordination and
cooperation with the other
LGUs. Bantay Dagats are
not federated. This does
not allow them to oversee
the whole BMT as an
integrated area.
Y 3
No. 5
Y 5
No. 12
Y
3
No. 6
Y 5
No 6
Y
3
No 6
Y 5
No. 12

Environmental violations
decreases and mitigation measures
are in place through a harmonized
resolutions and ordinances.
 Additional 10 MPAs
are legalized through
municipal ordinances.
 Paper MPAs improved into a
functional ones, with its
management and monitoring
systems.
 MPAs rating level improved
at least step higher.
 12 MPA Mngt. Team
or resource managers
are trained.
 Fish wardens are
intensively trained
towards stronger
enforcement
S
HS
 Municipal deputized fish
wardens of the 3 municipalities
were trained (e.g., paralegal) on
enforcement activities.
 12 MPA Management Teams
were trained on technical skills of
planning
and
biophysical
monitoring
S
HS
 An additional of 12
barangay level CRM
plans were developed in
a participatory process
involving different
stakeholders in the
community
 A total of 31 barangay-level
CRM
plans
were
already
formulated.
The barangays
include the 7 coastal barangays in
the mainland of Baclayon
 All the barangay CRM plans
were integrated into a municipal
CRM plan except for the
municipality of Panglao
S
HS
 27 resolutions were
adopted to support the
barangay-level CBCRM
 Other barangays went into
the process of community
consultation prior to the adoption
of the plans
 Move or advocacy to
integrate CRM in the Land use
plan towards a holistic approach
is being pushed
S
9
HS
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
Indicator 5:
Number of agency
plans supportive of the
Marter Plan
Indicator 6:
BMT Project office set
up by 1st Q of Y1.
Indicator 7:
 Agency ‘s
awareness
increased
towards
improve
governance.
 PMO to
further its
coordinating
and facilitating
services.
 Agency
prioritized and
capable of
planning and
implementation
of sustainable
development
through and as a
result of Project
intervention
 PMO to
intensify efforts
on leveraging of
funds towards
the Project’s
sustainability
 The 2 municipal
CRM plans were in the
process of community
consultation prior to
their integration to the
municipal development
plans which will be
supportive then to the
master planning
 Completion of the municipal
level CRM plans and integration
into development plans for
prioritization and budget
allocation.
S
S
 BMT
Project
Management Office was
set-up in August 2001
 Manual Of Operations (OM)
of
the
PMO
and
the
implementing partners were
formulated.
 PMO improved its
coordinating and facilitating
services.
 The collective learning
through Bunaken Study Tour
facilitated the understanding and
interest towards a functional
Management Board.
HS
HS
S
HS
 An annual Stakeholders’
Forum was conducted to update
them of accomplishments and
plans.
 Education of the new
members of the Management
Board will be given more efforts,
as it will seat new set of Chief
Executives.
S
S
 Project year End Assessments
and Strategic Planning in place.
 A five-year project
plan was formulated
 Functional
BMT
Management
board steering
the Project
management
and
implementation
 The seven-member
management board was
reactivated at the end of
2003 after the death of
the President, the late
Rev. Romeo Dompor.
Project plan of
operation completed
by 1st Q of Y1.
Indicator 8:
A functional BMT
Management Board
composed all key
stakeholders is set up
with legal mandate
and is officially and
popularly recognized
by 1st of Y2.
 BMT
Management
Board efficiently
steering the
management of
the resources
towards its
sustainability,
even beyond the
Province for
effective
conservation of
the BMT
resource
10
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
Indicator 9:
A Memorandum of
Agreement is forged
among all key
stakeholders spelling
out their respective
roles and functions in
the implementation of
the BMT Master Plan
as well as other
institutional
arrangements by 1st Q
of Y2

 Stakeholder
s are all
educated for an
informed
decision
 Stakeholders
are informed and
functional
towards
implementation
of the BMT
Master Plan
 The memorandum
of agreement was signed
in December 2002.
 A continuous update and
education of all stakeholders
regarding the Project’s
accomplishments and directions
were done. Stakeholders’
concerns towards the BMT
resource increasing.
HS
HS
Outcome 2: The development and application of policies and guidelines will facilitate elimination of destructive activities.
 Mid-term
Target
2004
 End of Project
2006

All economic activities
governed by
appropriate policies
and guidelines 18
months in to project
 Weak monitoring and
enforcement of rules and
regulations especially in
areas established as fish
sanctuaries or marine
reserves
 Policies are
harmonized
towards
effective
monitoring and
enforcement.
 Strong
coordination by
and among
stakeholders
towards effective
conservation and
protection of the
globally
significant BMT
resource.
 Gathering of policy
installed regarding
CRM and fisheries
management done.
 Facilitated policy
dialogue among policy
maker and the
communities and
sectors involved
Indicator 2:

