FISH Completion Report to USAID.pdf

COMPLETION REPORT

(September 2003 – September 2010)

THE FISHERIES IMPROVED FOR SUSTAINABLE HARVEST

(FISH) PROJECT

9 December 2010 This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by Tetra Tech EM Inc. under AID Contract No. 492-C-00-03-00022-00 through the Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project of the Philippines’ Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR).

COMPLETION REPORT

9 December 2010

The Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project 2003-2010

Implemented by:

Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

In partnership with:

Department of the Interior and Local Government Local government units Non-governmental organizations and other assisting organizations

Supported by:

United States Agency for International Development AID Contract No. 492-C-00-03-00022-00

Managed by:

TETRA TECH EM INC.

18/F OMM-CITRA Building, San Miguel Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines Tel. (63 2) 634 1617; Fax (63 2) 634 1622

FISH Document No. 53-FISH/2010

This report was produced through support provided by the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms and conditions of USAID Contract No. AID-492-C-00-03-00022-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAID.

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

Table of Contents List of Tables & Figures ................................................................................................................ iv

List of Abbreviations & Acronyms........................................................................................... vi

Objectives & Broad Strategies

1.1. Introduction

1.1.1. Rationale

1.1.2. Scope and focus

1.2. Objectives & Area of Operation

1.3. Implementation Components

1.4. Organizational Structure

1.5. Approach & Strategies

1.5.1. Ecosystem approach to fisheries

1.5.2. Parameters of technical assistance

1.6. Results Framework & Performance Measures

1.6.1. Project Results (PR)

1.6.2. Intermediate Results (IR)

1.6.3. Special performance incentive activities

1.6.3. Performance monitoring

End‐of‐Project Report Card

2.1. Results Framework: A Quick Review

2.2. Results at the Strategic Objective Level

2.2.1. FPR – Change in fish stocks in focal areas

2.2.2. PR1 – Change in abundance of selected fishery resources in focal areas

2.2.3. PR2 – Change in catch rate of selected fisheries in focal areas

2.2.4. PR3 – Change in fish biomass inside and adjacent to selected MPAs in focal areas

2.2.5. PR4 – Change in species richness inside and adjacent to selected MPAs

2.2.6. PR5 – Change in benthic condition inside and adjacent to selected MPAs

2.3. Intermediate Results

2.3.1. IR 1: National and local capacity increased for fisheries management ii Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010)

2.3.2. IR 2: National policy framework developed supporting sustainable fisheries

2.3.3. IR 3: Constituency of informed, disciplined and cooperative stakeholders developed and engaged in fisheries management

Local Implementation

3.1. Planning & Implementation Process

3.1.1. Approach and Activities

3.1.1.2. CRM Planning………………………………………………………………………………………………………………47

3.1.1.3. Early fisheries management actions…………………………………………………………………………….51

3.1.1.4. Law Enforcement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………52

3.1.1.5. Marine protected areas……………………………………………………………………………………………….56

3.1.1.6. Instituting a fisheries management framework in local governance……………………………..58

3.1.1.7. Broadening the constituency for fisheries management through information………………63

3.1.1.8. Policcy support…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…69

3.1.1.9. SAF utilization and management…………………………………………………………………………………. 70

3.1.2. Impacts

3.2. Scaling Up to a Larger Management Area

National Implementation

4.1. Policy Development

4.1.1. Approach and activities

4.1.2. Results and impacts

4.2. Constituency Building

4.2.1. Approach and activities

4.2.2. Results and Impacts

Project Management

5.1. Project Design & Organization

5.2. The Project Planning Cycle

5.3. Management & Leadership

5.4. Performance Monitoring

5.4.1. Cost-effectiveness

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

5.4.2. Information management

5.4.3. Quality control

The Challenge of Sustainability

6.1. Enabling Conditions for Sustainability

6.1.1. Local level

6.1.2. Inter-LGU level

6.1.3. Provincial level

6.1.4. National level

6.2. Remaining Gaps

6.3. Recommendations for Sustainability

6.1.1. Local implementation

6.1.2. Institutional support systems

6.1.3. Scaling up management

6.1.4. Contracting method

6.4. Sustainability Prospects

Works Cited

Appendices A. Performance indicator tables (preliminary results previously reported in earlier official

Project documents) B. Performance indicator tables (final official results) C. Results of local implementation (IR1) by area of coverage D. MPAs/fish sanctuaries within the FISH Project coverage E. Collaborating institutions and organizations (Consolidated list from 2004‐2010 FISH Project annual reports) F. FISH Project IEC products and other documentation G. FISH Project training courses for coastal and fisheries management H. Project staff I. Proposed template for the development of a municipal fisheries management benchmarking system in the Philippines J. Municipality/City benchmarks for the 3 levels of CRM K. Memorandum of agreement between the DA, DILG and USAID on the implementation of the

Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project iv Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010)

List of Tables & Figures

Tables

1.1. FISH Project priority ecosystems

1.2. FISH Project Results Framework contributing to USAID/Philippines Results Framework for

2005-2009

1.3. Principles and assumptions that guided the estimation procedure developed by the FISH Project to determine “increase in fish stock”

