AGCA PRIDE CAMPAIGN PROJECT PLAN
Catherine B. Demesa, Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts, Inc,
Tinambac, Camarine Sur
June 2010
Campaign Project Plan Table of Contents
(Once the project plan is complete insert page numbers for each section)
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 existence
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
(In excel) SMART objectives for:
KAP
BR,BC,TR
CR
E. Work Plan with Budget
(In excel)
F. Endorsement of this plan
G. References and Acknowledgements
H. Appendices
1. Fisheries profile
2. Executive Order for TWG & Mancom
3. Survey Questionnaire
4. Survey results
5. EcoGov MPA Effectiveness Rating
6. Letters of Support
7. Threat ranking
8. Factor chain
A.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Introduction - Framing the problem
Philippines as the centre of the centre 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 species of coral and hundreds of thousands of hectares of sea grass and
coastal mangrove forests that shelter and sustain a level of marine diversity unmatched anywhere on the planet.
Species and Habitat under Complex Threats
Today, however the global center of marine biodiversity is 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 reversing 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 intrusions by commercial fishers into municipal
waters are cause for concern.
A Campaign to Transform the Context
Developing local approaches to addressing the threat of overfishing is increasingly recognized as vital to long-term economic and environmental sustainability in
the region. The vision behind this plan, 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 it 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.
Cohort Theory of change: a strategy for change
In order to eliminate the principle 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 arrests and prosecution of intruders. The conservation results will include
increased perceived fish catch, increases in fish numbers and species richness, increase in invertebrates, and increase in coral reef health.
2. AGCA Draft Theory of Change
What knowledge is
needed to increase
awareness and help
shift these attitudes
What attitudes must
shift for these
conversations to
happen?
What conversations are
needed to encourage
people to adopt the new
behavior?
What are the barriers to
adoption of the desired
new behavior, and how
can we remove them?
What behaviors for
which group(s) must
change in order to
reduce this threat?
What threats need to
be reduced in order to
achieve the stated
conservation results
What conservation results
in the campaign seeking to
achieve?
AGCA Fishers are aware of
AGCA Sanctuary rules and
regulations especially the
provision prohibiting to
fish/glean inside the sanctuary
AGCA Fishers believes that AGCA
sanctuary rules and regulations
must be followed to gain
economic and ecological benefits
AGCA fishers can say that they
have spoken to anyone about the
the consequences of not following
AGCA Rules and regulations
AGCA fishers can say that there is
24/7 guarding of MPA is place -
AGCA Fishers can say that they
no longer fish inside the
sanctuary
AGCA fishers who can say that
there are no longer
poaching/compressor/fihsing
activities in the core zone
especially at night
1. Increase in hard coral cover inside
AGCA MPA by 2012.
AGCA community residents
believe that they can do
something to reduce illegal fishing
activities in their barangay by
reporting intrusions inside the
MPA
AGCA community can say that
they have spoken to anyone
about the benefits of s strictly
enforced and managed MPA
AGCA community residents
can state at least 1 benefit of a
strictly enforced and managed
MPA
_________________
Achieve indicators 1 and 8 of the
eco gov CCEF MPA Rating system.
________________
Achieve Indicators 7, 8,14,16,23 of
the ECO Gov CCEF MPA rating
system within 2 years and
indicators 31, 44,46, within 5 years
AGCA community knows the
member of Man Com (whom they
will report the intrusion)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
Achieve indicators
2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,15,17,18,19,20
,21,22,23,24 of the ECO Gov CCEF
MPA rating system within 2 years
and indicators
27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,37,38,
39,40,41,42,43,44,45,47,48 and 49
within 5 years
AGCA Community who can say
they have heard anyone
reported someone breaking the
sanctuary rules
________________
Achieve indicators 13 and 24 of
the Eco Gov CCEF MPA rating
System within 2 years.
________________
Achieve indicators 25, 26, and
36 of the Eco Gov CCEF MPA
rating system within 2 years
and indicator 47 within 5 years
2. increase in fish abundance and
biomass within AGCA MPA by 2012
3.
Increase in invertebrate density
and diversity of key indicator
species inside AGCA MPA.
4.
AGCA fishers believe that their fish
catch has improved due to AGCA
MPA by 2012
To achieve conservation result of improving biodiversity inside the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, threats from overfishing will be addressed by reducing intrusion and
destructive fishing activities inside and within 500m from AGCA MPA boundaries. This will happen if there is 24/7 guarding of sanctuary and good reporting system in
place. For this to be effective, Pride Campaign will use both conservation and social marketing strategies to improve sanctuary social-buy-in and promote community
pride and ownership. Key target audience will follow sanctuary rules and regulations as part of their spiritual mission, as responsible parent, and as good steward .
Rare Pride Campaign will be deemed successful if there is a reduction of intrusion, increase in fish abundance and fish density by 10%, and increase in hard live coral
cover by 5% by the 2012 inside AGCA Sanctuary.
3. Site summary
Project Name
Project Name
Enter the full name of your Pride
Campaign
Philippine Sustainable Fishing /Lamit Bay Pride Campaign
Project Data Effective Date
The most recent date that you worked
on this document in the format YYYMM-DD
2011-07-15
Project Scope and Vision
Scope/Site Name
Specific site of your campaign
AGCA Marine Sanctuary in Tinambac, Camarines Sur, Philippines
Scope/Site Description
Brief summary of your site
This site is in Province of Camarines Sur is part of the Bicol Peninsula in southeastern portion of Luzon.
On the north is Pacific ocean, on east is Maqueda Channel, on the south is the province of Albay, and on
the west is the Ragay Gulf and on the northwest by the Provinces of Camarines Norte and Quezon.
Vision Statement Text
Write a brief vision statement for your
site. A vision statement indicates what
you would like your site to look like in
the future, not just as the result of your
current Pride campaign, but if
conservation workers could implement
all of their work.
Biodiversity Features
Biodiversity Area
Amount of hectares in site
AGCA Marine Sanctuary comprises 98 Ha (50 ha no-take zone and 48-ha buffer zone) of coral reef and
sea grass.
Size of Campaign site where the Target Audience are:
5,000 ha (source: National Statistics Office, 2007;
Focus Group Discussions, May 2010)
Size of Municipal waters (Lamit Bay Area only, indirect Target Audience):
8,820 ha (source: Tinambac Coastal Profile by Fisheries Resource
Management Project, 2000)
Biodiversity Background
1. An overview of the area’s
biodiversity, including ecosystem
types and an estimate for species
richness for as many groups as
possible (refer to data from similar
sites where need be).
2. List any recent research on the
site’s biodiversity (provide full
references for all work in last
decade).
3. Provide a list of vegetation types,
including the main types of
woodland, grassland and similar
communities, and cultivated land,
indicating whether any are of
1. Lamit Bay is a complex and very diverse ecosystem found in the Bicol Region, Southern Luzon,
Philippines. AGCA community has vast mangroves, sea grass beds and coral reefs which serve as
feeding and breeding ground of fishes and other marine organisms, such as green sea turtles,
hawksbill turtles, whale sharks and dugong. (gaps: species richness and abundance)
2. There has been no research conducted on site’s biodiversity except from the AGCA Sanctuary
Assessment on 2005 that was conducted by BFAR (as requested by LGU to serve as basis for
MPA site selection). The rest of the data available and research being conducted were from
Participatory researches by NSLC, Inc and MPA managers (fish catch monitoring, bantay-dagat
journal, manta tow, etc ).
3. Vegetation on terrestrial area is predominantly coconut trees and some patches of grassland
and fruit-bearing trees. On the other hand, underwater vegetation includes woody sea grass,
dugong grass, round tipped sea grass, toothed sea grass, and tropical eelgrass.
4. None to our knowledge. (For further investigation)
particular conservation interest.
4. Provide a list of introduced species.
Where possible, include English,
local, and scientific nomenclature,
and indicate whether the species is
causing any problems and to what
extent.
5. Provide information on other
species of special interest (perhaps
they are taxonomically unique in
some way, are valuable for medical
or other purposes), potential
flagship species, etc.
5. Important species that needs attention and protection are the various species of fish with
commercial values (groupers, snappers, jacks, fusiliers, coral breams, wrasses, parrot fish,
surgeon fish, rabbit fish, and angel fish) and species of corals vital in supporting population of
fish and other marine organisms such as various lifeforms of Acropora, Montipora, Favites,
Favia, Seriatopora, and other species of soft corals.
Also, Sea turtles,and whalesharks regularly visits AGCA MPA.
SOURCE:
 Published map by NAMRIA # 4271 in 1924 that was surveyed originally in 1906
 Nautical chart from NAMRIA, 2000
 Tinambac Coastal Profile by FRMP, 2000
 Demesa, Arciaga and Banal 2009. Preliminary results of participatory coastal resource assessment
for AGCA Sanctuary
Protected Area Information
Protected Area Categories
What is the status of the protected area?
What are the main threats to the area?
On 2006, AGCA Marine Sanctuary was declared by local community and municipal government
ordinance as a locally-managed MPA. However, there were still intrusion inside the no-take zone;
incidents of dynamite and cyanide fishing; and compressor fishing using cyanide.
Overfishing was identified as the biggest threat in the area. Aside from destructive fishing practices,
non-destructive fishing methods by fishers poaching inside the MPA is also one of the contributing
factors. During the focus discussion and formative research conducted, compressor fishing was
identified as the biggest threat to coral health and fish population. Use of destructive fishing gears
(use of dynamite and cyanide) ranked second in threat ranking in AGCA sanctuary. Though these
practices have been abated, lack of disincentive to law breaker and AGCA Sanctuary will be
mismanaged this will proliferate again. (source: Focus Discussions, 2010)
Legal Status
Information about the various legal statutes
and regulations relevant to your site and the
wildlife that live there.
Provisions for AGCA Sanctuary were promulgated by the Local Government of Tinambac. It is valid
and comply with the requirements that is consistent with the Philippine National Laws,
administrative issuances and international treaties and agreements for coastal management.
Provisions from Philippine Constitutions that is related to enforcement and governance of AGCA
MPA: Art II, Sec 15 and 16; Art XII, Sec 2; Art XIII, Sec 7, and Art XIII.
Legislative Context
Physical Description
List all the formal legal instruments which
relate to your site (“soft” and “hard”):
International Conventions your country has
signed on to, special international designations
it might boast (e.g., a World Heritage Site, Man
and Biosphere Reserve), any relevant national
and local conservation-related legislation, and
deeds of public/private ownership of your site.
As you do so, give them a score from 1-5
according to how effective you think they
presently are (with 1=not effective and 5=very
effective).
AGCA Marine Sanctuary was declared under municipal ordinance No. 05 Series of 2006. (SCORE: 4)
Description of the site; is it mountainous,
forested, coral reef, etc. Topographical
information of the site. Climatic information of
the site.
AGCA Sanctuary comprises a fringing reef with good quality of coral cover.
In the coral reef assessment by BFAR in 2005 of 50 hectare-coral reef in Caloco and Agay-ayan
shows 57% and 47.45% live coral cover, respectively. After three years, it shows an increase by
nearly 10% (PCRA, 2000).
As of now, no formal legal instruments aside from the local government effort to declare portions of
Tinambac Municipal Waters as protected areas. Municipal CRM Plan and Municipal Fisheries
Ordinance are still being drafted. (SCORE: ___)
Other laws that affect the sanctuary are:
R.A. 7160 – The local Government Code of the Philippines (clarifies the roles and responsibilities of
the Local Government Unit in protection and management of marine and coastal resources).
(SCORE: 3)
R.A. 8550 – The Philippine Fisheries Code (clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the BFAR and
options available to municipal governments in managing their resources as well as mandatory
council establishment) (SCORE: 3)
Coral reefs that are in excellent condition is nearly 3% of ? ha (gaps: current area of coral reefs, sea
grass, and stands of mangrove in Tinambac municipal water). Overfishing has resulted to
disappearance of species of dugong and decline in number of sea turtles, predator fish and reef
sharks.
After three years of establishing AGCA Sanctuary Roberto Refugio (Personal Communication,
February 2010) reported the sightings of Whalesharks and Sea turtles near AGCA MPA.
Biological Description
Biological description of the site that has not
According to local folks the area before is like a paradise where its pristine beauty attracted their
been discussed elsewhere and that you want to father and grandfather to settle and live in the area. The coasts have very fine and powdery white
have in your reports.
sand. Within the coastal zones are lowland forests covered with very sturdy and robust species of
Philippine Dipterocarps. But come the American and Japanese occupation the area was stripped by
logging concessionaires and what is left are the plantation of coconut trees and patches of
grassland.
Socio-Economic Information
Description of the economy at the site. Make a
list of all the living and non-living resources that
are presently being extracted from your site.
Where possible, give some measure of the
value of these products in local currency (per
item, kilo, bundle, etc.). As a way of putting
these numbers into a meaningful context,
indicate how much a laborer would normally be
paid by the hour or for a day’s work.
In Coastal barangays of Agay-ayan and Caloco in Tinambac where AGCA Sanctuary is located has
total population of 2275 (NSO, 2007). Livelihoods of 65-95% households are related to fishing
industry. Primary products produced in two barangays are hairtail fish, lobsters, and seaweeds
(Eucheuma).
Peak season starts on the month of February until August when the sea is calm.
Before the AGCA Sanctuary was established average fish catch is 2kg/trip. Now average fish catch is
5 to 15 kg/day.
Seaweed farming starts September until February when the sea is choppy. Seaweed farmers
perceived that they benefited from improved enforcement of AGCA marine sanctuary. Their
seaweeds became healthier and have increased by 60kg from 40kg in two weeks of cultivation.
Historical Description
Brief overview of the history of the site. Do
other countries contest it? Has it been logged?
When was it made into a protected area? Was
the site once part of a colony?
AGCA Marine Sanctuary was established in 2006 through a collaborative effort of people’s
organization (SAMACA and KAAGAPAY), local NGO (NSLC,Inc) and Tinambac LGU.
AGCA community was inhabited after the termination of logging concession of lowland forest of
Tinambac. Workers from the logging concession company settled and live in the area.
AGCA Marine Sanctuary is the first marine protected area in Lamit Bay and in Tinambac. Nearby
barangays- San Antonio and Mapid and Balaton in Lagonoy are now on the process of establishing
their locally managed- MPAs.
Cultural Description
Description of the main cultural groups at or
Residents are mainly Roman Catholic. They celebrated fiestas at regional level (Feast of Penafrancia
near the site. What religions are practiced? Are during September); municipal level (Feast of St. Paschal Baylon during May) and Barangay level
the people a minority group within the
(Feast of Mary during August).
country? Are there any cultural traditions that
you need to know in order to be able to work in Majority of fishers are not fishing during holy week (March or April). According to them they are
the site, for example, special holidays, or beliefs prone to accidents during this period.
about how the site should be treated?
Access Information
Description of how to access the site (by boat
only? By car using what roads, etc). Give times
when access is harder or easier due to things
like rainy season or winters.
The area is accessible during summer for the sea is calm and the road is passable.
The area can be accessed by boat thru the port of Tambang. Tambang is about 2 hrs from the
nearest airport (Naga City Airport) and from Tambang to the site it will take 30-45 min-boat ride.
The area can be accessed using jeep or any 4-WD cars. Estimated travel time is about 3 hours from
Naga City Airport.
Visitation Information
Details on what someone should know in order There are daily trips of jeeps from Naga to Tambang starting 3am till 6am.
to visit the site, for example where they should
originate their trip, or who might rent them a
In Tambang port, there’s a regular boat trip going to Maslog (there is only 1 passenger boat, be
boat. (all the information about the MPA)
there before 8am in the Tambang Port.
Current Land Uses
Information about land tenure and land use at
the site.
Tinambac has a total land area of 37, 209.74. Of this, 52% are classified under alienable/disposable
land; 32% are forest lands; 8% are natural par/reserve and the rest are private lands. (gaps: this is
1997 data… need an updated data from Municipal Development Planning Office.
In the proposed campaign site, early resident were given 8-ha by. of land President Magsaysay to be
cultivated and planted by coconut.
Management Resources
Description of the management structure,
resources, organizations, roles, and any other
information relevant to management of the
site.
The AGCA Sanctuary shall be protected by the municipal ordinance and managed by the AGCA
Resource Management Council, in conjunction with MFARMC and the municipal government, with
logistic support from BFAR and technical assistance from non-government organization operating
and familiar with the socio-political and bio-physical condition of Lamit Bay ecosystems.
AGCA Sanctuary Resource Management Council is composed of the following: Municipal Mayor as
honorary chairman; representatives of the two (2) barangay councils of Agay-ayan and Caloco;
representatives of NGO; representatives of Peoples’ Organizatio based in the area;
representatives of Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and Management Council (BFARMC)
and Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (MFARMC); and Sangguniang
Bayan Committee on Fisheries.
The role of AGCA Sanctuary management Council is to meet every quarter and plan, discuss, assess
activities related to management of AGCA Sanctuary. However, this is not being followed.
Governance structure is already there but need to strengthen collaboration among the council
members and stakeholders. Also, the need to clarify roles and responsibilities and accountabilities
must be discussed within the council.
Currently, AGCA Sanctuary is governed by two people’s organization but need more assistance and
support in enforcement and management from LGU, national government agencies, and
institutions with technical expertise.
IUCN Red-list Species
Red-List Species
Enter the common and scientific names
of any species at your site that are
listed by IUCN Red Data list and give a
brief explanation of why they are listed
and what their current status is.
Green Turtle ( Chelonia mydas) – endangered
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)- critically endangered
Whale shark- (Rhoncodon typus)- vulnerable
Species of sea horse- insufficient data
Dugong- not seen for 30 years
Other Notable Species
Other Notable Species
Common and scientific names of
other important species at your site
such as endemic species, keystone
species, commercial species.
Lobsters – Panulirus spp.
Hairtail fish- Trichiurus spp.
Species of Sharks- TBD
Species of Rays- TBD
Location and Topography
Project Latitude
The latitude of your project site using numbers
between -90 degrees and 90 degrees.
Landward: 13 37’ 16”
Seaward: 14 28’ 15”
Project Longitude
The longitude of your project site using numbers
between -180 degrees and 180 degrees.
Landward: 123 16’57”
Seaward: 123 26’ 30”
Country/Countries
The country/countries of your site.
Philippines
States/Provinces
The name(s) of the states and/or provinces where
your site is located.
Camarines Sur
Municipalities
The name(s) of the municipally/municipalities where
your site is located.
Tinambac
Legislative Districts
The name(s) of the legislative districts where your site Partido (4th) District
is located.
Location Details
A textual narrative about the location.
Lamit bay is located in the Southeastern Philippines Seas Region, Partido (4th) district of
Camarines in Bicol Province (Region V). It covers four municipalities of Lagonoy,
Garchitorena, Siruma and Tinambac. Bicol Region has been recently added to the
priority areas by Global Environment Fund (GEF) of United Nations Development
Program of because of its importance in connecting the significant biodiversity areas in
the Pacific region.
Site Map Reference
Paste a GoogleMaps URL into this box
(http://maps.google.com/), by locating your site on
Google Maps, then click “Link” to have the map of
your site referenced.
See attached map
Comments
Any additional information about your site’s location
that has not been included above, but you think you
will need to be included in your site summary.
Mostly of destructive gears such as dynamite and cyanide were introduced by fishers
coming from other provinces.
Jose Belista (Personal Communication, May 2010) described the operation of commercial
vessels in Lamit Bay. According to fishers operation of this bulibuli is the primary cause of
the depletion of fish stock in Lamit Bay.
There were about 10 commercial fishers (buli-buli) operating /intruding within municipal
waters. During the survey, local community perceived that the number 1 threats to
biodiversity are the commercial fishers because it depletes fish stocks. Ordinary fisher
would income US$10/week compared to ordinary worker in commercial fishing their
take home pay for 5 days of work costs US100/week.
Human Stakeholders
Human Stakeholder
Population Size
Total number of people who live within the target
site.
Number of population in campaign site: 2275
+ 11, 409 ( Tinambac North)
+25,000 (whole of Lamit bay)
Source: (NSO, 2007)
Social Context
Additional information on population, including
demographic, geographic, etc.
Average monthly income of fishers: US$ 40-65 /month
Fishing gears commonly used: net, hook and line, spear fishing, compressor and traps.
Primary livelihood: fishing, farming and seaweed farming
Secondary livelihoods: fish trading, carpentry, and some go to cities to llok for job
especially during lean season.
Rare Pride Campaign
Threats addressed
Coral Reef Degradation and
Overfishing
Other threats at site
Threats at site
Sedimentation/siltation
Count: 9
5.3.1 Intentional mortality (human use - subsistence/small scale)
5.4
Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources
9.3.2 Soil erosion, sedimentation
9.3.3 Herbicides and pesticides
1.7.1 Subsistence/artisinal aquaculture
11.1 Habitat shifting and Alteration
11.4 Storms and Flooding
3.2
Mining & quarrying
11.1 Habitat Shifting and Alteration
Number of communities in Campaign
Area
Human stakeholder population size
Biodiversity area
Habitat
Biodiversity hotpots
Flagship species common name
Scientific name
2 coastal barangays (primary) 2 and more baranagays (secondary_
2275
5000 ha
Coral reefs and sea grass
The coral triangle
Tentative: spiny lobster or leopard coral grouper
Panulirus spp. Or Plectropomus leopardus
Flagship species details (<200 words)
Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Crustacea
Family: Palinuridae
In AGCA community during 1960’s ordinary fisher can catch 10kg
of lobster per fishing trip (8hrs/trip). The price of lobster then is
US$ 0.07. Today prevailing price of lobster of good size is
~US$15-20.00. Fishers are using compressors and cyanide to
catch lobster. Spiny lobsters tend to live in crevices of rocks and
coral reefs and go out at night time to eat and being catch by the
fisher.
During our underwater survey, large portion of coral reefs inside
and outside the AGCA sanctuary were damaged due to
compressor fishing activites.
Campaign ambassador
Survey Result: over-all rating of 54.7% (highest rating)
Hon. Ruel T. Velarde
Cohort ambassador
Willie Revillame
P. leopardus is a high-valued and much sought-after grouper
species. Some 2000 tonnes of this species are imported to Hong
Kong, the major trade centre, from countries like Australia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The retail
price of the species in Hong Kong and mainland China ranges
from 50-70USD/kg in 2002 (19).
During the sanctuary monitoring three leopard coral grouper
were spotted. Length ranging from 40 to 70 cm. According to
local fishers this is a high-valued and much sought-after grouper
species in the community.
Survey result: 28.3% (second to the lobster)
4. Project team and stakeholders
Lead Agency and Pride Conservation Fellow
#
Name
Organization
Position
1
Contact details
Role in relation to campaign
NSLC, Inc
Catherine B. Demesa
Campaign Manager
Orlando C. Arciaga
Board of Trustee
Fernando C. Gervacio
Field Coordinator
2
09155152053
Conservation Fellow
09198829622
Supervisor
09393632480
Mentor
NSLC, Inc
3
NSLC, Inc
Strategic partners/key stakeholders
#
Name
Position
1
Organization
Contact details
Role in relation to campaign
SAMACA, Inc
Eleazar Tatel
BFARMC- Caloco
Igmedio Dianela
BFARMC- Agay-ayan
Hon. Ruel Velarde
Municipal Mayor
Decoroso Rodriguez
Brgy. Captain
Levi Terrobias
Brgy. Captain
2
3
Maslog Fisherfolks Association,
Inc
09108604527
Local advocates
090845233320
Local advocates
09292922326
Local Ambassador
n/A
ManCom Member
N/A
Mancom Member
LGU-municipal
4
LGU- Barangay
5
LGU- Barangay
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 two 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 oneon-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 key 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.
1. Formative research
The following qualitative researches were conducted to gain better understanding of target audiences and stakeholders’ level of knowledge, attitude and
practices; issues at hand in the AGCA Sanctuary management; and the changes perceived and felt by the community. For the directed conversations 3 salient
questions were asked: Do you think the community benefitted from the AGCA Sanctuary? What advice can you give to improve these benefits? And how is your
agency/organization willing to support to increase those benefits? Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with the AGCA Management Committee,
People’s Organization, Bantay-dagat group and with the AGCA technical working group. During the discussions same questions were asked to the participants.
a. Directed Conversations with the local chief executive
Hon. Ruel T. Velarde the local chief executive of Tinambac at his second term
declared Tinambac as environmental friendly municipality. When asked about
his commitment to the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, he said he will be providing
materials for the installation of buoys and will be allotting PhP 300,000.00
(USD $6500) for the construction of guardhouse. On top of this he will
continue to provide for the honorarium of 4 bantay-dagat, 3 bantay-baybayo
and 2 bantay-bakawan.
According to him “behavior change” is key to address the problem of resource
degradation and poverty in Lamit Bay.
Mayor Velarde delivering his pitch
Materials for marker buoyd
b. Directed conversation with the municipal agriculture officer (MAO)
He said two dynamite fishers were imprisoned last October 2010. There is a significant reduction in number of illegal activities since then. Bantay-dagat were
actively patrolling and guarding the sanctuary. He also confirmed that there is additional Bantay-dagat to be assigned in San Antonio, the adjacent barangay of
AGCA.
According to him the office of Municipal Agriculture is very supportive in improving management of AGCA Marine Sanctuary. Strengthening the enforcement
of AGCA Marine Sanctuary and enforcement within the municipal waters of Tinambac will be one of the priorities of Mr. Jogie Salages, The Municipal Fisheries
Technician.
Cathy interviewing
(MAO) Reynaldo Rivera
There was also a discussion on strengthening of Mancom and TWG. Cathy asked who should be invited to the TWG and Mancom Meetings; if is it okay to hold
the meeting inside the Municipal Hall; and can the LGU provide some counterparts for the expenses during meetings? His response was very positive- just let
him know of the schedules ahead of time and his department will be there to cooperate in the Pride Campaign.
c. Directed conversation with the
and residents
On local
2004,fishers
Mr. Tariman
claimed that he is one of the few fishers in Barangay Caloco. When I asked isn’t it a fishing village? He said nobody fish
here because there is no fish to catch. The price of gasoline is too much to the fishers. Most of the residents were cultivating seaweeds and
some were doing compressor fishing in other barangays and municipalities. After three years, Mr. Tariman left for Manila.
Early this year, when I visited barangay Caloco I saw him fixing his boat. I talked to him and asked is the community benefitting from AGCA
Sanctuary. He said, he had a good catch the other day even the sea is rough and choppy. He can catch 3 to 5 kilos of fish without getting that far.
He was fixing his boat because he wants to go back to fishing. He confirmed that there are more fish and bigger fish out there as a result of good
protection of the AGCA Sanctuary.
Cathy interviewing
Mr. Cenon Tariman (AGCA Fisher)
He said he is willing to apply as a volunteer bantay-dagat. He requested to advise him if there will be trainings or seminars regarding AGCA
Sanctuary.
LINDA YANAN (53 years old)
Mrs. Yanan was one of the core group members who lead in the establishment of AGCA Marine Sanctuary. According to her, fishers in their
barangay were happy that their fish catch has improved. There are more fish. Fishers can catch fish with their non-motorized banca. She said,
there were more local people reporting intrusion and illegal activities to the enforcement team and the barangay council.
NIEVES YANAN (49 years old)
According to her fishers have improved income with minimum fish catch range at 5 kg as minimum as compared to the time when there is no
protection and management of marine resources . Almost 90% of illegal fisher is gone. The other 10% cannot do destructive fishing
Cathy and Jean (LGU staff)
Interviewing Caloco women
Regarding AGCA Sanctuary
like they do before because local people are now reporting and guarding the sanctuary. The other day, one fisher caught a 13-kg
tanigue between the sanctuary and Cimarron Island.
ROMEO TATEL (46 years old)
According to him fish catch has improved.
There are no compressor fishers anymore. Compressor units are currently utilized to install mainline and fix area for seaweed farming.
He confirmed that even ordinary resident are not only aware that intrusion inside the sanctuary is prohibited they are already reporting
incidents to the Bantay-dagat and bantay-baybayon.
Romeo Tatel, compressor fisher,
now Bantay-baybayon
d. Focus group discussions with Technical Working Group (for the complete proceedings see appendix_____)
There were about 25 participants to the first technical working group
meeting held last December 8, 2010 and to the second meeting held last
February 9, 2011.
During the first TWG meeting, topic revolves around on how to improve
benefits from AGCA Marine Sanctuary. There is a consensus among
participants that community benefitted from the management and
enforcement of AGCA Sanctuary. The second TWG meeting focuses on
VMG setting, organizational development assessment and second day was
allotted for scheduling of PCRA, Merf survey and MPA effectiveness rating
and planning workshops. The discussion ends with signing of commitment
wall (see pictures at the left). See appendix for the minutes of FGD.
e. Focus Group Discussions with the Mancom- Barangay Level (for complete proceedings see appendix _____)
AGCA Mancom held its monthly meeting either at the Barangay Hall
of Agay-ayan or Barangay Hall of Caloco. Sometimes meeting it is
being held at the municipal hall if there are urgent matters to be
discussed with the local chief executive.
FGD with the mancom focuses on the following: VMG setting (see
appendix); discussion on roles and responsibilities of the mancom
and TWG; re-structuring of AGCA Council structure (see appendix)
and the AGCA Sanctuary enforcement system (e.g. regular guarding
of sanctuary 24/7). See appendix for the minutes of FGD.
F. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH ENFORCEMENT TEAM
Strengthening of enforcement team is one of the priorities of the project. FGD with the members of Bantay dagat was one of the top priorities
of the conservation fellow. The following FGDs were conducted with the enforcement team:
1. Assessment of the 2010 AGCA enforcement system held last January 5, 2011. Result shows that last 2009 about 61 violations committed
and on 2010 it went down to 39 violations. Though there is significant reduction in number of intrusion inside the MPA and illegal
activities nearby, there is still a need to do more capacity building trainings, improve logistic support and coordination among members
of the enforcement team.
2. Identifying illegal activities and illegal fishers from within the barangay. According to the barangay captain of Agay-ayan, there is no
longer illegal fishers in the barangay and poachers are coming from barangay Caloco. According to barangay officials of Caloco, there is
only 1 fisher that is still using compressor and some poaching inside the sanctuary at night time.
3. Recruitment of new Bantay-dagat volunteers. There were nearly 20 invitees to the FGD on orientation and recruitment for the bantaydagat members.
4. Logistic and strategic planning sessions.
5. Roles, responsibilities and functions of bantay-dagat given by Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to the new recruits.
RESULT OF THE ANNUAL ASSESMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF BANTAY-DAGAT FOR 2010
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 (please specify who), the following concept model was developed illustrating the conservation target, indirect threats and
contributing factors at AGCA 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 AGCA Sanctuary concept
model looks like once all of the direct and contributing factors to the AGCA Sanctuary have been inputted. The connecting arrows highlight the relationship
between the factors and how they impact different targets in the core zone of AGCA Marine Sanctuary.
The campaign will focus on improving the live coral cover, fish density/abundance, and invertebrate abundance inside the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. These are shown in an oval
contained in a green box. The pre-identified threats that have direct impact to the biodiversity target are use of cyanide, dynamite, compressor in fishing; overfishing;
sedimentation; and temperature stress. These threats are shown as pink boxes in the diagram below.The orange boxes contained information pertaining to the contributing
factors. These contributing factors do not directly threaten the coral, fish or the invertebrates. However, they have power or influence over the direct threats.
Our biodiversity targets are fish population, invertebrate population and coral cover inside the AGCA Sanctuary. Based from AGCA Sanctuary concept model, sedimentation and
temperature stress is directly affecting the health of coral cover. Both threats have a medium rating. For sedimentation scope is at high threat rating; severity is at high threat
rating; and irreversibility is at medium threat rating. For temperature stress: scope is at very high (change in water temperature is affecting across 100% of its occurrence;
severity is at high threat rating; and irreversibility is at medium (though it may only take a few months for corals to recover from bleaching, we are experiencing climate change
and it is expected to have a negative impacts on corals).
Overfishing and used of destructive gears (cyanide and dynamite) in fishing shows very high rating and high rating, respectively. Both threats are directly affecting the three
biodiversity targets. For overfishing by legal and illegal means has the highest rating. For fish: scope is very high ( Due to open access regime and increasing demand and needs
for fish of the growing population in the next ten years); severity is very high ( if AGCA Sanctuary will not be managed well it may continue to loss 40-80% of its fish population;
and irreversibility is high for some of the target species may take more than 20 years to replenish their population). For invertebrates scope and severity is very high and
irreversibility is high. For corals scope has very high rating and severity and irreversibility has high rating.
Insert Concept model and provide a very brief description (1-2 paragraphs); Reference p 31 Serena; p 28 Lola)
3. Results Chain
E. Formative Research
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.
The campaign’s proposed approach can be represented as four results chain, one for each audience to be targeted.
The social marketing campaign will focus on the primary target audiences as shown in the results chains. The secondary audiences will be reached either indirectly
through the campaign or through specific activities such as Barrier removal activities and targeted meetings and workshops rather than through the marketing
campaign
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). 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. 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. The result chains illustrate
the results required to achieve the campaign’s desired goals and aim to constitute a road map for changes the campaign would like to bring about for each target
audience. The result chains were also used as a foundation for developing the campaign quantitative survey and obtaining the information1 that would be
required to design effective social marketing and behavior change interventions for the campaign.
RESULT CHAIN FOR FISHERS:
The Pride campaign is shown to have causal impact (arrows) on each of the behavior change stages that fishers pass through on their way to the adoption of a
new behavior of not intruding inside the sanctuary.
Based on the results chain, we highlighted the following preliminary objectives for the Pride campaign to achieve among the target audience:
• Increase awareness among AGCA fisher about AGCA Sanctuary rules and regu;ation (e.g., not intruding inside the sanctuaryl)
• AGCA fishers believe that AGCA Sanctuary rules and regulations need to be followed to gain economic and ecological benefit
• AGCA fishers discuss with one another the consequence of breaking AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations.
 AGCA Sanctuary were guarded 24/7
 AGCA fishers follow AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulation by not fishing inside the NTZ and eventually report intrusion to the enforcement team
RESULT CHAIN FOR AGCA Community:
The Pride campaign is shown to have causal impact (arrows) on each of the behavior change stages that AGCA community pass through on their way to the adoption of a
new behavior of reporting intrusion in AGCA Sanctuary to the enforcement team..
Based on the results chain, we highlighted the following 5 preliminary objectives for the Pride campaign to achieve among the AGCA community as target audience:
• AGCA Community are aware about the benefits of strictly enforced MPA
• AGCA Community believe that they can do something to reduce illegal fishing activities
• AGCA community discuss with one another the benefits of strictly enforced and conscientiously managed MPA..
• AGCA Community knows the MANCOM members (whom to pass intelligence report)•
 AGCA community reporting intrusion to the enforcement team
RESULT CHAIN FOR SECONDARY TARGET AUDIENCE:
RESULT CHAIN FOR NEIGHBORING FISHERS (non-AGCA Fishers)
RESULT CHAIN FOR TINAMBAC -LGU
4. Establishing a Baseline: Quantitative survey
After conducting qualitative research NSLC, Inc conducted a quantitative survey of adults living in four coastal barangays of Tinambac. This pre-campaign survey
was conducted in March 2010 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 Theoryof-Change (ToC).
A second post campaign survey will be conducted at the end of one year of the campaign activities being implemented in May 2009 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
Define geographic scope of survey and include a map showing area surveyed
Survey target audiences and sample size
N of people
Desired behavior change
TA 1 AGCA Fishers
Stop intrusion inside the NTZ;
Report intrusion
TA 2 AGCA Community Residents
Report Intrusion
TA 3 Non-AGCA Fishers (Pag-asa)
San Antonio
Stop intrusion inside the NTZ
107
93
645
576
35
75
Sample size at
95%CL and
3%CI
100
Sample size at
95%CL and
5%CI
Final sample
size choice
100
89
241
231
34
70
89
241
231
34
70
Magsaysay
Tambang
Mapid
TA 4 LGU
Ammend AGCA Ordinance
Adopt Management Plan
Efficient reporting system
Guarding AGCA 24/7
Total
Survey planning
Survey planning
Total survey sample size
Time for enumerator to do one survey (30 mins)
N of hours enumerator works a day
N of surveys one enumerator can do a day
N of enumerator available
N of surveys done a day by total number od
enumerators
Number of days needed to do the survey
Dates for training of enumerators
Beginning and end date of survey
N of people available to do data entry
Beginning date of data entry
Date of completion of data entry
1023
0.75
6
8
20
160
6.39375
February 26-28
March 2- March 8
2-3 pax
March 1, 2011
March 9, 2011
46
100
50
80
44
92
48
74
44
92
48
74
1023
1023
Sampling methodology (Actual)
TA1 – fishers from Agay-ayan
and Caloco
TA2 - community residents from Agay-ayan
and Caloco
TA3 - fishers from Pag-asa
TA4 – LGU personnel and
department heads
sample
size for
TA in
locality
N of TA in
locality
N of TA
in
locality
N of TA
in
locality
Stratified sampling
Geographic
scope of survey
N of people
in listed
locality
N of TA
in
locality
Agay-ayan
1257
(NSO, 2007)
1018
(NS0, 2007)
975
(NS0, 2007)
963
(NSO, 2007)
4213
130
120
645
243
135
122
591
236
Caloco
San Antonio
Pag-asa
TOTAL
265
% of
total TA
in
locality
100%