 Intensive
education and
awareness
campaign, and
 Damaging
activities should
be eliminated by
Year 4
 IECs about solid
waste management
were facilitated through
the assistance of the
Value in year 0
Indicator 1:
Damaging activities
such as sand mining
and disposal of
Weak enforcement of
environmental and
conservation laws, and
ordinances because of low
11
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
All policies – resolutions,
S

ordinances
in
the
three
municipalities
were
already
inventoried and a municipal
policy dialogue was conducted to
review and analyze all the
policies that were gathered.
 Sand mining activities were
reduced through a policy action
resulted from the barangay level
CRM planning.
S
This
year
Rating
HS
HS
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
policy installed
Province (BEMO).
so that
damaging
activities will be
eliminated
Outcome 3: Relevant and reliable information used for monitoring and inventory and as basis to establish sustainable harvesting
untreated waste
eliminated by year 4
level of community
awareness and
participation
Value in year 0
Indicator 1.
Number of targeted
socio-economic and
biological research
conducted by the 2nd
quarter of Y1.
 Data gathering and the
management of
information on the status
and distribution of
threatened species and
habitats are not
systematically done. Data
gathering and information
management, if any, is
based on short-term and
parochial needs for
planning. There is
currently no organized
baseline data and
information on the
biodiversity resources in
the area. At best, data on
the status and condition of
marine habitats and
significant species are
sketchy. They are based on
traditional sightings and
observations of local
stakeholders.

Mid-term
Target
2004
 Socioeconomic and
biological
research should
be completed in
three (3)
municipalities
covering BMT in
preparation for
Master Planning
End of Project
Target
2006
 All pertinent
data should be
available and
utilized for the
sustainability
(fund
leveraging/) of
BMT
2003 Measure

Socio-economic
data were utilized in
the preparation of
studies done by the
Consulting Firm for the
livelihood
options/opportunities.
12
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
12 socio-economic data from S

12 barangays were gathered aside
from the 19 sites that were
covered in 2002
 Updating of socio-economic
data was done. Poverty scanning
were being facilitated in
preparation for the Master
Planning and in the leveraging of
funds for the holistic intervention
This
year
Rating
HS
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
Indicator 2:

Y3
Freq 1
Y5
Freq 1
 Resource inventory
was
conducted
by
SUML
 Database
management
for
biodiversity indicators
maintained by BEMO
as supported by BMT.
 A training on biophysical
monitoring for MPAs was
conducted to the MPA
monitoring teams
 Database should improve the
planning capability of both the
LGUs and other stakeholders
towards Master Planning
S
HS

Y3
Freq 12
Y5
monthly
 Surveillance
and
patrolling done three
times (3X) a week.
 Communication
facilities sourced and
provided by the private
sector.
 The municipal LGU
Initiative on enforcement of the
municipal waters already includes
the enforcement of MPAs.
S
HS
 The zoning process in all the
municipalities covered was being
facilitated by the Project to
resolve resource use conflict
among the users.
S
S
S
HS
Frequency of resource
inventory monitoring
conducted
Y 1 2 34 5 onwards
Freq 10 1 1 biennial
Indicator 3:
Frequency of random
surveillance patrols in
marine reserves
Y
1 2 3 4 5
onwards
Freq6 12 12 12 12
monthly
Indicator 4:

Monitoring and
enforcement
agreement between
resource users and
authorities made
Operational by 1st Q of
Y3.
Indicator 5:
Increase in the
percentage of the
coastal population in
the municipalities of
Baclayon, Dauis
and Panglao who
actively participate in
the BMT conservation
policy dialogues and
advocacy beyond 1999

 The
Biological
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Systems will be
continued to be
updated and
improved and to
contribute in the
zoning process.
 Continuing
education of the
stakeholders
through
“Stakeholders
Forum” and
educational
activities in the
field, press
release, media
 Land Use
integrating CRM
or an integrated
CRM will be in
place.

The Project
facilitated an initial
coastal zoning as part of
the process of the CRM
planning.

 Stakeholders
become
empowered comanagers of the
BMT resource.

