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