1.4. Benchmarks for Level 1 and 2 MPA

1.5. Benchmarks for Level 1 CRM

2.1. FISH Project Results Framework contributing to USAID/Philippines Results Framework for

2005-2009

3.1. Baseline assessment procedures used by the FISH Project

3.1.1. Criteria for selection of MPA

3.2. Summary of baseline assessment results in focal areas

3.2.1. Estimates of average demersal stock biomass from trawl survey in Danajon Bank in 2004 compared to other fishing grounds in the Philippines

3.2.2. Summary of catch per operation of bottom-set longline used in test fishing in the FISH Project focal areas in 2004

3.2.3. Summary of catch per test fishing operation using fish trap in Danajon Bank and Tawi-Tawi Bay in 2004

3.3. No. of SAF grantees by Project site and type of organization

3.4. SAF distribution per project type

3.5. Competencies gained by LGU CRM units from FISH Project interventions (based on a capacity review conducted by the Project in 2009)

3.6. Capacity scores of FISH Project-assisted LGUs relative to coordinating and implementing 10 basic

CRM functions (based on a capacity review conducted by the Project in 2009)

3.7. Capacity scores of FISH Project-assisted LGUs relative to access to external sources of support after FISH Project completion (based on a capacity review conducted by the Project in 2009)

4.1. Important Philippine policies relevant to EAF existing at the start of the FISH Project

4.2. Criteria used in the selection of priority policy actions to be supported by the FISH Project

4.3. Salient features of the Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan

4.4. Salient features of the National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Fishing

4.5. Policy documents and studies supported by the FISH Project

4.6. Concepts and principles guiding the Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development

Plan

4.7. Resolutions adopted at the 2nd Conference of Coastal Municipalities in the Philippines

5.1. Proportion of expenditures by budget line item to total Project cost

5.2. Proportion of expenditures at implementation/activity level

Figures

1.1. 5-phase CRM process adapted for Philippine local government units

1.2. “Priority ecosystems” (target areas) and focal areas identified in the FISH Project’s Statement of Work

1.3. FISH Project organizational and coordination structure (simplified)

1.4. Relationships between results, indicators and fisheries management mechanisms that guided

FISH Project implementation

2.1. Changes in fish stocks (FPR) vs targets in the focal areas (2004-2010)

2.2. Changes in fish abundance (PR1) vs targets in the focal areas (2004-2010)

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES v

2.3. Changes in fish catch rates (PR2) vs targets in the focal areas (2004-2010)

2.4. Weighted percentage change in biomass (PR3) inside and adjacent to selected MPAs in the focal areas (2004-2010)

2.5. Weighted percentage change in species richness (PR4) inside and adjacent to selected MPAs in the focal areas (2004-2010)

2.6. Weighted percentage change in live coral cover (PR5) inside and adjacent to selected MPAs in the focal areas (2004-2010)

2.7. No. of LGUs adopting fisheries registration and licensing programs (IR1.1) in target areas

(2004-2010)

2.8. No of law enforcement units established and functional (IR1.2) in target areas (2004-2010)

2.9. No. of fishing restrictions introduced (IR1.3) in target areas (2004-2010)

2.10. No. of MPAs enforced (IR1.4) in target areas (2004-2010)

2.11. Area (hectares) of MPAs enforced (IR1.4) in target ares (2004-2010)

2.12. No. of LGUs achieving Level 1 CRM (IR1.5) in target areas (2004-2010)

2.13. Area (hectares) of municipal waters up to 5kms from shoreline under improved management

(IR1.5) in target areas (2004-2010)

2.14. No. of inter-LGU/inter-agency collaborative agreements/plans signed or adopted (IR1.6) in target areas (2004-2010)

2.15. No. of barangays integrating RH into their development plans (IR1.7) in target areas

(2004-2008)

2.16. No. of national policy instruments developed, reviewed and revised with FISH Project inputs

(IR2.1) (2004-2010)

2.17. No. of partner-organizations providing assistance and no. of LGUs they assisted using FISH

Project tools and products (IR2.2) (2004-2010)

2.18. No. of public-private partnerships supporting fisheries management (IR3.1) in target areas

(2004-2010)

2.19. No. of fisheries management information materials distributed and trainings/forums conducted

(IR3.2) (2004-2010)

3.1. FISH Project implementation timeline

3.2. Average LGU budget for CRM in the FISH Project sites (2004-2010)

5.1. Major components of the FISH Project

5.2. FISH Project organizational chart

vi Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010)

List of Abbreviations & Acronyms

2CCM 2nd Conference of Coastal Municipalities in the Philippines ABU Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union AFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act AIP annual investment plan ANC ABS-CBN News Channel APREDEC Advocacy for Policy Reform and Development of Caraga, Inc.

ARMEG Advocacy for Resource Management and Environmental Governance ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BAP best aquaculture practices BEAT bay-wide enforcement and action team BEMO Bohol Environment Management Office BIR Bureau of Internal Revenue CBEDS Caglayag-Baybay-Embarcadero-Doyos-Seca Fishermen’s Organization CBFMA community-based forest management agreement CCEF Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation CCRMP Camiguin Coastal Resource Management Project CDA Cooperative Development Authority CELEBOSOLE Cebu-Leyte-Bohol-Southern Leyte alliance CEPU Coastal Environment Protection Unit CFVL commercial fishing vessel license CI Conservation International CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora CLEC Coastal Law Enforcement Council CLIN Contract Line Item No.