Stakeholders’
increased
environmental
awareness led to their
concern and criticality
to the development
interventions and other
policy initiatives.
13
The BIOME systems is
already a facilitating cooperation
between
fisherfolk
and
dive/resort owners
 The stakeholders’ criticality
led to the Shell Expedition’s
process and methodology
becoming transparent. The said
research ‘s laboratory is made
open to the public, government
and especially to the
development workers (NGOs).
 As this moment, no
quantitative analysis done to
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
advocacy
baseline.
determine the percentage of
increase. But it was observed that
stakeholders are actively
participating in all BMT activities.
Outcome 4: Compliance with environmental guidelines improved through a programme of education and awareness building
Indicator 1:
Education
programmes tailored
to different stakeholder
groups developed by
end of year 1 and
under implementation
in years 2-5
 Low level of awareness
and knowledge on the
importance of marine and
coastal habitats, and
species in the BMT for the
sustainable utilization of
the local population.
Stakeholders have a lack of
personal valuation of the
BMT’s coastal resources
with the perception that
they are inexhaustible. Low
level of involvement of
local learning centers and
training institutions in the
educative progress on
marine conservation. There
is a lack of awareness of the
global significance of BMT
as a habitat for rare and
endemic species as well as
a migratory route for
globally significant marine
animals
 Intensify
capability
building and
education
interventions
towards
environmental
stewardship
 The
resource
valuation
processes will be
appreciated and
practiced
towards more
involvement in
resource
management
 Resource
managers will
prefer for other
livelihood
options that are
conservationfriendly
Local academic
and training
institutions (Holy
Name University
or establishment
of local marine
laboratory) will
sustain the
education
progression
environmental
management and
conservation.
 Provincial
government will
sustain linkage
towards
promotion and
conservation of
the rich BMT
resource.
 Information,
Education and
Awareness Campaign
(IEC) activities and
medium are tailored to
different stakeholder
groups
 BMT Week
celebration serves as
education venue for the
different stakeholders.
 Elementary
teachers are trained of
coastal and marine
ecology. And this was
integrated in the school
curriculum with the
collaboration of the
Department of
Education.
 BMT are promoted
not only locally but also
on national level and
outside of the country
through participation to
the different fora.
 Other events (Earth Day,
Month of the Ocean,
Environment, etc) are celebrated
as opportune time to educate
stakeholders. The process and
media are suited according to the
stakeholder groups.
 IEC intervention will be
intensified not only locally but
globally (through development of
BMT website) and in presentation
to the different fora
S
HS
Indicator 2:
Occurrence of
damaging activities
reduced through self-


 Harmonizatio
n of the policies
 Comanagement
 Fish wardens are
trained and actively
patrolling the BMT
waters.
 The BMT legal arm
intensified training of the fish
wardens and the surveillance
patrolling that reduced the
S
HS
14
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
incidence of damaging activities
 Ordinances
inventoried towards
harmonization and
improvement of
existing policies
Outcome 5: Alternative conservation-enabling livelihood activities are sustained through established benefit sharing and revolving fund schemes
strategy,
integrating BMT
as one unit
policing in years 3-5.
Indicator 1:
Regulations on the
collection of fees and
other benefit sharing
schemes are registered
and disseminated to all
key stakeholders by 1st
Q of Y2
Indicator 2:
A revolving funds to
be managed by the
 Unregulated diving
activities due to increases
in tourism without the
corresponding charges for
user fees. Lack of
alternative conservationcompatible economic
livelihoods. Such increases
the risk communities face
in foregoing destructive
resource use practices. It
also serves as a
disincentive to their
participation in
conservation management.
Lack of development
know-how and
management capacities for
community-based ecotourism. Low level of
utilization of LGUs powers
and options under the
Local Government Code to
raise fiscal resources for
conservation and
environmental
management


Exploration
of collection of
fees and other
options that is
acceptable to the
stakeholders
and suitable to
BMT context.

Sustainable
Financing
mechanisms able
to contribute to
the financing of
sustaining
conservation
initiatives of BMT
 Development of
Sustainable Financing
Models (SFM)
 Survey of options
of user fees that would
be suitable to the BMT
 Publication of SFM
to be adopted by the
Baclayon municipality.
 Drafting
of
user-fee
ordinance was only accomplished
for 1 municipality (Baclayon).
 Development and adoption
are on-going for the other two
municipalities
HS
HS


 Formulation of
Livelihood Fund
Mechanism on which
 The Sustainable Financing
Mechanism (SFM) is leading
towards
revolving
fund
S
S
Exploration
of other options
of SFM
BMT –MB
managing a
revolving funds
15
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
 Conduct of
study tours to
new set of Chief
Executives
BMT Management
Board by 1st Q of Y3
for the sustained
conservation of
the BMT resource
certain percentage of
the reflows will be
managed by the BMT
MB
Indicator 3:
Cumulative number of
communities in the
three pilot areas with
alternative livelihood
being pilot tested by
core groups and
financed by the
revolving fund and
counterpart fund.