Actual counting of
fishers currently fising
during th interview
Sample size at
95%CL and 3%CI
Three attemps to
interview
sample size for
TA in locality
% of
total TA
in
locality
sample size
for TA in
locality
-
-
-
130
100
-
-
-
15
15
1236
100%
242

% of total TA
in locality
15
479
Stratified randome sampling based from
the latest Voter’s List (2010)


Sample size at
95%CL and 5%CI
If not available during interview,
skipped
Try the second time, if not available,
anybody from the household aged 15
was interviewed


300
300
115


100%

Sample size at
95%CL and 5%CI
If not available during
interview, skipped
Try the second time, if not
available, anybody from
the household aged 15 was
interviewed
% of
total
TA in
locality
sample
size for TA
in locality
53
100%
53



Sample size at
95%CL and 5%CI
Prioritized the
department heads
Randomly selected
SURVEY RESULTS
The 890 questionnaire survey were returned by the enumerators and loaded into SurveyPro. Data collected from the quantitative survey can check in on some of
our assumption and help us revise our preliminary objectives. Survey analysis will help affirm and better understand one’starget audience, as well as identify
channels, trusted sources and help craft messages.
A summary of results found are included in this section of the project plan. A complete executive summary of the survey results can be found within the
appendices
4.1 Independent Variables
The survey sampled a cross section of the AGCA communities. Our Target Audience 1 (TA1) was marginally biased toward men than women, largely because it is
predominantly male. It also sampled people from all the nearby villages and LGU personnel from Poblacion-Tinambac with sample sizes broadly representative of
their populations.
Figure 4.1 Survey Respondents
Following our quota sampling methodology, our sample of 980 respondents included
(1) TA1 is AGCA Fishers with 243 (27%) survey respondents
(2) TA2 is AGCA community residents with 479 (54%) survey respondents
(3) TA3 is Fishers from Barangay Pag-asa and San Antonio
( also referred as Non-AGCA Fishers in this docuemnt) with 115 (13%) survey respondents
(4) TA 4 is Local Government Unit (LGU) Personnel with 53 (6%) survey respondents
TA4
TA3 6%
13%
TA2
54%
TA1
27%
Figure 4.1 to 4.9 show the basic demographic and socioeconomic data that comprise the so-called independent variables for our sample. Age structures were also
broadly representative of those reported in the 2010 National Commission on Election official voter’s list. Our survey excludes young school children below the
age of 15.
Figure 4.2 Number of Survey
Respondents per Target Barangay
363
358
105
10
Figure 4.3 Civil Status
53
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
323
Single
212
Married
111
27
37
34
26 12 341 16 111
112
TA1
Figure 4.4 Gender
Widow
95
TA2
TA3
Live-in
Separated
TA4
Figure 4.5 Primary Occupation
250 221
400
300
200
300
238
179
200
130
109
150
Male
114
100
5
1
0
Female
3122
Seaweed Farming
100
50
57
312 10
0
TA1
TA2
TA3
TA4
Fishing (p)
TA1
Farming 1
13 102
TA2 TA3 TA4
Figure 4.6 Household Numbers
Figure 4.7 Educational Attainment
250
250
200
200
TA1
150
TA2
100
TA3
TA4
50
TA1
150
TA2
100
TA3
50
TA4
0
0
1-3
4-6
7-9
NS
Elementary Secondary
completed
Grad
Grad
10+
Figure 4.8 AGE GROUP
Figure 4.9 Household Income
250
200
TA1
150
TA2
100
TA3
50
TA4
0
15-29
30-39
40-49
50-above
Tertiary
Grad
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TA1
TA2
TA3
TA4
4.2 Trusted Sources
“Information from a credible source influences beliefs, opinions, attitudes and/or behavior through internalization. Once the receiver internalizes an opinion orattitude, it becomes integrated into
his or her belief system. This belief may be maintained even after the source of the message is forgotten. A highly creditable communicator is particularly important when message recipients
have a negative position toward the product, service or issue being promoted, because the credible source is likely to inhibit counter-arguments” (Sadowsky). Peers, community leaders, religious
leaders, recognized “experts” are all often such trusted sources.
Figure 4.10 shows that faith-based groups, officials from barangay, and official from municipal are regarded by primary target audience the “mostly trustworthy” and “trustworthy”.. Ninety-five
percent of TA1 (AGCA Fishers) believe religious leaders to be “Most trustworthy” and ‘trustworhty in providing information about the environment. It also shows that 97% of TA3 (Non-AGCA
Fishers) believe appointed municipal officials to be “most trustworthy and trust worthy. More than 90%.of TA1 and TA2 cited municipal and barangay officials as another important source of
trusted environmental information. This level of trust of the primary target audience with officials (key influencers) is very important in management of AGCA Marine sanctuary to be more
effective and more sustainable.
It also appears that NSLC (2nd rank, above 90%) is one of the most trusted sources of environmental information for the LGU-Tinambac. This mean NSLC can work with LGU and influence them get
people talking about the behavior changes.
Figure 4.10 Trusted Sources of Information
Percentage
100
95
90
95
92 91
90 90
86
85
84
95 94 94
93
92
97
m-LGU
94
92
90
88
84
89
83
b-LGU
Religious
80
NGO
75
Bantay-dagat
TA1
TA2
TA3
Target Audience
TA4
Figure 4.11 Listernership
60
4.3 MEDIA PREFERENCE BY KEY SEGMENT
TA1
40
TA2
20
TA3
0
TA4
Listenership
Figure 4.11 presents the results of a cross tabulation of radio listenership by target audience, and illustrates over-all rating of
32% that says they listened to the radio. Less than 50% of the primary target audience said they never listened to the radio.
For those target audiences who says they listened, the preferred radio stations are DZRH and followed by Bombo radio.
When interviewed why they never listen to the radio, majority of the respondents says they preferred Television over Radio
to get outside information and as a means to entertain them. They say they use radio to get information in tracking typhoons
and get an update on what is happening in the province and nearby municipalities.
Other type of media program:
The other categories that came up here for this question allow the CF to think of the different ways which the CF could use
influencers for behavior change. Nearly 50% of TAs (over-all) repeated success documented stories on“ livelihoods”,
environment and health as the other type of media they like to listen and watch. TA’s fascination for audio-visual media is
leverage to introduce campaign message thorough Participatory Video Documentation for ManCom and and interactive
fiml showing to the primary audiences.
Figure 4.13 Behavior Change
Continuum for AGCA Fishers (N=
243)
100
80
60
40
20
0
82
91
83
25
4.4 Behaviour Continuum Question
Majority AGCA Fishers have a good understanding of the rules and regulation (82%, they believe that it is important to
follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary (91%) and claim that they no longer fish insider the core zone
(83%). Though only 25% said they have spoken to someboday about the consequence of breaking the AGCA rules and
regulations.
Based from this information, AGCA Fishers are assumed to be at the preparation to validation stage. More activities to
sitmulate interpersonal communication are needed.
Another behavior change is being considered the “reporting intrusion to the authorized mancom”. Result shows onky 29%
of AGCA Fishers and residents combined said they have heard someone reporting anyone breaking the sanctuary rules and
regulations.
4.5 BEHAVIOUR CHANGE, PRACTICES AND BARRIER REMOVAL
Research result indicates that more than half of the AGCA fishers say that they can still observed some poaching at night inside the core zone of the sanctuary. But when asked if they do
some fishing or gleaning inside the NTZ, 41% said used to fish inside the sanctuary and only 6.2% of the AGCA fishers confessed that they still fish inside the AGCA Sanctuary.
Result also shows that only 34% of AGCA fishers can say that there is 24/7 guarding of MPA and Only 39% knows the member of Man Com (whom they will report the intrusion).
Based from this information we can assume that the main behavior changes that we will be trying to achieve during this campaign include stop intrusion inside the AGCA Sanctuary and
reporting intrusion to the enforcement team. The barrier removal activities that need tobe prioritized are 24/7 guarding of MPA and strengthening thecapacity of Mancom to manage and
facilitate enforcement.
4.6 GROUND TRUTHING
70
FLAGSHIP SPECIES:
60
50
lobster
40
Lobster was number one choice by three target audiences (53% ) and it was followed by grouper (23%).
Napoleon
30
Grouper
20
Sweetlips
LOCAL AMBASSADOR:
10
0
TA1
TA2
TA3
TA4
The local chief executive of Tinambac is currently the best influencer and the best spokeperson for the campaign (78%) and he was
followed by the barangay captain (8%).
5. Understanding our audience
TA1 - PRIMARY AUDIENCE – FISHERS FROM AGAY-AYAN and CALOCO (data from quantitative and qualitative research conducted for this campaign.
What do we know about this
group?
AGCA Fishers are predominantly male (98%). 95% of the respondents are Catholic. 47% of respondents can say that their fish catch has improved.
Surveys showed they were in the preparation stage when it comes to the behavioral change continuum.
In the Diffusion theory of innovation this TA are at late majority. They are the people who will not adopt behavior change until most other members of the community have done so.
The pressure of peer is necessary to motivate them to adopt new behavior.
Knowledge
Majority of the AGCA fishers knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary (80%) its location (80%) and its rules and regulation (82%).
Attitude



Practice
The fishers have agood understanding of the rules and regulation, 91% of AGCA Fishers believe that it is important to follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary
72% of AGCA Fishers believe that it they have an important role in elimination illegal fishing activities in their barangay
67% said that they are willing to support in improving management of AGCA Marine sanctuary
Only 34% of AGCA fishers can say that 24/7 guarding of MPA is place and only 39% knows the member of Man Com (whom they will report the intrusion)
Research result indicates that more than half of the AGCA fishers say that they can still observed some poaching at night inside the core zone of the sanctuary. But when asked they
do some fishing or gleaning majority 41% said used to fish inside the sanctuary and only 6.2% of the AGCA fishers confessed that they still fish inside the AGCA Sanctuary.

69% of AGCA fishers said that they no longer fish/glean inside the AGCA Sanctuary in the past 6 months. When they were asked the same question (paraphrased), result
went up to 83%.

41% of AGCA Fishers says that they used to fish in the location of core zone before it was declared as marine sanctuary.
The main behavior changes and barrier removal activities that we will be trying to achieve during this campaign include stop intrusion inside the AGCA Sanctuary and reporting
intrusion to the enforcement team.
Trusted sources
Media sources
Any other relevant
information
Comments
Very respectful and highly trusting of religious leaders, as well municipal and barangay -LGU. Target population likes to hear news.
Little access to radio and yet preferred TV.
Preferred stations are “DZRH and Bombo Radyo,” preferred programming is news.



They will report if there is a good system that will act promptly and will protect them by remaining their identity anonymous. (good reporting system)
Fisher’s main concern is providing for their family. They would be willing not to intrude inside the sanctuary but there should be additional support to their
livelihoods.
According to the report gathered by Bantay-dagat, using 2000 as the baseline about 98% of the illegal fishers in the community were transformed, however, there were some
fishers who said that they will revert back to fishing if there is no appropriate enforcement.
TA2 - PRIMARY AUDIENCE – Local Community of barangay Agay-ayan and Caloco (data from quantitative and qualitative research conducted for this campaign.
What do we know
about this group?
The gender split of AGCA community is 37% male and 63% female.
94% of the respondents are Catholic.
Surveys showed they were in the preparation to validation stage when it comes to the behavioral change continuum.
Majoruty of the TA are at early majority. These are the group that the campaign needs the participation in meetings but they don’t have leadership position. These
TA are people who are careful but who accept more quickly than most others.
Knowledge
Majority of the AGCA Commumity knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary (60%) its location (48%) and its rules and regulation (72%).
Attitude



Practice
61% of AGCA community do not knows the member of Man Com (whom they will report the intrusion).
Only 18% of AGCA Community said they attended atleast 1 meeting in the past 6 months.
Trusted sources
Very respectful and highly trusting of religious leaders, as well municipal and barangay -LGU. Target population likes to hear news.
Media sources
Little access to radio and preferred TV.
Preferred stations are “DZRH and Bombo Radyo,” preferred programming is news.
Any other relevant
information
Community members seems not interested to talk about benefits of MPA (93%), discuss consequence of breaking the rules (92%) and communicate their role in
management (92%).
Comments
NSLC’s Previous survey showed (PCRA, 2005) majority of the community perceived and experienced impact of overfishing brought about
by frequent occurrence of dynamite fishing and encroachment of commercial fishers in municipal waters but only few talked about it and
majority did nothing to solve the problem. KAP Survey (2011) showed that 69% of AGCA Community said that they are willing to support
AGCA Sanctuary.
88% of AGCA community believe that it is important to follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary
62% of AGCA community believe that it they have an important role in elimination illegal fishing activities in their barangay
69% said that they are willing to support in improving management of AGCA Marine sanctuary
TA3 - SECONDARY AUDIENCE – Neigboring Fishers (Non-AGCA Fishers)
What do we know
about this group?
Like AGCA Fishers, these neighboring fishers are predominantly male (99%).
95% of the respondents are Catholic.
45% of respondents can say that their fish catch has improved.
Surveys showed they were in the preparation to validation stage when it comes to the behavioral change continuum.
In the Diffusion theory of innovation this TA are at early and late majority. These are the people who will not adopt behavior change until most other members of the community
have done so. The pressure of peer is necessary to motivate them to adopt new behavior.
Knowledge
Majority of the Non-AGCA Fisher knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary (84%) its location (67%) and its rules and regulation (95%).
Attitude



Practice
About 44% of Non-AGCA Fishers said that the location of AGCA Sanctuary was previously their fishing ground. Currently, 88% said that they no longer enter the
core zone and do some fishing inside AGCA Sanctuary.
Trusted sources
Very respectful and highly trusting of bantay-dagat (97%); Teachers (96%) and policemen (96%). Target audience likes to hear news and watch movies.
Media sources
Little access to radio but preferred TV.
Preferred stations are “DZRH, LOVE RADIO and BOMBO,” preferred programming are local music and local news.
Any other relevant
information
In Barangay San Antonio: NSLC, together with Bantay-dagat conducted basic ecology workshop and values-led leadership training. In Barangay San Pag-asa, two
fisher were imprisoned last year for using dynamite in fishing.
Comments
Survey Results on K, A and BC for Non-AGCA Fishers are relatively higher compared to AGCA. These maybe attributed to strong enforcement of AGCA Bantay-dagat
in Barangay Pag-asa and influence of AGCA Bantay-Dagat in San Antonio.
99% of Non-AGCA Fishers believe that it is important to follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary
60% of Non-AGCA Fishers believe that it they have an important role in elimination illegal fishing activities in their barangay
94% said that they are willing to support in improving management of AGCA Marine sanctuary and would be willing to help in establishing new MPA in their
community.
TA 4 – SECONDARY AUDIENCE – LGU-Tinambac
What do we know about
this group?
Surveys showed they were in the pre-contemplation stage of behavior continuum. It is very important to know their needs and motivations. This TA is vital in
sustaining the impact of campaign goals.
Knowledge
Among 53 repondents, only 15% knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary and its location.
Attitude