CNFIDP Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan COP Chief of Party CPUE catch per unit effort CRM coastal resource management CRMP Coastal Resource Management Project CSO civil society organization CSR corporate social responsibility CTI Coral Triangle Initiative CUSW Cebu Uniting for Sustainable Water CVRP Central Visayas Regional Project DA Department of Agriculture DA-BFAR Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources DAO Department Administrative Order DBM Danajon Bank MPA Network DCOP Deputy Chief of Party DED Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst (German Development Service) DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DF-AAO Department of Fisheries-ARMM administrative order DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government DOJ Department of Justice DOTC Department of Transportation and Communication EAF ecosystem approach to fisheries EBFM ecosystem-based fisheries management ECCCS Environmental Coalition of Church and Civil Society ECOGOV Environmental Governance Project

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS vii

ECSMF Executive Course on Sustainable Municipal Fisheries EEZ exclusive economic zone ELAC Environmental Legal Assistance Center EO executive order FAO fisheries administrative order FARMC fisheries and aquatic resources management council FCRMIC Fisheries and Coastal Resource Management Interpretive Center FIDEC Fisheries Development Center FISH Project Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project FMU fisheries management unit FOO fisheries office order FPE Foundation for the Philippine Environment FPR FISH Project result GCM growth, control and maintenance GPS global positioning system GRP Government of the Republic of the Philippines GT gross ton GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German Society for

Technical Cooperation) ha Hectare HB House bill ICM integrated coastal management ICRMP Integrated Coastal Resource Management Proejct IEC information, education and communication IPOA International Plan of Action IR intermediate result IRR implementing rules and regulations ISLAMDUNK Islahanon Andam Magdumal Nan Kinaiyahan IUU illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing kg kilogram km2 square kilometer KSRLA Kasalamatan Sin Raayat Lagasan Association LBDA Lanuza Bay Development Alliance LGC Local Government Code LGU local government unit LMP League of Municipalities of the Philippines M&E monitoring and evaluation m2 square meter MAC Marine Aquarium Council MAFO Municipal Agriculture and Fisheries Office MARINA Maritime Industry Authority MCLET municipal coastal law enforcement team MCS monitoring, control and surveillance MDC Mayors Development Center MEAT municipal enforcement and action team MEDCO Mindanao Economic Development Council MENRO municipal environment and natural resources office MFARMC municipal fisheries and aquatic resources management council MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau MMAA Muslim Mindanao Autonomous Act MOA memorandum of agreement MOREFISH Movement for Responsible Fisheries MOU memorandum of understanding MPA marine protected area MSN Marine Protected Area Support Network MSP marine spatial planning viii Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010)

MTFDMP medium-term fisheries development and management plan MUFTI Muslim Upliftment Foundation in Tawi-Tawi, Inc.

NAFC National Agriculture and Fisheries Council NALECC National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council NAMANAKA Nagkahiusang Mananagat na Nag-amping sa Kadagatan NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Authority NAPC National Anti-Poverty Commission NBN National Broadcasting Network NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NFR NGOs for Fisheries Reform NFRDI National Fisheries Research and Development Institute NGA national government agency NGO non-governmental organization NHK Japan International Broadcasting Inc.

NIPAP National Integrated Protected Areas Programme NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System No. Number NPOA National Plan of Action NPOA-IUU National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unregulated and

Unreported Fishing NSAP National Stock Assessment Project NTC National Telecommunications Commission NZAID New Zealand Agency for International Development P3DM participatory 3-dimensional modeling PAMB Protected Area Management Board PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau PBSA performance-based service acquisition PCG Philippine Coast Guard PCLET Provincial Coastal Law Enforcement Team PCRA participatory coastal resource assessment PCSD Palawan Council for Sustainable Development PEDO Police Environment Desk Officer PEMO Provincial Environment Management Office PEMSEA Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia PFARO Provincial Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Office PNP Philippine National Police PO people’s organization PR Project result PSF Project Seahorse Foundation for Marine Conservation RA Republic Act REECS Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc.

REO regional executive order RFAO regional fisheries administrative order RFMO regional fisheries management organization SAF Special Activities Fund SAFDZ special agriculture and fisheries development zone SALIGAN Sentro Alternatibong Lingap Panligal SB Sangguniang Bayan SCIPG Supreme Council for Islamic Preaching and Guidance SEAT sanctuary enforcement and action team SEC Securities and Exchange Commission SET sanctuary enforcement team SFMEP Sub-committee on Fisheries and Marine Environmental Protection SO strategic objective SO4 Strategic Objective 4 SOBA Save Ormoc Bay Aggrupation

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ix

SOW statement of work SPSC Surigao del Sur Polytechnic State College SRA Social Reform Agenda SUMACORE Sustainable Management of Coastal Resources in the Caraga and Bicol Regions t ton TAC total allowable catch TALCRECO Talibon Credit Cooperative TBFSA Tawi-Tawi Bay Fish Sanctuary Alliance TEMO Tawi-Tawi Environment Management Office TESDA Technical Education Skills and Development Authority TWG technical working group UN United Nations UN-FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization UPMSI University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute UPVFI University of the Philippines in the Visayas Foundation, Inc.