 Livelihood
options and
opportunities
are
implemented by
the able Peoples
Organizations
within BMT
Indicator 1:
 Existence of degraded
habitats limits the value of
conservation efforts
elsewhere within the BMT
and limits opportunities for
improved livelihoods
 Delineation
and mapping of
degraded
habitats

Communities
benefiting form
the rehabilitated
area

Habitats are
mapped and delineated




development.
 The BMT Livelihood Fund
also formulated that about 25% of
earnings will be forwarded to the
revolving fund to be managed by
the BMT Management Board.
 The seed fund able to
financed the livelihood options in
the BMT and able to leverage
funds from other sources.
 The livelihood mechanisms
able to contribute to the
development of the
communities/peoples
organizations.
 Supplemental
 Sustainable
livelihood options
Livelihood fund
financed by the
mechanism corevolving and
formulated by FPE –
seed fund easing
PMO and BANGON
environmental
 P 1 M seed fund
pressure and
granted by FPE to
contributed to the
BANGON
conservation
initiatives.
 Communities
MONTH 15
30
Cum # 1
3
highly trained of
skills and
technology
compatible to
conservation
Outcome 6: Targeted ecosystem rehabilitation will improve overall ecosystem health and contribute to improved well being of local communities.
Areas to be targeted
for rehabilitation
delineated after 6
months
Indicator 2:
100% of targeted
areas rehabilitated by
end of year 3
Targeted
area
rehabilitated
Communities
benefiting form
the rehabilitated
area
Consultations done
for validation
16
S
S
 Already delineated in 2002.

Rehabilitation
plan
was
formulated.
 Tree planting done in
Pamilacan Island
HS
HS
 For mangrove, there is an
increase of 100 ha beyond
baseline (with no rehabilitation
efforts)
S
HS
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
2004
End of Project
Target
2006
2003 Measure
2004 Measure
Last
year
Rating
533579261
This
year
Rating
4
Indicator 3:
Participatory
appraisals indicate
improved ecosystem
health in years 4 and 5


Rehabilitati
 BIOME
on of other
indicated
ecosystems if
maintenance and
the targeted
or improvement
habitat is
of ecosystem
already
health
rehabilitated.
Outcome 7: An Integrated Master Plan for BMT is established and operationalized.
Indicator
A 10-year Integrated
Master Plan for BMT
for 3 municipalities
with components on
zoning, enforcement,
communication and
community
participation
developed and adopted
by key stakeholders by
4th Q of Y3.
 There are several
stakeholders in the area
including NGAs, LGUs,
NGOs, and POs that
pursue their respective
plans and programs within
their respective territorial
jurisdictions and spheres of
influence in an isolated
manner. In some instances,
these plans and programs
are at cross-purposes with
each other. Although there
are efforts of local
government units to
pursue responsible coastal
resource management with
community participation,
such efforts are not fully
Integrated into the
planning and
implementation cycle of
government.

Annual
review and
update of plans,
its
implementation
and future
directions are
facilitated

BMT
Management
Board fully
dispensing its
management
function of
sustainable
development of
BMT.

Facilitated access of
communities to
concerned agencies on
issues on Land tenure
 The recent BIOME
monitoring indicated a significant
improvement of the ecosystem
health.
S
HS

