TERMS OF REFERENCE National Mid-Term Reviewer Strengthening Marine Protected Areas to Conserve Marine Key Biodiversity Areas in the

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project entitled, “Strengthening Marine Protected Areas to Conserve Marine Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines” (PIMS# 4389), implemented through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR-BMB) which started on August 2014 and currently on its third year of implementation. In line with the UNDP-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process is initiated before the submission of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR). This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR. This MTR process follows the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects1.

II. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Philippines is located within the Coral Triangle, which is considered a global centre of marine diversity, with diverse coral reefs, grass beds, mangrove and beach forests, fisheries, invertebrates, seaweeds, and marine mammals. The Philippine waters have been identified as the “center of centers” of marine shorefish biodiversity because of a higher concentration of species per unit area in the country than anywhere in Indonesia and Wallacea (Carpenter et al. 2005). The country has nine marine biodiversity corridors, which were identified based on their position as transition areas between the marine biogeographic regions and their strategic importance as gateways for the exchange of propagules and energy.

The primary government response to protect this important biodiversity has been the establishment of marine protected areas or fish sanctuaries as mandated by the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) and Fisheries Code. At present, there are only 33 MPAs under National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) and are managed by the national government, and 1,620 under Fisheries Code which are Local Government Unit (LGU)- managed. However, overfishing and illegal fishing, pollution from coastal and commercial development, domestic and industrial wastes, land conversion, extractive industries and many other adverse factors continue to pose environmental threats to the country’s fragile coastal ecosystem. The impending effects of climate change can further exacerbate the current situation.

Despite the number of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) from both state and LGU-managed, the assessment is that the current spatial coverage of the MPAs is ineffective in improving species habitat to enhance fishery productivity and biodiversity. Similarly, effective MPA management is still hindered by inadequate bio-geographic representation and spatial coverage, insufficient and unpredictable funding levels for the long-term sustainability of MPAs and an MPA network system; and weak institutional framework for the identification, establishment and management of a national marine PA system and incoherent policy frameworks, mandates and strategies amongst central and local actors that inhibit the sustainable management of marine resources on a seascape basis.

1 http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/mid- term/Guidance_Midterm%20Review%20_EN_2014.pdf

In this regard, the project directly addresses these barriers through an integrated approach aimed at strengthening the conservation, protection and management of key marine biodiversity areas in the Philippines. This will be achieved through partnerships with key national government agencies, national and local conservation NGOs and LGUs. Three major outcomes are derived from this approach:

Outcome 1: Conservation effectiveness of existing and new MPAs/MPANs is enhanced through improvements in spatial coverage and representativeness (particularly coverage of under- represented KBAs), strengthening of the national system for MPA identification, designation and management under the NIPAS legislative framework, and quantifiable improvements in management of at least 10% of identified Marine KBAs nationwide, with concomitant increases in local stakeholder participation and support.

Outcome 2: Financial resources available for the management of MPAs and MPANs are sufficient to meet all critical management needs and are growing in line with the expansion of the MPA system. Sources of revenue for MPA management are being progressively diversified, with the percentage of revenue being derived from Government fiscal sources declining to less than 50% by end- project.

Outcome 3: A comprehensive policy framework in place and effectively implemented for the conservation, protection and management of the country’s marine ecosystems and fishery resources, that harmonizes mandates, plans and activities amongst all key MPA stakeholders including BMB, BFAR and relevant Local Government Units.

The Project is being managed by the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB, formerly PAWB) which has established a Project Management Unit (PMU) to implement certain outputs and coordinate the work of partners in pilot sites. Below is the project summary.

Table 1. Project Summary Table

Project Title : Strengthening Marine Protected Areas to Conserve Marine Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines Atlas Award ID: 00076994 At Endorsement By end of June GEF Project ID 4389 (USD) 2017 (USD) (PIMS #) UNDP Project ID: 00088065 GEF Financing: 8,000,000.00 Country: Philippines UNDP 1,500,000.00 Region: Asia Government: 16,853,171.00 Other (NGOs, Focal Area: Biodiversity LGUs, communities) 7,480,319.00 Operational Total Co-financing: 25,833,490.00 Program: Executing UNDP Total Project Cost: 33,833,490.00 Agency: Bureau of Fisheries August 2014 Other Partners and Aquatic Resources (NEDA) ProDoc Signature: Involved: (BFAR), Conservation April 2014 International (UNDP) Philippines (CIP), Date Project began: June 2014 Fishbase Information Network (FIN), HARIBON Foundation, Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas (WWF (Operational) Closing Date: July 2019 Philippines), RARE Philippines, UP Marine Science Institute, and local government units

III. OBJECTIVE OF THE MTR

The MTR is expected to assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document, and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy, its risks to sustainability.

IV. MTR APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review). The MTR team will review the baseline GEF focal area Tracking Tool submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Tracking Tool that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins.

The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach2 ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other key stakeholders.

V. DETAILED SCOPE OF THE MTR

The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress. These categories are: project strategy, progress towards results, project implementation and adaptive management, and sustainability.

For extended descriptions of the abovementioned categories, it can be seen in the “Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects”.

A. Project Strategy

2 For ideas on innovative and participatory Monitoring and Evaluation strategies and techniques, see UNDP Discussion Paper: Innovations in Monitoring & Evaluating Results, 05 Nov 2013. Project design:

 Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.  Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results. Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?  Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?  Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?  Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.  Recommend areas for improvement if there are major areas of concern.

Results Framework/Logframe:

 Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s theory of change as indicated in the results framework assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.  Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?  Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc.) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.  Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively. Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex- disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

B. Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

 Review the results framework’s indicators against progress made towards the end-of- project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

Table 2. Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets) Project Indicator3 Baseli Level in 1st Midter End- Midterm Achieveme Justificati Strategy ne PIR (self- m of- Level & nt Rating7 on for Level4 reported) Target5 proje Assessmen Rating ct t6 Targe t Objective: Indicator (if applicable): Outcome 1: Indicator 1: Indicator 2: Outcome 2: Indicator 3: Indicator 4: Etc. Etc.

Indicator Assessment Key Green= Achieved Yellow= On target to be Red= Not on target to be achieved achieved

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:  Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.  Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.  By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

C. Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

 Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document. Have changes been made and are they effective and efficient? Is the structure of the PMU responding to the demands of the Project?? Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear? Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner? Recommend areas for improvement.  Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.  Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

 Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.

3 Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards 4 Populate with data from the Project Document 5 If available 6 Colour code this column only 7 Use the 6 point Progress Towards Results Rating Scale: HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU  Are work-planning processes results-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?  Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.

Finance and co-finance:

 Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost- effectiveness of interventions.  Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.  Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?  Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

 Review the monitoring tools currently being used: Do they provide the necessary information? Is the systems results-based? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?  Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

 Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?  Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project? Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?  Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Reporting:

 Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board.  Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable?)  Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

Communications:

 Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?  Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?)  For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.

D. Sustainability

 Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.  In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

 What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GEF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

 Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public/stakeholder awareness in support of the long-term objectives of the project? Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future?

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

 Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place.

Environmental risks to sustainability:  Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.8

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

Ratings

The MTR team will include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in a MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for ratings scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required.

Table 3. MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for Strengthening Marine Protected Areas to Conserve Marine Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines Measure MTR Rating Achievement Description Project Strategy N/A Progress Objective Achievement Rating: (rate 6 Towards Results pt. scale) Outcome 1 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale) Outcome 2 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale) Outcome 3 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale) Etc. Project (rate 6 pt. scale) Implementation & Adaptive Management Sustainability (rate 4 pt. scale)

VI. TIMEFRAME

The MTR consultancy will be for 40 working days ) over a time period of approximately 17 weeks starting 20 October 2017 and shall not exceed five months from when the consultant(s) are hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

TIMEFRAME ACTIVITY 6 October 2017 Application closes

8 Alternatively, MTR conclusions may be integrated into the body of the report. 9-13 October 2017 Review and selection process of MTR Team composition

20 October Consultants are officially on board 23 October – 03 November Preparations for the MTR Team (handover of Project Documents)

6-17 November (10 working Document review and preparing MTR Inception Report days) Finalization and Validation of MTR Inception Report- latest start of MTR mission 20-01 December (10 working MTR mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, field visits days) 01 December Mission wrap-up meeting & presentation of initial findings- earliest end of MTR mission 4-15 December (10 working Preparing draft MTR report days)

15 December Presentation of the first draft of the report to the BMB and UNDP 18 December 2017 to 12 Feedback and comments from the UNDP, BMB and other partners January 2018 15-19 January 2018 (5 working Preparation & submission of the 2nd draft of the MTR report days) 22 January Submission of the 2nd draft of MTR report 23-29 January Feedback and comments from the UNDP, BMB and other partners 30 January – 05 February (5 Preparation of the final MTR report working days) 06 February Submission of the final MTR report 7-16 February Preparation & Issue of Management Response 28 February (1 working day) Presentation to the Project Steering Committee

Options for site visits should be provided in the Inception Report.

VII. MIDTERM REVIEW DELIVERABLES

# Deliverable Description Timing Responsibilities 1 MTR Inception MTR team clarifies No later than 2 MTR team submits to the Report objectives and methods weeks before the Commissioning Unit and of Midterm Review MTR mission project management 2 Presentation Initial Findings End of MTR mission MTR Team presents to project management and the Commissioning Unit 3 Draft Final Full report (using Within 3 weeks of Sent to the Commissioning Report guidelines on content the MTR mission Unit, reviewed by RTA, outlined in Annex B) Project Coordinating Unit, with annexes GEF OFP 4 Final Report* Revised report with Within 1 week of Sent to the Commissioning audit trail detailing how receiving UNDP Unit all received comments comments on draft have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report *The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

VIII. MTR ARRANGEMENTS

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Philippines.

The commissioning unit will contract the consultants and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the MTR team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

IX. TEAM COMPOSITION

A team of two independent consultants will conduct the MTR - one team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one team expert, from the Philippines. The consultants must not have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities.

The national reviewer who will be the national consultant will have the following profile/competencies:

• An effective evaluator with demonstrated experience in conducting programme and project evaluations, preferably GEF project evaluations especially in the area of coastal and marine biodiversity, marine protected area and sustainable fisheries;  Demonstrated strong knowledge of Monitoring and Evaluation methods for development projects; knowledge of UNDP’s results-based management orientation and practices; • Familiarity with biodiversity conservation issues in the Philippines,

 Fluency in the English language and excellent oral and written communication skills.

The National Consultant should have an advanced degree in Economics, Finance, Business Management or Entrepreneurial Management, Community Development, Ecology or any related field with at least 10 years of experience in natural resource economics or accounting preferably in marine protected areas or fisheries. She/he should have a minimum of least 10 years experience in the implementation of protected area management, MPA financing sustainability, MPA system wide planning and monitoring, and capacity building for MPA management.

The National Consultant will primarily support the International Consultant who plays the Team Leader in the conduct of the evaluation mission. She/he is expected to do the tasks but not limited to the following:

1. Assist the team leader and provide inputs in the preparation of the MTE Inception Report and Mid-term Evaluation Report;

2. Assist in the conduct of the evaluation mission especially in the gathering and analysis of data and information; 3. Provide the national context in the analysis of SMARTSeas’ results and accomplishments; and 4. Provide recommendations for improvement considering the national context where SMARTSeas operates.

The Review Team is expected to discuss among themselves their detailed division of work and should be clearly articulated in the MTE Inception Report.