USAID United States Agency for International Development VSU Visayas State University WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

CHAPTER 1: Objectives & Broad Strategies 1

CHAPTER 1

Objectives & Broad Strategies

1.1. Introduction

The Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project was drawn up to respond to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Philippines Strategic Objective 4 (SO4) under the Mission’s Results Framework for 2000-2004, “Productive and life-sustaining natural resources protected through improved management and enforcement.” For much of its life, however, it operated under the 2005-2009 USAID/Philippines’ Results Framework, with a rephrased SO4, “Management of productive, life-sustaining natural resources strengthened.” Under this new framework, it also directly contributed to a limited extent to SO3, “Health and well-being of Filipinos promoted through support for improved and decentralized service delivery, increased private sector involvement and social acceptance of family planning and policy reform.”

Conceived near the end of USAID’s well-regarded Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP, 1996-2004), FISH was designed to bring to the next level the Philippine experience in coastal resource management (CRM) by building much needed fisheries management capacity especially at the local level. It had a total life of 7 years, consisting of a 5-year base period (2003-08) and a 2-year optional extension period (2009-10) stipulated under a performance-based “cost-plus-award fee” or incentive contract. The contract was awarded based on a performance-based service acquisition (PBSA) or performance-based contracting method of procuring services from the private sector which has been the US Federal Government’s preferred method since 2002.

Coming off CRMP’s successful campaign to mainstream CRM on the Philippine national agenda, the Project was tasked to work with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) through the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) and other concerned agencies to harness the local governments’ recognition and acceptance of their role as frontline coastal managers to begin a process of reform from open access to managed resource use.

A key result area was the adoption of the next crucial benchmark in managing fisheries and coastal resources in the Philippines based on an integrated, ecosystem approach to fisheries management driven by informed, disciplined and cooperative stakeholders at national and local levels, particularly in the municipal marine capture fisheries sector.

This chapter explains the rationale behind this mandate, the work done to develop the Project results framework and the broad strategies that determined technical assistance delivery.

1.1.1. Rationale

The focus on fisheries (rather than on other CRM sectors, or even perhaps on broadening the

CRM experience through another CRMP-type project with a wider scope) was all at once timely, necessary and urgent. Close to the end of CRMP, more than 10 years after the Local Government Code devolved the responsibility for managing coastal areas and resources, a critical mass of local

2 Fis governme CRMP ha Moreover country, a zone.

C issue iden implemen evaluation mandate o governme LGUs in t and degra which com governme

St among LG by capacit directly w sheries Impro ent units (LGU ad defined a m r, it successfu as well as prom

CRMP’s capac ntification and ntation (encom n, and inform of the project, ent (specifical the basic CRM adation, prima mmunity-base ental organiza

Figure till, the remar GUs had creat ty-building in with marine fis oved for Susta

Us) had finall management p ully institution moted wide a city-building d resource ass mpassing reso mation manage , technical ass lly the Depart M process tha arily through ed methodolo ation (NGO)-l e 1.1. 5-phase rkable progre ted an opport nitiatives at bo sh and fishing ainable Harve ly began exer process that L nalized this pr acceptance of was anchored sessment, plan ource allocatio ement, educat sistance was n tment of Envi at addressed b marine protec ogies had been led and donor

CRM process

(DEN

ss made in pr tunity to focu oth national a g, two of the m est (FISH) Proj rcising, albeit LGUs could a rocess in mor f the LGU’s ro d on the 5-pha n preparation on, legislation tion and outre necessarily lim ironment and broader coasta cted areas (M n previously t r-assisted init s adapted for P

NR, 2001)

romoting acce s on areas tha and local leve most importa ject Completi to a limited e dapt to its var re than a hund ole as a prima ase managem and adoption n and law enf each (Figure 1 mited to equi d Natural Reso al issues relat

MPAs) and ma tested by vari tiatives.

Philippine loc eptance of the at had yet to b els, primarily ant componen ion Report (2 extent, such r rious CRM fu dred LGUs ac ary authority ment process th n, action plann forcement), m 1.1). Given th ipping the nat ources, or DE ted to habitat angrove mana ious research-al governmen e CRM proce be significantl those areas th nts of the coas

003‐2010) esponsibility.

unctions.

cross the in the coastal hat included ning and monitoring and he scope and tional

ENR) and destruction agement, for -based, non-nt units ss particularly ly addressed hat dealt stal ecosystem l d y m.

CHAPTER 1: Objectives & Broad Strategies 3

There was an underlying urgency in this opportunity: On March 15, 2003, at a conference organized by CRMP, leading marine and fisheries scientists presented a bleak assessment of the state of Philippine fisheries and issued the following consensus statement (Luna, 2004):

“Having reviewed the status of [the country’s fishery resources] based on the best available scientific evidence, we have arrived at the following conclusions:

• The marine fishery resources of the country are severely depleted. In the case of demersals, for example, biomass levels are today only 10-30% of the levels in the late 1940s. For small pelagics, by the 1980s the average catch rate was only one-sixth of the rate in the 1950s. In reef fisheries, the present catch rates are among the lowest in the world.