 The Project is still on the
process of strengthening the
management board.
 The Municipal CRM plans
being finalized are gearing
towards master planning.
S
HS
Participatory
planning process from
barangay level to
municipal level
integrating
enforcement, zoning
and other necessary
ingredients of
sustainable
management of BMT
are facilitated.
17
533579261
Overall rating
3.3 WORK PLAN
TIMING
For outcomes rated MS or U please describe priority Actions planned for the following reporting period to overcome constrains
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT:
PRIORITY ACTION:
Date Entered:
Expected
Completion:
BY WHOM
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT:
PRIORITY ACTION:
Date Entered:
Expected
Completion:
BY WHOM
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT:
PRIORITY ACTION:
Date Entered:
Expected
Completion:
BY WHOM
3.4
A
B
RISKS.
Risk Description
Describe Status of Risk
at start of project (Year
0)
Describe Status Last
Year
Describe Status this Year
Rating*
Natural phenomena precipitated
by global climate change do not
neutralize positive impacts of
project
No natural phenomena
occurred yet that will
neutralize positive impacts of
the project
No natural phenomena
occurred yet that will
neutralize positive
impacts of the project
No natural phenomena occurred yet that will
neutralize positive impacts of the project
L
Baseline programs to address
issues in sustainable development
that are relevant to coastal and
marine biodiversity continue and
are effective
Baseline in the BMT for
CRM not yet established in
the provincial level for
sustainable development
The Project continues to support database gathering
and management updating and analysis for utilization
towards planning and sustainable development.
Interagency cooperation to ensure
the identification, delineation,
At the start of the Project,
there is no interagency
The Project supports
database gathering and
management for the
Province through the
Bohol Environment
Management office
(BEMO)
There is now a closer
interagency cooperation
The Project ensures closer coordination and
collaboration regarding MPAs, including monitoring
18
L
L
HS
533579261
C
mapping out and recognition of
marine reserves as scheduled
continues to the level and extent
necessary
cooperation for the
delineation, mapping out and
recognition of MPAs.
regarding MPAs.
The marginal benefits of local
leaders from participating in the
Project is greater than their
opportunity costs
The fisherfolk didn’t yet
appreciated the value of
MPAs
The fisherfolk and the
MPA Mngt . Team have
now recognized and
appreciated the value of
the MPAs.
General public is receptive of and
sustains interest in biodiversity
conservation issues.
The interest and information
of the public regarding
biodiversity (marine)
conservation issues is low.
The interest and
information of the public
regarding biodiversity
(marine) conservation
issues is increasing and
progressing.
The interest and information of the public regarding
biodiversity (marine) conservation issues is
increasing and progressing.
L
The policy-making
environment is also
progressing.
Biodiversity Monitoring
and Evaluations Systems
(BIOME), FPE modified
Biodiversity Monitoring
System) installed for
MPAs.
The policy-making environment is also progressing.
S
Programmatic training of BIOMNE for the MPA
Mngt. Team done biannually.
L
Through Stakeholders’
Forum, the coastal
population was informed
and empowered decision
makers.
The user fee system is
being educated to the
concerned sectors.
BMT Watch, an advocacy arm of the BMT was
critically monitoring intervention to BMT ensuring
its environment –friendly. They have critically
questioned and are monitoring the French Museum’s
Shell Expedition.
The user fee system is already in publication in the
Baclayon municipality.
L
Local conservation constituency
increase influence in local policy
making.
D
Interagency cooperation to ensure
effective
Monitoring & enforcement of
regulations continue to the level
and extent necessary.
Cooperation of trained core
groups continue
To extent and level necessary
Coastal population appreciate the
global
Significance of BMT,
comprehend it’s threats and
motivated to take action
Dive industry and other
representatives of the eco-tourism
industry are amenable to the
“beneficiaries pay” principle.
There is no monitoring
systems installed
There is no user fee system.
towards sustainability. The cooperation even extend
beyond the municipal and provincial level but on the
national and international through the network with
the other MPA managers and Network of Locally
Managed Marine Area in the Southeast Asia and
South Pacific.
The interest and participation of the fisherfolk, MPA
Mngt. Team and other stakeholders are increasing as
they appreciated the value of MPAs and the its
benefiting contributions.
Relevant local government units
committed to passing legislation
to operationalize collection of
user and license fees.
19
L
533579261
Alternative livelihoods are
economically viable relative to the
activity being replaced.
Expertise is available
There is no pool of expertise
for CRM yet.
FPE-BANGON
formulated a sustainable
livelihood fund
mechanism.
FPE provided a seed fund of One Million Pesos
(PhP 1M) for the livelihood support for the BMT.
This seed fund is also utilized for leveraging funds.
The Project provided
technical assistance.
Capability building is one of the major inputs of the
Project.
S
Land tenure is recorded and
unambiguous
Areas suitable for rehabilitation
exist and the materials and
expertise required for
rehabilitation are available; All
destructive forces have been
removed
Additional Risks or unexpected problems encountered during the last year of implementation
E
F
(*) H= High; S= Substantial; M=Modest; L= Low. Please refer to Instruction sheet for definition of ratings for risks
Please describe actions taken or planned to manage High and Substantial risks
1. Actions taken in the management of the substantial risks which is LGU related (commitment and support to the formation of the steering committee;
legislation of policies advocated and commitment and support to the Project in general.
 Consultation and involvement of the Local Chief Executives to the Project’s activities
 Involvement and capability building of the permanent public service personnel (Municipal Agriculturists, Municipal Development Officers)