The National Consultant will report to the Team Leader (International Consultant). The UNDP CO and PMU will provide support to the development of the evaluation work plan in consultation with key project partners. The project team (PMU) will serve as the reference group for the evaluation and ensure the monitoring of satisfactory completion of evaluation deliverables.

SMARTSeas PH PMU will provide office space and access to office services such as, Internet and printing. Evaluator/s should provide their own computer and communications equipment.

In consultation with the Review Team and as requested, the PMU personnel will make available all relevant documentation and provide contact information to key project partners and stakeholders, and facilitate contact where needed. The team will also assist in organizing any briefing de-briefing meetings including coordination of stakeholders’ input in the evaluation draft report.

X. PAYMENT MODALITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS

Consultants will be contracted by UNDP and remunerated according to the reviewed and accepted financial proposal. The contract will be output-based and payment issued only upon delivery of satisfactory outputs/milestones.

Table 6. Payment Schedule % Milestone 10% Following submission and acceptance of the MTR mission Inception Report 30% Following submission and approval of the 1ST draft MTR report 20% Following submission and approval of the 2nd draft MTR report addressing comments from IP, UNDP-CO and UNDP-GEF RTA 40% Following submission and approval () of the final MTR report

XI. APPLICATION PROCESS9

Applicants are requested to apply online (http://www.undp.org.ph.jobs) . Individual consultants are invited to submit applications together with their CV for these positions.

The application should contain a current and complete C.V. in English with indication of the e‐mail and phone contact. Shortlisted candidates will be requested to submit a price offer indicating the total cost of the assignment (including daily fee, per diem and travel costs).

UNDP applies a fair and transparent selection process that will take into account the competencies/skills of the applicants as well as their financial proposals. Qualified women and members of social minorities are encouraged to apply.

9 Engagement of the consultants should be done in line with guidelines for hiring consultants in the POPP: https://info.undp.org/global/popp/Pages/default.aspx

ToR Annex A: Profiles of SMARTSeas-Funded Project Sites

Davao Gulf

Brief Description

Davao Gulf is among the top priority conservation areas of the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Eco-region and is also a crucial conservation area in the Coral Triangle. The Gulf is home to small and large pelagic species, with frequent sightings of whale sharks, dugongs and leatherback turtles, among the list of species cited in the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). It also brims with tropical marine species and brags of coral reefs, making it a favorite destination among divers, tourists, investors, business opportunists, scientists and conservationists alike.

The Davao Gulf is located in the southeastern part of the Philippines, about 984 km south of Manila. It lies approximately between 6o7’ and 7o4.5’ north latitude and 125o11.5’ east latitude. It is bounded by Davao City and the four provinces of Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte, Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental. It lies south of the wide flood plains of Davao del Norte and west of the adjacent provinces of Bukidnon and Cotabato.

The Gulf has an area of 6,600 km2 and a coastline of approximately 500 km. The average depth of the Gulf is 17 m. The high mountain ranges of Sarangani Province in the west and south-west, the mountain ranges of Mt. Apo (the highest Philippine peak) in the north and north-west portion of the region, and the mountain ranges of Davao del Norte and Oriental in the eastern side, surround the gulf. Within the Gulf are the islands of Samal and Talikud. Altogether, there are 565 barangays from twenty-four local governments made up of twenty-three municipalities of the four Davao provinces, the City of Davao, and the three city districts of the IGACOS.

Ecological Profile

As the 10th major fishing ground in the country, the Gulf is a critical resource supporting the economies of five coastal cities and 18 coastal municipalities. The typhoon-free climate and relative peace in the region have favored expansion and development in the agro-industrial, fishery, tourism and other service sectors. As a result, processing plants and industries, settlements and built-up areas, ports, beach resorts, and all facets of economic progress have spread across the coasts, affecting the biophysical condition of the Gulf and leading to numerous management issues and concerns. The Davao Gulf is endowed with major coastal habitats such as mangroves, seagrass, coral reefs and soft- bottom communities that directly and indirectly support fisheries. In recent years, man-made habitats such as artificial reefs were introduced to enhance fish stock.

Corals: Thirty-four genera of hard corals and three genera of soft corals were identified, suggesting high species diversity. The total length of reef formation was estimated to be around 412.1 km (UPVFI 2000). These were mostly reefs surrounding the islands and shoals of Samal in Davao del Norte (127.4 km) and the fringing reefs of the mainland of Davao Oriental (114 km.) and Davao del Sur (102.7 km.).

Manta tow surveys covering 33.8 kilometers of reefs in the Gulf showed that only one-fourth of the coral cover was live. Of the 19 areas surveyed, only the corals in Tubalan were in very good condition. Areas with poor values of 10% and below were found in Agdao, Malita and Valez (Toril) in Davao City. Thirty-four genera of hard corals and three genera of soft corals were identified, suggesting high species diversity. Live coral cover was noted to be decreasing over a period of five years (MSU, 1995 and UPVFI, 2000).

Megafauna: The Davao Gulf serves as a feeding ground for various species of highly migratory cetaceans such as dolphins and whales. The survey in March 2004 by a composite team from the DA- BFAR, the Save Davao Gulf Foundation, Inc. (SDGFI), and the WWF- Philippines, confirmed the presence of 11 cetaceans in the Gulf making it the second top cetacean diversity sight in the Philippines, next to Babuyan Islands that has 13. Of the 11 cetaceans discovered, seven species are whales while four species are dolphins. Eight of the 11 species are listed in CITES as threatened by extinction unless protected and conserved.

Dugongs (Dugong dugon) or sea cows, which feed on seagrass, have been sighted near the shores of Davao Gulf particularly in the coasts of Malalag, Malita and Don Marcelino in Davao del Sur; IGACOS in Davao del Norte, and Gov. Generoso in Davao Oriental. These timid creatures are likewise endangered under CITES. Dwindling seagrass habitats and other anthropogenic causes contribute to the continued decline of the dugong population.

The turtle population worldwide is declining and listed as endangered by the CITES. Of the seven species of marine turtles still existing, five are found in the Philippines and present in the Davao Gulf. The local government of Davao City has created a Pawikan Task Force to spearhead the management and conservation of marine turtles in response to the discovery of turtle nests in Punta Dumalag. The municipal government of Pantukan in Compostela Valley also passed a resolution providing incentives to fisherfolks who can capture and release sea turtles.

Mangroves: The estimated mangrove cover of the Gulf differs significantly among studies, probably because of the methods used. Some of these estimates were based on spot satellite maps that need on-ground validation while the others were based on topographic maps using different scales. Of the estimated 2,683 hectares of mangroves based on the 1950 NAMRIA maps, 1,391 hectares had been converted into fishponds and 845 hectares, for other purposes. By 1995, only 295 hectares (11%) had been accounted for (BFAR, 2000). A study by the University of the Philippines in the Foundation, Inc. (2000) listed 20 species of mangroves in the Gulf.

Fourteen of them were classified as true mangrove species with the most common belonging to genera Rhizopora, Sonneratia and Avicennia. Trees reaching 20 meters high still exist in barangays Bato and Tuban in Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur. Of the 65 known species of mangroves worldwide (UNDP/UNESCO, 1986), 50 species belonging to 26 families can be found in the Philippines (Calumpong, 1997). In the Gulf, 27 true mangroves and 23 mangrove associates are grown in the first on-site mangrove laboratory in Southern Philippines, the San Isidro Mangrovetum in the Island Garden City of Samal (IGACOS).

Socio-Economic Profile

Over the last ten years, population growth in the region ranged from 12.22% to 45.54% with Davao City registering the highest rate and Davao Oriental the lowest. The 2002 NCSO recorded a total household population in the region of 3,760.61 with an average household size of 4.86. As of May 2010, the National Statistics Coordination Board provided the most recent data on population. Davao City together with Governor Generoso, also has the longest length of shoreline, which is 60.1 kilometers.

Lanuza Bay

Brief Description

To consolidate the protection of Lanuza Bay’s coastal resource areas, the Lanuza Bay Development Alliance (LBDA) consisting of seven local government units (municipal LGUs) was created in 2002 through a Memorandum of Understanding. Its official status was gained by way of ordinances passed by each of the member LGU, i.e. Carrascal, Cantilan, Madrid, Carmen, Lanuza, Cortes and Tandag. On August 25, 2004, a unified Fishery Ordinance (initial covenant) and manual of operations was approved by the LGUs and paved the way for the establishment of a Project Management Office. The principles and policies promoted by the LBDA as stated in their covenant (Article II) include: 1) sustainable and integrated management of their natural resources and the empowerment of their communities; 2) unified fishery laws enforced within the territorial jurisdiction; 3) ensure food security for the people within the unified area; 4) maintain sound ecological balance in the coastal area and the adjacent high ; 5) allocate funds and other resources for the development of fishery resources through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, construction of post harvest facilities, marketing assistance and other services including capability building of fisherfolks; and 6) protection of the rights of the marginal fisherfolks within the territorial jurisdiction through preferential use of their coastal and fishery resources.

The territorial jurisdiction of the LBDA covers the waters not included under the NIPAS law within Lanuza Bay, i.e. between the municipalities of Claver and Carrascal to the north; between the municipalities of Tandag and Tago municipalities to the South and between the municipalities of Carrascal and Socorro to the East (Article IV, Sec. 6). The area of coverage also includes inland bodies of waters such as rivers, lakes, etc.

Ecological Profile (sources of information: Lanuza Bay Environment Management Plan, Coastal and Fisheries Resource Management Plans of Cantilan, Lanuza and Cortes, Comprehensive Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Program Unified Ordinances, ICRM covenant of LBDA).

Topography, slope, climate and hazard areas: Lanuza Bay is predominantly mountainous with steep slopes found in the western side, along the Diwata mountain range, which slopes down to the east towards the Pacific Ocean. The eastern section, which lies along the coast are mostly flat, particularly in Cortes and Tandag. The plain areas of Cantilan, Madrid and Carmen have mostly rice paddies and coconut plantations. The municipality of Lanuza is highly mountainous with a few level areas near the Tago river and along the coastline.

Several portions of Lanuza Bay are vulnerable to natural calamities, such as flooding in low lying areas particularly those near mangrove swamps and rice paddies while there are also landslide prone areas for those with steep slopes. Active fault lines have been located within Lanuza Bay which potentially have high ground rupture susceptibility.

Status of coastal resources: The municipal waters along the Lanuza Bay area (LBA) are surrounded by beaches, mangroves, estuaries, seagrasses and coral reefs. At least 10 islands/islets are found along the LBA, mostly in Cantilan (General island, Ayoke island, Huyamao island and Casa Rica islet) and the rest are located in Carrascal (Ludguron island, Puyo island and Dijo islet), Tandag (Mancagangi island and Linungaw island) and in Cortes (Tag- anongan island).

The beaches are predominantly sandy and rocky substrates utilized as docking areas by the artisanal fishers, as drying areas for fishes and as recreation areas for local and foreign tourists. The beaches in LBA are most extensive along Cortes, Cantilan and Lanuza municipalities. Marine turtles have been reported to nest along the beaches of Lanuza. Threats include illegal cutting of beach tree species, improper disposal of waste, beach sand quarrying and conversion into settlements. The mangrove areas of LBA are estimated to be 2,421.93 hectares (LBEMP 2010), 80% of which are found in Carrascal, Cantilan and Cortes. Among the species found in LBAin these areas are: Sonneratia caseolaris, Avicennia lanata, Rhizopora apiculata, Hibiscus tiliaceus and Aegiceras corniculatum. Some issues along mangrove areas are illegal cutting, conversion into settlements and fishponds and dumping of organic waste. Cortes CRM plan reports that the original 715 hectares of mangroves it used to have is 70% gone and therefore needs rehabilitation.