• Coastal habitats that are critical for supporting fisheries are severely degraded. Less than one-third of mangrove areas remain of the original 450,000 ha in 1918, and 95% of the remaining mangroves are secondary growth of much lower quality. An estimated half of seagrass beds have been lost or severely degraded during the past 50 years. Over 70% of the coral reefs in the country are in a poor state, while less than 5% are in excellent condition.

• On the average, about 25-30% of total catch is lost due to improper post-harvest practices. Inefficient marketing results in further economic losses.

• Commercial and municipal fishers remain locked in intense competition despite laws designed to separate their fishing grounds. Conflicts between and within these sectors are severe and continue to escalate.

• Poverty is a ubiquitous feature of coastal communities. As high as 80% of small fishers live below the poverty threshold.

• At both national and local levels, our systems for fisheries management are characterized by: (i) inadequate policies; (ii) weak interagency coordination and weak law enforcement; and (iii) inadequate human resources and capacity, infrastructure and equipment.

Sustaining the host of benefits obtained from the country’s fishery and coastal resources requires urgent and concerted action by responsible authorities and the wider community of stakeholders at the national, regional and local levels… We appeal to responsible authorities and agencies to take stock of the problems and urgently put in place the necessary programs of action for the benefit of current and future generations of Filipinos. Recognizing that progress in sustaining the benefits from our coastal resources will take time and sustained collaborative efforts, we appeal to the wider community of stakeholders for unity in meeting the challenges ahead.”

1.1.2. Scope and focus

Initiated in September 2003, FISH was in a good position to respond to the scientists’ call

“for improved management of the country’s coastal and fishery resources,” which identified the following “six critical actions to reverse the decline of Philippine marine fisheries” (Luna, 2004):

4 Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010)

• Reduction and rationalization of fishing effort;

• Protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of coastal habitats;

• Improved utilization of harvests;

• Enhanced local stewardship and management of resources;

• Supplemental/alternative livelihood for fishers; and

• Capacity building and institutional strengthening.

The scientists outlined the following “basic steps and processes that accommodate these critical actions” based largely on the above-mentioned CRMP-prescribed CRM process (Luna, 2004):

• Resource assessment in a manner that provides useful information for management planning and that informs and educates the stakeholders of concern;

• Coastal resources and fisheries management planning at a scale that facilitates coordination, implementation and feedback into the management planning cycle within and among LGUs;

• Institutional capacity building at various levels in government to facilitate the management planning process and to catalyze implementation using tested techniques and successful field projects;

• Facilitating coordination and participation among and by all concerned stakeholders in the government, non-government and private sectors;

• Raising awareness of the management rules and the process of implementation through various education and media programs;

• Enforcement of rules set by management through multi-sector teams; and

• Research, monitoring and evaluation that continue to inform management planning and implementation.

As well as the specific terms and conditions of USAID Contract No. 492-C-00-03-00022-00 governing FISH, these expert recommendations and developments in Philippine CRM governance guided the formulation of the Project’s operational framework. The strategic focus was “marine capture fisheries,” primarily those issues that had yet to be significantly addressed by capacity-building efforts at both national and local levels, including overfishing, illegal fishing, habitat destruction, and increasing demand for fish caused by high population growth.

1.2. Objectives & Area of Operation

The objective, as spelled out in the Project’s 17-page Statement of Work (SOW), was “to conserve biological diversity in at least 4 biologically and economically important marine ecosystems in the Philippines, as measured by an increase in fish stocks and the maintenance of selected coastal resources that support them with environmental services... to improve the management of these fish stocks and environmental resources, such as coral reefs and mangroves... in order to support a more sustainable yield of marine fish stocks... [and to encourage] the DA-BFAR and LGUs... to replicate this ecosystem management approach in other marine and coastal ecosystems.” (USAID, 2003)

CHAPTER 1: Objectives & Broad Strategies 5

Figure 1.2. “Priority ecosystems” (target areas) and focal areas identified in the FISH Project’s Statement of Work (USAID, 2003)

6 Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010)

The following criteria were considered in the selection of the “priority ecosystems” to be covered under FISH (USAID, 2003):

• Economic value of fish stocks;

• Ecological value of the ecosystem;

• Level of threat to sustainable use of coastal resources and marine fish stocks from fishing pressure and destructive fishing practices; and

• Willingness of local stakeholders to adopt improved fisheries management practices.

Based on these criteria, FISH was directed to operate in 4 areas, where it was expected to result in a 10% increase in fish stocks by end-of-Project (2010), using 2003 as the baseline year. These areas were (1) Calamianes Group of Islands, Palawan, Luzon; (2) Danajon Reef, Bohol, Central Visayas;

(3) Mindanao’s Sulu archipelago with particular focus on Tawi-Tawi; and (4) Mindanao’s Pacific seaboard in Surigao del Sur (USAID, 2003) (Figure 1.2). All 4 were deemed to contain economically important marine fishery and coastal resources, and all except Surigao del Sur were said to be heavily exploited (Tandog-Edralin, 1987). They were all also listed as “very high” to “extremely high” conservation priorities by the Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities Initiative and reported as showing “high” or “very high” reef threat levels (WRI, 2002).