 Education, information and awareness provision through study tours within and outside the country.
2. Management of substantial risk which is related to implementing partner’s organizational and skills readiness in the implementation of the Project
Capability building provision through trainings and mentoring.
4.
ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL PROJECT STRATEGY
Indication of any major adjustments in strategies, targets and outcomes.
20
533579261
a. Have the project's expected outcomes changed in the course of implementation?
A.
Unplanned project strategies
B.1 Formal project vis-à-vis broader “informal project”
The beginnings of BMTP started in early 1997 with a series of consultations initiated by the Foundation for Philippine Environment (FPE) among the Provincial Governor and Vice-Governor,
the Bohol Development Foundation (BIDEF) and the mayors of Baclayon, Dauis and Panglao municipalities. The Silliman University Marine Laboratory (SUML) later joined to contribute
primary and secondary data. A PDF-A grant was approved by UNDP in September 1998. This supported work by a Technical Working Group from FPE, BIDEF, SUML and the Bohol
Environment Management Office (BEMO) of the provincial government and a series of stakeholder consultations, which resulted in a project brief submitted to UNDP-GEF in February 1999.
At that time, it was clear to the proponents, particularly FPE, that their goals are biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. According to the former FPE Executive Director then,
“The conceptualized BMT project is that of an integrated biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. This means that the ultimate goal is poverty alleviation hand-in-hand with
conservation. The project proposes a two-prong strategy, strengthening of local governing units and the organization of stakeholder, particularly coastal communities. The goals include capacity
building of local government units in integrated coastal resource management (ICRM); CRM plan formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation; a functional coordinating
mechanism among the three municipalities and the provincial government; and formation of functional community organization in the barangays covered by the BMT (includes developing
capacities for co-management of the BMT and project management skills).”
The original project brief was returned for revision to “make it understandable to GEF” but FPE made known its reservations on changing the “language” of the proposal which the stakeholders
themselves had formulated. After more than a year of negotiations, FPE agreed to revise the proposal to fit the GEF framework and “language”. According to the Juju Tan, former ED;
“In effect, the proposal became more of a biodiversity conservation project rather than an integrated biodiversity conservation and sustainable development project. The former has less stress on
poverty alleviation and sustainable development objectives.”
Because GEF funds are for financing only the incremental costs of protecting globally significant biodiversity (or other environmental goods), the approved project followed the expected
conservation-driven logical framework (or log frame) and indicators of performance. From the beginning PMO (Project Management Office set up by FPE) has felt the continuing pressure from
both local governments and people’s organizations for developmental, e.g. livelihood components, and yet the project is structured according to the GEF requirements, and is not intended nor
designed for responding to development imperatives. The underlying development motive among project implementors has not waned since the project started in 2001. As of May 2004 there is
continuing perception in BANGON (Bohol Alliance of Non-Government Organizations) – the lead implementor of the BMTP – of “delayed implementation of livelihood component.”
Various co-financing sources had to be programmed within the GEF framework (evaluated more thoroughly in Section II.C). Not unexpectedly, when the project was approved and started in
January 2001, the most co-financing (from World Bank-CBRM, Department of Tourism and First Consolidated Bank Foundation Inc.) went to the most development-oriented output or Output 5
(“Alternative conservation-enabling livelihood activities are sustained through established benefit-sharing and revolving fund schemes”). But in 2003, FPE together with the Peace and Equity
Foundation and the Philippine Business for Social Progress put together a P1 million funds for livelihood projects – co-financing not programmed in the original project document. A field trip to
Bantayan, Cebu to observe an enterprise facility producing boneless danggit was funded under Output 5. A study also under Output 5 contracted to JEP Consultants & Trainers on sustainable
financing mechanisms (SFM) studied various models of using user fees, but also included feasibility studies on hog growing and meat shop operation. Activities classified under other outputs
include livelihood-directed activities, e.g. barangay-level eco-tourism under Output 4 (“Compliance with environmental guidelines is improved through a program of environmental education”).
It appears that the meaning project implementors attached to the term “livelihood” is much broader than the meaning originally intended for Output 5. Under Output 6, the first targeted
ecosystem for rehabilitation was not for biodiversity conservation but reforestation in Pamilacan for ensuring fresh water supply for Pamilacan residents.
21
533579261
In short, the indications available to the MTE Team suggest that PMO/FPE, with UNDP and TPR approval, has managed to “work around” the original project logframe and to maintain their
original goals of “integrated biodiversity conservation and sustainable development”. Thus, a broader “informal project” has developed alongside the conservation-oriented formal GEFfunded project. It is “informal” because no formal revision of the logframe was made. There was no indication that this is a consciously adopted or formal project strategy, although its
consequences on the project are fundamental or strategic.
The reason why an “informal work around” happened instead of a formal revision of the logframe being recommended by PMO and then approved by the TPR (Tripartite Project Review) appears
to be that there is an unspoken assumption on the part of FPE, UNDP and others concerned that the logframe is not changeable, or that transaction costs of attempting to change it would be too