The estuaries are found in at least 27 barangays across the 6 municipalities (except Carmen) owing to the presence of numerous rivers and creeks of various sizes within the LBA. Estuaries serve as spawning, fishing and nursery grounds of several marine species. Among the issues are illegal fishing and overharvesting.

The seagrasses’ full extent and coverage in LBA is not known but it is estimated that at least 1,254 hectares, with Cortes having the largest area at 12.6km2 and observed to have an average cover of 68%. The other municipalities with seagrass beds are Carrascal and Cantilan, with Lanuza having the least cover at 3 hectares. A total of 5 species have been observed: Enhalus, Cymodocea, Syringodium, Halodule and Halophila spp. Among the problems encountered in seagrass areas are: siltation from rivers and tributaries brought about by timber poaching and mine tailings, intensive harvesting of some seaweed spp., habitat destruction and overharvesting from beach seining and other illegal fishing methods, and presence of rotten nets and plastics.

Coral Reefs areas of LBA are estimated at 3,785 hectares, more than half of which is found in the eastern coasts of Cortes (about 2,000 hectares), followed by Carrascal (around Ludguran island) with 1,245 hectares. The other reef areas are located in General island and Huyamao islands in Cantilan with patches encountered in Lanuza. The Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA) results conducted in 2001 showed the coral cover to be poor (less than 25%) in Lanuza to fair cover (46.5%) in Cantilan. However, inside the MPAs of Lanuza and Cortes, a Haribon Foundation survey assessed the hard coral cover to be between 41 to 57% in 2002-2009 indicating fair to good coral cover. Among the problems in the coral reef areas are: illegal/destructive fishing using dynamite and poison, indiscriminate collection of wildlife such as shellfish, corals and other marine life.

The Fishery Resources: Lanuza Bay has been identified as among the richest fishing grounds in southeastern Philippines. The traditional fishing grounds in Lanuza Bay include those areas near Panwaswasan, Tugas, Dijo, Kapagihan, Alicos and Candido in Carrascal; Sabang, Huyamao and Whale Rock in Cantilan; Nurcia, Sibahay, Habag, Zones 1 and 4 in Lanuza; Lambohan in Cortes; and Mancagangi in Tandag. Approximately 14,340 fisherfolks reside in the 7 municipalities of Lanuza Bay, 42% of which are full time fishers. An estimated 7,327 boats have been reported, 44% of which are motorized (LBENMP 2010). Cantilan has the most number of fishers and motorized boats followed by Tandag.

The fishing gear commonly used in Lanuza Bay include scoop net with lights (sikpaw), spear (pana), spear with hookah compressor (boso) , hook and line, jigs, trapos and pots, gillnets, fish corral, bagnet, beach seine and push net. Harvesting can also be done by hand picking in intertidal zones and shallow waters at low tide while gleaning and collecting sea cucumbers, sea urchins, seashells or crabs. In 2005, the average catch per unit effort (CPUE) ranged from 20 to 4.5 kg for spear fishing; 25 to 2.5 kg for hook and line (1 to 2 hooks); 70 to 30kg for drift gill nets and 20 to 7.5 kg for set gill nets. Inactive fishing gear such as crab/fish pots and fish corral yielded from 21 to 1kg CPUE.

Fish diversity in Lanuza Bay is high compared to other areas in the Philippines (FIN 2013), estimated at around 2,000 to 3,000 species. However, it is predicted that by 2050, this number will drop by 12 to 20%, which is relatively lower than the average drop of 21 to 46% that is expected to occur in about 60% of the Philippine waters. This highlights the significant role of Lanuza Bay in marine biodiversity conservation. More than half of the marine fishes encountered in Lanuza Bay are reef-associated species and demersal species at 18% and the pelagic species accounting for only 6%. It is therefore critical that their coral reef, seagrass and mangrove habitats be preserved. Unpublished studies have suggested that extirpation may be occurring in Lanuza Bay and that more species may be facing local extinction (Lavides pers. comm.).

Socio-Economic Profile

Population: The combined populations of the 7 municipalities in 2010 are 151,447 individuals of which the non-coastal municipalities (Carmen and Madrid) is at 25,175, or 50% of Tandag’s population which has the highest population. The 5 coastal municipalities represent 84% of the LBA population, indicating a higher population pressure along the coastal areas. The male- female population ratio was almost equal at 50.1% male:49.9% female with household size averaging at five (NSO 2007). The annual population growth rate stood at 2.19% where Carmen, Lanuza, Cortes and Tandag have growth rates higher than the average, where we can expect greater pressure on the use of their resources. Interestingly, Carrascal, where mining is currently a major economic activity has demonstrated a low population growth rate despite having the highest mangrove and coral reef area, suggesting that the marine resources may be in peril and displaced fishers may be migrating in nearby coastal towns for livelihood. The potential labor force is 55% or 72,320 with Tandag City and Cantilan having the highest potential labor force. The dependents (ages 0 to 15 and those above 65 years old) represent 45% of the population for a high dependency ratio of 82% which means that for Lanuza Bay, 5 people in the productive age support about 4 dependents.

Ethnicity: Several indigenous peoples thrive in LBA: Manobos, Mandaya, Kamayo and Mamanwas although the exact population is undetermined. Anecdotal accounts mention the Mamanwas in Lanuza and Cortes as among the stakeholders in the coastal areas for food as they appear to be more dependent on land and forest than the sea for their livelihood. The other inhabitants of the LBA are migrants from the Visayan islands such as Cebu, Bohol, Iloilo and Masbate and nearby provinces. The in migration resulted from logging and mining industry that brought in laborers from other provinces.

Livelihood: Farming and fishing are the major income sources of about 70% of the households in LBA. Laborers were a mere 23% and the remaining 7% were into trading or were professionals. The average annual income of the municipalities ranged from PhP28M to PhP11M between 1996 to 1999, with the municipalities classified as first to 5th class. Based on the NSCB information (2010), Tandag City is the only first class municipality followed by Cantilan ranked as 2nd class. The municipalities of Carrascal, Madrid, Lanuza and Cortes are all 4th class while Carmen is ranked 5th.

Women’s role: At least 2 MPAs in Cortes (Burgos and Tag-anongan) mentioned women have played significant roles in the management of MPAs, particularly volunteering with the guarding of the sanctuary. In other areas (e.g. Cantilan) women were displaced from their gleaning areas when the MPA was established. However, some also reported that they benefited from MPA establishment when the marine resources recovered after years of protection so that they were able to glean again and get better harvest. Women’s groups have been organized in at least two municipalities (i.e., Cantilan and Lanuza) primarily for livelihood. In almost all municipalities, the women are engaged in catering services when visitors come to see their MPAs.

Tanon Strait Protected Seascape

Brief Description

The Tañon Strait was declared a Protected Seascape in 1998 through the Presidential Proclamation 1234 by then President Fidel V. Ramos in due recognition of its marine ecological importance as a migration corridor and home to a diverse assemblage of cetaceans.

Tañon Strait is located in the Central Visayas, which is considered as the epicenter of global marine shorefish diversity with the “richest concentration of marine life on the entire planet” (Carpenter & Springer, 2005). Tañon Strait is an important migration corridor for Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus), dolphins and other marine mammals. This site serves as a breeding, nursery, feeding, and resting grounds to at least 14 species of cetaceans, the most interesting of which are the Dwarf sperm whales (Kogia simus) and Melonheaded whale (Peponocepala electra) (Dolar). The Strait is also a distinct habitat of the chambered nautilus (Nautilus pompilius). Tañon Strait is one of this region’s seven distinct fisheries ecosystems (i.e. , , Danajon Bank, , , East , and Tañon Strait). It has an estimated 18,830 ha of coral reefs and 650 ha of mangrove forest along the Negros and Cebu coastline (Green et al. 2004). It is a popular destination for whale- watchers, scuba divers, conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts.

Tañon Strait also serves as an economic corridor in the Visayas region for hosting vital industries such as shipbuilding, power generation and manufacturing. The strait also serves as a transit point between Manila () and the vital coastal cities in Southern Negros, Siquijor and Northern – Northeastern (TSPS-GMP 2012).

Location

Tañon Strait lies between the islands of Cebu and Negros in the Central Visayas Region. It encompasses 35 municipalities and 7 cities under the jurisdiction of the provinces of Cebu, Negros Oriental, and Negros Occidental. The Tañon Strait covers an estimated area of 518, 221 hectares and perimeter of 684 kilometers. It runs to about 160 kilometers long and its width extends from 5 to 27 kilometers, with the narrowest point in the south between Liloan, Santader and Sibulan (TSPS-GMP 2012). It is relatively deep, having the deepest depth at 509 meters.

Ecological Profile

The Tañon Strait belongs to the ecoregion with the highest marine biological diversity in the world. Tañon’s narrow channel is contiguous to the deep waters of Sulu Sea. It has a total coastline of 452.7 km. The estimated ecosystem area within the Tañon Strait is 3,995.2 km2 (Green et al. 2004).

Cetaceans: Tañon Strait is an important feeding and resting ground for cetaceans (Hayasaka et. al 1983; Tucker and Mapes, 1978). Based on the study of Dolar, about 14 species of cataceans traverse the strait. This constitutes 54% of the total number of cetaceans known from the Philippines (25 species) and 47% of the total number of cetacean species recorded in Southeast Asia (Dolar 1999b; Perrin 1995). The occurrence/distribution of some cetacean species within the Tañon Strait is influenced by their preference of prey. Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodolphis hosei) is seen only in the deeper waters in the south of Negros Island but not within Tañon Strait (Dolar and Perrin, 1996) probably due to their preference to mesopelagic prey (Dolar et. al 1999; Dolar et. al. 2003). Dwarf sperm whales (Kogia sima) are abundant in Tañon Strait and feeds on cephalopods and benthic fishes (Gaskin, 1982; Ross, 1979; McAlpine, 2002). Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is restricted to shallow and intermediate depths (Wǜrsig and Wǜrsig, 1979 Shane, 1990; Jefferson and Lynn 1994; Wells and Scott, 1999) probably due to its character that takes advantage of human fishing activities. Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorynchos) seems to move seasonally between the Sulu Sea and the southern part of the Tañon Strait. Its occurrence in Tañon is timed with the influx of frigate mackerels (Auxis thazard) (per. Observations by MLLD). Short-finned pilot whales feed primarily on squid but they are also known to feed on fish such as cod, herring, and mackerel and seasonally move onshore/offshore in pursuit of their prey (Bernard and Reilly, 1999; Olson and Reilly, 2002).

Coral Reefs in the Tanon Strait: Tañon Strait has about 188.3 km2 (18,830 ha) of coral reefs, mostly fringing reefs along the Negros and Cebu coastline (Green et al. 2004). Based on the CRM Plans collected, coral cover of municipalities along Tañon Strait averages from 25% (poor condition) to 85% (excellent condition).

Reef Fish in the Tañon Strait: Based on the CRM Plans collected, reef fish abundance within the Tañon Strait ranges from 4,000 to 10,000 individuals per hectare belonging to over 24 fish families. The main target of this census was commercially valuable fish such as triggerfish, sweetlips, emperors, snappers, soldier fish, and goatfish. A few pelagic species were also accounted for such as anchovies, billfish, mackerels and tuna, which also play an important role in livelihood of some fishers in Tañon Strait.