1.3. Implementation Components

The SOW identified “three inter-related components” contributing to the FISH objective:

1. Strengthening the capability of local and national institutions to manage coastal resources and marine fish stocks;

2. Improving national and local policies for more sustainable use of coastal resources and marine fish stocks; and

3. Building national and local support for more responsible management of coastal resources and marine fish stocks (USAID, 2003).

The SOW stated, “Project activities will work to establish sound policies; strengthen the ability of both national and local institutions to plan, implement and evaluate management actions;

and build political will to carry out more effective governance of coastal resources and marine fish stocks. The promotion of improved governance – transparency, accountability and participation – permeates throughout the Project implementation. The building of local and national capacity to manage coastal resources and marine fish stocks serves as the core activity of the Project, with advocacy and policy work as support mechanisms to institute responsible management of coastal resources and marine fisheries” (USAID, 2003).

Based on the above specifications of the SOW, FISH listed in its Life-of-Project Work Plan the following 3 main tasks (FISH Project, 2004):

Task 1. Capacity building for fisheries management. This task comprised the bulk of field initiatives in the Project sites, which would be devoted to instituting fisheries management in the local governance system. Under this task, local stakeholder groups comprised of strategic LGUs (municipal and provincial), fishing sectors, CHAPTER 1: Objectives & Broad Strategies 7 regional and provincial DA-BFAR staff and other national government entities, NGOs, academic institutions and private sector groups would be tasked to work with the Project. Participatory resource management planning and the implementation of a variety of fisheries management measures would be pursued, complemented by workshops, trainings and study tours to help build the knowledge, experience and confidence of target stakeholders in planning and implementing fisheries management.

Task 2. Policy framework improvement for fisheries management. This task covered 2 main issues: 1) improving the national policy framework for fisheries management to address local priority concerns and applicability, and 2) responding to local policy issues and guiding local policy development. Activities would focus on helping DA-BFAR and other relevant agencies and stakeholders to review and enhance national laws, policies and plans or programs consistent with the principles of sustainable fisheries and national commitments to international fisheries agreements and protocols.

Task 3. Constituency-building for fisheries management. The primary concern under this task was to provide support in the following 3 major areas:

a. Promotion of public-private sector partnership to leverage support and expand constituency for fisheries management;

b. Development of multi-media educational campaigns and training programs targeting different stakeholder groups; and

c. Utilization of broadcast (TV and radio), electronic and print media to raise awareness on the causes and effects of overfishing and possible remedies and solutions.

Two additional tasks were defined in the work plan to support and complement the above tasks: Task 4, which covered Project management and performance monitoring, and Task 5, defined as “special performance incentive activities” under a “Special Activities Fund” (SAF). The 5 tasks coincided with the Project’s Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) 1-5; CLIN 6 corresponded to the performance award/fee. Except for the SAF, which would be terminated in 2008 at the end of the 5-year base period, these tasks would all be implemented well into 2010, the last year of Project implementation.

1.4. Organizational Structure

Following the terms of its plan, the Project set up an organizational structure consisting of a field operations unit; 3 main technical groups tasked to provide policy, fisheries management and information-education-communication (IEC)/training support to Project partners and the field operations group; and an administration support group that was also responsible for managing the

SAF.

The organizational structure defined the lines of authority primarily for determining the hub where direction and coordination would emanate and for establishing responsibility centers and

8 Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010) financial controls. Functionally, FISH was intended to work as a flat organization, relying less on written policies and procedures than on team norms. The Project as a whole was meant to work as a team, with the different groups operating as closely linked “cells.” This meant, for example, that while the “fisheries management” group was the responsibility center for building the capacity of national and local stakeholders to plan and implement fisheries management, capacity-building would be a task shared by all groups.

The tasks of the Project as well as those of each cell were formally documented and communicated, but the ways in which the cells and their members would relate to and interact with each other were expected to develop over time in the course of implementation. Expertise was intended to be shared and exchanged freely among the cells.

In order to “marry” the best available experiences in CRM and fisheries management, the

Project assembled experts in several disciplines, including fisheries science and marine biology;

social sciences; policy; organizational development; IEC; training; coastal law enforcement; and community organizing. Formal leaders were appointed to establish accountability, but any team member with the appropriate expertise was expected at any time to step up and provide guidance to any cell requiring specific skills or knowledge.

For example, the Project’s training experts were assigned to the “IEC/training group,” but they were expected to be tapped by and provide advice and guidance to the fisheries management group on the application of appropriate training methodologies to fisheries management. The fisheries experts in the team, on the other hand, were mandated to provide the technical guidance necessary for the IEC and training experts to put together effective training and information materials relevant to the Project’s capacity-building objectives.

The organizational and coordination setup created at the start of the Project would go through a few modifications over time, but generally followed the structure shown in Figure 1.3. The Chief of Party (COP), based in Manila, would provide overall Project management and leadership, including policy direction and technical guidance, and deal with external affairs. The COP held the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the Project team and the success of the Project.