94% of 53 respondents believe that it is important to follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary
100% of 53 respondents agree and strongly agree that that they have an important role in elimination illegal fishing activities in their barangay
96% said that they are willing to support in improving management of AGCA Marine sanctuary
Practice
36% of 53 repondents said that they have attended atleast 1 meeting regarding AGCA Sanctuary.
30% of 53 respondents said that they have heard someone anyone reporting someone breaking AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations.
Trusted sources
Very respectful and highly trusting of municipal officials (93%) and NSLC (91%).
Little access to radio and preferred TV.
Preferred stations are “DZRH. LOVE RADIO, and Bombo Radyo,” preferred programming is local news and local music.
LGU executive and legislative branch are supportive of AGCA Sanctuary. The local chief excutive has appointed more than 3 fish wardens for every coastal barangay
of Tinambac.
Media sources
Any other relevant
information
Comments
These TA are key influencers to the primary audiences of the campaign. Their participation and active involvement in data gathering and social marketing campaign
are key to the success of the Pride Campaign and in sustaining its impact.
C. AGCA MPA Governance and Management plan (BROP)
1. Abstract
The AGCA Marine Sanctuary has been established over 5 years now through the Municipal Ordinance No. 05 Series of 2006. This ordinance describes rules and
regulations in the inside the core zone and the buffer zone, penalties per violation, definition of boundaries, and a management body designated to oversee and
perform day to day activities. The sanctuary was established through a collaborative effort of the local fishers and barangay councils of barangays Agay-ayan and
Caloco, with support from Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts, Inc (NSLC). The purpose of setting up the sanctuary is to conserve marine biodiversity and
to improve fish catch of fishers. The name AGCA was coined from the first two letter of the words Agay-ayan and Caloco. This name was chosen by the local
leaders and barangay officials of the two barangays during the drafting of the joint barangay resolution requesting for the creation/establishment of marine
protected area in both barangays.
The management performance of AGCA Marine Sanctuary was rated “PASSING” based on recent MPA rating and is still at level “1” [initiated]. It has a functional
management body called AGCA Resource Management Council comprising the Technical Working Group (TWG) and Management Committee (ManCom). Level of
community participation is high but it failed to draft a management plan that is adopted though a municipal ordinance. The management body acknowledged this
rating during the organizational development workshops. This high rating of community participation can be attributed to the presence and sustained IEC
activities of NSLC; active enforcement by local fish wardens; financial and logistic support from the mayor; and the perceived improvement in income by fishers
and seaweed farmers (PCRA).This strong community support to the sanctuary resulted to decreasing intrusion inside the sanctuary, from 2000 incidents/year
down to 32 incidents/year [PCRA].
Result of the KAP survey confirmed this high level of community participation as shown in the level of awareness and positive attitude of the majority of
community residents towards the protection of AGCA Sanctuary and conservation of marine resource. Biophysical monitoring of sanctuary by MERF revealed that
live hard corals cover is in fair condition ( 29%) and predominated by dead coral with algae (___%) and rubble (___%), indicative that the reefs are already
recovering from excessive mechanical damage to corals. Fish communities are at 259 individuals/500 m2 with 12.2 MT/Km2 as biomass. This can be explained by
extractive practices inside the core zone by compressor and net fishing before the sanctuary was fully protected. Overall, overfishing and sustained enforcement
is one of the pressing the issues in the community.The diagnostic process [PCRA, MPA rating, OD]- had been instrumental in identifying such issues thereby used
as basis in crafting this MPA Governance and Management Plan to improve governance, enforcement and more community buy-in. This MPA-GMP will be carried
out by the MPA Management Body [TWG and ManCom] within the timeframe June 2011-June 2012 and will be assessed regularly during meetings. This MPA-
GMP will be supported by funding opportunities from various sources such as the Municipal CRM budget, Line Agencies, NGOs and Small Grants from local
organizations.
2. 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.
This AGCA 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.
3. 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
MAP OF AGCA (insert)
4. Tools
There were three participatory assessment methods used to assess current status of fisheries, management performance and community knowledge and
practices, namely, Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA), TWG and ManCom OD and planning workshops and 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.
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 April 26,2011 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. PCRA
a. FGD on enforcement
Since the establishment of AGCA Marine Sanctuary on 2006, there were reported about 100 violations. Of these, 90 were merely sightings and testimonies by
local Fisherfolk and community. Since then, intrusion to core zone using compressor fishing, cyanide and fish nets by fishers coming from neighboring towns
and barangays were the most common violation committed.
Table 1 and 2 shows a decreasing trend in number of sightings, from 420-2000 incidents per year down to <20/year. Accounts of violations was recorded since
2010, two years after the deputation of Bantay-dagat. Form of fishing, number and provenance of intruders, and time of day or occasion as when and where
the incident took place were recorded in the logbook.
Gaps that were identified are improvement in the enforcement logistics, increase support from LGU, building the capacity of the enforcement team to
practice the whole enforcement continuum.
MPA History and form of infringement (Core Zone 1)
Year
Number of
Types/forms of infringement/gears
infringement
used
2005
420/yr
RA 8550/ commercial fishers intruding
inside the sanctuary
2006
2007
2008
120/yr
45
33
2009
3 + (58 others)
2010
4 + (36 others)
2011
10
Intrusion inside the sanctuary
Intrusion inside the sanctuary
Spearfishing, compressor fishing, gill
net fishing inside the sanctuary
Dynamite fishing and galadgad inside
the municipal water
Dynamite fishing inside the municipal
water
Use of galadgad inside the municipal
water
Intruders (from where, who,
age group)- 20 to 60
Caloco and San Antonio,
Camarines Norte,
Quezon
Apad, Caloco
San Antonio and Caloco
Bocogan, Lagonoy
Course/s of action taken
(apprehension, affidavit
writing, litigation,
imprisonment)
none
warning
Pagmulta
Macurag Pag-asa;
Apad Caloco
Bucan/Isabel
Agay-ayan
Pagmulta
imprisonment
Monitoring
Forms of
incentives/disincentives
none
none
none
none
Honorarium; uniform,
insurance
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
Number of
infringement
2000/yr
200
20
10
MPA History and form of infringement (Core Zone 2)
Types/forms of
Intruders (from where, who, age
Course/s of action taken
infringement/gears used
group)
(apprehension, affidavit
writing, litigation,
imprisonment)
R.A. 8550Use of dynamit (age 30+),
None
Use of destructive fishing vessels
compressor (age 18-50) and spear
and gear
fishing (age 15 to 50) inside the
sanctuary.
sodium (age 15+).
Buli-buli
Forms of
incentives/disincentives
None
(AGCA Fishers Non-AGCA Fishers)
2009
61
2010
39
2011
First Q- 0
Second Q- 2
Dynamite, galadgad, buli-buli
(Non-AGCA Fishers)
Intrusion inside the sanctuary
Compressor (night time)
Warning
Blotter, imprisonment.
Warning
unknown
Honorarium
Uniform
Insurance
b. FGD on MPA Management History [use formative research results during pre 1 st university phase]
History management of AGCA Sanctuary in two barangays can be jointly discussed for it started through a joint resolution requesting for the establishment of a
marine protected area in Tinambac. Few individuals ( about 15 persons) from the village started that action and are they are still active today. The first
environmental education started on 2003 facilitated by then PAMANA KA sa Pilipinas- a network of community-based MPA managers in the Philippines.
The MPA management that was set up at start used a bottom-up approach. It starts where the people are and build on with what they have, their level of
knowledge and understanding. The facilitation process done by NSLC makes it sure that the local community has the ownership of the process and is willing to
take the responsibility of continuing the conservation action. It is a slow process of creating change in community, taking into considerations that the process is
more participatory, inclusive, holistic, empowering, and can be replicated to other areas. KAP survey results show AGCA Fishers and AGCA community has high
level of knowledge (82%), attitude (91%) and practices (69%). Level of behavior change is quite high. For this campaign, sustaining mechanisms and infrastructure
are needed to sustain and have a lasting impact to the community. Based from the MPA effectiveness rating result, gaps that were Identified are- improve
coordination among enforcement system, conduct of regular monitoring and evaluation, and have a good management plan that is adopted through municipal
ordinance.
YEAR(S)
PROJECT or EVENT
GOALS
RESPONSIBLE
IMPLEMENTING
PARTY
-kap Yanan
-NSLC
2003
First Orientation
coastal recourse
management
Give orientation on
how to good fish
harvest will recover.
20042005
Educational tour/
seminar (QUEZON)
Exposure
NSLC, INC
2006
Approved municipal
ordinance
-public hearing
Protect two- 25
hectares marine
sanctuary
-Municipal LGU
Barangay
-PO
- NGO
OUTCOME
-awareness about
coastal resource
management
-plan to establish a
marine sanctuary in
barnagay
Reduction in illegal
fishing activities
PUBLIC PERCEPTION of PROJECT or
EVENT
NOTES
-They thought its okay to cut the
mangroves- for it doest have a purpose or
they cannot gain any benefit from it
- They thought supply of fish is infinite
and monetary value wont change
They see there still hope that fish
population will recover
Improved awareness
on conservation
-there were many community residents
not supportive (but not rejecting or
opposing) only 15 pax started
-Now, 95% of community members
-according to some
they will become
poorer if the fish will
be gone
YEAR(S)
PROJECT or EVENT
2007
 Deputation of
bantay-dagat
 Installation of
buoys and markers
2009
Strengthen bantay
dagat-some were
given homorarium
2010
Additional member
of law enforcement
team: bantay-dagat,
bantay-baybayon,
bantay-bakawan
trained and
deputized in every
coastal barangay in
Tinambac
GOALS
RESPONSIBLE
IMPLEMENTING
PARTY
OUTCOME
PUBLIC PERCEPTION of PROJECT or
EVENT
NOTES
understand the importance of sanctuary
-according to some illegal fishers they will
stop if somebody will enforce the law
-bantay-dagat on their patrol boat and
uniform become deterrent
-20 bantay-dagat
volunteers started
without
incentive/honorarium
-Municipal LGU
 Guard the
Barangay
sanctuary
-PO
 Protect the
- NGO
sanctuary
-BFAR
-penalized the
-bantay-dagat
violators so that they -Barangay-LGU
wont do it again
Reduction in number
of dynamite fishers
and buli-boli
-AGCA sanctuary
intrusion almost
gone
Buoys were gone during the typhoons but
a habit had already been instilled to the
fisher. Majority no longer fish inside the
sanctuary. In return, good harvest of
hairtail fish and seaweeds.
Protect the habitat
of fish
-more people
involved in
conservation and
more people
participate in
protecting AGCA
Sanctuary
-only 1 illegal fisher
left
-According to converted illegal fisher
there were fusilier inside the sanctuary
that is very attractive to the dynamite of
fishers. One blast could give them a
harvest of about 150kg of fish
-mangrove deforestation was stop,
community started to plan and
rehabilitate mangrove
-change is hard at the initial stage, now
we are reaping the benefits.
Strengthen
enforcement system
LGUbarangay/municipal
NGO
BFAR/DENR/PA
PNP
People start talking
about the guarding of
sanctuary and
eliminating
destructive fishing
methods
-Barangay tanod now
is involve in guradin
the sanctuary
-some of the
community residents
are reporting
intrusion
c. Threats and management challenges of the MPA
Table _._
Hard enforcement
1. Commercial fishing operation inside
Municipal water
2. Absence of enforcement team /
bantay dagat
3. Use of cyanide and compressor
fishing
4. Dynamite fishing operations
Soft enforcement
1. Lack maintenance plan for marker
buoys
2. Lack of communication facilities–
handheld radio / cell phone
3. Lack pumpboat and maintenance plan
4. Lack of guardhouse and maintenance
plan
Management Body
1. Coordination among members
2. Lack of understanding on roles and
functions
3. Some barangay officials own
compressor
4. Budget during meetings and community
activites
2. Marine Protected Area Effectiveness Rating
The MPA rating for AGCA Sanctuary was level 1 though it had been established since 5 years now. This rating is better understood in the organizational
development principles which include the management focus such as the absence management plan, management body, poor legal support and instrumentation,
poor community participation, lack of financing, IEC, M and E, and maintenance of infrastructure and site development. Please refer to Table _._ for complete
scores.
Management Focus
Management Plan
Management Body
Legal Instrument and support
Community Participation
Financing
IEC
Enforcement
Monitoring and evaluation
Maintenance of infrastructure and
site development
Relevant indicators
4, 10, 27, 38, 39
5, 11, 20, 29,32, 40
6, 9, 37, 41
1, 3, 8
12, 19, 28, 35, 49
7, 14, 23, 44, 45, 46
13, 15, 21, 25, 26, 30,
36
2, 18, 24, 33, 34, 42, 43
16, 17, 22, 31, 47, 48
Total Available
points
9
10
6
7
7
12
Actual Score
per
Management
Focus
1
4
4
7
5
5
Actual Score divided
by Total Available
Points
11.1%
40.0%
66.7%
100.0%
71.4%
41.7%
19
10
9
3
52.6%
33.3%
6
4
66.7%
85
3. TWG and ManCom VM and composition, EO reference [discuss separately]1. AGCA resource management council
AGCA Resource Management Council comprised the following management bodies- TWG (policy making body and the Management Committee
9implementing body). The creation of management council is stated in the municipal ordinance providing for the creation of AGCA Marine Sanctuary.
TWG was organized in 2010 with Executive Order No. 5. This group is composed of department heads, line agencies, NGO representatives and sectoral
representatives. Its main function is on governance aspect while the management committeewill act as the oversight committee on the MPA management
body. In particular, they will discuss issues and provide updates to the bigger public and to generate reactions and thoughts coming from a community
with a wider sectoral representation.
It was only this year [2011] when they were reconvened and reconstituted to oversee MPA management with the assistance of the RARE Representative
Office Philippines, Inc. They were reconvened by reviewing the ordinance through personal discussion with every member who have shown interest in the
RARE Pride Campaign. A meeting was then held to review their functions and roles and renew their commitment via a signature. Since, the start of the
RARE Pride process, coordination among ExeCom members have been showing very active support through attendance of meetings, providing logistics for
diagnostic activities and providing finances to make a series of activities possible
RESULT OF MANCOM AND TWG FGD
Table_._. Technical Working Group Composition
Name
Office and Position
Hon. Ruel T. Velarde
Local Chief Executive- Chairman
Diego Bayonito
LGU-MPDC
Jogie Sagales
SB-Agriculture and Fisheries
Contact
09292922326
lgu_tunambac@yahoo.com
09216521378
Municipal Kagawad. Franco Alvarez
SB Committee on Fisheries-
n/a
Municipal Kagawad Ramon Ilano
SB Committee on Environment-
n/a
Engr. Reynaldo Rivera
Municipal Agriculturist Office-
n/a
Mr. Juan Refugio
Chairman of MFARMC
n/a
Mr. Igmedio Dianela
Chairman of BFARMC Agay-ayan-
09084523320
Responsibilities
Lead the execution of the plans
Support
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Implement management plan
Mr. Eli Tatel
Chairman of BFARMC Caloco-
09108604527
Implement management plan
09094596263
09205684730
Implement enforcement plan
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Mr. Pio Bernal And/or Ms. Rose Samson
Department of Environment and Natural Resources- 09285216862
CENRO –
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
PSI Danilo Bagacina and/or his
Municipal Police Office-
Policy making-technical
Representative Deputized Fish Warden
Mr. Roberto Refugio
Santiago Noblefranca and/or Mr. Joel Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesBalasta
0542558033
representative
1st Lt.Dion Eliot and/or his representative
Philippine Army-
09084961141
Mr. Fernando Gervacio and/or his
representative
Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts Inc
09393632480
Mr. Charlie Balagtas and/or his
representative
Jack Tolentino
Partido District Administration-
09228436258
Provincial Capitol- Camarines Sur (EDMERO)
09207016507
Flor Abiog
Partido State University, Professor
n/a
assistance on MPA monitoring
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Assist the PO and Deputized
Bantay-dagat in managing AGCA
Marine Sanctuary
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
Policy making-technical
assistance on MPA monitoring
TWG ACTION PLAN (excerpt from the result of the twg workshop last December 8, 2011)
COMMITMENT FROM TWG MEMBERS
BFAR
LGU





IEC campaign as resource person
Provide technical assistance upon request
Assistance in drafting fishery ordinances
Livelihood support e.g fish paraphernalia
IEC materials, posters, video

Provide incentive to bantay-dagat, bantaybaybayon, bantay bakhawan
Support to unified fishery ordinances
Guardhouse
Livelihood support



DENR



Use of speedboat for patrolling and monitoring of
AGCA
Provide technical assistance in mangrove
reforestation and protection
Assist in pawikan monitoring and protection
Philippine Army


Task-force composed of 9 pax in enforcement operation
Coordinate with B- LGU and M LGU
NGO




