Mangroves in the Tanon Strait: In Tañon Strait the remaining area of mangrove forest is 650 ha only (Green et. al. 2004) and the total area of culture ponds is 2,990 ha (Ong et. al. 2002). Other causes for mangrove loss included reclamation, cutting of trees for housing materials, siltation and pollution (Primavera, J.H. 1995; Lawas, L.M. 1974). Of the world’s more than 70 mangrove species, around 46 are known to occur in the country, and 26 are known to occur in the Tañon Strait.

Seagrasses in Tanon Strait: Based on the CRM Plans collected, Tañon Strait has a total of seven species of seagrasses and Thalasia sp, Enhalus sp and Cymodocea sp are the three most dominant species. Seagrass cover ranges from 30% to 50%. About 60 species of seagrass have been reported worldwide (Bjork et al. 2008) and 16 species are reported in the Philippines (Menez et al., 1983; Fortes, 1989), while 7 are reported in Tañon Strait- Cydomoccea serrulata (Ribbon seagrass), Enhalus acoroides (Eal seagrass), Halodule pinifolia (Shoal seagrass), Halodule uninervis, Halophila ovalis (Spoon seagrass), Syrigodium isoetifolium (Sickle seagrass), and Thalassia sp. (Turtle seagrass). Integrated Coastal Resource Management Plan (2001-2014).

Socio-Economic Profile

As of 2010 data, Tanon Strait has a population of 1,165,821 with Cebu contributing the most to the numbers with 684,795, followed by Negros Oriental with 253,510 and Negros Occidental with 227,516 individuals. The most densely populated areas are in Toledo-Balamban and Badian-Moalboal in Cebu Province, Bais-Tanjay-Amlan and San Jose-Sibulan in Negros Oriental and San Carlos City and Escalante City in Negros Occidental.

Tañon Strait is one of the major fishing grounds of Central Visayas. Based on the survey of the BFAR and CRMP, there are about 26,850 fishers operating in the area with more than 12,000 motorized and non-motorized boats. Studies show that fisherfolk plying Tañon Strait have the highest number of active fishing gears such as gillnets (kurantay/drift gillnets, palabay/bottom gillnets, patuloy/surface- set gillnets), and passive gears such as hook-and-lines (pamasol) and squid jigs. Beach seining (sahid/baling) is also practiced in Tañon Strait, which is tolerated despite being officially illegal (TSPS- GMP 2012).

Southern Palawan

Brief Description

Palawan is an archipelago comprised of 1,768 islands. It lies in southwest Luzon bounded by in the northeast, the West in the southwest, and Sulu Sea in the southeast. Palawan is considered to be the largest province in the country with a land area of 14,896.55 km2 that is 5 % of the national territory. It also has one of the largest marine territorial waters (49,000 km2), coastal waters (3,200 km2) and coastline (1,959 km) in the country. Palawan has three major island groups: the Calamian group of islands in the north, the Dumaran- Cuyo islands in the northeast, and the Balabac-Bugsok group in the southwest.

Considered as the last ecological frontier of the country, Palawan hosts several ecologically critical habitats which are home to a rich flora and fauna, most of which are endemic to the province. Palawan has the largest forest cover in the country with 6,663.38 km2 (46% of Palawan’s land area and 9.3% of the country’s forest) with primary forest at 1,897.72 km2 (22.89% of the country’s primary forest), largest mangrove extent at 584.00 km2 (42 % of the country’s mangroves), and largest coral reefs at 98.00 km2 (36.29 % of the country). Around 3.91 % of the province’ seagrass beds are still in excellent condition. Palawan is internationally recognized as a Man and Biosphere Reserve and is home to two World Heritage Sites (St. Paul Subterranean River National Park and National Marine Park. (State of the Coasts of Palawan).

The economy of the province is largely dependent on agriculture and fisheries with mining and logging as secondary source of income. Three major crops are grown – palay, corn and coconut. Other crops grown are bananas, cassava, sweet potatoes, cashew and vegetables. The industry and manufacturing sector, which includes quarrying and mining, contributes 14 % to the provincial economy.

Ecological Profile

The combined land area of the four (4) municipalities namely Aborlan, Narra, Sofronio Espanola and Brooke’s Point is 258,839.32 hectares which is 17.83% of the total land area of the province. The total area of municipal waters is 45,500 sq km with an average of 1,978 sq.km. per municipality exceeding the land area.

Fisheries account for 20.24% of the economy (CBMS, 2008). Major fishing grounds in the province are the West Sulu Sea, Imuruan Bay and with a combined area of 34,506.54 km2. In 2011, the total fisheries production was recorded at 682,379.24 mt comprised of commercial (33,035.51 mt; 4.84 %), municipal and inland (171,615.81 mt; 25.15 %), and aquaculture sectors (477,727.92 mt; 70.01 %). There was however a sharp decline in municipal fisheries of around 12,260 mt/yr from 2006 to 2011. In contrast for the same period, aquaculture production has an increasing rate of 19,520 mt/yr.

The commercial sector has 3,541 fishers operating on 186 fishing boats. On the other hand, the municipal fisheries sector employs 66,773 fishers on 15,259 fishing boats – 8,507 of which are motorized and 6,752 are non-motorized. Aquaculture has two major types: seaweeds (49.50 km2) and inland (12.68 km2). The seaweed culture employs 5,775 seaweed farmers and produces around 400,000 mt/yr. Narra Municipality: Narra is an agricultural municipality approximately 94 km south of Puerto Princesa City. Based on the coastal resources assessment conducted by the Palawan Council for sustainable Development Staff in 1997 the municipality of Narra, showed fifteen species of mangroves: Sonneratia alba (Pedaba), Sonneratia caseolaris (Pagatpat), Rhizopora apicuta (bakawan lalake), Rhizopora mucronata (bakawan babe), Xylocarpus granatum (Tabigi), Xylocarpus moluccensis (Piagau), Brugueira gymnorrhiza (Busain), Brugueira sexangula (Pototan), Ceriops tagal (Tangal), Ceriops decandra (Malatangal), Aegiceras floridum (Tinduk- tindukan), Avicennia marina (Bungalo) and Scyhiphora hydrophiillacea (Nilad). The highest number of species identified per site is nine (9) and was recorded in Raza Islad and Barangay Aramaywan. The study also revealed that Narra’s mangrove cover was found to be relatively intact as compared to other areas in Palawan despite some observed disturbances. Clearings were documented and fishpond activities were noted in Sitio Palo-palo, Barangay Burirao. Evidence of cutting was also observed in Barangay Aramaywan.

As far as seagrass is concerned a total of nine species was recorded in the seven sites and these were Cymodocea serrulata, Cymodocea rotundata, Syringodium isoetifolium, Halodulle uninervis, Halodule pinifolia, Enhalus accoroides, Thallassia hemprichii, Halophila sp., and Halophila ovalis. The study reported that the overall condition of seagrass communities in Narra is generally good. Out of the sixteen (16) species found in the Philippines, nine (9) existed in Narra. Thallassia hemprichii which serves as food for the dugong was found in four (4) out of seven sites surveyed. This would explain sightings of dugongs in the coastal areas of Narra as reported by the Joint Dugong Research and Conservation Program in May 1995.

As far as coral reef is concerned, Temple Island has the highest live coral cover placed at 70.51%. The lowest computed at 38.30% and was recorded in submerged reef. On the average, the average overall live coral cover in Narra was 50.47% and can be rated as good. The percentage of dead corals was high particularly at Linda (28.44%), Emelina (28%), Pagasinan Island (26.71%) and Pulaw Telam Island (26.95%). It was also indicated that coral rubbles was relatively high for the whole municipality at 10.31% indicating the damage possibly brought about by dynamited fishing and the use of anchor. There was presence of large amount of algae that is an indication of heavily degraded reef areas. Considerable mechanical damage to corals probably caused by the improper use of anchors and the use of trawls and dynamite were also documented. Silt was observed present in both soft and hard corals in Emelina Island. Crustaceans and molluscs such as octopus, clams squid and crabs were observed to be missing from the survey sites.

With regards to fish visual census, study showed that the dominant species at all sample sites was Pomacentridae (Damsels) at 66.55% of the total species count. Labridae (Wrasses) was high at 7.34% while Chaetodontidae (Butterfly fish) represented 5.09% of the overall fish count. Caesonidae (Fusiller) accounted for 6.6% while Scaridae (Parrotfish) represented 2.85%. In terms of fish density, Cudil Island has the highest placed at 1.01 fish per square meters. In terms of fish count, Banking Island ranked first followed by Linda Island. The worst site is Bangawan Island, however in terms of number of families, Rasa Island ranked first while Banking Island ranked second. It was observed that sites with high fish count also had relatively good coral cover. It was also evident that plantivores which consist of the damsels and fusilier species dominated the overall condition of reef fisheries in the municipality of Narra. Study shows that there was a noticeable absence of large predators such as grouper and sweetlips especially along the deeper transects. There appeared to be a very low numbers of other usual target species of caesonids, carngids, labrids, lethonids, lutjanids, mullets, nemipterids, scarids, rerranids and siganids in most sites of the survey area, largely indicating that the area is being overexploited and overfished.

Brookes Point: In the municipality of Brooke’s Point, from the rapid resource assessment conducted by the BFAR in 2004 stated that Barangay Ipilan had an estimated percentage of hard coral cover at 29.84% with non-acropora hard coral granite form as the most abundant biotic component covering 27.54% of the transect line. Acropora corals are a minor component at 2.30% while dead coral cover was recorded at 14.62%. Other fauna represented by soft corals, sponges and crinoids was observed to be the highest recorded in the site. Algal cover was noted to be moderately low in cover at 3.20%. The abiotic cover such as sand and rubbles were also high in this site occupying 21.10% of the transect line.

A total of 47 species under 19 families were recorded in the site with the following distribution: 5 target species of 4 families (Carangidae, Haemulidae, Lutjanidae and Serranidae), 4 indicator species of 3 Families (Chaetodontidae, Pomacanthidae, and Zanclidae) and 38 major species of 12 families. Of the major species listed Labridae and Pomacentridae were widely represented at 10 and 13 species respectively.

In Barangay Maasin, were the marine protected area was established, the corals was characterized by Acropora and non-acropora corals of branching type. Massive, encrusting, submassive, foliose and mushroom forms of corals covering 35.02% of the transect line and occasional occurrences of algae such as brown algae and Halimeda of 2.70%. The abiotic forms were the second highest component covering 33.78% followed by dead corals at 17.02%. The rest was covered by other fauna and the most dominant was soft corals followed by sponges and crinoids at 11.48% of the transect line. As far as species composition was concerned, fish observed in the area is well represented with 65 species under the 22 families. The most dominant families were Pomacentridae and Labridae. Target or commercially important species were Lutjanids, Haemulids, Cangids and Serranids. There were 8 indicator species of butterfly species belonging to families Cahetodontidae, Pomacanthidae and Zanclidae that were observed in the area. No data for the municipality of Aborlan and Sofronio Espanola were gathered relative to the condition of mangroves, seagrass, corals and fish visual census.