high. TPR should have encouraged PMO/FPE to improve or fine-tune the logframe to acknowledge the centrality of development, and particularly livelihood, objectives among stakeholders, and to
better tap the synergies between conservation and development objectives in a manner that, in the end, would best serve both objectives.
This informal adaptive change is not surprising, given the traditional Asian respect for authority, or hesitance to challenge directions from above in the context of very hierarchical structures.
Furthermore, poverty-alleviation is clearly a policy priority and a popular aspiration in the Philippine or Third World context surrounding the implementation of a GEF project. Given the povertyalleviation mandates of UNDP arising from the Millennium Development Goals and the culture embedded within UNDP that projects must be essentially country-driven, one could understand
better the contexts underlying the informal adaptive change.
b. Explain how and when changes were made.
B.2 Co-management between FPE and BANGON
When the FPE Board met after the project was approved, it was realized that FPE could not be the main project implementor for at least two reasons: (a) FPE’s goal is to help civil society develop
by funding NGOs’ projects rather than by competing with NGOs by FPE itself undertaking projects, and (b) FPE is mandated to limit its administrative expenditures to 20% or less of its annual
income.
This triggered a long process of searching among Bohol NGOs. Politics among local NGOs contributed to the delay. A year had passed before a consensus was reached that BANGON will be the
main implementing NGO alliance body and the basic mechanics of co-management between BANGON and a lean PMO staffed by FPE had been worked out. The Project Document was signed in
March 2001 but field operations started only in April 2002.
This implementing structure was neither planned nor anticipated in the Project Document. It was not a formal strategy either, but its consequences, besides the one-year project delay, are rather
strategic:
1. It boosted the development of BANGON member-NGOs.
2. It provided a reason for various Bohol NGOs to get their acts together.
3. It reinforced the social development components of BMTP: community organizing, social marketing, participatory coastal resource assessment (PCRA), and capability building of
people’s organizations – the areas of expertise of many BANGON member-NGOs.
4. It led to a bottom-up bias in setting up the system of governance for biodiversity conservation: start with barangay-level MPA management team or FARMCs and formulation of barangayslevel CRM (coastal resource management) plans, followed by municipal-level CRM plans and municipal council (or Sangguniang Bayan) resolutions, and then a BMT Master Plan together
with the BMT Management Board.
5. It put project sustainability at risk to the particularities and unpredictabilities of LGU-NGO dynamics in the BMT. That risk could have been lessened by, for example, a BEMOBANGON co-management structure.
c. Was the logical framework matrix of the project updated to reflect changes in activities/outputs/objectives?
Yes. Through annual workplans, the basis are the strategic planning and year end assessments22
and other processes
d. Has this affected the project's objectives or overall goal?
533579261
FPE wanted to adopt a “two-prong strategy” for participatory governance (of integrated biodiversity conservation and sustainable development), operationalized as governance by two local level
actors: local government units (LGUs) and the resource users, i.e. local community or people’s organizations (POs). The above strategic consequences tended to strengthen the PO prong at the
same time that it tended to weaken the LGU prong.
5.
LESSONS
5.1 Are there lessons that could benefit the design or the implementation of other GEF-funded projects? Please list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth of developing case studies
a. BMTP Case: A broader “informal project” has adaptively evolved alongside the conservation-driven formal GEF-funded project, as a result of the strong motives of project
stakeholders for development in general and livelihood and poverty alleviation in particular. The challenge now is how to better tap the synergies between conservation and
development goals that mutually reinforce both goals.
b. Co-management was not originally planned during project conceptualization and project development. It is an interesting adaptive management set-up that has spawned a mix
of advantages and disadvantages that now need to be recognized and managed.
c. Project design is basically focused in setting up an effective, equitable and sustainable system of governance for biodiversity conservation. However, there are inherent
weakness in the GEF framework translated into a project management framework that gives rise to management gaps and distortions of both the GEF-conservation objectives and
co-financiers’ development objectives.
5.2 Have these lessons been exchanged with other GEF or NON-GEF-funded projects? If so, please list the projects and describe the process.
 Yes, through the Midterm evaluation (MTE) processes and meetings facilitated by the MTE team and UNDP personnel.
 By sharing the MTE reports to the other FPE funded projects through its FPE-concerned Project officers. It became the resolution of the FPE team to replicate the system of
evaluating its funded projects on their midterm phases to generate lessons and improve its implementation and furthermore not to waste resources on the Projects which have
indicators of failure on its early stage i.e., lessons learned and shared during Philippine PA cross-visits/ Nepal, etc
6.
PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES
This section refers to collaboration among institutions to achieve mutually shared or agreed upon objectives and goals that draws on individual strengths and maximizes synergies. For the purpose
of this report partners are understood as those that either: i) cooperate with the project (through in kind, or financial collaboration); or ii) are subcontracted providers of project services.
6.1 Please provide the following information
Partner Full Name
Type (*)
Role (*)
$ Value =(1=PhP53.94)
23
533579261
(Do not give acronym only!)
Bohol Alliance of NonGovernment Organizations,
Inc. (BANGON)