Community Organizing and Development
Social marketing campaign
Technical assistance- Research
GPS
Binocular
Training Center
2 sets of SCUBA gears
Mask and snorkel
Manta board
Coordination and networking among partners
Fundraising
Assist in patrolling
Install of boya
Assist in MPA monitoring
Assist in IEC
Assist in Unified Fisheries Ordinance
Resource/Fundraising
IEC support
Assist Fishery laws anytime
Task-force composed of 7 pax in enforcement operation
PO
PDA
PNP
2. Management Committee
The MPA Management Committee was legitimized by E.O. No. ? in 2011, five years after the protected area establishment. The committee underwent a series of
trainings in enforcement, monitoring and organizational development since then. They are very active in setting up marker buoys and signages. However, during
the northeast monsoon season [strong winds and wave action], those markers and buoys were impacted. They need to install markey buoys every year. ManCom
was organized to strenthen the MPA management. Below is a matrix showing the committees, lead persons, and functions. This committee will be supported by
another EO which is in progress for signing by the chief executive.
Table _._. AGCA Management Committee Composition and Functions
Committes
Lead person
Members
Enforcement [patrol]
Jogie Sagales
 Agay-ayan: bantay dagat
[Municipal MC]
 Caloco Bantay-dagat
 Members of SAMACA
Berting Refugio
and MFA (PO)
[Barangay MC]
Research and
Documentation
Committee
Diego Bayonito
[Municipal MC]
Eli Tatel
[Barangay MC]
5. Action Plan
 Felecito delos Santos
 Liezel Icarro
 Members of SAMACA
and MFA (PO)
 Members of TWG
Functions
[1] guard the sanctuary 24/7
[2] maintain the patrol boat and equipments
[3] Update the logbook
[4] install and maintain buoys and markers
[1] Daily fish catch monitoring
[2] Reef monitoring and fish visual census
[3] Facilitating meetings and seminars
[4] documenting meetings and seminars
[This are the activities that resulted out of your MPA effectiveness rating action planning workshop and TWG and ManCom planning workshops. Timeline
should follow the campaign life. You may include other strategies and activities from existing MPA plans and other meetings relevant to governance and
enforcement.
The MPA action plan was drafted during the MPA Effectiveness Rating held on May 26, 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 Objective
Specific Activity
Persons
responsible
Timeframe
- May 9 to
Management
Plan [11.1%]
□ l2/10
Managemen Plan
adopted and
legitimized by the
LGU
Management
Body (40%)
□L3/20
Management Body
Active and
supported by legal
instrument
(MANCOM EO)
Legal
instrumenyt
*83%)
Effective
coordination with
appropriate
national & local
agencies on
CRM/MPA policies
and with other
By July 2012, drafted
AGCA Sanctuary
Management plan
and have it adopted
through municipal
ordinance.
By July 2012, to
legalized Mc and
have them fully
functional to attain
level 3 MPA
management
effectiveness level.
By July 2012, AGCA
Marine Sanctuary
Ordinance have been
reviewed and
ammended to
include San Antonio
and other pertinent
- Cathy
craft plan
MO, include in public
consultation
(done)
□ Have the Mayor
sign the EO
□ review and
amendment of MO
□Reflect OMA in MO
structure
□Expand MPA to
include San Antonio
□Coordination on
consultation Kgd Alvarez,
Jogie Sagales,
MPDC
Kgd Alvarez
and Jogie
Sagales
Kgd Alvarez
and Jogie
Sagales
11
Budget
15,000.00
- June 3
consultations
- from
- 5,000.00
last week of June to
be moved on the
Meeting next TWG Meeting 2,000.00
□'June 2011
□ Meals and
transpo5000.
00
□ starting June
2011
Trasnporatioj
n and
coordination
cost=
10,000.00
Source of
budget
, NSLC,
PO,
municipal
and
Barangay
LGU
PO,
municipal
and
Barangay
LGU
PO,
municipal
and
Barangay
LGU
Support needed
Guide on the
process of
facilitating the
drafting of AGCA
Management
Plan.
Approval from
TWG and Local
Chief Executive
advice fromTWG
and approcal by
local chief
executive
LGUs achieved;
accountabilities
and working
relationships
among
collaborating
institutions clearly
defined and
formalized
Community
participation
(100%)
Financing
(55.6%)
provisions.
maintain
By July 2012, % AGCA
community are
involve in sanctuary
governance and
enforcement from
18% to 50% (increase
by 32pp)
L5/46 MPA
emphasizes on
public education
and is being used
as a study tour site,
residents advocate
for MPAs
By 2012, have
secured finances to
be used in
implementing AGCA
management plan
through adoption of
user's fee system and
penalties
incorporated through
an municipal
ordinance; applying
for a grant and other
means.
implementation and
resolution
particularly of issues
that transcend local
boundaries including
MPA networking with
other MPAs etc.
Participate in
Festivals and Fiesta in
□conduct of mancom
PO/barangay
meeting in the
officials, agaybarangay
□
ayan, NSLC
inlcusion of incentive
and disincentive
system in the plan
consultationment
□Review of m
unicipal ordinance
□Ammendment of
municipal ordinance
imposing fines and
permit systems to
generate additional
income
□ Proposal writing
and submission
Kagawad
Alvares, Jogiea
Sagales, cathy
demesa,
municipal
budget officer
Fiesta datesTinambac (May
2012)
Tamban May 18-19
Maslog May 22
Agay-ayan- August
15
Caloco- Augsut 17
general
assembly:
(2x/year)
=15,000.00
incentives to
encourage
comm unity
to report=
50,000/00
June 5- IUCN
deadline; June 30GIZ deadlinen,
October -planning.
July- August ammendment of
AGCA Ordinance
ordinance
10,000.00workshops
and
writeshop
intend to
ammend
sanctuary
ordinance
advice fromTWG
C/o barangay and approcal by
NSLC
local chief
executive
PO,
municipal
and
Barangay
LGU
advice fromTWG
and approcal by
local chief
executive
IEC (91.7%)
Enforcement
(52.6%)
Updated long-term
IEC/social
marketing plan
□L3/25Collaborativ
e Patrolling- PNP,
Surveillance, Fish
Wardens □L3/25
Fishing inside MPA
stopeed□ L3/26
Illegal Fishing
outside of MPA
reduced
by July 2012, >80% of
AGCA fishers and
AGCA community are
aware of AGCA
sanctuary rules and
regulations and
would be able to
name atleast 1
benefit of having a
srictly enforced and
managed sanctuary.
□ designqExpand
beyond community
level
□Involve PDA and
provl govt support to
MPA management
(done)
□ audience profiling
and social marketing
planninKAP survey
will inform IEC/SM
□crafting of
messages and
campaign material
□ video production
Cathy and
enumerators/
MC
By July 2012, fishery
law enforcement
team with legal basis
and functioning
effectively as
manifested by
reduction of
poaching inside the
AGCA Sanctuary.
□Training of second
line bantay dagat
volunteers (done)
and third line bantaydagat volunteers
□deputization of
bantay-dagat with
complete accessories
such as uniform,
enforcement
manuals and IDs
□bantay dagat
meetiing and
enforcment team
meetings
Formation of
second line bantayJogie Sagales
dagat volunteers:
and othe staff June-December
from OMA;
2011
BFAR trainers; Formation of 3rd
other paralegal line bantay-dagat
partners
volunters: January
to June 2012
Meeting
June-July 2011research analysis
and crafting of
messages
Ocotber- start
launching of
campign
350,000.00
campaign
materials
including but
not limited to
posters,
billboards,
signages,
pins, shirts,
ect.
1,000,000.00
videodocume
ntary
(production
and
distribution)
C,
PO,
municipal
and
Barangay
LGU
venue is c/o
the barangay
council
IUCN-NL,
seminar/traini
NSLC and
ng @ 150.00
LGU
per day/paxn
(15-20 pax
per session)
advice fromTWG
and approcal by
local chief
executive
advice fromTWG
and approcal by
local chief
executive
M and E
(33.3%)
Maintenance
of
Infrastructure
and site
development
(66.7%)
□Conduct MEAT next
year
By july 2012, AGCA
□Conduct of survey
Marine Santuary has
by MERF (baseline
regular bio-physical
□ L3/24 Regular
done)
and socio-economic
participatory bio□Strengthening of
monitoring and
physical monitoring
local researchers
documentation
capable of doing
conducted by MERf
MPA monitoring
and by local partners.
(seminars and
training, study tour)
□L3/22 MPA
structures
maintained
By November 2011,
guardhouse and
patrol boat in place
and functioning.
□Follow up with
mayor regarding the
construction of the
new guard house
□Follow up barangay
captain regarding
new/repair of patrol
boat
□Formulate and
establish
maintenance plan
Cathy and
enumerators/
MC
August 2011 to July
2012
□ Capacity
building:
200,000.00
□ Research by
Community
including KAP
survey (post
campign
survey):
100,000.00
Kgd Noel
Teope
Jogie Sagales
Soonest possible
time (due: August
2011)
□Guardhouse:
300,000.00
□ Patrol boat:
60,000.00
Monitoring
Progress of the BR implementation strategy will be measured against the specific SMART objectives outlined in the action table above.
TinambacLGU and
Rare
Technical
Assistance
Municipal
and
barangay
LGU
Additional
logistic support
from TWG
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 achieve level 3 “Enforced” by June 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 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
The monitoring plan is to be completed in a dedicated excel spreadsheet. Once it is complete you can paste extracts of the campaign SMART objectives and TR and
CR goals here.
Below the KAP section of the monitoring plan
E. WORK PLAN WITH BUDGET
The specific activities and budget for the campaign are outlines in a separate excel spreadsheet.
Once it is complete you can insert a brief reference to it here listing some of the key activities and the total budget.
F. ENDORSEMENT OF THIS PLAN
This plan has been shared with and endorsed by the Technical Working Committee and Management Committee of the XXX MPA It was also shared with key
stakeholders XXX as well as with those interviewed during the directed conversations. Throughout the planning process new ideas and recommendations have
been incorporated and revisions made, to the extent that this plan has now been approved by all critical partners including the Mayor of XXX, the LAP supervisor
XXX and Rare. The plan will be posted on RarePlanet, which will continue to be used for information sharing and periodic updates: www.rareplanet.org (insert
link to your campaign milestones page).
This plan has been read and approved by
Please insert Name- title & signature & date
Please insert Name- title & signature & date
Please insert Name- title & signature & date
G. References and Acknowledgements
References
Insert a list of all literature consulted & referenced in the plan
Example:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of the Department of Agriculture, and Department of the Interior
and Local Government. 2001. Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook No. 2: Legal and Jurisdictional Framework for Coastal Management. Coastal Resource
Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Cebu City, Philippines, 170p.
Ibon Foundation. 2002. Ibon Philippines Profile, Region V Bicol Region. Ibon Foundation Databank and research Center. Manila, Philippines, 158p.
Rare. 2010. Rare Pride Leadership Development Program. Module 1 Section 11: Introduction to the Site Summary. Pp. 169-203.
Spiny Lobster. Biology and Behaviour. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiny_lobster.
Tinambac Coastal Profile. 2000. Fisheries Resource Management Project.
Tinambac Municipal Profile. 2003. Tinambac Municipal Planning and Development Office.
Acknowledgements
Insert a brief note acknowledging and thanking all those who helped you produce this plan.
H. APPENDICES
1. Fisheries profile
Refer to fisheries profile template for this, insert only those sections that you have done through your PCRA
Fisheries Profile
FGD on MPA Enforcement (municipal ordinance can go to annex)
MPA History and form of infringement (Core Zone 1)
Year
Number of
infringement
Types/forms of infringement/gears used
2005
420/yr
RA 8550/ commercial fishers intruding inside
the sanctuary
2006
2007
2008
120/yr
45
33
2009
3 + (58 others)
2010
4 + (36 others)
Intrusion inside the sanctuary
Intrusion inside the sanctuary
Spearfishing, compressor fishing, gill net
fishing inside the sanctuary
Dynamite fishing and galadgad inside the
municipal water
Dynamite fishing inside the municipal water
2011
10
Use of galadgad inside the municipal water
Intruders (from where, who,
age group)- 20 to 60
Caloco and San Antonio,
Camarines Norte,
Quezon
Apad, Caloco
San Antonio and Caloco
Bocogan, Lagonoy
Course/s of action taken
(apprehension, affidavit
writing, litigation,
imprisonment)
none
warning
Pagmulta
Macurag Pag-asa;
Apad Caloco
Bucan/Isabel
Agay-ayan
Pagmulta
imprisonment
Monitoring
Forms of
incentives/disincentives
none
none
none
none
Honorarium; uniform,
insurance
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
MPA History and form of infringement (Core Zone 2)
Types/forms of infringement/gears
Intruders (from where, who, age
Course/s of action taken
used
group)
(apprehension, affidavit
writing, litigation,
imprisonment)
R.A. 8550Use of dynamit (age 30+),
None
Use of destructive fishing vessels and
compressor (age 18-50) and spear
gear
fishing (age 15 to 50) inside the
sanctuary.
sodium (age 15+).
Buli-buli
Number of
infringement
2000/yr
200
20
10
Forms of
incentives/disincentives
None
(AGCA Fishers Non-AGCA Fishers)
2009
61
2010
39
2011
First Q- 0
Second Q- 2
Structures in
place/Logistics
present
1. Guardhouse/rest
house
2. Patrol Boat
3. Logbook
Dynamite, galadgad, buli-buli
(Non-AGCA Fishers)
Intrusion inside the sanctuary
Number
Blotter, imprisonment.
Warning
unknown
Compressor (night time)
Template: Enforcement structures and logistics and conditions
Condition/status
Use/number of users
Warning
Caretaker
1
functioning
Everybody from community
Refugio Family
2
Needs repair
2-5
3
functioning
1-3/logbook
For Caloco- repair c/o Capitan Levi
For Agay-ayan- needs new banca c/o Capitan Dick
and Mayor
For Caloco- BFARMC Eli Tatel
Honorarium
Uniform
Insurance
1.
4. Telescope
2
functioning
1-3
5. Camera
6. Bahay
pulungan/training
hall
7. Gasoline
1
2
Needs repair
functioning
1
5-30
-
Needs follow-up
1-3
For Agay0ayan- Bantay-baybayon
For Caloco- BFARMC Eli Tatel
For Agay-ayan- Berting Refugio
Needs reapir- c/0 Dante Solo
Jun Dianel
Capitan Levi
Barangay Council
FGD on MPA History and folklore
Fishing Practices in Your Community
THEN
1940-1960
Pana
Trawl (from Calabanga)
Banwit
Sinsoro
Kolorato
Bomba (lata/bote)
Tubli (p)
Pagsihi
Bayhate (p)
NOW
What were the different types of fishing gear?
1970-2000
Banwit
Sodium
Banwit
Lambat
Trawl
Pangki
Basing
Palutang
Bobo
Pangki
Kitang (long-line)
basing sa laot
Bigas-bigas Pagisihi
boli-boli
Compressor Gulaman
Sodium sa isda
Buli-buli
dinamita sa laot
Skin diving
compressor
Dinamita (1968)
How many species of fish were caught?
80 kinds
80 kinds
What was the volume of fish caught?
Maximum=30kls
Minimum-20kls
3-5 kls/fishing trip
PANA: 50 pcs X 5 kg/day
1 pc mamsa =20kg/pc
I pc baraca= 10kg/pc
PAWIKAN= 50KG/PC
PAGI= 70KG/PC
BANAGAN= 20 KG/TRIP
1970=PANA- 5 PCS x3 KG/DAY
1979= BANWIT 5PCS x8-12
KG/NIGHT
MANO MANO = Php 800
What was the amount of time spent versus the amount of fish caught?
20 kg/4hrs
15 kg/12 hrs
10 kg/12 hrs
6-8hrs/trip
3 kg/12 hrs
15/6 hrs
3-6hrs/trip
What were the large species present?
Mamsa,(1pcs=12kls)
Malasugi
Tanique
Pating
Lapu-lapu
Pagi
Duyong
Pawikan
Butanding
Sandig-(1pc=1kl)
What was the status of the habitats (corals, mangroves, sea grass, etc.)?
Puti na…. 50% brown na
Before the habitats are in good condition
Buo-buo,maganda at malalago;
Bakawan,bahura at damong dagat walang
bawas. Iba iba pang color
BAKAWAN: DBH- 2 tao
60 hectares
Day and night
Nilalako binibinta sa barangay at tamban
Sira-sira na
Bakawan-kalbo na (30has na lang) 70% sira na.
Coral and sea grass=paubos na 70%buhay
10% nagrecover na
4 has of seagrass gone/silted
DBH- a tabay-tabay na lang
16+12+ 8?18 ha
3/40 ha
What times did fishing take place (night/day)?
Day and night
How was fish transported and stored?
Bibibinta,lako sa barangay at sa tamban
Fisher ---fish trader (barangay)---tambang ( then Malabon) or Naga/Mercedes
What were the illegal fishing activities?
Kolorato
Sinsoro
Tubli
bayhati
Compressor, boli-boli/zipper net, dynamite,
cyanide fishing
What are some of the changes in the ways that fishermen work together?
Ngayon hindi na ipamimigay dahil mahal na ang gasoline at ang mga bilihin.
Nakakapangisda sa laot noon
-mura ang gasoline
-marami isda,ipinamimigay sa kapitbahay
Kanya-kanya… may amo na natabang
How did fishers spend their free time?
Abala pa rin sa pagpapanday panday ng bahay
Nasa babol
Tulog lang pahinga
Marami ang pinalalaking anak kaya walang nasasayang na oras.
Sideline-pagsasaka/pagkokopra.
Nacopra
Inom
Turog
Radyo
What are some of the values of the fishers?
Pag-aaruga sa pamilya,magaan ang loob sa pagbibigay ng donasyon kung
Nag-aaruga nalang ng mga apo.
mayroong okasyon fiesta,pabinyag/patay.
Ssaka paghumihingi donasyon,kapag may pera
magbibigay kung wala hindi mapipilit na magbigay
-dahil sagana,walang taguan/inggitan
ng donasyon.
What are some of the values of the community?
Fiesta = naghahanda at nagpapakain sa mga bisita,nagpapainum at
nagkakantahan.
Fiesta,inuman at kanya kanya pambili ng inumin.
May damayan at tulongan
Mayo pakiARAM
Aktibo na ang barangay sa mga
Dae nag-iisip kan masunod na panahon
okasyon,namumulat na ang kabataan,tsismesan
Resources are infinite
kahit nasa loob ng simbahan.
Puro hanap buhay lamang
Mayo pangarap\
May pagmakulog na
Ubos-ubos
Restoring the resources
Dikit palang ang aram
Proteckta kan dagat
May pangarap na (own house, education)
Preparaing for next generation
May asosasyon na ang mga parasira
May koordinasyon
May bantay-dagat
May nagrereport na sa awtoridad
YEAR(S)
PROJECT or EVENT
GOALS
RESPONSIBLE
IMPLEMENTING
PARTY
-kap Yanan
-NSLC
2003
First Orientation
coastal recourse
management
Give orientation on
how to good fish
harvest will recover.
20042005
Educational tour/
seminar (QUEZON)
Exposure
NSLC, INC
2006
Approved municipal
ordinance
-public hearing
Protect two- 25
hectares marine
sanctuary
-Municipal LGU
Barangay
-PO
- NGO
2007
 Deputation of
bantay-dagat
 Installation of
buoys and markers
 Guard the
sanctuary
 Protect the
sanctuary
2009
Strengthen bantay
dagat-some were
given homorarium
2010
Additional member
of law enforcement
team: bantay-dagat,
bantay-baybayon,
OUTCOME
-awareness about
coastal resource
management
-plan to establish a
marine sanctuary in
barnagay
Reduction in illegal
fishing activities
PUBLIC PERCEPTION of PROJECT or
EVENT
-They thought its okay to cut the
mangroves- for it doest have a purpose or
they cannot gain any benefit from it
- They thought supply of fish is infinite
and monetary value wont change
They see there still hope that fish
population will recover
Improved awareness
on conservation
-there were many community residents
not supportive (but not rejecting or
opposing) only 15 pax started
-Now, 95% of community members
understand the importance of sanctuary
-according to some illegal fishers they will
stop if somebody will enforce the law
-bantay-dagat on their patrol boat and
uniform become deterrent
-according to some
they will become
poorer if the fish will
be gone
People start talking
about the guarding of
sanctuary and
eliminating
destructive fishing
methods
-Barangay tanod now
is involve in guradin
the sanctuary
-some of the
-Municipal LGU
Barangay
-PO
- NGO
-BFAR
-penalized the
-bantay-dagat
violators so that they -Barangay-LGU
wont do it again
Reduction in number
of dynamite fishers
and buli-boli
-AGCA sanctuary
intrusion almost
gone
Buoys were gone during the typhoons but
a habit had already been instilled to the
fisher. Majority no longer fish inside the
sanctuary. In return, good harvest of
hairtail fish and seaweeds.
Protect the habitat
of fish
-more people
involved in
conservation and
more people
-According to converted illegal fisher
there were fusilier inside the sanctuary
that is very attractive to the dynamite of
fishers. One blast could give them a
Strengthen
LGUbarangay/municipal
NGO
BFAR/DENR/PA
NOTES
-20 bantay-dagat
volunteers started
without
incentive/honorarium
YEAR(S)
PROJECT or EVENT
bantay-bakawan
trained and
deputized in every
coastal barangay in
Tinambac
GOALS
enforcement system
RESPONSIBLE
IMPLEMENTING
PARTY
PNP
OUTCOME
participate in
protecting AGCA
Sanctuary
-only 1 illegal fisher
left
PUBLIC PERCEPTION of PROJECT or
EVENT
harvest of about 150kg of fish
-mangrove deforestation was stop,
community started to plan and
rehabilitate mangrove
-change is hard at the initial stage, now
we are reaping the benefits.
NOTES
community residents
are reporting
intrusion
2. Resource Mapping (fishers and gleaners)
3. Fish catch and gear inventory
?
Template 2: Top 10 species caught in the mangrove habitat
Local name
English name
Gear use
1. Balanak
Mudcrab
Pangki
2.Aliso
Pana, Pangki
3.Sandig
Shrimp
Pana, Pangki
4.Pahak
Prawn
Pana, Pangki
5.B1
Pana, pangki, Banwit
6.Kikiro
Grouper
Pana, pangki
7.Parangan
Pana, pangki
8.Malopalo
Pana, pangki, Banwit
9.Tabanglo
mullet
Takma, Goma
10.
Template 3: Top 10 species caught in the seagrass communities
Local name
English name
Gear use
1.Kataway
siganid
Pana, pangki, banwit
2.Sandig
Pana, pangki, banwit
3.Punong
Pana, pangki, banwit
4.Manuping
Pana, pangki, banwit
5.Malagapas
Pana, pangki, banwit
6.Manalbong
Pana, pangki, banwit
7.Talad
Pana, pangki, banwit
8.Palad
Pana, pangki, banwit
9.Gatasan
Pana
10.Wal-an
Pana, Pangki, Banwit
Template 4: Top 10 species caught in the coral
reefs
Local name
English name
Gear use
1. Mumol
Siganid
Pangki, pana, banwit
2. Labahita
Surgeon fish
Pana, Pangki
Target/ Non-target
Target/ Non-target
Target/ Non-target
3.Surahan
4.Lapu-lapu
5.Labong
6.Hipos
7.Turos
8.Paro
9.Alibangbang
10.Paso
Local name
1. Tanigue
2.Malasugi
3.Mamsa
3. Barakuda
5.turingan
6.Rayado
7.buraw
8.salay-salay
9.talakitok
10. Pak-an
Surgeon fish
Grouper
Sweetlips
Pana, Pangki
Pana, Pangki, Banwit
Pana, Banwit
Pana, banwit,pangki
Pana, banwit,
Pana, banwit
Pana
Pana, banwit
Fusiliers
Eel
Parrotfish
lobster
Template 5: Top 10 species caught in the deep seas
English name
Gear use
Banwit, pana
tuna
Banwit
Mackerel
Pana, banwit
Banwit, Pana
Mackerel
Banwit, Pangki
Flying fish
banwit
Mackerel
Pangki
Scad
Banwit, pangki
Catfish
Pangki
scad
Pangki, banwit
Target/ Non-target
Template 6: Gear inventory
List of all gears in the
village
Hook and line (single)
(treat each variation
with a single column)
Hook and line (multiple)
(classify according to
number of hooks and
treat each with a single
column)= KITANG
Fish trap (bubo) (treat
each variation with a
single column) for
Octopus
Number
of users in
one gear
per trip
Frequenc
y of use in
a day
4 hrs
1 pax
1
5 pax
12 hrs
2 pAX
1
4 PAX
24 HRS
2 PAX
1-2x/DAY
Regulated or no?
What is the type
of regulation?
Total number
in the
barangay
Number of
users in the
barangay
Non-regulated
20
10
Non-regulated
1m/1hook
Soaking
time
List of fish caught
600m
Non-regulated
5-20/ PAX
84
Fish trap (bubo) (treat
each variation with a
single column) for
mudcrab)
Fish trap (bubo) (treat
each variation with a
single column) for crab)
Gill nets
Spear
Palataw
Beach seine
Fish corral
Non-regulated
Buli-buli
Cast net (treat each
variation with a single
column)
Compressor fishing
gULAMAN
Regulated
regulated
Non-regulated
Non-regulated
Non-regulated
Regulated
Regulated
10/ PAX
12
24
2 PAX
1 DURING
AM
30 /PAX
2
12
2
1 DURING
AM
3000 Banata
1 PANA/PAX
100HH
20 PAX
8 Hrs
6 HRS
2 pax
5-10 PAX
1
1
15x25 SQ
M/PAX
Setting
mainline+
25,000.00
60hh
24 hrs
1-2 pax
regulated
4. Socio economic status/practices (focused on fisheries)
Template 6: Socioeconomic
Gear type
Expenses per
trip (hook,
nylon, net,
bait)
Hook and line (single)
(treat each variation with
a single row)
20.00
Hook and line (multiple)
(classify according to
1,500 gasolina
+ paon
Number of
kilos caught
per trip
1-2 kg/trip
-7:00am
gilid lang @
12
noon(rosing)
0-60 kg/ trip
About 4 hrs
Number of kilos
sold
Price per
kilo
Net income
Types of
expense
from sales
Number
of kilos
to take
home
-
Personal
55 kls
30/kg
70/kl
-
3,200
-
1,500
gasolina
5kls
85
number of hooks and
treat each with a single
row)
Fish trap (bubo) (treat
each variation with a
single row)
Gill nets
Cast net (treat each
variation with a single
row)
Beach seine
nylon= 4x Php
280
(could last
More than 1
year)
5 box x
P175.00
(80
pcs/box)
3000 net
1 min/trip
20-50 kg/TRIP
150/palataw
0-20 kg/trip
50/trap
By sizing
All (minus 1 for
personal
consumption)
all
30/kg
600
Gasoline:
1L to 1 Gal
1kl
80-100/kg
2000
Gasoline:
1L to 1 Gal
0
s-50
M-120
L-200
1000/kl
Calendar Diagram (this can support general fishing practices in the area)
.
Discuss other livelihood practices during lean months.
Template 5: Seasonality Diagram
Month
Fish species caught
Gear type
Number of users
January
gulaman
Surahan
Pana
200
February
gulaman
Surahan,banagan
Takma
200
Pangki, takma, pana
200
Pangki, takma, pana
200
Pangki, takma, pana
200
June
Langkoy, damos, abo, burarat,
banagan, surahan
Langkoy, damos, abo, burarat,
banagan, surahan
Langkoy, damos, abo, burarat,
banagan, surahan
Surahan, banagan
Pangki, takma, pana
200
July
Surahan, banagan
Pangki, takma, pana
200
March
April
kuyog
May
kuyog
86
August
gulaman
September
gulaman
October
gulaman
November
gulaman
December
gulaman
Surahan, banagan,
kulambutan, octupos
Fish found in Seagrass
(hunasan)
Pana
Banwit na panghunasan
Takma
Tora-tora
Pangki sa gilid
tugbok
200
200
200
200
200
Trend Diagram
Template 4: Trend Diagram
Year
1940
Kilogram of catch/fisher
Major fishery
issues/events/history/changes in
fishing methods/
PANA
BANWIT
PANKI
1.00 /Atado
(20 pcs/atado)
Atado
1.00
20 pcs
Atado 1.00
20 pcs
20 kls/trip
30kls/trip
20 kg/trip
@1.50/kg
20 kg/trip
1.50 kl
4kg/trip
headless
@45.00/kg
Fish
species
caught
BANAGAN
1950
1960
1970
1980
30 kls/trip
1990
30 kls/trip
87
2000
2002
2007
30kg average
60 kg max
2010
60 kls/trip
10 kg average
60 maximum
4kg/trip
head on
@115.00/kg
2kg/trip
head on
@250/kl
2kg/trip
Good size
@350/kl
2kg/trip
Good size
@500/kg
Template 6: General changes in recent years to people’s lives relating to
fisheries
Year
Social
Economic
Fisheries/Ecological
issues
1950
7 households in
Sitio Maslog
No road
No current
>10 meters
shoreline
Narra settlements
1967: Agay-ayan
Community School
Hook and line: form
of fishing
Livelihoods primarily
as workers for the
logging concession
owned by Mr. Lamit
Use of Kolorato
8ha lote/family with
foodpacks
5 kls of fish were
exchange with 1
ganta of rice
Livelihoods: pagnawi
Planting of kamote
and rice
Timber logging
Pagkonsumo kan sira na
dakop 3kg of fish= fifty
cents
1960
1970
1980
“samahang Lima”
pautang ng mga
makina
Samahang Nayon
1988: Refugio
Community School
Trawl
Compressor fishing
Use of bigas-bigas
88
Mangrove Planting
1990
Buli-buli
Cocolumber logging
Seaweed Farming
Compressor fishing
Use of bigas-bigas
Buli-buli
2000
CRM Workshops
Seaweed Farming
Compressor fishing
Use of bigas-bigas
B uli-buli
2005
Approval of AGCA
Ordinance
Seaweed Farming
Compressor fishing
Use of bigas-bigas
Buli-buli
2010
Maslog electricity:
December 2006
4Ps
Seaweed Farming
2011
89
2. Executive Order for TWG & Mancom
(Insert the Executive Order Document and/or other legal documents that outline the composition, roles and establishment of the TWG and Mancom (and
Management Council if applicable))
Republic of the Philippines
Province of Camarines Sur
Municipality of Tinambac
OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. ____
Series of 2010
CREATING THE AGCA MARINE SANCTUARY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, MANDATING ITS FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature;
WHEREAS, the Local Government Code of 1991 or Republic Act No. 7160, devolves the management of the municipal waters and its fisheries and aquatic resources to
the municipal government;
90
WHEREAS, the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 or Republic Act 8550, mandates that the city government may enact appropriate ordinances which shall ensure the
sustainable development, management and conservation of its territorial waters including its fisheries and aquatic resources;
WHEREAS, the municipality of Tinambac enacted Municipal Ordinance No. _________________ providing for the sustainable development, management and
conservation of the territorial waters of the municipality of Tinambac including its fisheries and aquatic resources;
WHEREAS, the municipality of Tinambac enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 06-S-06 declared the establishment of AGCA Marine Sanctuary to properly protect and
manage the municipal waters covering the Barangay Agay-ayan and Caloco.
WHEREAS, Tinambac LGU in partnership with the Barangay Local Governments of Agay-ayan and Caloco, Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts, Incorporated
and RARE Incorporated implements a two-year AGCA Marine Sanctuary Pride Program;
WHEREAS, there is a need to formally organize the AGCA Marine Sanctuary Technical Working Group to ensure continuous guidance and technical assistance to the
AGCA Marine Sanctuary Management Committee;
WHEREAS, effective and sustained governance and enforcement of AGCA Marine Sanctuary is an essential component for the successful and meaningful
implementation of the two-year AGCA Marine Sanctuary Pride Program;
WHEREAS, AGCA Marine Sanctuary provides the opportunity for Tinambac to showcase its very productive coral reef resource that will be a source of Pride for the
Tinambaquenos;
NOW, THEREFORE, premises considered, and by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, I, Hon. Ruel T. Velarde, Mayor of Tinambac, do hereby order the following:
Section 1. CREATION. There is hereby created an AGCA Marine Sanctuary Technical Working Group to be composed of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Local Chief Executive- Hon. Mayor Ruel T. Velarde
SB Committee on Fisheries- Municipal Kagawad. Franco Alvarez
SB Committee on Environment- Municipal Kagawad Ramon Ilano
Municipal Planning and Development Office –Engr. Diego Bayonito
Municipal Agriculturist Office- Engr. Reynaldo Rivera
Agriculture Technician- Mr. Jogie Sagales
Chairman of MFARMC - Mr. Juan Refugio
Chairman of BFARMC Agay-ayan- Mr. Igmedio Dianela
Chairman of BFARMC Caloco- Mr. Eli Tatel
91
10. Representative Deputized Fish Warden- Mr. Roberto Refugio
The following institutions/agencies will be joining the Technical Working Group:
1. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources- Mr. Santiago Noblefranca
and/or Mr. Joel Balasta
2. Department of Environment and Natural Resources-CENRO – Mr. Pio Bernal
And/or Ms. Rose Samson
3.
4.
5.
6.
Municipal Police Office- PSI Danilo Bagacina and/or his representative
Philippine Army- 1st Lt.Dion Eliot and/or his representative
Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts Inc –Mr. Fernando Gervacio and/or his representative
Partido District Administration- Mr. Charlie Balagtas and/or his representative
Section 2. FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
The AGCA Marine Sanctuary Technical Working Group shall have the following functions and responsibilities:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Spearhead the planning, capacity and governance needs of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary.
Assist in leveraging and sharing potential human and financial resources for it effective and sustainable management.
Networking and linkaging
Propose and recommend policy initiatives to the legislative council.
Assist the PO and Deputized Bantay-dagat in managing AGCA Marine Sanctuary
Assist in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the Pride Program of AGCA Marine Sanctuary.
Perform such other functions deemed necessary for the development of AGCA Marine Sanctuary
Section 3. OFFICERS AND TENURE. During such organizational meeting, the members shall elect from among themselves the chairperson and the secretary and shall serve such
terms of office as they may thereafter agree. The members of the TWG shall hold an organizational meeting upon proper notice from the chairperson duly noted by the
undersigned.
Section 4. ROLES OF THE TWG CHAIRPERSON.
a. Presides all meetings agreed upon by the TWG.
92
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Oversees the entire implementation of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary Pride Program
Coordinate with the project partners and the local government of Tinambac
Provide venues for consensus building among members of the TWG
Perform such other functions deemed necessary for the development of AGCA Marine Sanctuary
Regularly updates the Local Chief Executive and concerned councilors