Socio-Economic Profile

Data from NSO shows the total population in the province increased from 640,486 in 1995 to 755,412 in 2000. The population growth was 3.64 percent for the period of 1995 to 2000. As far as the four municipalities in Southern Palawan are concerned, based on NSO projection the total population for 2012 are as follows: Aborlan (38,963), Narra (86,184), Sofronio Espanola (39,642), and Brooke’s Point (72,700). Narra has the biggest population among the four municipalities while Aborlan has the least population. The annual growth rate of the four municipalities varies based on the NSO report. In terms of literacy rate the municipalities of Aborlan, Narra and Sofronio Espanla had an average rate of 94.99 percent which is also higher than the national and provincial averages. This high rate of literacy was attributed to the Provincial Teachers Pool Program of the Provincial government of Palawan which hires and deploys teachers to address the shortage of teachers in elementary and secondary public schools of the province.

In four municipalities, data showed an increase in member’s participation in community development from 36.36 percent in 2000 to 38.17 in 2002. Sofronio Espanola registered an increase of 9.66 percent during the two survey periods. However, the municipality of Brooke’s registered a negative trend in terms of household members participation in community organization. The province has been experiencing a favourable trend in employment situation from 2000 to 2005. Employment rate recorded at 86.31 percent in 2005 which is higher than the 2002 rate of 82.79 percent. About 66.55 percent of employed persons in the province are into the sector of agriculture and fishery followed by the service sector at 21.57 percent and industry at 7.43 percent. Data from 2011 of CBMS report of the province revealed that agriculture and fishery sector is still the leading sector in the economy.

During the site survey and validation, it was found out that all of the established MPAs are classified as Fish Sanctuaries. The most number of MPAs were in the municipality of Narra with a total area of 823.26 hectares while Aborlan has two (2) MPA’s with an area of 24.0 hectares and the municipality of Sofronio Espanola and Brooke’s Point have each one MPA with an area of 320.99 and 150.0 hectares respectively. Out of the four (4) municipalities, 62.45% are located in the municipality of Narra and were established under the municipal ordinance approved by the respective Sangguniang Bayan.

Verde Island Passage

Brief Description

The Passage (VIP) is considered as the “center of the center” of the world’s marine shorefish biodiversity having 1,736 species overlapping over a 10-kilometer area (Carpenter, Kent E. and Springer, 2005). It is part of the Sulu Sulawesi Seascape (SSS) lying between the southern coast of the province of and the northern coast of Mindoro Island.

The VIP connects the with , the and Cuyo Pass. It covers an area of approximately 1.14 million hectares shared among the 5 provinces of Batangas, Mindoro Oriental, Mindoro Occidental, and . It is within the (IV-A) and (IV-B) Regions with a total population of 4,127,726 (2010 Census of Population, NSO) who directly or indirectly depend for livelihood and protein source from the VIP’s rich resources.

The VIP has been identified as a Marine Biodiversity Conservation Corridor of Conservation International-Philippines and recently recorded 338 coral species (Fenner, unpublished), 8 of which is considered rare, belonging to 74 coral genera; 3 species of sea turtles; 5 species of cetaceans; 262 species of fish in Balayan and , and 162 species belonging to 30 families, in other 8 sites; 18 true and 17 associate mangrove species belonging to 19 families and 24 genera of vascular plants in and 32 species in Balayan; and, 9 in Balayan and adjacent bays and 10 species belonging to 6 genera of seagrass and seaweeds in Mindoro Oriental, have been observed in the passage (CI, 2009). Further, charismatic species such as dolphins, whales, turtles, and whalesharks occur in the Passage (Dolar 2006).

However, biodiversity and ecosystems of the VIP are threatened by the status and direction of development proliferation in the area such as manufacturing, residential and institutional uses, fishing, farming and tourism. Its waterways are also one of the busiest in the Philippines, being used daily by oil and chemical carriers. Likewise, the coastlines of Batangas province are occupied by shipyards, chemical and petrochemical plants, and oil refineries.

Executive Order #578 (EO 578) issued by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo during the National Conference on Biodiversity held in November 8, 2006, established the national policy on biodiversity, highlighting its implementation in VIP. The EO provides for the creation of Ad Hoc Task Force to formulate the Verde Island Framework which serves as guide in developing the Verde Island Management Plan. As of mid 2013, the Batangas, Mindoro Oriental and Occidental Provincial and Municipal LGUs periodic joint meetings and conduct of activities resulted to the creation of MPA social network. However, an enabling policy to legally establish VIP as a MPA Network (VIP-MPAN) and create a central Management Structure has to be further worked on.

Ecological Profile

The Verde Island Passage straddles the waters of the five provinces of Batangas, Mindoro Oriental, Mindoro Occidental, Marinduque and Romblon, within Region IV-A (CALABARZON) and Region IV-B (MIMAROPA). Thirty one (31) municipalities and 2 cities from these 5 provinces comprise the whole VIP.

Covering an area of 1.14 Million hectares or 11,400 km2, it is bounded on the northeast by San Juan, Batangas; on the east by the towns of Mogpog and Buenavista, Marinduque; on the south by Pinamalayan, ; further southeast are the island municipalities of Concepcion, Corcuera and Banton, in the province of Romblon; on the southwest by Calisurigan point, Cape Calavite and Paluan in the province of ; on the west is the westernmost tip of the Cabra Island of Lubang, Occidental Mindoro; and, at the northwestern most side is the Limit Point in Nasugbu, Batangas.

According to the study of Carpenter and Springer (2005) in the Indo-Malay-Philippines archipelago (IMPA), the Philippines has the highest concentration of species diversity per unit area than anywhere in Indonesia, including Wallacea. Using the assemblage of species in the single 10 km x 10 km pixel with the most species, it was revealed that 1,736 or about 58% of all species in the study area are located in the VIP between Mindoro and Luzon, making it the epicenter of diversity. The study suggests that the geological events that led to allopatric speciation are prevalent in the Philippines. The integration of islands that created the archipelago also contributed to the concentration of species. The process of amalgamation created barriers when lager islands took shape, separated populations, and provided conditions for allopatric speciation. Listed below are some of the significant species sighted that thrive in the VIP.

Cetaceans: Based on the marine mammal study of CI-P in 2006, 5 species of cetaceans namely: Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and one stranding recovery of a dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima), and eight more species based on anecdotal evidence thrive in the waters of VIP.

Turtles: Three (3) species of sea turtle namely: the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and the critically endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) are sighted and nesting in some part of the passage. Fishes: Balayan and Tayabas Bay are Biodiversity refuge which is home to 262 species of fish. The assessment conducted by CI-P within 8 specific areas in the VIP recorded a total of 162 species of fishes belonging to 30 families, 28% or 12 families of which are commercially important. Among the commercially important fishes are: surgeonfishes (Ctenochaetus binotatus, Naso minor, Naso hexacanthus), fusiliers (Pterocaesio pisang) and triggerfishes (Melichthys vidua), and wrasses (Oxycheilinus diagrammus). Whalesharks and manta rays are also sighted in the area.

Among MPAs, Pulong Bato and Nalayag Point MPAs in Batangas showed the highest number of fishes and corresponding biomass. Large school of butterfly fish (Chaetodon kleinii) was also observed in this area, while in non-MPA sites, damselfishes (Pomacentridae) and schooling wrasses (Labridae) abound.

More than half (54.2%) of the predicted fishes per habitat type in the VIP are Reef Associated species. To maintain or improve this diversity, the coral reefs in the area and other coastal habitats need to be conserved and managed effectively. Likewise, 36.6% of predicted fishes in the VIP are commercially and domestically important to the communities located along the coastal areas of the VIP. However, almost half (49.9%) of the predicted fishes has no data, and would need further assessment or study.

Coral Reef: Fenner (unpublished) recorded 338 species of corals in the Passage, 8 of which are rare. Dr. Wilfredo Licuanan and Dr. Rob van Woesik discovered in Lian, Batangas a suspected new species of coral, an Acropora. Once confirmed, this will be an additional record for VIP.

Mangroves: Studies conducted within the Philippines-Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) showed that mangrove areas are found to occur in protected coves and quiet embayments in the coastal areas of Batangas and protected coastal areas of large and small islands within the Sulu seas such as Mindoro, Marinduque and Romblon. The largest mangrove area in VIP can be found in San Juan, Batangas covering an area of 4.96 sq. km., Puerto Galera in Mindoro Oriental with an area of 0.53 sq. km., is home to 18 true and 17 associated mangrove species belonging to 19 families and 24 genera of vascular plants. Recorded also in Balayan, Batangas are 32 mangrove and mangrove-associated species.

Seaweeds and Seagrass: Nine (9) seagrass species are found in Balayan and adjacent bays and 10 species in 6 genera are recorded in Mindoro Oriental. Large watersheds can be found in Southern Batangas while the islands of Marinduque, Mindoro Oriental and Occidental and Romblon are, by themselves, watersheds.

Socio-Economic Profile

The VIP comprised of the 5 provinces of Batangas, Mindoro Oriental, Mindoro Occidental, Marinduque and Romblon has a combined population of 4, 127,726 as of 2010 (NSO, 2010 Census of Population and Housing). Among the 5 provinces, Batangas province has the highest population with 2,377,395 (58%), followed by Mindoro Oriental with 785,602 (19%), Mindoro Occidental with 452,971 (11%), Romblon with 283,930 (7%), and Marinduque with 227,828 (5%). Of the 4, 127,726 combined population of the 5 provinces, 1,815,487 or 43.98% come from the 31 municipalities and 2 cities bordering the VIP.

Batangas City was recorded with the highest population density of 6.5 persons per hectare, followed by Marinduque with 93%, Mindoro Oriental with 69%, Mindoro Occidental with 57%, and Romblon with the smallest with 6% population density. Batangas ranks 8th with highest population, and 6th highest density among the 80 provinces in the country. This will continue to rise given the population growth data from 2000 to 2007 which recorded an annual growth rate of 2.29%.

In terms of land area, Mindoro Oriental has the largest with 668,149 hectares or 52% of the combined land area of the 5 provinces which is 1,290,409 hectares (12,904.09 sq. km ). Batangas and Romblon each has an almost equal share of 13% (Batangas having a total land area of 171,620 hectares and Romblon with 163,320 hectares), Mindoro Occidental with 134,310 hectares or 12%, and Marinduque as the smallest with 153,100 hectares or 10%. The 5 provinces in the VIP heavily depend on fishing and farming for livelihood. Main crops produced are palay, corn, and coconut. Based on record, the 5 provinces in the VIP contributed a total of 239,220 metric tons of fish or 5.42% of the total fish production in the country in 2006. Sources of production came from aquaculture with 57,078 metric tons; marine municipal fishing with 36,432 metric tons, commercial fishing contributed 17,424, and from fishing in inland waters with 8,286 metric tons. Batangas recorded the highest volume of fish production among the 5 province. Production came both from inland and coastal aquaculture and municipal fishing. In 2007 to 2008, 36,385 fishers in the VIP were recorded from the provinces of Batangas, Mindoro Oriental and Occidental. (CI-P and PATH Foundation, March 2010)

Employment comes from numerous establishments around Batangas such as the 8 industrial parks like the Cocochem Agro-Industrial Park and Tabangao Special Export Processing Zone, 181 companies that are mostly situated in , the International Port in Batangas, and the many resorts along the coasts of the VIP. These contribute significantly to the economy of the communities near them. Despite these industrial and agricultural opportunities, records show that in 2006, Batangas had 25.6% poverty incidence, higher than the average for the region which is 16.7%. The province fell short in terms of fish supply per capita consumption of 12% in 2004 (Batangas PPDO, 2007).