Originally, there were 2 Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) positions – a DCOP for

Administration tasked to provide administrative support, personnel and procurement management, and a DCOP for Field Operations responsible for coordinating the provision of technical support to field implementation. Midway through implementation, however, these 2 positions and corresponding responsibilities were merged and assumed by 1 DCOP based in Cebu.

“Advisors” and “specialists” were designated to provide guidance to field implementation in the following areas: fisheries management, IEC, coastal law enforcement and policy. At the field level, site managers with the assistance of the advisors and specialists were responsible for the implementation of management programs in their respective areas, and for coordination with local partners and institutions.

CHAPTER 1: Objectives & Broad Strategies 9

Figure 1.3. FISH Project organizational and coordination structure (simplified)

As needed, the Project would also engage institutional partners to implement some component activities and to augment in-house expertise in policy development, baseline assessment, fisheries profiling, select fisheries management interventions and reproductive health, as well as provide field implementation support.

1.5. Approach & Strategies

In translating the SOW to operational terms, FISH faced the challenge of developing a strategic approach that would bring it as close as possible to its mandated targets, while responding effectively to the realities of implementation, the expectations of the GRP and USAID, and the needs of the LGUs and communities it was mandated to assist. To achieve its target of increasing fish stocks by 10% by 2010, the Project had to accomplish 3 crucial tasks:

1. Put in place management systems to promote an increase in fish stocks;

2. Measure the increase; and

3. Sustain the gains beyond the life of the Project

There was no question that these tasks would be challenging. Although there had long been wide recognition of the need for fisheries management interventions, and some details of how to go about them were available, FISH was essentially attempting something that had not been tried before:

Put together a functioning, comprehensive approach to fisheries management based on and driven by the local government and supported by a governance system made up of institutions mandated to perform the various management functions and a constituency that pushes for their implementation.

With all these in place it was hoped that the Project would reverse the decline of fisheries in its sites and at the minimum build the capacity of LGUs to sustain the gains.

The Project’s overall framework was anchored on catalyzing normative change in the marine capture fisheries sector to directly challenge its culture of open access fishing and the mindsets and practices that perpetuate it. Keeping sight of capacity-building as its core activity, FISH sought to

10 Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010) formulate an approach that was focused but widely applicable, generating lessons and processes in a form that was all at once site-specific, replicable and accessible nationwide. An implicit requirement was the participation and integration of DA-BFAR, as the primary authority and technical assistance provider on matters related to fisheries, into the capacity-building initiative. It had been established that the LGUs lacked the capacity to manage fisheries. This pointed to a weakness in DA-BFAR’s service delivery to municipalities, which the Project was expected to address as a matter of course.

1.5.1. Ecosystem approach to fisheries

One premise behind FISH was that the productivity or growth of fish populations could be increased through the use of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), which as indicated in the SOW, was the preferred approach (USAID, 2003). As defined, this approach would include the following features:

1. It would consider geographically specified fisheries boundaries and management areas;

2. It would take into account current knowledge and uncertainties about the environment and human components of coastal and marine ecosystems as they pertain to fisheries, and strive to balance diverse objectives in using the ecosystem;

3. It would address human activities and environmental factors that affect these ecosystems, the response of the ecosystems, and the outcomes in terms of benefits and impacts on humans; and

4. Where the ecosystem was already degraded, it would work at rebuilding and restoring the ecosystem, and moving toward sustainable use.

To formulate its operational framework for EAF, FISH considered the wealth of local experience in CRM in order to determine how general fisheries management concepts and specific measures could be most strategically integrated into the CRM process. The framework that developed was described as a “convergence of approaches” and “incremental” (FISH Project, 2006). Using the legal and institutional framework for fisheries management already existing (but not effectively functioning) at both national and local levels of government, Project operation was programmed to start “small” on a local scale, building on CRM units already functioning at the barangay, municipal and provincial levels to gradually introduce the strategies, processes, techniques and procedures needed for fisheries management to happen, and at some point scaling up where possible to medium and larger-scale fisheries management.

As defined in the SOW, the Project’s “priority ecosystems” (target areas) spanned extensive geographic areas characterized by nearshore and offshore marine environments spread across many jurisdictions (Table 1.1). Tawi-Tawi, the biggest ecosystem in terms of surface area, has more than 300 islands and islets and extensive municipal waters (more than 11,000 km2). The smallest, Danajon Bank, covers over 2,200 km2 under multiple jurisdictions (16 municipalities and 2 cities in 4 provinces and 2 regions).

Given the limited life and resources of the Project, it would be impracticable to even attempt to cover these ecosystems in their entirety. The identification of priority areas (focal areas) and priority activities early in Project implementation would be crucial in ensuring that at least one full

CHAPTER 1: Objectives & Broad Strategies 11 planning and implementation cycle would be completed leading up to the integration of fisheries management in the CRM process.