Publish and distribute minutes of the meetings to all members of the TWG within 5 working days of the meetings
Section 5. MEETING. The AGCA Marine Sanctuary Technical Working Group shall meet regularly at least once in every quarter at a venue agreed upon by the majority of its
members. Regular meeting dates will be agreed upon at the beginning of each calendar year and only changed with at least one month’s notice. A majority of the members of
the board shall constitute a quorum to transact business.
Section 6. THE AGCA MARINE MANAGEMENT PLAN. The AGCA Marine Sanctuary Technical Working Group in coordination with the AGCA Marine Sanctuary Management
Committee shall facilitate the preparation of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and shall endorse it to the local government unit for review and approval.
Section 7. APPRORIATION. Funds for operations shall be allocated to support the necessary activities of the Technical Working Group upon receipt of an agreed annual work
plan for 2011 and 2012;
Section 9. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
Done this ___________________ at Tinambac, Camarines Sur Philippines.
HON. RUEL T/ VELARDE
Municipal Mayor
[Draft]
93
Republic of the Philippines
Province of Camarines Sur
Municipality of Tinambac
OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR
CREATING THE AGCA MARINE SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, MANDATING ITS FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature;
WHEREAS, the Local Government Code of 1991 or Republic Act No. 7160, devolves the management of the municipal waters and its fisheries and aquatic resources to
the municipal government;
WHEREAS, the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 or Republic Act 8550, mandates that the municipal government may enact appropriate ordinances which shall ensure
the sustainable development, management and conservation of its territorial waters including its fisheries and aquatic resources;
WHEREAS, the municipality of Tinambac enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 05-S-06 declaring the establishment of AGCA Marine Sanctuary to properly protect and
manage the municipal waters covering the Barangay Agay-ayan and Caloco.
WHEREAS, Tinambac LGU in partnership with the Barangay Local Governments of Agay-ayan and Caloco, Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts, Incorporated
and RARE Incorporated implements a two-year AGCA Marine Sanctuary Pride Program;
94
WHEREAS, effective and sustained governance and enforcement of AGCA Marine Sanctuary is an essential component for the successful and meaningful
implementation of the two-year AGCA Marine Sanctuary Pride Program;
WHEREAS, there is a need to update the functions and composition of the Agca Resource Management Council that is responsible for managing the marine sanctuary
as spelled out in MO-06-S-06 to clearly delineate the policy-making and implementing unit components of the council;
WHEREAS, the Tinambac LGU has already formed an AGCA Marine Sanctuary Technical Working Group that serves as a policy-making body that provides guidance and
technical assistance to the activities related to the management of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary;
WHEREAS, the Tinambac LGU still needs to specify the functions and composition of the implementing unit or management committee of the Agca Resource
Management Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, premises considered, and by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, I, Hon. Ruel T. Velarde, Mayor of Tinambac, do hereby order the following:
Section 1. CREATION and COMPOSITION. There is hereby created an Agca Marine Sanctuary Management Committee at the municipal level and barangay level to be
composed of the following:
Municipal level:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Municipal Agriculturist or his representative
MPDC
NSLC
SB committee on Fisheries
Representative from the Barangay MC
Barangay level
1. Barangay captain
2. Chairman and representative BFARMC
3. Committee on Fisheries in the Barangay Coucil
4. PO
5. Bantay dagats
6. School teachers
7. Women’s group
95
8. Youth
9. Church
Section 2. FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The Agca Marine Sanctuary Management Committee shall implement rules and regulations, for the protection,
maintenance, and preservation of the Agca Marine Sanctuary and supervise the day-to-day operations with the following specific functions and responsibilities;
Municipal level MC:
a) Formulate and implement the Agca Marine Sanctuary Annual Investment Plan and Budget based on the long-term Management Plan prepared by the Agca Marine
Sanctuary TWG;
b) Propose and recommend policy initiatives to the Barangay, Municipal Legislative Council and the Agca Marine Sanctuary TWG
c) Supervise the conduct of regular patrolling and guarding of the no-fishing-zone done by barangay and city enforcement teams;
d) Supervise the conduct regular hydro-biophysical survey;
e) Conduct Information, Education and Communication Campaign;
f) Prepare proposal for submission to the TWG for their resource generation activities;
g) Prepare activity and financial reports to be submitted to the Agca Marine Sanctuary TWG and MC;
h) Coordinate with the Barangay level Agca Marine Sanctuary Management Committee;
i) Perform such functions as deemed necessary
Barangay level MC
1. Conduct of regular patrolling
2. Conduct of regular biophysical monitoring with assistance from TWG
3. Conduct of IEC
4. Maintenance of patrol boats, billboards and buoys
5. Coordination with the municipal level MC
Section 3. OFFICERS AND TERMS OF OFFICE . The officers of the Agca Marine Sanctuary Management committee shall consist of a chairperson, secretary and finance
officer. The officers of the Management Committee shall be endorsed by the TWG and approved by the Local Chief Executive. The officers of the MC shall report directly to the
TWG who shall then submit a written report to the mayor. The officers of the MC shall serve co-terminus with the local chief executive.
Section 4. MEETINGS. The Agca Marine Sanctuary Management Committee shall meet regularly at least once a month. The MC members shall hold a regular meeting upon
proper notice from the chairperson.
Section 5. MPA MANAGEMENT POINT PERSONS. The committee shall elect among themselves the following different management teams shall be organized:
Enforcement and Maintenance Team, Information and Education Team, Resource Monitoring Team, Committee on Financial Sustainability Team, and other teams that may
be deemed necessary by the Committee.
96
Section 7. SOURCES OF FUNDS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. The Municipal and Barangay Governments shall allocate funds to implement the Agca Marine Sanctuary
Management Plan and other necessary activities of the Agca Marine Sanctuary Management Committee. The application of funds shall follow the regular government
accounting procedures. The expenses incurred in the conduct of monthly meetings at the barangay level shall be shouldered by the barangay governments.
Section 8. BARANGAY CONTRIBUTION. Whenever necessary and upon recommendation of the Agca Marine Sanctuary Management Committee, the barangays Agay-ayan
and Caloco will appropriate funding subsidy for the purpose.
Section 9. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately upon signing hereof.”
Done this ___________________ at Tinambac, Camarines Sur Philippines.
HON. RUEL T/ VELARDE
Municipal Mayor
3.
Survey Questionnaire
(insert final version of questionnaire including maps, photographs and answer sheets used for survey)
97
AGCA Marine Sanctuary Survey
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
(1) Interviewer/Enumerator:
[ ] Felicito delos Santos [ ] Erly Refugio [ ] Liezel Icaro [ ] Elna Brillantes
[ ] Christine Brillantes [ ] Manuela Solo
[ ] Marie Cris Reyna
[ ] Michael Delfino
[ ] Annie
Besco [ ] Alma Malazarte
[ ] Jessa Karen Oquialda [ ] Salve Corporal
[ ] Emely B. Llarenas
[ ] Janice Mojar [ ] Jean Abordo [ ] Leny Esplana [ ] Miles Celestial
[ ] Janice
Delfino [ ] Zenaida Plamiano
[ ] Leoniza Abayon
[ ] Veronica Rodavia
[ ] Noemi Sarmiento
[ ] Anabelle Tripulca
[ ] marissa atun [ ] Annie Besco [ ] baby joy b.clores
[]
Jessabel Delos Reyes [ ] Mariane Chavez
[ ] janice april Rivera
[ ] Maricel Tresvalles [ ] Alma Empeno
[ ] Aileen Ubaldo
[ ] Cathy Demesa
(2) Target Barangay:
[ ] Agay-ayan [ ] Caloco
[ ] San Antonio [ ] Pag-asa
[ ] LGU/service provider
(3) Enumeration area (EA):
[ ] Zone #1
[ ] Zone #2
[ ] Zone #3
[ ] Zone #5
(4) Survey period:
[ ] Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011)
[ ] Zone #4
[ ] Zone #6
[ ] Zone #7
[ ] Unidentified [ ] LGU/service provider
[ ] Post-campaign (June 2012)
(5) Gender of respondent:
[ ] Male [ ] Female
98
(6) Sampling methodology
[ ] Target Audience 1A- fishers from Caloco
[ ] Target audience 1B- fishers from Agay-ayan [ ] Target audience 2A- Caloco Community
[ ] Target audience 2B- Agay-ayan Community
[ ] Target audience 3A- fishers from San Antonio [ ] Target audience 3B- fishers from Pag-asa
[ ] Target audeince 4A- LGU and service provider
(7) Date (month/day/year):
________________
Section 2
Socioeconomic and Demographic Questions
"To begin, I would like to ask you some questions about yourself"
(8) What is your current marital status?
[ ] Single
[ ] Married
[ ] Widow
[ ] Live-in
[ ] Separated
(9) Where do you live in relation to the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Do you live inside of Agay-ayan and Coloco, in Tinambac, or somewhere else? [choose only one]
[ ] I live in Agay-ayan [ ] I live in Caloco
[ ] I do not live in AGCA but live in Tinambac
[ ] I live outside Tinambac
[ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
(10) How old were you at your last birthday?
[ ] 14 or younger
[ ] 15 to 19
[ ] 20 to 24
[ ] 25 to 29
[ ] 30 to 34
(11) Household members
[]1
[]2
[]3
[]4
[]8
[ ] 10
[]5
[]6
[]7
[]9
[ ] 35 to 39
[ ] 40 to 44
[ ] 45 to 49
[ ] 50 to 54
[ ] 55 or older
[ ] 10 and above
(12) What is your highest level of education attained?". [choose only one]
[ ] No school completed [ ] Some elementary school
[ ] Elementary school completed
Some College [ ] College Graduate
[ ] Vocational course [ ] pastor/religious course
[ ] Some secondary completed [ ] Some high school
[ ] Refuse to answer
(13) If you belong to a religion, please tell me which religion. If you do not belong to a religion, please say "none". [choose one only]
ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE
[ ] Roman catholic
[ ] Aglipay
[ ] Iglesia Ni Kristo
[ ] Born Again [ ] Muslim
[ ] Protestante [ ] church of Latter Day Saints
[ ] Other
[ ] Refuses to answer [ ] Other ________________
[ ] High School Completed
[ ] Local/Traditional
[]
[ ] Mayong Relehiyon
(14) ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE - What is your primary occupation or sector in which you work? [choose one only]
[ ] Farming
[ ] Fishing
[ ] Gleaning
[ ] Seaweed Farming
[ ] Copra making
[ ] Charcoal making
[ ] small business/buy&sell
[ ] Office work [ ] Carpentry [ ]
construction worker
[ ] house attendat (pasulweduhan)
[ ] factory worker
[ ] Logging, mining
[ ] Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife)
[ ] Transportation
99
(shipping)
[ ] housework/housewife
[ ] student
[ ] private company
Refuse to answer
[ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
[ ] pension
[ ] government (honorarium)
[ ] remittance from abroad
[ ] unemployed [ ]
(15) ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE - What is your secondary occupation or sector in which you work?
[ ] Farming
[ ] Fishing
[ ] Gleaning
[ ] Seaweed Farming
[ ] Copra making
[ ] Charcoal making
[ ] small business/buy&sell
[ ] Office work [ ] Carpentry [ ]
construction worker
[ ] house attendat (pasulweduhan)
[ ] factory worker
[ ] Logging, mining
[ ] Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife)
[ ] Transportation
(shipping)
[ ] housework/housewife
[ ] student
[ ] private company
[ ] pension
[ ] government (honorarium) [ ] remittance from abroad
[ ] unemployed [ ]
Refuse to answer
[ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
(16) 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 your. 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
(17) What percentage of this annual income comes from your primary occupation?
[ ] 0% [ ] 1 - 20%
[ ] 21 - 40%
[ ] 41 - 60%
[ ] 61 - 80%
[ ] 81 - 100%
[ ] Not sure
[ ] N/A
(18) What percentage of this annual income comes from fishing?
[ ] 0% [ ] 1 - 20%
[ ] 21 - 40%
[ ] 41 - 60%
[ ] 61 - 80%
[ ] 81 - 100%
[ ] Not sure
[ ] N/A
[ ] 20 to 24
[ ] 25 to 29
[ ] 30 to 34
(19) How long have you been fishing?
[ ] 4 years and below [ ] 5 to 9
[ ] 10 to 14
refuse to answer
[ ] N/A
[ ] 15 to 19
(20) Fishing gear used/using
[ ] pangki
[ ] boso(pana) [ ] bobo [ ] banwit
[ ] boso(compressor)
[ ] others
(21) Do you have your own boat used in fishing?
[ ] owned-motorized [ ] owned-non-motorized
[ ] mayong baroto
[ ] refuse to answer
[ ] refuse to answer
[ ] 35 to 39
[ ] 40 to 44
[ ] 45 to 49
[ ] 50 to 54
[]
[ ] N/A
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] N/A
Section 3
Assign Respondent to Stage-of-Behavior-Change
(22) 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)
COHORT QUESTION - SHOW MAP LABELLED A (EACH CF WILL HAVE TO CREATE THEIR OWN MAP)
100
(A) Subsistence fishers from your village
[ ] Seen [ ] Not seen
[ ] Not sure / Don't remember
(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 village
[ ] 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
(23) 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)
COHORT QUESTION - SHOW MAP LABELLED B (EACH CF WILL HAVE TO CREATE THEIR OWN MAP)
(A) Subsistence fishers from your village
[ ] Seen [ ] Not seen
[ ] Not sure / Don't remember
101
(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 village
[ ] 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
(24) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone I of AGCA Sanctuary in the past 6 months?
[ ] Seen [ ] Not seen
[ ] Not sure / Don't remember
(25) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone II in the past 6 months?
[ ] Seen [ ] Not seen
[ ] Not sure / Don't remember
(26) Have you heard before about the Agay-ayan and Caloco Marine Sanctuary (AGCA)?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
102
(27) Do you know where the AGCA Sanctuary is located?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(28) Do you know about core zone and buffer zone in AGCA?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(29) Have you been using/fishing inside the core zone before it was established as sanctuary?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(30) Right now, can you still enter the core zones and fish inside?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(31) CUSTOMIZE TO BEHAVIOR CHANGE, ONE QUESTION FOR EACH BC IN YOUR TOC
I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about following regulations of the AGCA 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 stopping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary.
[ ] I have considered stopping fishiing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary but not stopped yet
[ ] I intend to stop fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the next 6 months. [ ] I have talked to someone about stopiping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in
the past 6 months.
[ ] I have only gone fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary a few times in the past 6 months
[ ] I have not fished/gleaned in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in
the past 6 months.
[ ] Behavior not relevant to this respondent
Section 4
Trusted Sources of Information & Media Access/Exposure
(32) 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
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(B) Person on television
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(C) Police/Army
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
[ ] Very trustworthy
(D) DENR
103
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(E) BFAR
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(F) Government Officials -municipal
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(G) Government officials -barangay
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(H) Religious leaders
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(I) Friends or family members
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(J) Teachers
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(K) Scientist
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(L) Information on poster or billboard
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(M) Information in printed booklet
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(N) Information from puppet show
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(O) Information from public meeting
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(P) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
104
(Q) NSLC
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(R) Bantay dagat
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(S) PO
[ ] Most trustworthy
[ ] Very trustworthy
[ ] Somewhat trustworthy
[ ] Not Trustworthy
[ ] Not sure/Don't know
(33) 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, or 7 days per week.
[ ] 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.
CUSTOMIZE LIST OF OPTIONS
[ ] DZRH
[ ] Love Radio [ ] TX100
[ ] Bombo Radio[ ] No favorite station [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't listen to the radio
[ ] DZGE[ ] DWNX
________________
[ ] MOR [ ] 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.
CUSTOMIZE TO SITE
[ ] 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.
particular time [ ] Off and on all day
[ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen
[ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
[ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
[ ] After 10:00 p.m.
[ ] No
(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.
particular time [ ] Off and on all day
[ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen
[ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
[ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
[ ] After 10:00 p.m.
[ ] No
(34) 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?
105
CUSTOMIZE LIST OF OPTIONS
(A) Tagalog Love Songs
[ ] Like the most[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little
[ ] Not liked
[ ] NS/DK
(B) Local news
[ ] Like the most[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little
[ ] Not liked
[ ] NS/DK
(C) Religious programs
[ ] Like the most[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little
[ ] Not liked
[ ] NS/DK
(D) Drama Shows
[ ] Like the most[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little
[ ] Not liked
[ ] NS/DK
(E) Comedy Shows
[ ] Like the most[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little
[ ] Not liked
[ ] NS/DK
(F) Puppet Shows
[ ] Like the most[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little
[ ] Not liked
[ ] NS/DK
(G) Movies/Films
[ ] Like the most[ ] Like a lot
[ ] Like a little
[ ] Not liked
[ ] NS/DK
(H) What other types of media programs do you like to watch, listen to, or read about?
________________
(35) Of the following entertainers who would you listen to most if they produced a song or jingle about the environment?
[ ] ÿƒ110Willie Revillame
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Bogoy Drilon (Bugayan)
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Robin Padilla
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Jerico Rosales
(36) Local Ambassador
[ ] Municipal Mayor Ruel Velarde
Other ________________
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Jovit Baldivino
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Sarah Geronimo [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Venus Raj [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Enchong Dee
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004karyle
[ ] No answer [ ] Not Applicable
[ ] Other ________________
[ ] Bantay-dagat [ ] Cong. Noli Fuentebella
[ ] Barangay captain
[ ] Gov. L-ray Villafuerte [ ] SB- Franco Alvarez
[ ] Darlen Tuazon
[]
Section 5
Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Knowledge SMART Objectives
106
Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the local environment and wildlife that live in this area.
(37) Please state below whether you believe each regulation is either true or false as a AGCA Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies: CUSTOMIZE QUESTION AND STATEMENTS
(A) ÿs004AGCA Sanctuary doesnt have a legal basis to prohibit fishers to fish inside the core zone? ÿÿƒ133
ÿÿƒ100ÿs000
[ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure
(B) It is in a law or in regulation to prohibit the fishers to fish and glean inside the core zone of AGCA Marine Sanctuary
[ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure
(C) ÿs004There is a law that prohibits the use of sodium and dynamite inside and near the AGCA Sanctuary.ÿs000
[ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure
(38) There is a law that prohibits the use of trawl to operate inside the municipal water of Tinambac.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Don't know
(39) There is a law that prohibits the cutting and burning of mangrove trees?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Don't know
(40) There is a law that prohibits the catching and slaughtering of sea turtles.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Don't know
(41) 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.
(COHORT QUESTION)
(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)
COHORT 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)
107
(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 [ ] i dont know [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
(42) 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? (COHORT
QUESTION)
(A) National Government officials (BFAR, DENR etc)
[ ] Regularly
[ ] Occasionally [ ] Never
[ ] Not sure/ Don't know
(B) Local Government officials (municipal)
[ ] Regularly
[ ] Occasionally [ ] Never
[ ] Not sure/ Don't know
(C) Local Government officials (barangay)
[ ] Regularly
[ ] Occasionally [ ] Never
[ ] Not sure/ Don't know
(D) Local fishers
[ ] Regularly
[ ] Occasionally [ ] Never
[ ] Not sure/ Don't know
(E) PO or civil society organizations
[ ] Regularly
[ ] Occasionally [ ] Never
[ ] Not sure/ Don't know
(F) NGO
[ ] Regularly
[ ] Not sure/ Don't know
[ ] Occasionally [ ] Never
(43) 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 (DENR and BFAR)
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(B) Local Government officials from Municipio
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
108
(C) Scientists and/or fisheries experts
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(D) Local Government officials from barangay
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(E) Local fishers
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(F) PO
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(G) NGO
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(H) PNP Tinambac
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(I) Philippine Army
[ ] Most involved
[ ] Involved
[ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know
(44) 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 problem in my community
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(B) Climate change is already a problem in my community
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(C) Climate change is likely to become a real problem in my community in the next 5-10 years
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(D) If NTZ is well managed it will buffer the effect of clmate change in the future
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(45) 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)
109
[ ] sea level rise [ ] increase typhoon frequency [ ] more people from the upland will move to the coastal areas in case of crop failure
[ ] increased water temperature leading death of
corals and lesÿƒ133ÿs002s
[ ] increase of typhoon strength, less reliable work and crops
[ ] less rain
[ ] fish shortage [ ] Life will be more Difficult
[ ] No answer [ ] Other
________________
[ ] N/A
Section 6
Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Attitude SMART Objectives
(46) OPTIONAL-CUSTOMIZE AS APPROPRIATE
Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements on the possible impacts on the local community if the AGCA Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies are not strictly
observed by fishers:
(B) Fish Species will become smaller and rare
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(C) ÿƒ122ÿs004Illegal fishers from outside will be encouraged to come in and blast fish within the AGCA Marine Sanctuaryÿƒ100ÿs000
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(D) ÿƒ122ÿs004The corals begin to die ÿƒ100ÿs000
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(E) ÿƒ122ÿs004The local community will have experience decline in fish catch and will be poorerÿƒ100ÿs000
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(47) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with this statement: if mangrove forest will be cut and deforested there is a possiblity that it will affect livelihoods of fishers
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(48) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with this statement: continued use of cyanide and dynamite has possible effect on the growth and harvest of seaweeds in our
barangays
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(49) There are still abundant supply of fish in Lamit bay Tinambac
110
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(50) There is a need to protect our seas and additional marine sanctuaries in Tinambac
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] Not sure/Dont KNow
(51) What do you think of the size of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary?
(A) size of core zone 1
[ ] too big
[ ] too small
[ ] just right
[ ] dont know
[ ] N/A
(B) size of core zone 2
[ ] too big
[ ] too small
[ ] just right
[ ] dont know
[ ] N/A
(52) the location of AGCA Sanctuary.. how is it located
(A) location of core zone 1
[ ] right location [ ] not good location
[ ] i dont know [ ] N/A
(B) location of core zone 2
[ ] right location [ ] not good location
[ ] i dont know [ ] N/A
(53) OPTIONAL/CUSTOMIZE
Who should primarily enforce the rules and regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Should it be the Coastguard, Fishers/gleaners, the Bantay dagat, the National Police, local village
officials, or someone else? (CHOOSE ONE ONLY)
[ ] Coastguard [ ] Fishers/Gleaners
[ ] Bantay dagat (licensed enforcers)
[ ] National Police
[ ] Local village officials [ ] Philippine Army
[ ] LGU Municipal
[ ] Other
________________
(54) CUSTOMIZE
Has your catch increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? (If the person does not fish or glean mark as NA)
[ ] Decreased [ ] Increased
[ ] Stayed the Same
[ ] Not sure
[ ] N/A
(55) 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)
111
(A) There is a clear plan for how the no-take area will be managed
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(B) Local village fishers regularly participate in management decisions of the no-take area
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(C) Local people know boundaries of the no-take area
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(D) There was not enough planning done before the no-take area was established
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(E) There is enough money and other resources to fully manage and enforce the rules of the no-take area
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(F) The rules of the no-take area are regularly enforced so that violators are caught and punished
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(G) The rules of the no-take area are unclear and local fishers don't understand them
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(H) The rules of the no-take area are designed more to protect the fish than to help the fishers
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(I) The infrastructure, equipment and facilities to enforce the rules of the no-take area are adequate
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(J) There is an adequate communications program about the no-take area
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(K) Staff of the no-take area are adequately trained
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
[ ] Strongly Disagree
(L) There is a regular management effectiveness assessment conducted for the no-take area
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(M) Research and monitoring activities of the no take area are adequate
112
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(N) There are no current problems with the no-take area management
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
Section 7
Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Interpersonal Communication SMART Objectives
(56) 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 village fishers
[ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials
[ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR
and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO)
[ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA
[ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK
OPTION
[ ] more fish
[ ] bigger fish [ ] improved fish catch/livelihood
[ ] improved growth of gulaman [ ] gained knowledged on conservation [ ] stop intrusion and other destructive fishing
activities
[ ] protect sea turtles [ ] improved corals
[ ] community development
[ ] NO ANSWER [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
(57) OPTIONAL, CUSTOMIZE In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "the consequences of breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations"? 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 village fishers
[ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials
[ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR
and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO)
[ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA
[ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK
OPTION
[ ] Pagkulong [ ] Pagmulta
[ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A
(58) OPTIONAL - 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 village fishers
[ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials
[ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR
and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO)
[ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA
[ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK
OPTION
113
________________
Section 8
Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Behavior SMART Objectives
(59) During the past 6 months, would you say that you have been regularly involved, occasionally involved, or not involved with the creation and/or the management of a no-take fishing area
in your local area
(COHORT QUESTION)
(A)
[ ] Regularly involved
[ ] Occasionally involved [ ] Never involved
[ ] Don't know / not applicable
(60) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE
In the past 12 months, have you attended any meetings or gatherine where management of AGCA Sanctuary was discussed? If so, about how many times in those 12 months did you attend?
[ ] Yes [ ] no [ ] I dont Know
(A) if yes, how often have you attend the meeting in 12 months
[ ] Never attended a meeting [ ] Attended at least 1 meeting [ ] Attended at between 2-5 meetings
[ ] Attended at least 6 meetings [ ] More than 7 meetings
[ ] Not applicable
(61) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE
- In the last six months have you heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations to the enforcement team?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] not sure/dont know
(62) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE
If you were to report someone who has broken the rules & regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, who would you report them to? [YOU CAN CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER].
[ ] Local police [ ] Local law enforcement