Mindoro Oriental and Occidental ranked 32nd and 36th amongst the poorest provinces in the Philippines in year 2000. They seem to worsen over time because in 2003 they ranked 28th and 19th place respectively and in 2006, became the 12th and 13th most poor province in the country respectively. On the other hand, the small province of Romblon is the 25th poorest in the Philippines in 2006.

ToR ANNEX B: Methods of data collection to be conducted by the MTR Team

Document Review

The evaluation will include the review of the following documents:

1. PIF 2. UNDP Initiation Plan 3. UNDP Project Document 4. UNDP Environmental and Social Screening results 5. Project Inception Report 6. All Project Implementation Reports (PIR’s) 7. Annual and Quarterly Progress Reports (2015-2017) and annual work plans (AWPs) from 2015- 2017 of the various implementation task teams 8. Audit reports 9. Finalized GEF focal area Tracking Tools at CEO endorsement and midterm (fillin specific TTs for this project’s focal area) 10. Oversight mission reports 11. All monitoring reports prepared by the project 12. Financial and Administration guidelines used by Project Team

The following documents will also be available: 13. Project operational guidelines, manuals and systems 14. UNDP country/countries programme document(s) 15. Minutes of the SMARTSeas PH Project Board Meetings and other meetings (i.e. Project Appraisal Committee meetings) 16. Project site location maps

Key Informant Interviews

The evaluation will include interviews with key stakeholders:

1. Members of the National Steering Committee 2. Members of the Project Technical Review Committee 3. Officials of BMB, GEF Operational Focal Point 4. Staff/Consultants of SMARTSeas PH Project 5. Officials and Staff of the Responsible Party 6. Staff of UNDP Country Office 7. Officers and Staff of Local Government Units 8. Officers and members of MPA management body

ToR ANNEX C: Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix Template

Evaluative Questions Indicators Sources Methodology Project Strategy: To what extent is the project strategy relevant to country priorities, country ownership, and the best route towards expected results? (include evaluative (i.e. relationships (i.e. project documents, (i.e. document question(s)) established, level of national policies or analysis, data coherence between strategies, websites, analysis, interviews project design and project staff, project with project staff, implementation partners, data collected interviews with approach, specific throughout the MTR stakeholders, etc.) activities conducted, mission, etc.) quality of risk mitigation strategies, etc.)

Progress Towards Results: To what extent have the expected outcomes and objectives of the project been achieved thus far?

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management: Has the project been implemented efficiently, cost-effectively, and been able to adapt to any changing conditions thus far? To what extent are project-level monitoring and evaluation systems, reporting, and project communications supporting the project’s implementation?

Sustainability: To what extent are there financial, institutional, socio-economic, and/or environmental risks to sustaining long-term project results?

ToR ANNEX D: Project Logical Framework

Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Project Objective: Strengthened Conservation, Protection and Management of Key Marine Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines Number of Marine Key 2013 53/123 MKBAs Process initiated in the At least 66 out of the 123 At least 66 out of the 123 At least 66 out of the 123 Biodiversity Areas in the inclusion of the 13 MKBAs in Philippines are MKBAs in Philippines are MKBAs in Philippines are Philippines included in the mKBAs in the PA system. included in the Protected Area included in the Protected included in the Protected Protected Area (PA) (PA) System Area (PA) System Area (PA) System System ( International (International Union for (International Union for (International Union for Union for Conservation of Conservation of Nature Conservation of Nature Conservation of Nature Nature Categories I – VI). Categories I – VI). Categories I – VI). Categories I – VI). Number of mKBAs in project Number of mKBAs in project Number of mKBAs in project sites: sites: sites: Verde Island Passage – 7 Verde Island Passage – 7 Verde Island Passage – 7 Southern Palawan – 2 Southern Palawan – 2 Southern Palawan – 2 Davao Gulf – 7 Davao Gulf – 7 Davao Gulf – 7 Lanuza Bay – 3 Lanuza Bay – 3 Lanuza Bay – 3 Fish biomass of 2015 Siganidae, 3 commercially 0% increase in fish biomass of 5% increase in fish biomass 5% increase in fish biomass commercially important Acanthuridae and important species in at least 3 commercially of at least 3 commercially of at least 3 commercially species Serranidae. The fish each of the 5 sites important species. important species. important species. biomass will be determined and baseline established in Year 2. gathered. Level of water pollution 2015 Baselines to be Parameters for water Reduction in pollution level Reduction in pollution level Reduction in pollution level levels in Verde Island established in Year 1 quality established and against the baseline levels. against the baseline levels. against the baseline levels. Passage, Lanuza Bay, baseline gathered. Targets to be agreed in Year 1. Targets to be agreed in Year Targets to be agreed in Year Davao Gulf, Southern 1. 1. Palawan and Tanon Strait Protected Seascape. Presence of large marine 2015 Lanuza Bay: Large marine vertebrate Large marine vertebrate No net decrease in sightings No net decrease in sightings vertebrates (e.g. Marine 1. Green sea turtle species per site species per site determined and of large marine vertebrates. of large marine vertebrates. mammals, reptiles, sharks) (Chelonia mydas) determined and baseline baseline on sightings gathered. 2. Hawksbill turtle on sightings gathered. (Eretmochelys (Note: Determination of no net imbricata) decrease in sighthings will be 3. Whale shark ( Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Rhincodon typus) done on the last quarter of Davao Gulf: 2018) 1. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 2. Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 3. Dugong dugon 4. Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) 5. Gray’s spinner dolphin (S.I. longirostris) 6. Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) TSPS 1. Dwarf Sperm whale (Kogia sima) 2. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 3. Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) VIP 1. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 2. Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 3. Dwarf Sperm whale (Kogia sima) 4. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) 5. Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris)

OUTCOME 1 - Increased Management Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and MPA Networks (MPANs) Output 1.1 New MPA Networks (MPANs) established in designated priority areas. Number of hectares 2013 518,221 ha. (Tañon Verde Island Passage: 0 Verde Island Passage: 800,000 Verde Island Passage: Verde Island Passage: covered under Strait Protected hectare hectares 1,000,000 hectares 1,000,000 hectares International Union for Seascape) Davao Gulf: 0 hectares Davao Gulf: 0 hectares Davao Gulf: 0 hectares Davao Gulf: 0 hectares Conservation of Nature Lanuza Bay: 0 hectares Lanuza Bay: 147,238 hectares Lanuza Bay: 147,238 Lanuza Bay: 147,238 (IUCN) Category V hectares hectares Protected Landscape and Seascape PAs in the 5 target sites. Number of gender, 2013 Verde Island Passage: 0 Verde Island Passage: 0 Verde Island Passage: 0 Verde Island Passage: 1 Verde Island Passage: 1 indigenous peoples (IP) Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected and climate change risk- Seascape: 0 Seascape: 0 Seascape: 1 Seascape: 1 Seascape: 1 sensitive Marine Protected Davao Gulf: 0 Davao Gulf: 0 Davao Gulf: 0 Davao Gulf: 1 Davao Gulf: 1 Areas Network (MPAN) Lanuza Bay: 0 Lanuza Bay: 0 Lanuza Bay: 0 Lanuza Bay: 0 Lanuza Bay: 1 management plans formulated and implemented. Extent to which gender, 2015 There are draft Verde Island Passage: Verde Island Passage: NOT Verde Island Passage: Verde Island Passage: indigenous peoples (IP) management plans that NOT ADEQUATELY ADEQUATELY (Draft LARGELY (Developed and LARGELY (Developed and and climate change risk- have not been (drafting of Verde Island management plan is finalized) jointly implemented a jointly implemented a sensitive Marine Protected approved and Passage Marine gender and IP sensitive gender and IP sensitive Areas Network (MPAN) implemented in 4 of Protected Area Network Tañon Strait Protected management plan in the VIP management plan in the VIP management plans the proposed project and Law Enforcement Seascape: PARTIALLY ( Gender, MPAN and Law MPAN and Law formulated and sites (Verde Island (LE) Network indigenous peoples (IP) and Enforcement Network) Enforcement Network) implemented. Passage, Tañon Strait Management Plan) climate change risk-sensitive Protected Seascape, TSPS general management plan Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Davao Gulf and Lanuza Tañon Strait Protected already implemented for 3-6 Seascape: LARGELY - (With Seascape: LARGELY - (With Bay) Seascape: VERY months) approved/adopted and approved/adopted and PARTIALLY (TSPS general implemented TSPS general implemented TSPS general management plan for Davao Gulf: NOT ADEQUATELY - management plan) management plan) implementation) (A draft MPAN management framework; existing tools on Davao Gulf: PARTIALLY - Davao Gulf: LARGELY - (With Davao Gulf: NOT MPAN establishment and (With approved/Adopted approved/adopted and ADEQUATELY - (A draft management planning drafted and implemented MPAN implemented MPAN MPAN management incorporating gender, IP and management plan) management plan) framework; existing climate risk analysis) tools on MPAN Lanuza Bay: PARTIALLY Lanuza Bay: LARGELY establishment and Lanuza Bay: VERY PARTIALLY (Gender, indigenous (Effectively implemented management planning (Approved and for peoples (IP) and climate gender, indigenous peoples drafted incorporating implementation gender, change risk-sensitive Marine (IP) and climate change risk- gender, IP and climate indigenous peoples (IP) and Protected Area Network sensitive Marine Protected risk analysis) climate change risk-sensitive plan already implemented Area Network management Marine Protected Area for 3-6 months) plan) Lanuza Bay: NOT Network plan) ADEQUATELY (Review and drafting of gender, indigenous peoples (IP) and climate change risk- sensitive Marine Protected Area Network management plan) Percent increase in 2013 Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – 35% Verde Island Passage – 39% Verde Island Passage – 39% Management Effectiveness 29% 31% Southern Palawan – 44% Southern Palawan – 45% Southern Palawan – 50% Tracking Tool (METT) Southern Palawan – Southern Palawan – 42% Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Scores in each of Lanuza 40% Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – 42% Seascape – 43% Seascape – 50% Bay, TSPS, Southern Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – 42% Davao Gulf – 52% Davao Gulf – 54% Davao Gulf – 58% Palawan, VIP and Davao Seascape – 40% Davao Gulf – 50% Lanuza Bay – 50% Lanuza Bay – 50% Lanuza Bay – 54% Gulf target sites Davao Gulf – 48% Lanuza Bay – 46% Lanuza Bay – 44% Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Output 1.2 Management improved in at least 95 existing MPAs through the development and effective implementation of local government or community-based MPA management plans. Number of gender, 2015 Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – 0 Verde Island Passage – 18 Verde Island Passage – 38 Verde Island Passage – 38 indigenous peoples (IP) 0 Southern Palawan – 0 Southern Palawan – 1 Southern Palawan – 3 Southern Palawan –5 (but and climate change risk- Southern Palawan – 0 Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected will cover 7 MPAs) sensitive Marine Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – 0 Seascape – 5 Seascape – 15 Tañon Strait Protected Area (MPA) management Seascape – 0 Davao Gulf – 0 Davao Gulf – 4 Davao Gulf – 8 Seascape – 15 plans formulated and Davao Gulf – 0 Lanuza Bay – 0 Lanuza Bay – 0 Lanuza Bay – 0 Davao Gulf – 14 implemented. Lanuza Bay – 0 Lanuza Bay – 14