Table 1.1. FISH Project priority ecosystems Priority Ecosystem/

Target Area Province Municipality Shoreline (kms)

CALAMIANES GROUP OF

ISLANDS Palawan

Busuanga (FA) 120 Coron (FA) 381 Culion (FA) 391 Linapacan** 196

Total 1 4 (3 FA) 1,088

DANAJON BANK

Bohol

Tubigon** 28 Clarin** 29

Inabanga** 62 Buenavista** 32

Getafe** 77 Bien Unido (FA) 45

Trinidad** 8 Ubay (FA) 61

President Carlos P. Garcia (FA) 76 Talibon (FA) 86

Cebu Lapu-Lapu City 112

Cordova 21

Leyte

Matalom** 14 Bato** 4

Hilongos** 12 Inopacan** 10 Hindang** 7

Southern Leyte Maasin City** 25 Total 4 18 (4 FA) 709

MINDANAO’S PACIFIC

SEABOARD IN SURIGAO

DEL SUR

Surigao del Sur

Barobo 49 Bayabas 21

Bislig 21 Cagwait 22

Carmen (FA) -- Cantilan (FA) 19

Carrascal (FA) 74 Cortes (FA) 35

Hinatuan 67 Lanuza (FA) 21

Lianga 21 Lingig 74

Madrid (FA) 3 Marihatag 20

San Agustin 25 Tandag (FA) 14

Total 1 16 (7 FA) 486

MINDANAO’S SULU

ARCHIPELAGO WITH

FOCUS ON TAWI-TAWI

Tawi-Tawi

Bongao (FA) 20 Languyan 142

Mapun 51 Panglima Sugala (FA) 94

Sapa-Sapa 58 South Ubian 44 Simunul (FA) 29

Manuk-Manukan 17 Tandubas 241

Total 1 9 (3 FA) 821

*Focal area **Expansion area

12 Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project Completion Report (2003‐2010)

With USAID’s approval, FISH drew up an operational plan that identified its focal areas, where it would focus management interventions to effect positive and measurable change over its life-of-Project. One focal area, consisting of between 3 and 7 municipalities, was selected within each of the target ecosystems using a screening process that considered geopolitical aspects, exploitation patterns, feasibility of Project implementation, and resource condition. Invariably, the selection favored areas that made both geographic and operational sense, with fisheries and coastal resources that were in relatively good condition but facing a high degree of threat.

The focal areas would have 2 purposes: first, as “benchmark areas” where Project baselines and performance especially with respect to biophysical indicators could be measured, and second, as a laboratory of sorts where processes could be tested toward the integration and institutionalization of fisheries management in the local governance system.

At the outset at the local level, it was understood that, at least in the first 2 years, Project operations would focus on the focal areas, collecting baseline information as well as filling capacity gaps in those aspects of fisheries management further down in the management cycle, such as law enforcement and IEC. “Early management actions” would be pursued, generally based on stakeholders’ (and the LGUs’) perceptions of the relative economic importance of a threatened fishery resource and their willingness to accept regulation on its exploitation. This was a strategy to allow the Project to demonstrate to its partner LGUs the benefits of management, build support and constituency for fisheries management, and gradually engender acceptance of “unpopular” measures that would directly address overfishing by restricting and reducing fishing effort. It would also allow the Project time to equip LGUs with the tools they needed to undertake their own fisheries management.

1.5.2. Parameters of technical assistance

Technical assistance was focused on a set of growth, control and maintenance (GCM) mechanisms that promoted ecosystem health and the recovery of fish stocks while emphasizing the active engagement of both national and local stakeholders in a learning-by-doing setting. These mechanisms consisted of specific action items, as follows:

• Growth mechanisms to enhance fisheries production and marine ecosystem integrity:

Establishment of networks of resilient MPAs for critical habitats and open water to protect spawning, migration routes, populations of mature fish, endangered species and other resources with no-take “sanctuaries” and management zones.

Promotion of environment-friendly economic development and revenue-generating mechanisms such as marine ecotourism, user-fee systems and appropriate aquaculture.

• Control mechanisms to allocate access to fisheries and coastal resources:

Restrictions on fishing gear, fish size limits, fishing areas and seasons to achieve sustainable fishing based on the results of the baseline assessment, critical threats analysis, and stakeholder planning.

CHAPTER 1: Objectives & Broad Strategies 13

Registration of fishers and issuance of licenses for fishing vessels and gear (municipal and commercial) based on estimated sustained yield of fish stocks.

Establishment of a licensing system supported by legislation for commercial fishing vessels to operate in areas where sustainable yields of fish stocks can be expected and regulated.

Training of coastal law enforcement units to enforce fisheries and other coastal resource-related laws.

• Maintenance mechanisms to improve institutional capacity for fisheries and CRM.

Development of a fisheries management program based on EAF to address critical threats to fisheries and other coastal resources Clustering of LGUs into viable fisheries and CRM units in association with interagency and multi-sectoral collaborative mechanisms for planning, implementation and enforcement.

Integration of population and reproductive health programs in fisheries management based on the underlying issue of food security.

Identification of appropriate and efficient market-based incentives for compliance with and investments in sustainable fisheries

Promotion of public-private partnerships for fisheries management.

1.6. Results Framework & Performance Measures

As a development initiative, the Project would be evaluated based on its impacts on governance and society as well as the…