[ ] Barangay Captain
[ ] Municipal mayor
[ ] Next door neighbor [ ] Husband/Wife.
[ ] Would Not Report [ ] Bantay dagat [ ] I
dont know
[ ] Other ________________
(63) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE OR REMOVE Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements associated with poor governance of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary:
(A) Majority of residents of AGCA were involved in managing AGCA MArine Sanctuary?
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(B) There were poachers in core zone 1 of AGCA Marine Sanctuary at night time
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(C) There were poachers in AGCA Sanctuary core zone 2 at night time
114
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(E) Only men were participating in Sanctuary governance.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(F) Residents of AGCA were following rules and regulations.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(D) AGCA Marine Sanctuary were being guarded 24/7?
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
(64) Do you agree or disagree that you can do something or contribute in reducting/eliminating illegal fishing activites in barangay?
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(65) Do you agree or disagree that community will benefits in developing the Caloco Beach Resort?
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] I dont know
Section 9
Understand Barriers & Benefits of Behavior Change
(66) Do you agree or dis agree that the AGCA Management committee (AGCA ManCom) are activelyh involve in governance of AGCA.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(67) Are yoou aware of who comprise the AGCA Mancom
(pls check all, that apply
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from Municipal-LGU
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from barangay-LGU
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from PO [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from DENR/BFARO
[]
ÿƒ133ÿs004officers from Philippine National Police and Philippine Army [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from the Province
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from NGO
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from
BFARMC
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Mga Bantay-Dagat
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Mga Tanod
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Teachers [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004women sector
[ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004youth sector
[ ] Fisher's
sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004business sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004church [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004I dont know
[ ] Other ________________
(68) what have been done in the past six months?
________________
Section 10
115
Exposure to Campaign Activities & Messages
(69) CUSTOMIZE QUESTION AND ANSWERS TO YOUR SITE (IT IS CRUCIAL FOR THIS QUESTION THAT YOU MAKE IT SPECIFIC BY ASKING PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE HEARD OF SOMETHING THAT YOU
FEEL CONFIDENT THE CAMPAIGN WILL COVER AND HAS NOT BEEN COVERED BY OTHER CAMPAIGNS/ORGANISATIONS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTION IS TO MEASURE EXPOSURE TO YOUR
CAMPAIGN SPECIFICALLY)
I am going to ask you about a number of ways in which you may or may not have seen or heard about the AGCA 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 Song
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(B) Local News
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(C) Drama
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Don't know
(D) Comedy
[ ] Yes [ ] No
[ ] Don't know
(E) Puppet Show
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(F) Locally Produced Video
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(G) Poster or Billboard
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(H) Printed Booklet
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(I) Public Meeting (Festival)
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
(J) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know
116
(70) CUSTOMIZE TO YOUR SITE (AS ABOVE, MAKE QUESTION SPECIFIC TO YOUR CAMPAIGN)
Of all of the different ways in which you remember seeing or hearing about AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, which one, if any, did you think had the most impact on you?
________________
(71) CUSTOMIZE TO SITE Of all the different ways in which you learned about AGCA 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
(72) Please name 3 creatures that live in the sea that you are particularly fond or proud of. (do not read out options but tick box as appropriate and/or fill in the blank for any additional
answers)
FLAGSHIP SP QUESTION - 1st OPTION
[ ] Sea turtle
[ ] lobster
[ ] Whaleshark [ ] Mameng
[ ] Tanigue
[ ] Malasugi
[ ] Bangkulis
[ ] Maya maya [ ] Putian
[ ] Lapu lapu
[ ] dalagang Bukid
[]
Langkoy
[ ] Salay [ ] Buraw
[ ] Bangus
[ ] Kataway
[ ] Seaweeds [ ] Alatan
[ ] Titso [ ] Sahang
[ ] Corals
[ ] Samong
[ ] Maming
[ ] Abo [ ]
Burarat [ ] Maya maya [ ] Damos
[ ] Sapsap
[ ] Rayado
[ ] Surahan
[ ] turingan
[ ] bulinaw
[ ] mamsa
[ ] Tabangungo [ ] Solid [ ] Pakan
[ ] pagi [ ]
NS/DK [ ] Mamsa
[ ] turos [ ] tanique
[ ] Other ________________
(73) 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 (Involved providing enumerators with labeled images)
[ ] A spiny lobster
[ ] B napoleon wrasse [ ] C lana
[ ] D alatan
[ ] NS/DK
(74) 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
117
(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
(75) Expand the marine sanctuary to include island ecosystems.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(76) Make sure suppliers of dynamite and sodium in Lamit Bay must be stopped and put behind the jail.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(77) We must protect and take care of corals, sea grasses and mangrove forests in our municipality.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(78) Fishers in Lamit Bay must follow the rules and regulation of AGCA MArine Sanctuary
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(79) "Pugon" system of charcoal making must be dismantled in every barangay to stop mangrove deforestation.
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Disagree
[ ] I dont know
(80) Are you willing to support in improving AGCA's governance effectiveness or in establishing addtional sanctuary in our municipality?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Sure
Thank you for all of your help in responding to this anonymous questionnaire survey
118
MAP USE (Q# 22 and 23)
CHOICES FOR FLAGSHIP SPECIES
119
4. Survey results
Figure 1: Number of Respondents Who Agreed to be Interviewed
(6) Target Audience
Number of respondent who
agreed to be interviewed
AGCA Fishers
(243)
AGCA Community
(479)
Non-AGCA
Fishers (115)
LGUOverall
Tinambac (53) (890)
Yes
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Percents
0
100
Figure 2: The Enumerators
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(1) Interviewer/Enumerator
Felicito delos Santos
5.3%
4.4%
1.7%
11.3%
4.7%
Erly Refugio
9.9%
4.2%
4.3%
11.3%
6.2%
Liezel Icaro
11.1%
6.5%
5.2%
0.0%
7.2%
Elna Brillantes
6.6%
4.8%
0.9%
0.0%
4.5%
Christine Brillantes
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Manuela Solo
2.9%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
Marie Cris Reyna
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
Michael Delfino
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
Annie Besco
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Alma Malazarte
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
Salve Corporal
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
120
Emely B. Llarenas
0.8%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
Janice Mojar
4.1%
5.4%
2.6%
9.4%
4.9%
Jean Abordo
4.5%
7.1%
2.6%
24.5%
6.9%
Leny Esplana
4.5%
3.5%
3.5%
1.9%
3.7%
Miles Celestial
5.3%
3.8%
4.3%
20.8%
5.3%
Janice Delfino
4.9%
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
Zenaida Plamiano
7.4%
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%
Leoniza Abayon
1.2%
5.8%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
Veronica Rodavia
5.3%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
Noemi Sarmiento
1.2%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
Anabelle Tripulca
7.8%
8.6%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
marissa atun
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
Annie Besco
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
baby joy b.clores
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Jessabel Delos Reyes
0.8%
0.0%
40.0%
0.0%
5.4%
Mariane Chavez
0.4%
0.0%
34.8%
0.0%
4.6%
janice april Rivera
5.3%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
Maricel Tresvalles
3.7%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
4.8%
Alma Empeno
4.1%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
Aileen Ubaldo
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.4%
0.6%
Cathy Demesa
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.3%
0.7%
Other
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 3: Target Barangays
121
(6) Target Audience
(2) Target Barangay:
Agay-ayan
40.8%
49.4%
50.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Caloco
40.2%
50.2%
49.3%
0.0%
0.0%
San Antonio
12.0%
0.4%
0.0%
91.3%
1.9%
Pag-asa
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
8.7%
0.0%
LGU/service provider
5.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
98.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
Percents
Overall AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
0
100
Figure 4: Survey Period
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
(4) Survey period:
Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011)
100.0%
100.0%
99.1%
100.0%
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Figure 5: Gender of Respondent
(6) Target Audience
(5) Gender of respondent:
AGCA
Fishers
Overall
AGCA
Community
Non-AGCA
Fishers
LGUTinambac
Male
562
63.1%
238
97.9%
179
37.4%
114
99.1%
31
58.5%
Female
328
36.9%
5
2.1%
300
62.6%
1
0.9%
22
41.5%
890
100.0%
243
100.0%
479
100.0%
115
100.0%
53
100.0%
Totals
Percents
0
100
122
Figure 6: Marital Status
(6) Target Audience
(8) Marital status of respondents
Overall
AGCA
Fishers
AGCA
Community
Non-AGCA
Fishers
Percents
LGUTinambac
0
Single
166
18.7%
27
11.1%
111
23.2%
12
10.4%
16
30.2%
Married
664
74.6%
212
87.2%
323
67.4%
95
82.6%
34
64.2%
Widow
42
4.7%
1
0.4%
37
7.7%
3
2.6%
1
1.9%
Live-in
8
0.9%
1
0.4%
2
0.4%
4
3.5%
1
1.9%
Separated
10
1.1%
2
0.8%
6
1.3%
1
0.9%
1
1.9%
890
100.0%
243
100.0%
479
100.0%
115
100.0%
53
100.0%
Totals
100
Figure 7: Demographic Information
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(9) Residency of the respondent
I live in Agay-ayan
49.4%; 120
50.3%; 241
0.0%; 0
3.8%; 2
40.8%; 363
I live in Caloco
50.6%; 123
49.7%; 238
0.9%; 1
0.0%; 0
40.7%; 362
I do not live in AGCA but live in Tinambac
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
98.3%; 113
90.6%; 48
18.1%; 161
I live outside Tinambac
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
0.9%; 1
5.7%; 3
0.4%; 4
Other
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
123
Not Applicable
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
100.0%; 243
100.0%; 479
100.0%; 115
(10) Age of respondernt
15-29
26.3%; 64
39.9%; 191
27.8%; 32
32.1%; 17
34.2%; 304
30-39
23.0%; 56
19.4%; 93
28.7%; 33
18.9%; 10
21.6%; 192
40-49
25.9%; 63
12.1%; 58
21.7%; 25
30.2%; 16
18.2%; 162
50-59
24.7%; 60
28.6%; 137
21.7%; 25
18.9%; 10
26.1%; 232
Totals
100.0%; 243
100.0%; 479
100.0%; 115
14.0%; 34
19.2%; 92
20.9%; 24
20.8%; 11
18.1%; 161
4-6
42.8%; 104
46.1%; 221
35.7%; 41
54.7%; 29
44.4%; 395
7-9
36.2%; 88
27.6%; 132
31.3%; 36
24.5%; 13
30.2%; 269
10+
7.0%; 17
7.1%; 34
12.2%; 14
0.0%; 0
7.3%; 65
100.0%; 243
100.0%; 479
100.0%; 115
0.4%; 1
1.5%; 7
2.6%; 3
0.0%; 0
1.3%; 11
Elementary
66.8%; 161
46.3%; 214
77.4%; 89
0.0%; 0
53.3%; 464
High School
28.6%; 69
46.8%; 216
16.5%; 19
21.2%; 11
36.2%; 315
4.1%; 10
5.4%; 25
3.5%; 4
78.8%; 41
9.2%; 80
100.0%; 241
100.0%; 462
100.0%; 115
95.1%
93.9%
91.3%
100.0%
94.3%
Aglipay
0.8%
0.6%
0.9%
0.0%
0.7%
Iglesia Ni Kristo
0.8%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.4%
Born Again
1.6%
4.4%
2.6%
0.0%
3.1%
Protestante
0.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
church of Latter Day Saints
0.4%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.3%
ang dating daan
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Totals
(11) Number of Household members where
respondent belongs
1-3
Totals
(12) Educational attainment of the respondents
No school completed
Tertiary
Totals
(13) Religion
Roman catholic
0.0%; 0
0.0%; 0
100.0%; 53 100.0%; 890
100.0%; 53 100.0%; 890
100.0%; 53 100.0%; 890
100.0%; 52 100.0%; 870
124
Sabadista
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.2%
Other
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Figure 8: Economic Information
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(14) Primary occupation
Farming
4.9%
27.1%
2.6%
3.8%
16.5%
88.9%
11.5%
94.8%
1.9%
42.8%
Gleaning
1.6%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
Seaweed Farming
0.8%
2.1%
0.9%
0.0%
1.5%
Copra making
0.4%
11.3%
0.9%
0.0%
6.3%
Charcoal making
0.8%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
small business/buy&sell
0.8%
5.4%
0.0%
1.9%
3.3%
Office work
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
73.6%
4.4%
Carpentry
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
construction worker
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
house attendat (pasulweduhan)
0.0%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife)
0.0%
1.7%
0.9%
1.9%
1.1%
housework/housewife
0.4%
18.2%
0.0%
0.0%
9.9%
student
0.8%
7.9%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
government (honorarium)
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
5.7%
0.4%
unemployed
0.4%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
Refuse to answer
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.9%
0.2%
Other
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
9.4%
1.1%
Fishing
125
Not Applicable
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
*
*
*
*
*
Secondary occupation or sector belong
Farming
37.0%
23.4%
51.3%
5.7%
29.7%
Fishing
24.7%
13.2%
66.1%
5.7%
22.7%
4.5%
0.0%
6.1%
1.9%
2.1%
Seaweed Farming
29.2%
7.3%
17.4%
0.0%
14.2%
Copra making
26.3%
19.8%
17.4%
7.5%
20.6%
Charcoal making
2.9%
1.5%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
small business/buy&sell
2.5%
4.0%
0.9%
7.5%
3.4%
Office work
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
62.3%
3.7%
Carpentry
2.1%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
construction worker
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.9%
0.3%
house attendat (pasulweduhan)
0.8%
1.9%
0.9%
0.0%
1.3%
Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife)
0.0%
0.8%
1.7%
0.0%
0.7%
housework/housewife
0.8%
24.2%
0.0%
0.0%
13.3%
student
0.8%
5.0%
0.0%
3.8%
3.1%
government (honorarium)
0.4%
0.4%
6.1%
5.7%
1.5%
unemployed
0.0%
5.8%
0.0%
0.0%
3.1%
Refuse to answer
1.6%
2.3%
0.0%
1.9%
1.8%
Other
0.8%
0.6%
0.0%
7.5%
1.0%
Not Applicable
1.6%
8.4%
0.9%
7.5%
5.5%
*
*
*
*
*
(16) Annual (2010) gross income
Below 30,000 Pesos
31.7%
19.6%
15.7%
17.0%
22.2%
Between 30,000 and 50,000
13.2%
3.8%
7.0%
9.4%
7.1%
Between 50,001 and 75,000
1.6%
1.5%
0.9%
7.5%
1.8%
Between 75,001 and 100,000
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.9%
Totals
Gleaning
Totals
126
Greater than 100,000 Pesos
0.0%
0.6%
0.9%
34.0%
2.5%
Not sure
44.4%
62.2%
71.3%
20.8%
56.1%
Refused
8.6%
11.3%
4.3%
7.5%
9.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
2.1%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
1 - 20%
11.9%
7.3%
13.0%
7.5%
9.3%
21 - 40%
14.8%
4.6%
8.7%
13.2%
8.4%
41 - 60%
6.2%
2.3%
0.9%
15.1%
3.9%
61 - 80%
0.8%
0.8%
2.6%
3.8%
1.2%
81 - 100%
1.2%
2.7%
0.0%
13.2%
2.6%
55.6%
54.7%
73.0%
34.0%
56.1%
7.4%
26.9%
1.7%
13.2%
17.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
2.9%
1.7%
0.9%
0.0%
1.8%
1 - 20%
13.2%
7.5%
15.7%
1.9%
9.8%
21 - 40%
16.9%
4.0%
7.8%
11.3%
8.4%
41 - 60%
3.3%
1.9%
1.7%
3.8%
2.4%
61 - 80%
0.4%
0.2%
0.9%
1.9%
0.4%
81 - 100%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
9.4%
0.9%
56.0%
50.3%
71.3%
30.2%
53.4%
7.4%
33.8%
1.7%
41.5%
22.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
(17) percentage of annual income comes from primary occupation
0%
Not sure
Not Applicable
Totals
(18) Percentage of income from fishing
0%
Not sure
Not Applicable
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 9: Number of years in fishing
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
Overall
890
127
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(19) Number of years in fishing
4 years and below
13.2%
5.0%
7.8%
1.9%
7.4%
5 to 9
16.0%
4.4%
13.9%
1.9%
8.7%
10 to 14
12.8%
1.7%
13.0%
5.7%
6.4%
15 to 19
12.3%
2.3%
20.9%
1.9%
7.4%
20 to 24
11.9%
2.9%
19.1%
3.8%
7.5%
25 to 29
6.6%
1.9%
2.6%
0.0%
3.1%
30 to 34
8.6%
1.5%
6.1%
1.9%
4.0%
35 to 39
3.7%
0.4%
2.6%
0.0%
1.6%
40 to 44
5.3%
0.4%
7.0%
0.0%
2.6%
45 to 49
0.8%
0.2%
1.7%
3.8%
0.8%
50 to 54
1.2%
0.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.7%
refuse to answer
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
Not Applicable
4.9%
76.6%
3.5%
79.2%
47.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 10: Fishing gear used
(6) Target Audience
(20) Fishing gear
used/using
AGCA Fishers
(243)
AGCA Community
(479)
Non-AGCA
Fishers (115)
LGU-Tinambac
(53)
Overall (890)
pangki
58.8%
11.1%
26.1%
1.9%
25.5%
boso(pana)
26.3%
6.3%
67.8%
0.0%
19.3%
2.9%
1.0%
6.1%
1.9%
2.2%
25.9%
2.5%
52.2%
1.9%
15.3%
boso(compressor)
1.6%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
others
0.0%
0.4%
3.5%
0.0%
0.7%
bobo
banwit
Percents
0
100
128
refuse to answer
1.6%
1.5%
0.0%
3.8%
1.5%
Not Applicable
4.1%
80.2%
3.5%
90.6%
50.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
Figure 11: Boat ownership
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(21) Boat ownership
owned-motorized
46.1%
8.6%
27.0%
1.9%
20.8%
owned-non-motorized
14.8%
2.7%
20.0%
0.0%
8.1%
mayong baroto
30.0%
9.2%
43.5%
1.9%
18.9%
refuse to answer
4.1%
1.3%
2.6%
0.0%
2.1%
2
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Other
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Not Applicable
4.9%
77.5%
7.0%
96.2%
49.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 12: Seen fishing inside
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(A) Subsistence fishers from your village
Seen
38.7%
17.7%
13.0%
0.0%
21.8%
Not seen
57.2%
74.1%
86.1%
0.0%
66.6%
4.1%
8.1%
0.9%
100.0%
11.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
129
(B) Subsistence fishers from nearby villages
Seen
37.4%
13.2%
9.6%
0.0%
18.5%
Not seen
60.1%
77.2%
88.7%
0.0%
69.4%
2.5%
9.6%
1.7%
100.0%
12.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Subsistence fishers from outside areas
Seen
23.0%
7.7%
7.8%
0.0%
11.5%
Not seen
74.1%
81.6%
90.4%
0.0%
75.8%
2.9%
10.6%
1.7%
100.0%
12.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) Small scale commercial fishers from your
village
Seen
19.3%
5.4%
6.1%
0.0%
9.0%
Not seen
77.4%
85.2%
92.2%
0.0%
78.9%
3.3%
9.4%
1.7%
100.0%
12.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(E) Small scale commercial fishers from nearby
village
Seen
16.0%
4.8%
7.8%
0.0%
8.0%
Not seen
80.2%
85.6%
91.3%
0.0%
79.8%
3.7%
9.6%
0.9%
100.0%
12.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) Small scale commercial fishers from outside
areas
Seen
15.2%
5.0%
8.7%
0.0%
8.0%
Not seen
82.7%
85.2%
90.4%
0.0%
80.1%
2.1%
9.8%
0.9%
100.0%
11.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(G) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc
Seen
17.3%
6.3%
10.4%
0.0%
9.4%
Not seen
80.7%
83.5%
88.7%
0.0%
78.4%
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
130
Not sure / Don't remember
2.1%
10.2%
0.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(H) Large-scale industrial fishers using large trawls,
purse seiner
Seen
27.2%
11.3%
14.8%
0.0%
15.4%
Not seen
71.2%
79.5%
84.3%
0.0%
73.1%
1.6%
9.2%
0.9%
100.0%
11.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
7.8%
3.1%
2.6%
0.0%
4.2%
87.7%
87.1%
95.7%
0.0%
83.1%
4.5%
9.8%
1.7%
100.0%
12.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(J) Other resource users specializing in target fish
such as aquarium fish, mollusks (trochus) and liv
Seen
12.3%
3.3%
7.0%
0.0%
6.1%
Not seen
84.4%
87.1%
92.2%
0.0%
81.8%
3.3%
9.6%
0.9%
100.0%
12.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
(I) Sports / Game fishers targeting Tuna, Bill fish,
marlins etc
Seen
Not seen
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
100.0%
12.1%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 13: Seen fishing inside
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(A) Subsistence fishers from your village
Seen
28.0%
12.5%
11.3%
0.0%
15.8%
Not seen
70.4%
77.5%
86.1%
0.0%
72.0%
1.6%
10.0%
2.6%
100.0%
12.1%
Not sure / Don't remember
131
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Subsistence fishers from nearby villages
Seen
25.5%
11.5%
10.4%
0.0%
14.5%
Not seen
72.8%
78.7%
87.8%
0.0%
73.6%
1.6%
9.8%
1.7%
100.0%
11.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Subsistence fishers from outside areas
Seen
15.6%
5.6%
5.2%
0.0%
8.0%
Not seen
82.7%
84.1%
93.0%
0.0%
79.9%
1.6%
10.2%
1.7%
100.0%
12.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) Small scale commercial fishers from your village
Seen
11.1%
4.4%
4.3%
0.0%
6.0%
Not seen
86.0%
84.6%
93.9%
0.0%
81.1%
2.9%
11.1%
1.7%
100.0%
12.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.9%
5.0%
3.5%
0.0%
5.8%
88.1%
85.6%
91.3%
0.0%
81.9%
2.1%
9.4%
5.2%
100.0%
12.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) Small scale commercial fishers from outside
areas
Seen
12.8%
3.3%
5.2%
0.0%
6.0%
Not seen
83.5%
86.4%
91.3%
0.0%
81.1%
3.7%
10.2%
3.5%
100.0%
12.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12.3%
5.4%
4.3%
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
(E) Small scale commercial fishers from nearby
village
Seen
Not seen
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
(G) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc
Seen
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
0.0%
6.9%
132
Not seen
83.5%
84.8%
92.2%
0.0%
80.3%
4.1%
9.8%
3.5%
100.0%
12.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(H) Large-scale industrial fishers using large trawls,
purse seiner
Seen
21.4%
9.0%
6.1%
0.0%
11.5%
Not seen
75.3%
81.4%
87.8%
0.0%
75.7%
3.3%
9.6%
6.1%
100.0%
12.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.6%
1.9%
1.7%
0.0%
3.0%
90.5%
88.3%
93.0%
0.0%
84.3%
2.9%
9.8%
5.2%
100.0%
12.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(J) Other resource users specializing in target fish
such as aquarium fish, mollusks (trochus) and liv
Seen
10.7%
2.7%
1.7%
0.0%
4.6%
Not seen
85.6%
87.7%
92.2%
0.0%
82.5%
3.7%
9.6%
6.1%
100.0%
12.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
(I) Sports / Game fishers targeting Tuna, Bill fish,
marlins etc
Seen
Not seen
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 14: TR: compressor fishing operationg inside the core zone
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(24) Have you seen compressor fishers operating
inside the core zone I of AGCA Sanctuary in the past
6 months?
Seen
24.7%
6.5%
4.3%
0.0%
10.8%
133
Not seen
68.3%
67.2%
72.2%
3.8%
64.4%
7.0%
26.3%
23.5%
96.2%
24.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(25) Have you seen compressor fishers operating
inside the core zone II in the past 6 months?
Seen
11.1%
4.4%
0.9%
0.0%
5.5%
Not seen
80.2%
69.1%
75.7%
3.8%
69.1%
8.6%
26.5%
23.5%
96.2%
25.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
Not sure / Don't remember
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 15: Knowledge on AGCA Marine Sanctuary
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(26) Have you heard before about the Agay-ayan
and Caloco Marine Sanctuary (AGCA)?
Yes
79.8%
59.9%
84.3%
15.1%
65.8%
9.5%
25.3%
13.0%
15.1%
18.8%
10.7%
14.8%
2.6%
69.8%
15.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(27) Do you know where the AGCA Sanctuary is
located?
Yes
79.8%
48.2%
67.0%
15.1%
57.3%
No
13.6%
33.6%
24.3%
18.9%
26.1%
6.6%
18.2%
8.7%
66.0%
16.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
70.4%
40.3%
84.3%
No
Don't know
Totals
Don't know
Totals
(28) Do you know about core zone and buffer
zone in AGCA?
Yes
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
13.2%
52.6%
134
No
22.6%
37.0%
11.3%
15.1%
28.4%
7.0%
22.8%
4.3%
71.7%
19.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 16: Access inside the core zone of marine Sanctuary
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(29) Have you been using/fishing inside the core
zone before it was established as sanctuary?
Yes
41.2%
12.3%
43.5%
0.0%
23.5%
No
47.7%
39.5%
45.2%
1.9%
40.2%
Don't know
11.1%
48.2%
11.3%
98.1%
36.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.2%
3.3%
2.6%
0.0%
3.8%
No
83.1%
45.3%
87.8%
1.9%
58.5%
Don't know
10.7%
51.4%
9.6%
98.1%
37.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
(30) Right now, can you still enter the core zones
and fish inside?
Yes
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 17: BC Continuum
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
AGCA
Community
NonAGCA
Overall
890
LGUTinambac
135
243
479
Fishers
115
53
(31) CUSTOMIZE TO BEHAVIOR CHANGE, ONE
QUESTION FOR EACH BC IN YOUR TOC I am
going to read you a list of 6 statement about
following regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary.
I would like you to listen to
I have never considered stopping fishing/gleaning in
the AGCA Marine Sanctuary.
2.1%
0.8%
0.9%
0.0%
1.1%
I have considered stopping fishiing/gleaning in the
AGCA Marine Sanctuary but not stopped yet
2.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
I intend to stop fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine
Sanctuary in the next 6 months.
0.4%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.3%
I have talked to someone about stopiping
fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in
the past 6 months.
13.6%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
I have only gone fishing/gleaning in the AGCA
Marine Sanctuary a few times in the past 6 months
8.2%
1.9%
0.9%
0.0%
3.4%
69.1%
16.3%
93.9%
0.0%
39.8%
4.5%
77.7%
3.5%
100.0%
49.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
I have not fished/gleaned in the AGCA Marine
Sanctuary in the past 6 months.
Behavior not relevant to this respondent
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 18: Trusted Sources
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(A) Person on the radio
Most trustworthy
Very trustworthy
Somewhat trustworthy
9.9%
7.5%
5.2%
0.0%
7.4%
72.8%
78.5%
81.7%
71.7%
77.0%
4.5%
2.9%
7.0%
5.7%
4.0%
136
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
12.3%
10.9%
6.1%
22.6%
11.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Person on television
Most trustworthy
13.2%
9.4%
6.1%
5.7%
9.8%
Very trustworthy
74.9%
81.2%
86.1%
79.2%
80.0%
Somewhat trustworthy
1.2%
2.3%
1.7%
0.0%
1.8%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
10.3%
6.9%
6.1%
15.1%
8.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Police/Army
Most trustworthy
9.9%
5.2%
7.8%
5.7%
6.9%
Very trustworthy
68.7%
75.2%
88.7%
64.2%
74.5%
Somewhat trustworthy
6.6%
6.7%
1.7%
13.2%
6.4%
Not Trustworthy
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
14.0%
12.9%
1.7%
17.0%
12.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) DENR
Most trustworthy
6.6%
4.8%
6.1%
11.3%
5.8%
Very trustworthy
77.4%
74.7%
83.5%
56.6%
75.5%
Somewhat trustworthy
4.9%
4.2%
1.7%
13.2%
4.6%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
1.7%
0.9%
1.9%
1.2%
10.7%
14.6%
7.8%
17.0%
12.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(E) BFAR
Most trustworthy
6.6%
5.6%
13.0%
9.4%
7.1%
Very trustworthy
79.0%
76.2%
79.1%
73.6%
77.2%
Somewhat trustworthy
3.3%
2.5%
1.7%
3.8%
2.7%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
1.5%
0.0%
1.9%
1.0%
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
137
Not sure/Don't know
10.7%
14.2%
6.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.1%
5.8%
8.7%
24.5%
8.2%
82.7%
84.1%
86.1%
69.8%
83.1%
Somewhat trustworthy
1.6%
1.5%
2.6%
0.0%
1.6%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Not sure/Don't know
6.2%
8.1%
2.6%
5.7%
6.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(G) Government officials -barangay
Most trustworthy
16.0%
10.0%
23.5%
9.4%
13.4%
Very trustworthy
74.9%
79.7%
70.4%
81.1%
77.3%
Somewhat trustworthy
1.2%
2.5%
3.5%
0.0%
2.1%
Not sure/Don't know
7.8%
7.5%
2.6%
9.4%
7.1%
Other
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(H) Religious leaders
Most trustworthy
12.8%
12.9%
16.5%
20.8%
13.8%
Very trustworthy
81.9%
79.1%
77.4%
62.3%
78.7%
Somewhat trustworthy
1.2%
1.0%
3.5%
3.8%
1.6%
Not Trustworthy
0.8%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.4%
Not sure/Don't know
3.3%
6.7%
1.7%
13.2%
5.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(I) Friends or family members
Most trustworthy
10.3%
6.7%
6.1%
3.8%
7.4%
Very trustworthy
72.4%
78.9%
75.7%
77.4%
76.6%
Somewhat trustworthy
3.7%
3.3%
13.0%
7.5%
4.9%
Not Trustworthy
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.9%
0.2%
13.6%
10.9%
5.2%
9.4%
10.8%
Totals
(F) Government Officials -municipal
Most trustworthy
Very trustworthy
Totals
Totals
Not sure/Don't know
11.3%
12.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
138
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(J) Teachers
Most trustworthy
9.9%
6.7%
6.1%
9.4%
7.6%
Very trustworthy
76.1%
81.8%
90.4%
75.5%
81.0%
Somewhat trustworthy
3.3%
1.3%
2.6%
7.5%
2.4%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
1.9%
0.3%
10.3%
10.0%
0.9%
5.7%
8.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(K) Scientist
Most trustworthy
8.2%
5.2%
5.2%
3.8%
6.0%
Very trustworthy
60.5%
68.1%
81.7%
64.2%
67.5%
Somewhat trustworthy
4.1%
5.0%
0.9%
11.3%
4.6%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
1.9%
0.7%
26.7%
20.9%
12.2%
18.9%
21.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
4.9%
5.2%
6.1%
1.9%
5.1%
75.7%
77.2%
83.5%
73.6%
77.4%
Somewhat trustworthy
4.9%
4.8%
2.6%
11.3%
4.9%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.3%
14.0%
12.5%
7.0%
13.2%
12.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.6%
3.8%
4.3%
7.5%
4.8%
71.2%
74.9%
84.3%
69.8%
74.8%
Somewhat trustworthy
4.9%
5.4%
5.2%
9.4%
5.5%
Not Trustworthy
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
17.3%
15.2%
6.1%
13.2%
14.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
(L) Information on poster or billboard
Most trustworthy
Very trustworthy
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
(M) Information in printed booklet
Most trustworthy
Very trustworthy
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
139
(N) Information from puppet show
Most trustworthy
3.3%
2.1%
2.6%
0.0%
2.4%
Very trustworthy
37.9%
46.6%
27.8%
50.9%
42.0%
Somewhat trustworthy
22.2%
20.3%
40.0%
20.8%
23.4%
1.2%
1.3%
8.7%
3.8%
2.4%
35.4%
29.9%
20.9%
24.5%
29.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.2%
4.0%
7.0%
7.5%
5.2%
78.2%
75.8%
80.0%
69.8%
76.6%
3.7%
5.8%
5.2%
13.2%
5.6%
11.9%
14.2%
7.8%
9.4%
12.5%
Other
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
2.9%
2.5%
1.7%
5.7%
2.7%
Very trustworthy
40.3%
52.8%
33.9%
37.7%
46.1%
Somewhat trustworthy
23.0%
16.3%
47.8%
34.0%
23.3%
0.4%
1.0%
2.6%
1.9%
1.1%
33.3%
27.3%
13.9%
20.8%
26.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(Q) NSLC
Most trustworthy
14.0%
9.8%
17.4%
20.8%
12.6%
Very trustworthy
71.6%
73.7%
75.7%
71.7%
73.3%
Somewhat trustworthy
3.3%
4.0%
1.7%
5.7%
3.6%
Not Trustworthy
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
11.1%
11.9%
5.2%
1.9%
10.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.5%
6.5%
37.4%
Not Trustworthy
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
(O) Information from public meeting
Most trustworthy
Very trustworthy
Somewhat trustworthy
Not sure/Don't know
(P) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer
Most trustworthy
Not Trustworthy
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
(R) Bantay dagat
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
11.3%
11.6%
140
Most trustworthy
Very trustworthy
79.0%
81.0%
60.0%
77.4%