Extent to which gender, 2015 There are draft Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – indigenous peoples (IP) management plans that NOT ADEQUATELY (Final PARTIALLY 18 gender, LARGELY (Effectively LARGELY (Effectively and climate change risk- have not been draft of the 20 initially indigenous peoples (IP) and implemented gender, implemented gender, sensitive Marine Protected approved and drafted MPA climate change risk-sensitive indigenous peoples (IP) and indigenous peoples (IP) and Area (MPA) management implemented in 5 of Managements Plans Marine Protected Area plans climate change risk-sensitive climate change risk-sensitive plans formulated and the proposed project from 2015 and initiate already implemented for 3-6 Marine Protected Area Marine Protected Area implemented. sites (VIP, TSPS, Davao the drafting of an months) management plans) management plans) Gulf, Lanuza Bay and additional 15 MPA Southern Palawan) with Managements Plans Southern Palawan – NOT Southern Palawan – Southern Palawan – gender, IP and CCA with gender and IP ADEQUATELY (Review and LARGELY (Effectively LARGELY (Effectively components. component and climate drafting of gender, indigenous implemented 3 gender, implemented gender, risk analysis) peoples (IP) and climate change indigenous peoples (IP) and indigenous peoples (IP) and risk-sensitive Marine Protected climate change risk-sensitive climate change risk-sensitive Southern Palawan – Area management plan) Marine Protected Area Marine Protected Area NOT ADEQUATELY management plans) management plans) (Review and drafting of Tañon Strait Protected gender, indigenous Seascape – LARGELY (Effectively Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected peoples (IP) and climate implemented 5 gender, Seascape – LARGELY Seascape – LARGELY change risk-sensitive indigenous peoples (IP) and (Effectively implemented 15 (Effectively implemented 15 Marine Protected Area climate change risk-sensitive gender, indigenous peoples gender, indigenous peoples management plan) Marine Protected Area (IP) and climate change risk- (IP) and climate change risk- management plans) sensitive Marine Protected sensitive Marine Protected Tañon Strait Protected Area management plans) Area management plans) Seascape – NOT Davao Gulf – LARGELY Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) ADEQUATELY (Review (Effectively implemented 4 Davao Gulf – LARGELY Davao Gulf – LARGELY and drafting of gender, gender, indigenous peoples (IP) (Effectively implemented 8 (Effectively implemented indigenous peoples (IP) and climate change risk- gender, indigenous peoples gender, indigenous peoples and climate change risk- sensitive Marine Protected (IP) and climate change risk- (IP) and climate change risk- sensitive Marine Area management plans) sensitive Marine Protected sensitive Marine Protected Protected Area Area management plans) Area management plans) management plan) Lanuza Bay – NOT ADEQUATELY (Review and drafting of gender, Lanuza Bay – NOT Lanuza Bay – LARGELY Davao Gulf –NOT indigenous peoples (IP) and ADEQUATELY (Review and (Effectively implemented ADEQUATELY (Review climate change risk-sensitive drafting of gender, gender, indigenous peoples and drafting of gender, Marine Protected Area indigenous peoples (IP) and (IP) and climate change risk- indigenous peoples (IP) management plan) climate change risk-sensitive sensitive Marine Protected and climate change risk- Marine Protected Area Area management plans) sensitive Marine management plan) Protected Area management plan)

Lanuza Bay – NOT ADEQUATELY (Review and drafting of gender, indigenous peoples (IP) and climate change risk- sensitive Marine Protected Area management plan) Percent increase in 2013 "Baselines to be 5% increase from 10% increase from baseline 15% increase from baseline 25% increase from baseline Management Effectiveness and established in Year 2 baseline Tracking Tool (METT) 2016 for newly established Scores in each of the MPAs. selected 95 MPAs targeted by Management Plan development and implementation Output 1.3 MPA and MPAN management structures institutionalized in Southern Palawan, Verde Island Passage, Lanuza Bay, Davao Gulf. Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Proxy indicator: Number of 2015 Verde Island Passage: Verde Island Passage: 0 Verde Island Passage: 1 MPAN Verde Island Passage: 38 Verde Island Passage: 38 MPA and MPAN gender management body management body MPA and 1 MPAN MPA and 1 MPAN and IP sensitive Southern Palawan: 1 management bodies management bodies management MPA management Southern Palawan: 2 Southern Palawan: 4 MPA structures/bodies body MPA management management bodies Southern Palawan: 5 MPA Southern Palawan: 5 MPA established and bodies management bodies management bodies institutionalized. Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected covering 7 MPAs covering 7 MPAs Seascape: Tañon Strait Protected Seascape:15 MPA management Seascape: 5 MPA bodies Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Davao Gulf: 3 MPA management bodies Seascape: 15 MPA Seascape: 15 MPA management bodies Davao Gulf: 8 MPA management bodies management bodies Davao Gulf: 4 MPA management bodies Lanuza Bay: 8 management bodies Davao Gulf: 14 MPA Davao Gulf: 14 MPA and 1 community-based Lanuza Bay: 14 MPA management bodies MPAN management bodies organization Lanuza Bay: 2 MPA management bodies management bodies Lanuza Bay: 14 MPA Lanuza Bay: 14 MPA and 1 management bodies MPAN management bodies Proxy indicator: Extent of 2015 Baselines to be Verde Island Passage: Verde Island Passage: Verde Island Passage: Verde Island Passage: participation of women established in Year 2 VERY PARTIALLY - PARTIALLY (Women and IP LARGELY - Women and IP LARGELY - Women and IP and IP in management (Minimal or passive collaborate in each aspect of are empowered (we will are empowered (we will decision making, plan participation of women decision making) implement what you implement what you preparation and and IP in management decide) decide) implementation. decision making, plan Southern Palawan: Partially- preparation and Women and IP collaborate in Southern Palawan: Partially- Southern Palawan: Largely- implementation - each aspect of decision making Women and IP collaborate Women and IP are passive participation) in each aspect of decision empowered Tañon Strait Protected making Southern Palawan: Very Seascape: PARTIALLY (Women Tañon Strait Protected partially- Minimal or and IP collaborate in each Tañon Strait Protected Seascape: LARGELY - passive participation of aspect of decision making) Seascape: LARGELY - Women and IP are women and IP in Women and IP are empowered (we will management decision Davao Gulf: Partially - empowered (we will implement what you making, plan increased participation of implement what you decide) preparation and women and IPs in the MPA/N decide) Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) implementation. Management Body Davao Gulf: Partially ( Davao Gulf: Partially - increased participation of Tañon Strait Protected Lanuza Bay: Partially (increased increased participation of women and IPs in the Seascape: VERY participation of women and IPs women and IPs in the institutionalized MPA/N PARTIALLY - (Minimal or in the MPA/N Management MPA/N Management Body Management Body) passive participation of Body) women and IP in Lanuza Bay: Very partially Lanuza Bay: Partially ( management decision (increased participation of increased participation of making, plan women and IPs in the women and IPs in the preparation and institutionalized MPA/N institutionalized MPA/N implementation - Management Body) Management Body) passive participation)

Davao Gulf: Very partially - limited participation of women and IPs in the updating of MPA Plans and reconstitution of MPA Management Body

Lanuza Bay: Very partially (limited participation of women and IPs in the updating of MPA Plans and reconstitution of MPA Management Body) Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Proxy indicator: Scores on 2013 Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Level 1 Verde Island Passage – Level Verde Island Passage – Level items 23-24 of the Level 0 (for both items Level 0 (for both items (for both items 23 and 24) 1 (for both items 23 and 24) 1 (for both items 23 and 24) assessment form of the 23 and 24) 23 and 24) METT in Southern Southern Palawan – Level 1 for Southern Palawan – Level 1 Southern Palawan – Level 1 Palawan, Verde Island Southern Palawan – Southern Palawan – item 23 and Level 3 for item 24 for item 23 and Level 3 for for item 23 and Level 3 for Passage, Lanuza Bay, Level 0 for item 23 and Level 0 for item 23 and item 24 item 24 Davao Gulf. Level 2 for item 24 Level 2 for item 24 Davao Gulf – Level 1 (for both items 23 and 24) Davao Gulf – Level 1 (for Davao Gulf – Level 2 (for Davao Gulf – Level 1 Davao Gulf – Level 1 (for both items 23 and 24) both items 23 and 24) (for both items 23 and both items 23 and 24) Lanuza Bay – Level 1 for item 24) 23 and Level 3 for item 24 Lanuza Bay – Level 1 for Lanuza Bay – Level 1 for Lanuza Bay – Level 0 for item 23 and Level 3 for item item 23 and Level 3 for item Lanuza Bay – Level 0 for item 23 and Level 2 for 24 24 item 23 and Level 2 for item 24 item 24 Output 1.4 Increased capacity in Marine Protected Area Management with Capacity Development Scorecards incorporated into management planning and monitor processes for MPAs/MPANs at all five target sites. Average increase in 2013 Capacity scorecard: Capacity scorecard: Capacity scorecard: Capacity scorecard: Capacity scorecard: technical and management Lanuza Bay – 18, Lanuza Bay – 27, Lanuza Bay – 27, Lanuza Bay – 34, Lanuza Bay – 34, capacity scores in the 5 Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected target MPA networks. Seascap – 18, Seascape – 27, Seascape – 27, Seascape – 34, Seascape – 34, Southern Palawan – 13, Southern Palawan – 23, Southern Palawan – 25, Southern Palawan – 29, Southern Palawan – 29, Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – 28, Verde Island Passage – 35, Verde Island Passage – 35, 19, 28, Davao Gulf – 35 Davao Gulf – 42 Davao Gulf – 42 Davao Gulf – 26 Davao Gulf – 35 Output 1.5 At least 20% increase in LGUs or local partners support in each target site in terms of funding or other tangible support for capacity building on marine conservation, MPA management, ecological monitoring or related activities at site level. Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Proxy indicator - Percent 2015 Baseline to be Lanuza Bay – 5% Lanuza Bay – 10% Lanuza Bay – 15% Lanuza Bay – 20% average increase in annual established during Year Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected funding or other tangible 1. Seascape – 5% Seascape – 5% Seascape – 10% Seascape – 20% support for capacity needs Southern Palawan – 5% Southern Palawan – 10% Southern Palawan – 15% Southern Palawan – 20% of at least 48 MPAs and 3 Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – 10% Verde Island Passage – 15% Verde Island Passage – 20% MPANs. 5% Davao Gulf – 10% Davao Gulf – 15% Davao Gulf – 20% Davao Gulf – 5%

OUTCOME 2 - Improved Financial Sustainability of MPAs and MPANs Output 2.1 Benchmark management costs established for MPAs of varying size (<5 ha, < 50ha, <250ha, >250 ha) and potential cost savings or cost efficiencies on average per site identified through consolidation of management functions in MPANs. Proxy Indicator: Percent 2015 Funding Gap present , Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – 0% Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – reduction or cost efficiency baseline to be 0% Operational cost at the VIP Operational cost at the improvement of MPAs established in Year 2 Southern Palawan – 0% MPAN level is reduced by MPAN VIP level is reduced when management (Year 2). Southern Palawan – 0% 5% by 10% functions are consolidated. Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – Operational cost is Southern Palawan – 5% Southern Palawan – 10% Seascape – 0% (thru the reduced by 10% (thru the alliances) alliances) Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape –Operational cost Seascape –Operational cost Davao Gulf – 0% Davao Gulf – 0% is reduced by 20% (thru the is reduced by 10% (thru the alliances) alliances) Lanuza Bay – 0% Lanuza Bay – 5% Davao Gulf – 5% Davao Gulf – 10% AVERAGE - 0% AVERAGE - 5% Lanuza Bay – 5% Lanuza Bay – 10%