Coastal Conservation
Education Foundation (CCEF)
Jobs, Education and Peace
Consultancy (JEP)
Silliman University Marine
Laboratory (SUML)
Bohol Environment
Management Office (BEMO)
Local Government Units
(Baclayon, Panglao and
Dauis)
People’s Organizations
SMART Communications
Dive Shop Operators
Resort Owners
NGO
NGO
NGO
Academe
GovtLocal
Govt.local
In kind project cooperation
and project implementation
services
In kind and financial
cooperation
In kind project cooperation
and provider services
In kind project cooperation
and provider services
In kind project cooperation
In kind and financial
cooperation
Contributed
(leveraged)
16, 844.33
Contracted
16,500.00
2,780.87
37, 078.24
826.84
591.72
6,127.71
556.17
1,473.86
185.39
82,965.13
(*) Please refer to Instruction sheet for guidelines on how to fill out this section.
6.2 Please describe any changes on partnership strategy (if any) from previous year
6.3 Additional information on Private Sector Involvement.
This refers to companies that contribute to a project as opposed to receiving financing from it as subcontractors.
24
533579261
1. What economic sector does the company work in (e.g. tourism, fisheries, forestry, agriculture)?
 Tourism (resort and diving industry); the Alona Beach Foundation
2. How is the company contributing to project objectives?
 The Alona Beach Foundation composed of resort and diving instructors and facilities’ owners are active partner of the Project in the co-management of the BMT resources.
They are helping the Project in the education of the tourists and in the advocacy initiatives.
3. How is the company being involved in project implementation?
 The Foundation assisted and provided technical assistance in the installation of mooring and marker buoys for the marine sanctuary and other dive sites.
 They also assisted and cooperate in the patrolling surveillance within the Panglao Bay.
 They are also actively involved and participating in the educational and information drives activities such as coastal clean up.
4. What benefit is the company deriving from contributing to the project?
 Synergies of efforts and resources (including human, pool of technical specialist)
 Complementation towards sustainable development of the BMT resources for the sustainability also of their business (diving industry) goals
5. If the project has not involved companies but could benefit from their resources please explain, given sufficient resources, what could be done within the project to develop
such involvement?
7.
PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
7.1
a) What are the key changes brought about (or that will be brought about) by the project which must be maintained into the future.
1) …. The co-management adaptive strategy of the BMT resources (not of the Project), it empower the stakeholders of their rights and responsibilities in the management of BMT.
2) …The integrated or holistic approach towards BMT ‘s sustainable development rather than just environment protection.
…
Etc
7.2 What are the critical conditions that must be maintained in order for these changes to be sustained?
1.
Please refer to instructions for additional guidance.
Condition Required
Indications that it will be maintained
1)GEF-UNDP’s
GEF-UNDP allows also the Project towards process of “revisioning” to validate and affirm the Project stakeholders’ clamor for sustainable development.
continued support to
25
533579261
the”informal
The BMT Co-managers continue increasing its interest and involvement in the BMT’s sustainable development.
project”of integrated
approach or
sustainable
development
7.3
a. Does the project make use of a micro-finance facility?
 Yes. FPE provided a seed fund for the BMT Livelihood Development Fund to address provision of supplemental and alternative livelihood options to complement
conservation initiatives.
b. If so, was such a facility developed specifically for the project, or was an existing one used? How effective is it?
 The Livelihood facility was developed specifically for the Project, as there was no existing one. This year is the first year of implementation, hence we cannot attest yet if this
effective. The seed fund will also be utilized to leveraged funds from other donors/sources. One donor agency already committed to double the seed fund (P2M) in support of the
BMT.
8.
NON-PROJECT ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY CO AND UNDP/GEF IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT
This section aims to identify activities carried out by UNDP (either the country office or the GEF unit) that were not a part of the project, or which resulted from an unanticipated problem, but that
have directly contributed towards the achievement of project objectives. It encompasses activities such as advocacy, policy dialogue, and knowledge management efforts. If soft assistance is not an
issue for the project or too sensitive to address, this section can be left empty.
26
533579261
Comments
9.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
CO Field Visit
LAST:
August 2003/May
2004(MTE)
UNDP GEF Field Visit
LAST: August
2003/May 2004(MTE)
Tripartite Review
LAST:
June 2003
Mid-Term Evaluation
PLANNED:
May 5-8, 2004
Final Evaluation
PLANNED:
NEXT:
July 2004
NEXT: July 2004
NEXT:
August 2004
DONE:
May 5-8, 2004
DONE:
Other (*)
(*) Please explain whether the project has been subject to any additional review e.g. Country Evaluations, GEF
Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR), and GEF Thematic Reviews.
10. FINANCIAL INFORMATION –
Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502)
10.1 PROJECT FUNDING. Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502)
GRANT
Loans (*)
Credits
Equity
invests.
In -kind
TOTAL
P
A
B. CO-FINANCING:
A. GEF
FUNDING
UNDP (TRAC)
UN AGENCY
GOVERNMENT
BILATERAL
DONORS
MULTILATERAL
DONORS
REGIONAL
BANKS
NON-GOVERN.
ORG.
PRIVATE
SECTOR
OTHER
TOTAL
CO-FINANCING
P
A
P
A
P
A
P
A
.199
.188
P
A
.042
.041
.199
.188
.004
.101
.142
.007
.007
.042
.042
P
A
.019
.036
.019
.036
P
A
.002
.002
.037
.043
P
A
P
A
P
A
PROPOSED
TOTAL FUNDING
ACTUAL
P=Proposed; A=Actual
(*) Concessional or market rate
10.2 PROJECT DISBURSEMENTS. From project start up to date of this report
Cumulative actual disbursement ($millions)
Cumulative planned disbursement ($millions)(*)
Disbursements ratio
.400
.718
56%
27
.304
.270
.304
.270
533579261
(% of actual vs. planned expenditures)
(*) As stated in original budget in PRODOC
28