77.5%
Somewhat trustworthy
2.5%
2.5%
1.7%
1.9%
2.4%
Not Trustworthy
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Not sure/Don't know
8.6%
9.6%
0.9%
9.4%
8.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(S) PO
Most trustworthy
8.6%
3.8%
9.6%
7.5%
6.1%
Very trustworthy
69.5%
77.2%
80.9%
77.4%
75.6%
Somewhat trustworthy
2.5%
2.7%
0.9%
5.7%
2.6%
Not Trustworthy
0.8%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
18.5%
15.7%
8.7%
9.4%
15.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
Not sure/Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 19: Radio Listernership
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(33) Respondents who says they
listened to the radio
Never
71.6%
73.5%
46.1%
52.8%
68.2%
Up to 3 days per week
10.7%
11.9%
26.1%
24.5%
14.2%
2.9%
1.9%
8.7%
7.5%
3.4%
14.8%
12.7%
19.1%
15.1%
14.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
15.2%
16.7%
31.3%
22.6%
18.5%
1.6%
2.7%
20.0%
11.3%
5.2%
4 to 6 days per week
7 days per week
Totals
(A) Preferred radio station
DZRH
Love Radio
100.0% 100.0%
141
TX100
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
11.1%
10.0%
16.5%
5.7%
10.9%
No favorite station
0.4%
0.4%
1.7%
1.9%
0.7%
Don't know
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
71.2%
72.7%
45.2%
52.8%
67.5%
DZGE
2.1%
1.5%
1.7%
5.7%
1.9%
DWNX
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.4%
0.6%
MOR
0.4%
0.4%
4.3%
3.8%
1.1%
BBS
1.6%
0.8%
0.9%
0.0%
1.0%
FM
0.4%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.3%
Other
0.0%
0.4%
4.3%
1.9%
0.9%
Totals
*
*
*
*
*
Favorite program
Local music
5.8%
6.9%
34.8%
15.1%
10.7%
International music
0.4%
0.4%
3.5%
0.0%
0.8%
24.3%
15.4%
38.3%
35.8%
22.0%
Talk shows
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
Dramas
5.8%
9.0%
13.9%
0.0%
8.2%
Religious
2.1%
1.0%
2.6%
0.0%
1.5%
No favorite
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
3.8%
0.9%
70.4%
72.0%
43.5%
54.7%
66.9%
Other
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
0.0%
0.4%
Totals
*
*
*
*
*
(C) Radio time during weekdays
Before 6:00 a.m.
8.2%
6.1%
11.3%
17.0%
8.0%
6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
8.6%
5.6%
2.6%
17.0%
6.7%
10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
4.9%
4.8%
4.3%
0.0%
4.5%
2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
2.1%
2.5%
0.9%
11.3%
2.7%
Bombo Radio
Don't listen to the radio
News
Don't listen to radio
142
6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
1.2%
1.9%
3.5%
5.7%
2.1%
After 10:00 p.m.
0.0%
1.0%
0.9%
3.8%
0.9%
No particular time
9.1%
8.4%
33.9%
1.9%
11.5%
Don't know
0.8%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
70.8%
71.8%
45.2%
54.7%
67.1%
*
*
*
*
*
(D) Radio Weekend Time
Before 6:00 a.m.
7.8%
5.0%
11.3%
17.0%
7.3%
6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
7.0%
6.7%
2.6%
9.4%
6.4%
10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
3.7%
3.1%
5.2%
1.9%
3.5%
2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
2.1%
1.9%
0.9%
5.7%
2.0%
6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
1.2%
2.1%
3.5%
3.8%
2.1%
After 10:00 p.m.
0.0%
1.3%
0.9%
5.7%
1.1%
No particular time
12.3%
9.8%
32.2%
9.4%
13.4%
Off and on all day
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Don't know
1.2%
2.5%
0.9%
0.0%
1.8%
70.4%
72.4%
45.2%
56.6%
67.4%
*
*
*
*
*
Don't watch/listen
Totals
Don't watch/listen
Totals
Figure 20: Media Program
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(A) Tagalog Love Songs
Like the most
13.2%
15.0%
13.0%
15.1%
14.3%
Like a lot
60.9%
64.1%
60.9%
62.3%
62.7%
Like a little
11.1%
11.5%
15.7%
17.0%
12.2%
6.2%
4.6%
9.6%
1.9%
5.5%
Not liked
143
NS/DK
8.6%
4.8%
0.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
8.2%
7.1%
21.7%
37.7%
11.1%
75.7%
74.9%
62.6%
47.2%
71.9%
Like a little
5.8%
7.7%
13.0%
13.2%
8.2%
Not liked
2.9%
2.7%
2.6%
1.9%
2.7%
NS/DK
7.4%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
6.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
8.6%
8.1%
15.7%
17.0%
9.8%
70.0%
71.4%
48.7%
67.9%
67.9%
Like a little
7.8%
10.6%
29.6%
13.2%
12.5%
Not liked
5.3%
3.1%
4.3%
1.9%
3.8%
NS/DK
8.2%
6.7%
1.7%
0.0%
6.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
4.9%
9.2%
11.3%
9.4%
8.3%
Like a lot
50.2%
60.8%
45.2%
39.6%
54.6%
Like a little
18.5%
13.2%
17.4%
28.3%
16.1%
Not liked
13.6%
8.4%
25.2%
18.9%
12.6%
NS/DK
12.8%
8.6%
0.9%
3.8%
8.4%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
5.3%
7.9%
20.9%
26.4%
10.0%
Like a lot
53.9%
62.0%
38.3%
54.7%
56.3%
Like a little
21.4%
14.8%
20.0%
15.1%
17.3%
9.1%
7.3%
17.4%
1.9%
8.8%
10.3%
7.9%
3.5%
1.9%
7.6%
Totals
(B) Local news
Like the most
Like a lot
Totals
(C) Religious programs
Like the most
Like a lot
Totals
(D) Drama Shows
Like the most
(E) Comedy Shows
Like the most
Not liked
NS/DK
3.8%
5.3%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
144
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.5%
Like a lot
33.3%
42.0%
15.7%
35.8%
35.8%
Like a little
15.6%
15.4%
6.1%
15.1%
14.3%
Not liked
28.8%
23.6%
57.4%
39.6%
30.3%
NS/DK
21.4%
17.3%
19.1%
7.5%
18.1%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(G) Movies/Films
Like the most
12.3%
13.2%
32.2%
15.1%
15.5%
Like a lot
58.8%
65.6%
49.6%
43.4%
60.3%
Like a little
14.8%
9.6%
9.6%
32.1%
12.4%
Not liked
4.1%
5.6%
7.8%
7.5%
5.6%
NS/DK
9.9%
6.1%
0.9%
1.9%
6.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) Puppet Shows
Like the most
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 21: Other type of Media program
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(H) What other types of media programs do
you like to watch, listen to, or read about?
Booklet, Magazine,
4.2%
12.1%
12.5%
16.7%
9.9%
documentary- livelihoods, environment and
health
25.0%
63.6%
50.0%
50.0%
47.9%
Dyaryo/Newspaper
29.2%
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
14.1%
Government Programs
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
1.4%
International News
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
1.4%
145
Sports and Action Shows
Totals
41.7%
15.2%
12.5%
33.3%
25.4%
*
*
*
*
*
Figure 22: National Ambassador
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(35) National Ambassador
Willie Revillame
45.3%
39.9%
19.1%
3.8%
36.5%
9.1%
5.8%
10.4%
24.5%
8.4%
Jovit Baldivino
17.3%
17.3%
20.0%
13.2%
17.4%
Sarah Geronimo
16.5%
27.8%
38.3%
20.8%
25.6%
Venus Raj
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.3%
Enchong Dee
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Robin Padilla
4.5%
1.0%
2.6%
9.4%
2.7%
Jerico Rosales
0.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.0%
0.6%
karyle
0.4%
1.5%
1.7%
7.5%
1.6%
No answer
2.5%
2.9%
2.6%
3.8%
2.8%
Not Applicable
1.6%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
Children
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.1%
Grupo kan Bantay Dagat
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.1%
LGU personnel
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Local Femalle Artist
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
7.5%
0.8%
Local male artist
2.5%
0.8%
2.6%
3.8%
1.7%
Other
0.0%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.2%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Bogoy Drilon (Bugayan)
100.0% 100.0%
146
Figure 23: Local Ambassador
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(36) Local Ambassador
Municipal Mayor Ruel Velarde
79.0%
78.0%
76.5%
75.5%
78.0%
Bantay-dagat
2.9%
5.2%
13.9%
9.4%
6.0%
Cong. Noli Fuentebella
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.8%
Barangay captain
9.1%
9.0%
5.2%
1.9%
8.1%
Gov. L-ray Villafuerte
5.3%
4.8%
2.6%
1.9%
4.5%
SB- Franco Alvarez
1.2%
0.4%
0.0%
1.9%
0.7%
Darlen Tuazon
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
Arnel Pineda
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
1.9%
0.2%
NGO
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Other LGU personnel
0.4%
0.0%
0.9%
5.7%
0.6%
Other
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 24: Knowledge on rules and regulation
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA Sanctuary doesnt have a legal basis
to prohibit fishers to fish inside the core
zone?
True
46.9%
AGCA
Community
479
40.3%
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
13.9%
LGUTinambac
53
39.6%
38.7%
147
False
35.4%
31.1%
75.7%
20.8%
37.4%
Unsure
17.7%
28.6%
10.4%
39.6%
23.9%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
81.9%
71.8%
94.8%
73.6%
77.6%
7.8%
6.3%
0.9%
1.9%
5.7%
Unsure
10.3%
21.9%
4.3%
24.5%
16.6%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
90.1%
80.4%
95.7%
79.2%
84.9%
False
3.3%
3.5%
1.7%
5.7%
3.4%
Unsure
6.6%
16.1%
2.6%
15.1%
11.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
73.3%
69.7%
77.4%
73.6%
71.9%
2.1%
1.9%
0.9%
0.0%
1.7%
24.7%
28.4%
21.7%
26.4%
26.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
77.8%
74.1%
76.5%
86.8%
76.2%
0.8%
1.9%
0.9%
1.9%
1.5%
21.4%
24.0%
22.6%
11.3%
22.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) It is in a law or in regulation to prohibit
the fishers to fish and glean inside the core
zone of
True
False
(C) There is a law that prohibits the use of
sodium and dynamite inside and near the
AGCA Sanctuary.
True
Totals
(38) Number of respondents who says that
there is a law that prohibits the use of trawl
to operate inside the municipal water of
Tinambac.
Yes
No
Don't know
Totals
(39) Number of respondents who says that
there is a law that prohibits the cutting and
burning of mangrove trees?
Yes
No
Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
148
(40) Number of respondents who says that
there is a law that prohibits the catching and
slaughtering of sea turtles.
Yes
No
Don't know
Totals
79.0%
74.1%
77.4%
77.4%
76.1%
2.1%
1.9%
1.7%
0.0%
1.8%
18.9%
24.0%
20.9%
22.6%
22.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 25: Perception of TA on Community Benefits
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
LGUTinambac
53
(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) COHORT QUESTION)
Yes
51.4%
44.1%
71.3%
60.4%
50.6%
No
14.8%
9.6%
3.5%
3.8%
9.9%
Don't know
33.7%
46.3%
25.2%
35.8%
39.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
33.3%
22.1%
41.7%
43.4%
29.0%
3.3%
1.3%
0.9%
1.9%
1.8%
11.1%
11.5%
4.3%
9.4%
10.3%
bigger or better coral / habitat for fish
5.3%
6.1%
5.2%
9.4%
6.0%
more fertile fish
0.4%
1.9%
0.9%
0.0%
1.2%
bank of the sea / food security
0.0%
0.2%
5.2%
0.0%
0.8%
Totals
(B) Number of respondents who says that there
are community benefits from having the no-take
area nearby
more fish
area for fish to reproduce
bigger fish
100.0% 100.0%
149
better regulation/management of fishing
activities
5.8%
1.9%
2.6%
5.7%
3.3%
no more destructive fishing in that area
7.4%
5.4%
8.7%
9.4%
6.6%
new skills
0.0%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.2%
better/new access to tourism
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.9%
0.2%
better community cohesion
2.1%
1.5%
1.7%
1.9%
1.7%
51.4%
60.5%
40.0%
37.7%
54.0%
Improved growth and harvest of seaweeds
6.6%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.6%
Improved income of Fisher
6.2%
5.2%
23.5%
20.8%
8.8%
More lobster now
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Some supporters were given incentives
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Other
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
5.7%
1.0%
Not Applicable
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
*
*
*
*
*
i dont know
Totals
Figure 26: Level of Participation on MPA Governance
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(A) National Government officials (BFAR, DENR etc)
Regularly
34.6%
32.8%
60.0%
24.5%
36.3%
Occasionally
33.7%
24.8%
20.9%
30.2%
27.1%
4.1%
4.8%
5.2%
7.5%
4.8%
27.6%
37.6%
13.9%
37.7%
31.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Local Government officials (municipal)
Regularly
49.0%
41.8%
52.2%
66.0%
46.5%
Occasionally
36.6%
32.6%
36.5%
18.9%
33.4%
Never
Not sure/ Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
150
Never
1.6%
1.3%
2.6%
0.0%
1.5%
12.8%
24.4%
8.7%
15.1%
18.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Local Government officials (barangay)
Regularly
45.3%
39.7%
33.0%
50.9%
41.0%
Occasionally
42.4%
38.2%
59.1%
24.5%
41.2%
1.6%
1.3%
0.9%
0.0%
1.2%
10.7%
20.9%
7.0%
24.5%
16.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) Local fishers
Regularly
43.2%
41.3%
36.5%
43.4%
41.3%
Occasionally
39.9%
27.8%
33.0%
20.8%
31.3%
5.3%
2.7%
1.7%
0.0%
3.1%
11.5%
28.2%
28.7%
35.8%
24.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(E) PO or civil society organizations
Regularly
48.1%
49.7%
73.9%
58.5%
52.9%
Occasionally
37.0%
23.8%
17.4%
20.8%
26.4%
1.6%
1.5%
1.7%
0.0%
1.5%
13.2%
25.1%
7.0%
20.8%
19.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) NGO
Regularly
54.7%
53.7%
69.6%
60.4%
56.4%
Occasionally
25.1%
16.9%
11.3%
18.9%
18.5%
2.5%
0.8%
0.9%
0.0%
1.2%
17.7%
28.6%
18.3%
20.8%
23.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not sure/ Don't know
Totals
Never
Not sure/ Don't know
Totals
Never
Not sure/ Don't know
Totals
Never
Not sure/ Don't know
Totals
Never
Not sure/ Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 27: Level of Participation on Law Enforcement
151
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
(A) National Government officials (DENR and BFAR)
Most involved
23.5%
22.8%
54.8%
28.3%
27.4%
Involved
46.9%
37.4%
25.2%
45.3%
38.9%
4.9%
4.2%
7.0%
1.9%
4.6%
24.7%
35.7%
13.0%
24.5%
29.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Local Government officials from Municipio
Most involved
31.7%
25.7%
47.8%
47.2%
31.5%
Involved
49.8%
47.6%
42.6%
35.8%
46.9%
2.9%
1.5%
0.9%
0.0%
1.7%
15.6%
25.3%
8.7%
17.0%
20.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Scientists and/or fisheries experts
Most involved
11.1%
10.4%
20.9%
13.2%
12.1%
Involved
37.4%
30.5%
36.5%
24.5%
32.8%
Not involved
12.3%
7.7%
3.5%
7.5%
8.4%
Not sure / Don't know
39.1%
51.4%
39.1%
54.7%
46.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) Local Government officials from barangay
Most involved
19.3%
17.3%
28.7%
26.4%
19.9%
Involved
67.9%
57.8%
57.4%
49.1%
60.0%
2.1%
0.8%
0.9%
0.0%
1.1%
10.7%
24.0%
13.0%
24.5%
19.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
19.3%
18.2%
27.8%
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
Totals
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
(E) Local fishers
Most involved
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
26.4%
20.2%
152
Involved
61.7%
52.2%
45.2%
35.8%
52.9%
3.7%
1.5%
3.5%
0.0%
2.2%
15.2%
28.2%
23.5%
37.7%
24.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) PO
Most involved
23.5%
24.8%
65.2%
41.5%
30.7%
Involved
58.4%
49.5%
26.1%
34.0%
48.0%
2.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
16.0%
24.8%
8.7%
24.5%
20.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(G) NGO
Most involved
37.0%
33.6%
63.5%
45.3%
39.1%
Involved
46.9%
37.6%
21.7%
26.4%
37.4%
0.8%
1.9%
0.0%
1.9%
1.3%
15.2%
26.9%
14.8%
26.4%
22.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(H) PNP Tinambac
Most involved
11.1%
12.1%
29.6%
15.1%
14.3%
Involved
55.1%
40.9%
34.8%
49.1%
44.5%
5.3%
5.6%
10.4%
1.9%
6.0%
28.4%
41.3%
25.2%
34.0%
35.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(I) Philippine Army
Most involved
11.5%
11.1%
24.3%
18.9%
13.4%
Involved
53.5%
40.5%
39.1%
39.6%
43.8%
7.0%
7.1%
11.3%
3.8%
7.4%
28.0%
41.3%
25.2%
37.7%
35.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
Not involved
Not sure / Don't know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
153
Figure 28: Knowledge and attitude on CLimate Change Issuse
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
LGUTinambac
53
(A) Climate Change is not going to
cause any problem in my
community
Strongly Agree
11.1%
5.4%
8.7%
11.3%
7.8%
Agree
45.7%
40.9%
30.4%
30.2%
40.2%
Disagree
19.8%
24.0%
35.7%
45.3%
25.6%
0.8%
1.5%
4.3%
9.4%
2.1%
22.6%
28.2%
20.9%
3.8%
24.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Climate change is already a
problem in my community
Strongly Agree
11.9%
8.4%
20.0%
39.6%
12.7%
Agree
65.8%
60.3%
67.8%
50.9%
62.2%
Disagree
7.8%
8.1%
4.3%
5.7%
7.4%
Strongly Disagree
1.6%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
12.8%
22.1%
7.8%
3.8%
16.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Climate change is likely to
become a real problem in my
community in the next 5-10 years
Strongly Agree
10.3%
7.5%
13.0%
49.1%
11.5%
Agree
56.0%
53.0%
52.2%
39.6%
52.9%
Disagree
9.5%
8.6%
6.1%
0.0%
8.0%
Strongly Disagree
2.1%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
1.7%
22.2%
29.2%
27.0%
11.3%
26.0%
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
I dont know
Totals
I dont know
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
154
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) If NTZ is well managed it will
buffer the effect of clmate change in
the future
Strongly Agree
17.3%
14.6%
37.4%
43.4%
20.0%
Agree
63.8%
55.3%
53.0%
49.1%
57.0%
Disagree
3.7%
4.0%
0.9%
0.0%
3.3%
Strongly Disagree
1.2%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
14.0%
24.8%
8.7%
7.5%
18.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(45) Expected impact to community
in the next 5-10 years
sea level rise
7.3%
3.4%
1.6%
0.0%
3.8%
increase typhoon frequency
3.6%
15.5%
3.3%
0.0%
9.4%
increased water temperature
leading death of corals and less
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
increase of typhoon strength, less
reliable work and crops
1.8%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
less rain
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
fish shortage
3.6%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
Life will be more Difficult
8.2%
10.3%
11.5%
2.2%
9.2%
No answer
0.9%
6.5%
0.0%
2.2%
3.8%
66.4%
55.2%
78.7%
88.9%
64.5%
Over fishing
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
Reduce agricultural products
0.0%
1.7%
3.3%
2.2%
1.6%
unpredictable weather condition
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
0.9%
Other
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
Not Applicable
2.7%
0.4%
1.6%
0.0%
1.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
I dont know
Totals
Famine, poverty and Diseases
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
155
Figure 29: Attitude: Perception on what will be the consequence of not following rules and regulation
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
LGUTinambac
53
(A) Fish species will continue to
decline in number or disappear
Strongly Agree
26.7%
16.3%
33.0%
54.7%
23.6%
Agree
66.3%
71.6%
65.2%
39.6%
67.4%
Disagree
2.5%
1.3%
0.9%
0.0%
1.5%
Strongly Disagree
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Not sure/Dont KNow
4.5%
10.6%
0.9%
5.7%
7.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Fish Species will become smaller
and rare
Strongly Agree
24.3%
15.4%
39.1%
58.5%
23.5%
Agree
68.7%
72.2%
59.1%
37.7%
67.5%
Disagree
3.7%
2.3%
0.9%
0.0%
2.4%
Strongly Disagree
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not sure/Dont KNow
3.3%
10.0%
0.9%
3.8%
6.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Illegal fishers from outside will be
encouraged to come in and blast fish
within the AGCA Marine S
Strongly Agree
23.5%
19.6%
24.3%
49.1%
23.0%
Agree
68.7%
67.8%
68.7%
45.3%
66.9%
Disagree
2.5%
1.5%
0.9%
0.0%
1.6%
Strongly Disagree
0.8%
0.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.6%
Not sure/Dont KNow
4.5%
10.9%
4.3%
5.7%
8.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
Totals
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
156
(D) The corals begin to die
Strongly Agree
25.1%
17.1%
33.0%
56.6%
23.7%
Agree
70.0%
73.3%
64.3%
37.7%
69.1%
Disagree
1.2%
0.6%
0.0%
1.9%
0.8%
Strongly Disagree
0.0%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.2%
Not sure/Dont KNow
3.7%
8.8%
1.7%
3.8%
6.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(E) The local community will have
experience decline in fish catch and
will be poorer
Strongly Agree
20.6%
12.7%
43.5%
47.2%
20.9%
Agree
68.7%
75.4%
55.7%
49.1%
69.4%
Disagree
2.5%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
Strongly Disagree
0.4%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.2%
Not sure/Dont KNow
7.8%
10.6%
0.0%
3.8%
8.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(47) Please state below whether you
agree or disagree with this statement:
if mangrove forest will be cut and
deforested there is a possiblity that it
will affect livelihoods of fishers
Strongly Agree
26.3%
18.4%
27.8%
56.6%
24.0%
Agree
67.5%
71.6%
67.0%
37.7%
67.9%
Disagree
2.5%
1.5%
0.9%
3.8%
1.8%
Strongly Disagree
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.1%
Not sure/Dont KNow
3.7%
8.6%
3.5%
1.9%
6.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
29.2%
18.6%
33.9%
Totals
Totals
Totals
(48) Please state below whether you
agree or disagree with this statement:
continued use of cyanide and
dynamite has possible effect on the
growth and harvest of seaweeds in
our barangays
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
56.6%
25.7%
157
Strongly Agree
Agree
64.6%
71.0%
58.3%
37.7%
65.6%
Disagree
1.6%
0.6%
0.9%
1.9%
1.0%
Strongly Disagree
0.0%
0.2%
2.6%
0.0%
0.4%
Not sure/Dont KNow
4.5%
9.6%
4.3%
3.8%
7.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(49) There are still abundant supply of
fish in Lamit bay Tinambac
Strongly Agree
15.6%
7.3%
13.0%
28.3%
11.6%
Agree
58.8%
62.8%
65.2%
43.4%
60.9%
Disagree
7.0%
5.6%
7.8%
13.2%
6.7%
Strongly Disagree
0.0%
1.0%
0.9%
3.8%
0.9%
18.5%
23.2%
13.0%
11.3%
19.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(50) There is a need to protect our
seas and additional marine
sanctuaries in Tinambac
Strongly Agree
18.1%
12.3%
27.0%
47.2%
17.9%
Agree
62.6%
64.3%
71.3%
47.2%
63.7%
Disagree
4.9%
3.3%
0.0%
1.9%
3.3%
Strongly Disagree
1.2%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
13.2%
18.8%
1.7%
3.8%
14.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
Not sure/Dont KNow
Totals
Not sure/Dont KNow
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 30: Perception on size and location of MPA
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
Overall
890
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
243
479
115
53
158
(A) size of core zone 1
too big
13.6%
4.6%
11.3%
9.4%
8.2%
too small
8.6%
4.4%
9.6%
7.5%
6.4%
just right
65.8%
58.5%
52.2%
41.5%
58.7%
dont know
10.7%
18.6%
25.2%
32.1%
18.1%
1.2%
14.0%
1.7%
9.4%
8.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12.3%
4.2%
11.3%
7.5%
7.5%
too small
9.9%
4.4%
7.8%
11.3%
6.7%
just right
65.4%
59.7%
52.2%
39.6%
59.1%
dont know
11.5%
17.3%
27.0%
32.1%
17.9%
0.8%
14.4%
1.7%
9.4%
8.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
85.6%
61.8%
79.1%
47.2%
69.7%
2.1%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
11.1%
22.5%
20.0%
35.8%
19.9%
1.2%
15.0%
0.9%
17.0%
9.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
86.0%
61.2%
77.4%
47.2%
69.2%
2.1%
0.6%
0.9%
0.0%
1.0%
11.1%
22.8%
20.9%
35.8%
20.1%
0.8%
15.4%
0.9%
17.0%
9.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not Applicable
Totals
(B) size of core zone 2
too big
Not Applicable
Totals
(A) location of core zone 1
right location
not good location
i dont know
Not Applicable
Totals
(B) location of core zone 2
right location
not good location
i dont know
Not Applicable
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 31: Perception on Who should Primary enforce the law
159
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
LGUTinambac
53
(53) OPTIONAL/CUSTOMIZE Who should
primarily enforce the rules and regulations of the
AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Should it be the
Coastguard, Fishers/gleaners, the Bantay dagat,
the National Police, local vill
Coastguard
12.0%
10.7%
13.0%
21.2%
12.0%
Fishers/Gleaners
22.3%
16.2%
13.9%
9.6%
17.2%
Bantay dagat (licensed enforcers)
35.5%
33.7%
59.1%
28.8%
37.2%
0.8%
1.1%
7.8%
0.0%
1.8%
13.2%
20.6%
1.7%
19.2%
16.1%
Philippine Army
1.7%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
LGU Municipal
14.0%
14.7%
4.3%
17.3%
13.3%
All the community members
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.3%
I am not sure
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Other
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
National Police
Local village officials
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 32: Perception on Fish Catch
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
(54) CUSTOMIZE Has your catch increased,
decreased or stayed the same as a result of the
AGCA Marine Sanctuary? (If the person does not
fish or glean mark as NA)
AGCA
Community
479
9.1%
5.2%
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
5.2%
LGUTinambac
53
3.8%
6.2%
160
Decreased
Increased
47.3%
17.7%
45.2%
5.7%
28.7%
Stayed the Same
25.9%
11.7%
19.1%
0.0%
15.8%
Not sure
14.8%
12.1%
7.8%
9.4%
12.1%
2.9%
53.2%
22.6%
81.1%
37.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not Applicable
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 33: Attitude: Perception of TA towards AGCA Management and enforcement
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
LGU-Tinambac
53
(A) There is a clear plan for how the no-take
area will be managed
Strongly Agree
13.6%
7.5%
20.0%
20.8%
11.6%
Agree
65.4%
69.1%
75.7%
60.4%
68.4%
Disagree
3.3%
1.5%
0.0%
1.9%
1.8%
Strongly Disagree
0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
16.9%
21.7%
4.3%
17.0%
17.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.9%
6.1%
8.7%
22.6%
8.4%
70.4%
66.4%
61.7%
66.0%
66.9%
Disagree
7.0%
4.0%
3.5%
1.9%
4.6%
Strongly Disagree
1.2%
0.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.7%
11.5%
23.4%
24.3%
9.4%
19.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
I dont know
Totals
(B) Local village fishers regularly participate
in management decisions of the no-take
area
Strongly Agree
Agree
I dont know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
161
(C) Local people know boundaries of the notake area
Strongly Agree
13.6%
6.9%
11.3%
13.2%
9.7%
Agree
72.0%
64.9%
65.2%
41.5%
65.5%
Disagree
2.1%
2.5%
7.0%
9.4%
3.4%
Strongly Disagree
1.2%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.4%
11.1%
25.7%
15.7%
35.8%
21.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.1%
4.0%
6.1%
3.8%
5.6%
Agree
52.7%
49.7%
34.8%
43.4%
48.2%
Disagree
19.8%
13.2%
47.8%
13.2%
19.4%
2.9%
2.1%
1.7%
3.8%
2.4%
15.6%
31.1%
9.6%
35.8%
24.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.6%
4.0%
16.5%
9.6%
6.6%
Agree
54.3%
53.7%
60.0%
48.1%
54.3%
Disagree
18.1%
8.6%
4.3%
9.6%
10.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
0.0%
0.4%
20.6%
33.4%
18.3%
32.7%
27.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) The rules of the no-take area are
regularly enforced so that violators are
caught and punished
Strongly Agree
12.3%
9.4%
32.2%
20.8%
13.8%
Agree
67.1%
59.9%
59.1%
50.9%
61.2%
7.4%
5.2%
7.0%
7.5%
6.2%
I dont know
Totals
(D) There was not enough planning done
before the no-take area was established
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
(E) There is enough money and other
resources to fully manage and enforce the
rules of the no-take are
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
Disagree
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
162
Strongly Disagree
0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
12.3%
25.3%
1.7%
20.8%
18.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.5%
5.2%
10.4%
9.4%
7.3%
Agree
56.4%
50.9%
48.7%
37.7%
51.3%
Disagree
18.1%
16.5%
33.0%
30.2%
19.9%
1.2%
0.6%
2.6%
1.9%
1.1%
14.8%
26.7%
5.2%
20.8%
20.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(H) The rules of the no-take area are
designed more to protect the fish than to
help the fishers
Strongly Agree
14.0%
5.8%
13.9%
18.9%
9.9%
Agree
65.0%
64.3%
71.3%
50.9%
64.6%
Disagree
7.0%
5.0%
4.3%
17.0%
6.2%
Strongly Disagree
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
12.8%
24.6%
10.4%
13.2%
18.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
7.0%
3.5%
13.9%
15.1%
6.5%
Agree
58.0%
59.1%
67.8%
50.9%
59.4%
Disagree
14.8%
9.4%
6.1%
15.1%
10.8%
1.6%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.6%
18.5%
28.0%
11.3%
18.9%
22.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.6%
3.1%
15.7%
I dont know
Totals
(G) The rules of the no-take area are unclear
and local fishers don't understand them
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
I dont know
Totals
(I) The infrastructure, equipment and
facilities to enforce the rules of the no-take
area are adequate
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
(J) There is an adequate communications
program about the no-take area
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
17.0%
6.5%
163
Strongly Agree
Agree
65.4%
60.8%
76.5%
54.7%
63.7%
Disagree
10.3%
7.9%
2.6%
13.2%
8.2%
0.8%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
16.9%
27.8%
5.2%
15.1%
21.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(K) Staff of the no-take area are adequately
trained
Strongly Agree
10.7%
3.1%
19.1%
22.6%
8.4%
Agree
64.2%
66.2%
73.0%
54.7%
65.8%
Disagree
8.6%
4.0%
2.6%
9.4%
5.4%
Strongly Disagree
0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
15.6%
26.5%
5.2%
13.2%
20.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.1%
3.1%
16.5%
18.9%
7.4%
63.4%
66.4%
73.0%
60.4%
66.1%
Disagree
7.0%
3.1%
0.9%
7.5%
4.2%
Strongly Disagree
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
19.3%
27.1%
9.6%
13.2%
21.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
7.4%
3.8%
9.6%
15.1%
6.2%
70.4%
64.7%
75.7%
60.4%
67.4%
Disagree
4.1%
3.8%
1.7%
11.3%
4.0%
Strongly Disagree
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
16.9%
27.8%
13.0%
13.2%
22.0%
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
I dont know
Totals
(L) There is a regular management
effectiveness assessment conducted for the
no-take area
Strongly Agree
Agree
I dont know
Totals
(M) Research and monitoring activities of the
no take area are adequate
Strongly Agree
Agree
I dont know
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
164
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
7.0%
2.7%
8.7%
15.1%
5.4%
Agree
53.5%
49.3%
63.5%
37.7%
51.6%
Disagree
17.3%
15.0%
7.0%
28.3%
15.4%
0.8%
0.4%
1.7%
0.0%
0.7%
21.4%
32.6%
19.1%
18.9%
27.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(N) There are no current problems with the
no-take area management
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 34: IC on Benefits
Overall
890
Target Audience
Target
audience
2B- Agayayan
Community
244
(56) Benefits to the community
Have not talked to anyone
Target
Target
Audience
audience
1A2A- Caloco fishers
Community from
235
Caloco
124
Target
audience
1Bfishers
from
Agayayan
119
Target
audience
3Afishers
from San
Antonio
104
Target
audeince
4A- LGU
and
service
provider
53
Target
audience
3Bfishers
from
Pag-asa
11
90.6%
95.3%
82.3%
73.1%
54.8%
69.8%
54.5%
82.5%
Talked to spouse/partner
0.4%
0.9%
1.6%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
Talked to parents, or in-laws
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Talked to friend or neighbor
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
3.8%
1.9%
0.0%
0.7%
Talked to village fishers
1.2%
0.4%
0.0%
5.9%
4.8%
7.5%
18.2%
2.5%
Talked to village leaders/barangay
offcials
2.5%
1.7%
6.5%
4.2%
8.7%
3.8%
0.0%
3.8%
Talked to Local government from
municipio
0.8%
0.0%
0.8%
5.0%
2.9%
7.5%
0.0%
1.8%
165
Talked to DENR and/or BFAR
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
3.4%
5.8%
3.8%
0.0%
1.5%
Talked to NSLC (NGO)
2.5%
1.7%
6.5%
5.0%
10.6%
13.2%
9.1%
4.8%
Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA
2.9%
0.9%
4.8%
10.9%
27.9%
5.7%
18.2%
7.0%
Talked to teachers
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
9.1%
0.6%
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Target
Target
Audience
audience
1A2A- Caloco fishers
Community from
235
Caloco
124
Target
audience
1Bfishers
from
Agayayan
119
Target
audience
3Afishers
from San
Antonio
104
Target
audeince
4A- LGU
and
service
provider
53
Target
audience
3Bfishers
from
Pag-asa
11
Totals
Target
audience
2B- Agayayan
Community
244
(A) Benefits to the community
more fish
4.1%
0.9%
3.2%
8.4%
5.8%
9.4%
18.2%
4.4%
bigger fish
1.2%
0.4%
2.4%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
1.2%
improved fish catch/livelihood
0.0%
0.4%
2.4%
0.8%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%
0.8%
improved growth of gulaman
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
stop intrusion and other destructive
fishing activities
0.8%
0.4%
1.6%
0.0%
1.0%
3.8%
9.1%
1.0%
improved corals
0.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.3%
community development
0.4%
0.9%
2.4%
0.0%
1.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.9%
94.3%
96.6%
85.5%
86.6%
74.8%
71.7%
54.5%
88.5%
community sea bank
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.2%
Improved income of fishers
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.8%
7.5%
9.1%
1.3%
Logistic needs and enorcement
system
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
lots of benefits can be gained from
protecting the Sanctuary
0.4%
0.9%
4.0%
0.8%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
NO ANSWER
166
Promote discipline and enhance
community values
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
We were given incentives (nets, nonmotorized banca, honorarium,
insurance etc)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Other
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
1.7%
2.9%
1.9%
0.0%
0.9%
Not Applicable
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Totals
Figure 35: IC on the consequence of breaking the MPA
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
(57) OPTIONAL, CUSTOMIZE In the past
6 months, have you talked to anyone
about "the consequences of breaking the
AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules &
regulations"? If you have, please tell me
all of the people wi
Have not talked to anyone
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
LGUTinambac
53
74.5%
91.6%
55.7%
77.4%
81.4%
Talked to spouse/partner
2.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Talked to friend or neighbor
0.8%
0.4%
1.7%
1.9%
0.8%
Talked to village fishers
0.8%
1.0%
2.6%
1.9%
1.2%
Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials
6.2%
2.3%
7.8%
1.9%
4.1%
Talked to Local government from
municipio
2.1%
0.6%
2.6%
13.2%
2.0%
Talked to DENR and/or BFAR
2.5%
0.2%
2.6%
5.7%
1.5%
Talked to NSLC (NGO)
4.1%
1.5%
7.8%
3.8%
3.2%
11.1%
2.3%
29.6%
1.9%
8.2%
Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA
167
Other
0.8%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.5%
Totals
*
*
*
*
*
(A) If you did talk about this, can you tell
me what the main thing was you
discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A
LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT
READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD
A BLANK OPTION
Pagkulong
70.2%
58.8%
78.4%
72.7%
69.8%
Pagmulta
51.1%
32.4%
67.6%
81.8%
53.5%
Additional banty-dagat is needed to
enforce sanctuary rules
2.1%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
Confiscation of fishing equipment
2.1%
5.9%
16.2%
18.2%
8.5%
Displinary action
6.4%
14.7%
8.1%
0.0%
8.5%
I have forgotten what we talked about
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
23.4%
2.9%
2.7%
0.0%
10.1%
We talked about the prohibitions and
violations
0.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
Will be reported and turned over to higher
authority
2.1%
11.8%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
Other
4.3%
8.8%
2.7%
9.1%
5.4%
Not Applicable
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
*
*
*
*
*
WARNING and BLOTTER
Totals
Figure 36: IC on role in MPA management
Overall
890
Target Audience
Target
audience 2BAgay-ayan
Community
244
Target
audience 2ACaloco
Community
235
Target
Audience
1A- fishers
from
Caloco
Target
audience
1B- fishers
from Agayayan
Target
audience
3A- fishers
from San
Antonio
Target
audeince
4A- LGU
and service
provider
Target
audience
3B- fishers
from Pagasa
168
124
(58) OPTIONAL - 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 abo
Have not talked to anyone
119
104
53
11
89.3%
95.3%
84.7%
78.2%
61.2%
84.3%
54.5%
84.8%
Talked to spouse/partner
1.2%
1.3%
2.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
Talked to friend or
neighbor
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Talked to village fishers
0.8%
0.0%
0.8%
3.4%
1.0%
3.9%
0.0%
1.1%
Talked to village
leaders/barangay offcials
1.6%
1.7%
2.4%
1.7%
4.9%
2.0%
0.0%
2.1%
Talked to Local
government from municipio
0.4%
0.0%
0.8%
1.7%
1.9%
5.9%
9.1%
1.1%
Talked to DENR and/or
BFAR
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
1.9%
3.9%
0.0%
0.9%
Talked to NSLC (NGO)
4.1%
0.0%
6.5%
5.9%
7.8%
5.9%
18.2%
4.3%
Talked to Bantay-dagat of
AGCA
4.9%
1.3%
3.2%
12.6%
27.2%
2.0%
36.4%
7.6%
Other
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
Totals
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(A) Community role in MPA
managment
Bagbawal sa mga
parasisira na mag laog sa
AGCA asin madakol ang
gusi
9.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
Dakulang tabang samong
para sira natawan kami
kaaraman
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
169
Ireport
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
22.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
Makipagtabangan
4.8%
0.0%
6.7%
11.1%
3.7%
0.0%
20.0%
5.8%
MALASAKIT ,
MAGREPORT
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
1.9%
Pagmalasakit,Pagsumbong
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
Other
71.4%
100.0%
86.7%
55.6%
96.3%
100.0%
60.0%
81.6%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 37: Involvement of TA i by attending meeting
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
(A)
Regularly involved
24.0%
10.0%
32.5%
20.8%
Occasionally involved
46.3%
32.0%
19.3%
34.0%
Never involved
11.2%
19.0%
20.2%
20.8%
Don't know / not applicable
18.6%
38.9%
28.1%
24.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(60) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE
In the past 12 months, have you
attended any meetings or
gatherine where management
of AGCA Sanctuary was
discussed? If so, about how
many times in those 12 months
did you attend?
Yes
39.3%
17.9%
35.7%
20.8%
no
45.5%
64.0%
57.4%
73.6%
I dont Know
15.2%
18.1%
7.0%
5.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
48.8%
60.5%
59.8%
63.4%
Totals
Totals
(A) if yes, how often have you
attend the meeting in 12 months
170
Never attended a meeting
Attended at least 1 meeting
17.4%
12.6%
20.5%
24.4%
Attended at between 2-5
meetings
9.5%
3.5%
16.1%
12.2%
Attended at least 6 meetings
1.0%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
More than 7 meetings
8.5%
2.0%
0.9%
0.0%
14.9%
21.2%
1.8%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Not applicable
Totals
Figure 38: Hearing someone reporting intrusion to Mancom
Overall
890
Target Barangay:
Agayayan
363
Caloco
358
San
Antonio
107
LGU/service
provider
52
Pagasa
10
(61) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE - In
the last six months have you heard
of anyone reporting someone
breaking the AGCA Marine
Sanctuary rules & regulations to the
enforcement team?
Yes
31.1%
26.1%
34.6%
26.9%
70.0%
29.7%
No
61.2%
43.1%
42.1%
69.2%
30.0%
51.7%
7.7%
30.8%
23.4%
3.8%
0.0%
18.6%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
not sure/dont know
Totals
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Figure 39: Whom to report
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
Overall
890
LGUTinambac
53
171
(62) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE If you
were to report someone who has broken
the rules & regulations of the AGCA
Marine Sanctuary, who would you report
them to? [YOU CAN CHOOSE MORE
THAN ONE ANSWER].
Local police
6.6%
11.3%
3.5%
32.1%
10.2%
Local law enforcement
3.3%
4.2%
3.5%
5.7%
3.9%
Barangay Captain
42.0%
48.0%
35.7%
60.4%
45.5%
Municipal mayor
10.3%
18.8%
12.2%
39.6%
16.9%
Next door neighbor
0.8%
1.0%
0.9%
1.9%
1.0%
Husband/Wife.
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
58.8%
53.0%
88.7%
47.2%
58.9%
I dont know
2.5%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Other
0.8%
0.4%
0.9%
1.9%
0.7%
Totals
*
*
*
*
*
Bantay dagat
Figure 40: BC: Following rules and regulations and seen threats
Overall
890
Target Barangay:
Agayayan
363
(A) Majority of residents of AGCA were
involved in managing AGCA MArine
Sanctuary?
Strongly Agree
Caloco
358
San
Antonio
107
LGU/service
provider
52
Pag-asa
10
6.6%
5.3%
13.1%
21.2%
10.0%
7.8%
55.4%
71.2%
48.6%
46.2%
80.0%
60.7%
Disagree
9.6%
7.5%
3.7%
13.5%
0.0%
8.2%
Strongly Disagree
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
28.1%
15.6%
34.6%
19.2%
10.0%
23.1%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Agree
I dont know
Totals
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
172
(B) There were poachers in core zone 1 of
AGCA Marine Sanctuary at night time
Strongly Agree
4.4%
3.6%
5.6%
11.5%
0.0%
4.6%
40.8%
44.1%
15.9%
38.5%
40.0%
39.0%
Disagree
6.9%
17.3%
19.6%
5.8%
0.0%
12.5%
Strongly Disagree
0.6%
0.3%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
47.4%
34.6%
55.1%
44.2%
60.0%
43.1%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Agree
I dont know
Totals
(C) There were poachers in AGCA
Sanctuary core zone 2 at night time
Strongly Agree
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2.8%
1.4%
4.7%
11.5%
0.0%
2.9%
40.8%
39.7%
17.8%
34.6%
30.0%
37.1%
Disagree
9.1%
15.9%
17.8%
7.7%
20.0%
12.9%
Strongly Disagree
0.8%
0.3%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
46.6%
42.7%
57.9%
46.2%
50.0%
46.4%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Agree
I dont know
Totals
(D) AGCA Marine Sanctuary were being
guarded 24/7?
Strongly Agree
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
3.9%
0.6%
1.9%
9.6%
0.0%
2.6%
Agree
27.0%
26.8%
12.1%
26.9%
30.0%
25.2%
Disagree
32.0%
40.8%
27.1%
23.1%
20.0%
34.3%
1.9%
1.1%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
35.3%
30.7%
54.2%
40.4%
50.0%
36.2%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
(E) Only men were participating in
Sanctuary governance.
Strongly Agree
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
6.9%
0.6%
12.1%
9.6%
0.0%
5.1%
Agree
51.0%
47.5%
60.7%
25.0%
30.0%
49.0%
Disagree
14.0%
33.8%
16.8%
30.8%
30.0%
23.5%
1.1%
0.3%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.7%
Strongly Disagree
173
I dont know
Totals
(F) Residents of AGCA were following
rules and regulations.
Strongly Agree
27.0%
17.9%
10.3%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
32.7%
40.0%
21.8%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.4%
4.5%
5.7%
9.6%
20.0%
5.1%
58.2%
73.5%
85.8%
50.0%
60.0%
67.2%
Disagree
8.3%
7.5%
0.9%
9.6%
0.0%
7.1%
Strongly Disagree
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
28.8%
14.2%
7.5%
30.8%
20.0%
20.4%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Agree
I dont know
Totals
(64) Do you agree or disagree that you
can do something or contribute in
reducting/eliminating illegal fishing
activites in barangay?
Strongly Agree
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
6.9%
8.1%
6.5%
11.5%
20.0%
7.8%
Agree
58.4%
72.3%
69.2%
48.1%
80.0%
64.9%
Neutral
5.5%
6.1%
2.8%
5.8%
0.0%
5.4%
Disagree
0.3%
0.6%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
28.9%
12.8%
18.7%
34.6%
0.0%
21.2%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
I dont know
Totals
(65) Do you agree or disagree that
community will benefits in developing the
Caloco Beach Resort?
Strongly Agree
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.1%
7.8%
4.7%
13.5%
20.0%
6.4%
Agree
44.1%
77.1%
48.6%
55.8%
40.0%
58.5%
Disagree
11.0%
0.3%
6.5%
3.8%
10.0%
5.7%
0.8%
0.6%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
39.9%
14.2%
37.4%
26.9%
30.0%
28.4%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
Strongly Disagree
I dont know
Totals
(66) Do you agree or dis agree that the
AGCA Management committee (AGCA
8.3%
7.0%
8.4%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
25.0%
0.0%
8.7%
174
ManCom) are activelyh involve in
governance of AGCA.
Strongly Agree
Agree
39.4%
61.5%
73.8%
36.5%
80.0%
52.7%
Neutral
3.6%
2.5%
1.9%
3.8%
0.0%
2.9%
Disagree
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
47.9%
28.2%
15.0%
34.6%
20.0%
34.9%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
I dont know
Totals
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Figure 41: BR: Knowledge on who manage AGCA and whom to report
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
Non-AGCA
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community
Fishers
243
479
115
LGU-Tinambac
53
(67) Are you aware of who comprise the
AGCA Mancom (pls check all, that apply
Officers from Municipal-LGU
23.9%
19.7%
31.3%
32.1%
23.1%
Officers from barangay-LGU
15.6%
17.2%
30.4%
26.4%
19.1%
3.3%
4.2%
2.6%
7.5%
3.9%
15.6%
15.5%
18.3%
18.9%
16.1%
officers from Philippine National Police and
Philippine Army
0.8%
2.3%
0.0%
3.8%
1.7%
Officers from the Province
0.8%
1.1%
0.9%
3.8%
1.1%
Officers from NGO
24.3%
20.8%
23.5%
22.6%
22.2%
Officers from BFARMC
17.7%
12.2%
21.7%
17.0%
15.2%
Mga Bantay-Dagat
25.9%
21.6%
50.4%
22.6%
26.6%
Mga Tanod
3.7%
2.3%
19.1%
9.4%
5.3%
Teachers
0.4%
1.1%
1.7%
5.7%
1.2%
Officers from PO
Officers from DENR/BFARO
175
women sector
4.1%
1.3%
1.7%
3.8%
2.3%
youth sector
0.8%
1.9%
0.9%
3.8%
1.6%
Fisher's sector
4.1%
1.9%
2.6%
13.2%
3.3%
business sector
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.2%
church
1.6%
0.6%
1.7%
3.8%
1.2%
56.8%
61.3%
27.8%
58.5%
55.6%
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Totals
*
*
*
*
*
(68) what have been done in the past six
months?
Conduct IEC
5.4%
3.1%
5.2%
3.8%
4.1%
Enforce Fishery laws and AGCA
Ordinances
4.1%
1.9%
2.6%
5.8%
2.8%
83.5%
90.2%
80.9%
82.7%
86.7%
I dont know
0.8%
0.4%
0.9%
0.0%
0.6%
Install and maintain buoys and markers
0.4%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Plan and manage marine resources
4.1%
1.9%
7.8%
7.7%
3.6%
Other
1.7%
0.8%
2.6%
0.0%
1.2%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(A) Tagalog Love Song-Exposure
Yes
17.3%
10.6%
5.2%
1.9%
11.2%
No
60.9%
70.8%
92.2%
86.8%
71.8%
Don't know
21.8%
18.6%
2.6%
11.3%
17.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
I dont know
Guarding and Patrolling
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 42: Media Exposure
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
176
AGCA Fishers AGCA Community Non-AGCA Fishers LGU-Tinambac
(A) Tagalog Love Song-Exposure
Yes
17.3%
10.6%
5.2%
1.9%
No
60.9%
70.8%
92.2%
86.8%
Don't know
21.8%
18.6%
2.6%
11.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Local News-Exposure
Yes
47.7%
27.6%
50.4%
24.5%
No
41.6%
59.1%
44.3%
64.2%
Don't know
10.7%
13.4%
5.2%
11.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(C) Drama-Exposure
Yes
11.5%
6.1%
7.0%
5.7%
No
71.6%
78.9%
92.2%
86.8%
Don't know
16.9%
15.0%
0.9%
7.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) Comedy-Exposure
Yes
11.5%
5.2%
1.7%
7.5%
No
72.8%
80.2%
98.3%
84.9%
Don't know
15.6%
14.6%
0.0%
7.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.1%
3.3%
0.0%
3.8%
No
75.7%
81.6%
99.1%
90.6%
Don't know
15.2%
15.0%
0.9%
5.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) Locally Produced Video-Exposure
Yes
18.5%
10.2%
14.8%
7.5%
No
69.1%
74.7%
77.4%
86.8%
Don't know
12.3%
15.0%
7.8%
5.7%
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
(E) Puppet Show-Exposure
Yes
Totals
177
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(G) Poster or Billboard-Exposure
Yes
69.5%
58.5%
65.2%
28.3%
No
23.0%
33.4%
28.7%
64.2%
7.4%
8.1%
6.1%
7.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(H) Printed Booklet-Exposure
Yes
42.4%
31.9%
31.3%
15.1%
No
45.3%
52.8%
63.5%
77.4%
Don't know
12.3%
15.2%
5.2%
7.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(I) Public Meeting (Festival)-Exposure
Yes
64.6%
44.9%
53.9%
34.0%
No
25.9%
44.9%
46.1%
62.3%
9.5%
10.2%
0.0%
3.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
8.2%
5.6%
7.8%
1.9%
No
72.8%
78.1%
90.4%
92.5%
Don't know
18.9%
16.3%
1.7%
5.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Don't know
Totals
Totals
Don't know
Totals
(J) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer-Exposure
Yes
Totals
Figure 43: Other Media
Overall
890
Audience Segmentation on Q7:Target Audience
AGCA
Fishers
243
(70) CUSTOMIZE TO YOUR SITE (AS
ABOVE, MAKE QUESTION SPECIFIC TO
YOUR CAMPAIGN) Of all of the different
14.3%
AGCA
Community
479
14.8%
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
13.8%
LGUTinambac
53
13.6%
14.3%
178
ways in which you remember seeing or
hearing about AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the
past 6 months, which
bareta
Booklet o libro
0.8%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
1.3%
I dont know
3.4%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
21.0%
22.6%
50.0%
40.9%
28.3%
Not helpful
3.4%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
pilikula
0.0%
0.9%
3.4%
0.0%
1.0%
29.4%
27.0%
17.2%
18.2%
25.5%
Simenar
2.5%
1.7%
3.4%
0.0%
2.2%
Tagalog love song
0.8%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
23.5%
25.2%
10.3%
27.3%
22.0%
Other
0.8%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
meeting
poster/ billboard/padukot
Wrong answer
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 44: Important Message that the TA received
AGCA
Fishers
243
(71) CUSTOMIZE TO SITE Of all the different
ways in which you learned about AGCA
Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, what
do you think was the most important message
that you learned from them?
benefit of having NTZ and following its rules
and regulations
AGCA
Community
479
NonAGCA
Fishers
115
LGUTinambac
53
Overall
890
33.6%
36.8%
38.1%
31.6%
35.6%
Consequences of breaking the law
1.5%
1.2%
1.6%
0.0%
1.3%
I dont know
0.7%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
pagproteher kan kadagatan para maging
magayon ang kagatan asin pagdarakula kan
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.5%
0.5%
179
mga sira
Protect and conserve the sea
rules and regulations to be followed
wrong answer
Totals
3.7%
8.6%
3.2%
42.1%
7.7%
56.0%
49.1%
55.6%
15.8%
50.9%
4.5%
3.1%
1.6%
0.0%
3.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 46: Suggested Strategies
AGCA
Fishers
243
AGCA
Community
479
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
LGUTinambac
53
Overall
890
(A) Increased local community involvement in
management of the no-take area
SA
58.4%
50.5%
81.7%
83.0%
58.7%
A
26.3%
29.0%
11.3%
9.4%
24.8%
D
4.5%
4.2%
0.9%
3.8%
3.8%
SD
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
NS/DK
10.7%
15.9%
6.1%
3.8%
12.5%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(B) Limiting involvement in management of the
no-take area to fishers only
SA
34.2%
34.2%
28.7%
28.3%
33.1%
A
23.9%
24.6%
7.8%
7.5%
21.2%
D
31.3%
26.1%
52.2%
49.1%
32.2%
SD
1.2%
1.0%
6.1%
11.3%
2.4%
NS/DK
9.5%
14.0%
5.2%
3.8%
11.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
56.4%
57.4%
67.8%
Totals
(C) Increased and strict law enforcement of the
no-take area rules by Police / Navy and
Enforcers
SA
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
77.4%
59.7%
180
A
29.2%
25.3%
19.1%
15.1%
24.9%
D
7.8%
4.0%
6.1%
1.9%
5.2%
SD
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
NS/DK
6.6%
12.9%
7.0%
5.7%
10.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(D) Increased and strict law enforcement of
rules by local community fishers with
enforcement rights
SA
67.5%
62.0%
83.5%
84.9%
67.6%
A
24.3%
22.3%
11.3%
13.2%
20.9%
D
3.3%
2.1%
4.3%
0.0%
2.6%
NS/DK
4.9%
13.4%
0.9%
1.9%
8.8%
Other
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(E) Develop new rules for the no-take area in a
process that includes the whole community
SA
66.3%
56.6%
72.2%
73.6%
62.2%
A
24.7%
24.4%
13.9%
18.9%
22.8%
D
5.8%
4.0%
7.8%
1.9%
4.8%
SD
0.4%
0.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.4%
NS/DK
2.9%
14.8%
4.3%
5.7%
9.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(F) Change the size and/or the location of the
no-take area
SA
25.1%
27.6%
28.7%
45.3%
28.1%
A
21.0%
19.8%
7.0%
17.0%
18.3%
D
40.7%
26.9%
40.9%
17.0%
31.9%
0.4%
0.2%
7.8%
0.0%
1.2%
NS/DK
12.8%
25.5%
15.7%
20.8%
20.4%
Totals
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
Totals
SD
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
181
(G) Make sure that local fishers have the
exclusive right to fish in the areas around the
no-take area
SA
42.8%
38.8%
77.4%
41.5%
45.1%
A
25.1%
23.0%
12.2%
13.2%
21.6%
D
21.4%
18.6%
7.8%
30.2%
18.7%
SD
0.8%
1.3%
0.9%
5.7%
1.3%
NS/DK
9.9%
18.4%
1.7%
9.4%
13.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(75) Number of respondents who says that we
need to expand the marine sanctuary to include
isalnd ecosystems.
Strongly Agree
49.0%
43.8%
84.3%
71.7%
52.1%
Agree
23.5%
23.6%
8.7%
22.6%
21.6%
Neutral
18.5%
14.2%
3.5%
1.9%
13.3%
Disagree
1.2%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
I dont know
7.8%
17.1%
3.5%
3.8%
12.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(76) Number of Respondentd who says that
suppliers of dynamite and sodium in Lamit Bay
must be stopped and put behind the jail.
Strongly Agree
73.7%
69.5%
95.7%
83.0%
74.8%
Agree
19.3%
19.6%
4.3%
15.1%
17.3%
Neutral
3.7%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
Disagree
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
I dont know
2.1%
9.0%
0.0%
1.9%
5.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
75.7%
71.6%
94.8%
Totals
Totals
Totals
(77) Number of Respondents who says that they
must protect and take care of corals, sea
grasses and mangrove forests in our
municipality.
Strongly Agree
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
84.9%
76.5%
182
Agree
21.0%
18.6%
4.3%
13.2%
17.1%
Neutral
1.2%
0.4%
0.9%
0.0%
0.7%
Disagree
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
I dont know
1.6%
9.2%
0.0%
1.9%
5.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(78) Numbers of respondents who says that
they must follow the rules and regulation of
AGCA MArine Sanctuary
Strongly Agree
67.1%
67.8%
93.9%
81.1%
71.8%
Agree
23.5%
20.5%
5.2%
13.2%
18.9%
Neutral
3.3%
1.5%
0.0%
1.9%
1.8%
Disagree
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I dont know
6.2%
10.2%
0.9%
3.8%
7.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(79) Number of respondents who says that
dismantling of Pugon is one way of regulating
mangrove deforestation
Strongly Agree
67.9%
58.0%
91.3%
77.4%
66.2%
Agree
20.2%
24.6%
5.2%
15.1%
20.3%
Neutral
5.3%
6.1%
0.0%
3.8%
4.9%
Disagree
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
I dont know
5.8%
11.3%
3.5%
3.8%
8.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
Totals
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Figure 47: Willingness of TA to support AGCA Sanctuary and establishment of new MPAs
AGCA
Fishers
243
(80) Number of respondents who says that they are willing to support the AGCA Sanctuary
and other protected areas in Tinambac
Yes
67.9%
AGCA
Community
479
68.5%
Non-AGCA
Fishers
115
93.9%
LGUTinambac
53
96.2%
73.3%
183
No
12.8%
9.2%
0.0%
0.0%
8.4%
Not Sure
19.3%
22.3%
6.1%
3.8%
18.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals
100.0% 100.0%
5. EcoGov MPA Effectiveness Rating
(Insert filled in tables) (reference Lola page 161 but use revised version from Jong)
Met/Needs
work
No.
Criteria/Activity Satisfied
Evidence (delete those that are not available in the site and add
additional evidence if available)
LEVEL 1 – MPA IS INITIATED
3
1
accepted [ang konsepto ng MPA ay naipaliwanag sa mga tao at ito ay kanilang tinanggap
\2006 Agay-ayan-records
at the SB office
(Orientation on MPAs for affected stakeholders from various sectors conducted. Social acceptance sought through community
consultations /public hearings composed of representatives from various sectors) [nagkaroon ng oryentasyon at public hearing na
dinaluhan ng iba't-ibang sector]
1
2
Site surveyed using standard methods with baseline assessment complete, conducted in a participatory process [ang site ng MPA
ay sinarbey ayon sa standard na paraan na nilahukan ng mga taga-komunidad]
(Reports completed on fish abundance, coral cover and profile on community and coastal management) [may report sa dami ng isda at
kalagayan ng pangisdaan at mga mangingisda]
184
3
3
sang-ayon ang mga taga-komunidad sa napiling site ng MPA]
public consultation last 2005- records at the SB office)
(Based on PCRA with public consultations)
1
4
Preliminary management plan drafted [May panimulang plano sa pamamahala ng MPA nanagawa]
(Management plan should include policies, structures & responsibilities, strategies & programs, financial plan and M&E)
1
5
Management body membership tentatively determined [may grupong natukoy para mamahala ng MPA]
(Management core group starting to conduct regular meetings with proper documentation)
1
6
1
7
Resolution and/or ordinance drafted [may resolusyon o ordinansa na naisulat para sa pagtatatag ng MPA]
Education program raising awareness about MPA functions and benefits started [may programang pang-edukasyon na
napasimulan]
(Conducted a series of public education activities)
LEVEL 2 – MPA IS ESTABLISHED
1
8
Community acceptance gained and documented [Ang pagtanggap ng komunidad sa pagtatatag ng MPA ay dokumentado]
(Documented through public consultation documents, e.g. barangay resolution)
3
9
0
10
allocate 10,000/year. Member of core group were barangay
officials) BC were the one who endorsed the establishment of the
MPA)
[ang ordinansa sa pagtatatag ng MPA ay inaprubahan ng SB]
ang plano sa pamamahala ng MPA ay inaprubahan ng SB]
(Adoption of management plan supported by resolution/ ordinance; plan went through community consultations with multi-sectoral
stakeholders prior to approval/ legitimization)
185
3
11
[nabuo na ang grupo na mamamahala sa MPA ay ito ay kumikilos]
(Composition of management group and committees identified; roles & responsibilities clarified and accepted; initial meetings conducted
)
3
12
[may badyet para sa unang taon ng pamamahala ng MPA]
(LGU has committed a budget for the establishment and implementation of the MPA)
3
13
[nag-uumpisa na ang pagpapatrolya sa MPA]
(Regular guarding of the marine sanctuary initiated.)
1
14
IEC activities conducted [gumugulong na ang mga gawaing pang-edukasyon]
reports (posters placed at strategic places)
(e.g. Dissemination of MPA rules & regulations; initial stakeholder knowledge assessment conducted)
1
15
Boundaries delineated [ang mga hangganan ng MPA ay nailatag na]
(Anchor buoys, marker buoys and/or boundary marks installed)
1
16
Signboards/billboards posted [may mga signboards at billboards]
(Should show either map/zones, rules & regulations and/or other relevant details)
1
17
MPA outpost or other structures constructed [merong guardhouse sa MPA]
(Guardhouse and/or other MPA-related structures constructed)
1
18
Biophysical monitoring includes local participation [may bayopisikal monitoring na naisagawa]
-8 pax) FVC and manta tow results
(Locals were trained to do biophysical surveys using standard methods)
186
LEVEL 3 – MPA IS ENFORCED
1
19
Budget from LGU or from other sources allocated and is accessible for MPA management [may badyet mula sa LGU para sa
pamamahala ng MPA]
(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)
0
20
Management body active and supported by legal instrument [ang grupong namamahala sa MPA ay aktibo ay suportado ng legal
na instrumento]
(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)
3
21
ith DENR, BFAR, PNP and PA)
-dagat journal and accomplishment
maintained and open to everyone [kasama ang komunidad sa pagpapatrolya, may plano sa pagpapatrolya]
reports)
(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)
1
22
MPA billboards, boundary markers/anchor buoys maintained [ang mga billboards, markets at boya at napapangalagaan]
materials , BC- fuel, PO -labor )
(Funds allocated for maintenance of enforcement support structures. May be part of municipal CRM budget)
3
23
mayroong pangmatagalang programang pang-edukasyon]
-2010 (IEC under EGP project) 2011
onwards: Pride program in partnership with Rare and other gov
agencies
(A long term IEC program is currently being implemented in support of enforcement and the general MPA objectives)
187
0
24
Regular participatory biophysical monitoring being conducted [ang bayopisikal na monitoring ay regular na ginagawa]
(Documented surveys conducted at least once annually using standard methods)0
25
[wala nang nangingisda sa loob ng sanktuwaryo]
(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)
3
26
fishing reduced outside of MPA [nabawasan na ang ilegal na pangingisda sa labas ng sanktuwaryo]
bantay-dagat report and assessment)
(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).
0
27
LEVEL 4 – MPA IS SUSTAINED
MPA management plan and/or ordinance reviewed/updated in a participatory process [ang plano sa pamamahala ng MPA ay
narebyu at na-update]
(Management plan and/or ordinance amended with the participation of various stakeholders)
1
28
Budget from LGU or from other sources is being allocated and accessed for 2 or more consecutive years [may alokasyong badyet
para sa pamamahala ng MPA mula sa LGU sa loob ng 2 taon]
(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)
0
29
Management body capable to run the MPA independently [may kakayanan ang grupong namamahala ng MPA na pamahalaan ito
nang walang tulong mula sa labas]
188
(Management body supervises/facilitates management activities [enforcement, budgeting & financial management, M&E, IEC, etc.] and
coordinates activities with partners)
0
30
operational [ang pagpapatrolya ay regular na gumagana]
(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)
1
31
MPA billboards, boundary markers/anchor buoys maintained--[namimentina ang mga billboards, markers, boya sa loob ng 3
taon]
(Site development structures and equipment maintained for 3 consecutive years or more)
0
32
[ang takbo ng
papamahala sa MPA ay regulara na tinatasa]
(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)
0
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]
(Documented surveys using standard methods; reports available; results posted in billboards)
1
34
Socio-economic monitoring regularly conducted, monitoring team accountable for timely feedback and reliability of results
(2006; 2009; 2011)
(Fisheries and/or socio-economic variables being regularly monitored by local monitoring team; data summaries/reports are available
and easily accessible)
0
35
Environment friendly enterprise and/or fees collected as a sustainable financing strategy
189
(Environment-friendly products/goods sold to tourists, impose collection of user-fees, etc.)
0
36
reports
(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)
0
37
LEVEL 5 – MPA IS INSTITUTIONALIZED
Formal commitment from the Provincial Council giving MPA stronger political support
(Gives MPA institutional support to strengthen enforcement and collaboration)
0
38
Management plan refined with stakeholder participation for adaptive management
(Incorporates further refinements after gaining much experience and lessons to improve strategies)
0
39
-term development plan
(MPA incorporated within the long-term LGU area-wide development plan)
0
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)
0
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
(Coordination on implementation and resolution particularly of issues that transcend local boundaries including MPA networking with
other MPAs etc.)
0
42
Evaluation of ecological and socio-economic impacts conducted and feedback mechanisms are in place
190
(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)
0
43
(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)
0
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.)
0
45
0
46
Advanced IEC materials developed and disseminated with assistance from partners and/or private sector grants (e.g. video
production)
is being used as a study tour site, residents advocate 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)
0
47
0
48
0
49
center in the area; replication in
adjacent barangays and municipalities)
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)
summit March 2011; visits from adjacent barangay)
leaders in the meeting)
Support facilities constructed/added
(E.g. tourism facilities, guardhouse expanded into an education/training center, etc.)
Revenues from enterprise and/or fees sustained and accounted for
(Existing sustainable financing mechanisms are well-managed and well-documented; financial reports easily accessible)
191
6.
7. Letters of Support
(Insert any letters of support for the campaign by key partners, politicians etc) (reference Lola p 169)
8. Threat Ranking
(Insert jpeg from your Miradi threat ranking with brief summary explanation; include experts consulted and any assumptions made; if factor chains are not aligned
with content of plan the explain any discrepancies) (reference Serena island p35)
192
9. Factor Chain
(Insert jpeg from your Miradi factor chains with brief summary explanation; include experts consulted and any assumptions made; if factor chains are not aligned
with content of plan the explain any discrepancies) (reference Serena island p38)
193
194
195