AVERAGE - 5% AVERAGE - 10% Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Proxy Indicator: 2016 Baseline to be Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – Management costs of 20 established in Year 2 LARGELY (Benchmark of LARGELY (Benchmark of LARGELY (Benchmark of LARGELY (Benchmark of MPAs established and (Year 2). management costs of 4 management costs of 4 MPAs management costs of 4 management costs of 4 benchmarked. MPAs established) established) MPAs established) MPAs established)

Southern Palawan – Southern Palawan – LARGELY Southern Palawan – Southern Palawan – LARGELY (Benchmark of (Benchmark of management LARGELY (Benchmark of LARGELY (Benchmark of management costs of 4 costs of 4 MPAs established) management costs of 4 management costs of 4 MPAs established) MPAs established) MPAs established) Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – LARGELY Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – LARGELY (Benchmark of management Seascape – LARGELY Seascape – LARGELY (Benchmark of costs of 4 MPAs established) (Benchmark of management (Benchmark of management management costs of 4 costs of 4 MPAs established) costs of 4 MPAs established) MPAs established) Davao Gulf – LARGELY (Benchmark of management Davao Gulf – LARGELY Davao Gulf – LARGELY Davao Gulf – LARGELY costs of 4 MPAs established) (Benchmark of management (Benchmark of management (Benchmark of costs of 4 MPAs established) costs of 4 MPAs established) management costs of 4 Lanuza Bay – LARGELY MPAs established) (Benchmark of management Lanuza Bay – LARGELY Lanuza Bay – LARGELY costs of 4 MPAs established) (Benchmark of management (Benchmark of management Lanuza Bay – LARGELY costs of 4 MPAs established) costs of 4 MPAs established) (Benchmark of management costs of 4 MPAs established) Output 2.2 At least two MPANS (Verde Island Passage and Davao Gulf) implementing financing and business plans targeting increases in revenue generation from the tourism and fisheries sectors. Number of sustainable 2015 Zero number of Verde Island Passage – 0 Verde Island Passage – 0 plan Verde Island Passage – 1 Verde Island Passage – 1 financing plans sustainable financing plan Davao Gulf – 0 plan plan plan implemented in plans for two (2) the Davao Gulf – 0 plan Davao Gulf – 1 plan Davao Gulf – 1 plan participating MPANs. MPANs. Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Proxy Indicator: Extent of 2015 Zero number of Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – VERY Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – implementation of sustainable financing NOT ADEQUATELY PARTIALLY (Approved and for LARGELY (Effectively LARGELY (Effectively sustainable financing plans plans for two (2) the (Drafting of business and implementation) implemented business and implemented business and in participating MPANs. MPANs. financial plan) financial plan with revenue financial plan with revenue Davao Gulf – NOT ADEQUATELY generated) generated) Davao Gulf – NOT (Drafting of business and ADEQUATELY (Drafting financial plan) Davao Gulf – PARTIALLY Davao Gulf – LARGELY of business and financial (business and financial plans (Effectively implemented plan) implemented) business and financial plan with revenue generated) Financial resources for 2015 Funding Gap present. Verde Island Passage – 1 Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – VIP Verde Island Passage – VIP conservation and Baseline to be biodiversity friendly business plan developed and MPAN has income from MPAN has income from management of MPANs in determined in 2017 enterprise identified for implemented for the identified various sources that covers various sources that covers VIP and Davao Gulf. after the formation of VIP biodiversity friendly enterprise the recurrent costs as the recurrent costs as MPAN in VIP and Davao to secure financial resources defined by financing plans. defined by financing plans. Gulf. Davao Gulf – Some financial Davao Gulf – DG MPAN has Davao Gulf – DG MPAN has requirement comes from other income from various income from various sources other than the sources that covers the sources that covers the government funds. recurrent costs as defined recurrent costs as defined by financing plans. by financing plans. Percentage of MPAN 2015 All funding Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage –5% Verde Island Passage – 5% Verde Island Passage – 10% funding coming from disaggregated into local 0% Davao Gulf – 0% Davao Gulf – 5% Davao Gulf – 10% sources other than government, central Davao Gulf – 0% government budget. government. Baseline to be determined in 2017 after the formation of MPAN in VIP and Davao Gulf. Output 2.3 At least 5 of locally managed MPA in each of five sites have revenue generation schemes in operation, including market-based visitor and service fees for tourism operators, pilot ecological service payments from the fisheries sector and local taxes for conservation and management of key tourism draws. (Field level activity). Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Number of sustainable 2015 Zero number of Verde Island Passage – 0 Verde Island Passage – 3 plans Verde Island Passage – 5 Verde Island Passage – 5 financing plans sustainable financing plan Southern Palawan – 2 plans plans plans implemented in plans for individual Southern Palawan – 0 Tañon Strait Protected Southern Palawan – 4 plans Southern Palawan – 5 plans participating MPAs. MPA. plan Seascape – 3 plans Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Davao Gulf – 1 plan Seascape – 5 plans Seascape – 5 plans Seascape – 0 plan Lanuza Bay – 5 plans Davao Gulf – 3 plans Davao Gulf – 5 plans Davao Gulf – 0 plan Lanuza Bay – 5 plans Lanuza Bay – 5 plans Lanuza Bay – 0 plan Proxy Indicator: Extent of 2015 Zero number of Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – VERY Verde Island Passage – Verde Island Passage – implementation of sustainable financing NOT ADEQUATELY PARTIALLY (Approved and for PARTIALLY (Implemented 5 LARGELY (Effectively sustainable financing plans plans for individual (Review and drafting of implementation of business business and financial plans implemented 5 business and in participating MPAs. MPA. business and financial and financial plan) with revenue generated) financial plans with revenue plan) Southern Palawan – VERY Southern Palawan – Very generated) Southern Palawan – NOT PARTIALLY - Approved and for Partially (Approved and for Southern Palawan – ADEQUATELY (Review implementation of business implementation of business LARGELY (Effectively and drafting of business and financial plan of 5 LGUs and financial plan of 5 LGUs) implemented 5 business and and financial plan) Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected financial plans with revenue Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – PARTIALLY Seascape – PARTIALLY generated) Seascape – NOT (Implemented 3 business and (Implemented 5 business Tañon Strait Protected ADEQUATELY (Review financial plans with revenue and financial plans with Seascape – LARGELY and drafting of business generated) revenue generated) (Effectively 5 implemented and financial plan) Davao Gulf – PARTIALLY Davao Gulf – PARTIALLY business and financial plans Davao Gulf – NOT (Implemented 1 business and (Implemented 3 business with revenue generated) ADEQUATELY (Review financial plan with revenue and financial plans with Davao Gulf – LARGELY and drafting of business generated) revenue generated) (Effectively implemented 5 and financial plan) Lanuza Bay – PARTIALLY Lanuza Bay – PARTIALLY business and financial plans Lanuza Bay – NOT (Implemented 5 business and (Implemented 5 business with revenue generated) ADEQUATELY (7 financial plans with revenue and financial plans with Lanuza Bay – LARGELY business and financial generated) revenue generated) (Effectively implemented 5 plans developed and business and financial plans incorporated into the with revenue generated) management plan Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Financial resources for 2015 Funding Gap present , Verde Island Passage – 0 Verde Island Passage – 0 MPA Verde Island Passage – 3 Verde Island Passage – 5 conservation and baseline to be MPA Southern Palawan – 0 MPA MPAs have income from MPAs have income from management of MPAs in established in Year 2 Southern Palawan – 0 Tañon Strait Protected various sources that covers various sources that covers five project sites. MPA Seascape – 3 MPAs the recurrent costs as the recurrent costs as Tañon Strait Protected Davao Gulf – 1 MPA defined by financing plans. defined by financing plans. Seascape – 0 MPA Lanuza Bay – 0 MPA Southern Palawan – 5 MPAs Davao Gulf – 0 MPA Southern Palawan – 0 MPA have income from various Lanuza Bay – 0 MPA sources that covers the Tañon Strait Protected recurrent costs as defined Funding gap identified. Seascape – 5 MPAs by financing plans. Tañon Strait Protected Eight (8 out of the 25 Davao Gulf – 3 MPAs Seascape – 5 MPAs have MPAs) biodiversity- income from various friendly enterprises for Lanuza Bay – 5 MPAs sources that covers the MPAs identified. recurrent costs as defined by financing plans. Davao Gulf – 5 MPAs have income from various sources that covers the recurrent costs as defined by financing plans. Lanuza Bay – 5 MPAs have income from various sources that covers the recurrent costs as defined by financing plans. Percentage of MPA 2015 All funding By the end of 2016, at Verde Island Passage – 10% Verde Island Passage – 10% Verde Island Passage – 50% funding coming from disaggregated into local least 5% of the financial Southern Palawan – 0% Southern Palawan – 25% Southern Palawan – 50% sources other than government, central requirements comes Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected government budget. government, baseline from other sources Seascape – 10% Seascape – 12% Seascape – 50% to be established in other than government Davao Gulf – 0% Davao Gulf – 0% Davao Gulf – 50% Year 2 funds from the 8 MPAs. Lanuza Bay – 0% Lanuza Bay – 0% Lanuza Bay – 50% Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Output 2.4 MPA financing plans developed and piloted in at least 30% of MPAs in each of five sites, incorporating governance mechanisms to ensure participatory management of revenues and resources involving local communities, local government and national government agencies as appropriate. (Field level activity). Number of MPAs with 2015 Zero number of MPAs 8 of 30 target MPAs Verde Island Passage – 12 Verde Island Passage – 12 Verde Island Passage – 12 participatory multi- with participatory have participatory multi- MPAs MPAs MPAs stakeholder systems in multi-stakeholder stakeholder systems Southern Palawan – 0 MPA Southern Palawan – 3 MPAs Southern Palawan – 5 MPAs place to oversee utilization systems. including women and Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected of MPA funds and IPs, where appropriate Seascape – 2 MPAs Seascape – 3 MPAs Seascape – 5 MPAs revenues include women with oversight functions Davao Gulf – 3 MPAs Davao Gulf – 4 MPAs Davao Gulf – 5 MPAs and IPs where appropriate. on disbursement/ Lanuza Bay – 2 MPAs Lanuza Bay – 4 MPAs Lanuza Bay – 5 MPAs resource allocation by 2016.

OUTCOME 3 -Established Enabling Policy Framework for Marine Biodiversity Conservation Output 3.1 A set of policy recommendations under implementation to strengthening laws, policies and regulations governing major facets of marine resource management (including fisheries, tourism, coastal resource management, shipping, etc.), to reduce external threats and pressures on MPAs. Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Proxy Indicator: Number of 2016 Policy studies and "Verde Island Passage – "Verde Island Passage – 1 policy "Verde Island Passage – 1 "Verde Island Passage – 1 national and local policy recommendation to 1 policy recommendation policy recommendation policy recommendation recommendations that commence in 2016. recommendation Southern Palawan – 1 policy Southern Palawan – 1 policy support MPA and MPAN Southern Palawan – 1 recommendation Southern Palawan – 1 policy recommendation management policy recommendation recommendation Tañon Strait Protected incorporating gender and Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – 1 policy IP rights. Seascape – 1 policy Seascape – 1 policy Tañon Strait Protected recommendation recommendation recommendation Seascape – 1 policy Davao Gulf – 1 policy Davao Gulf – 1 policy recommendation recommendation recommendation Davao Gulf – 1 policy Davao Gulf – 1 policy Lanuza Bay – 1 policy Lanuza Bay – 1 policy recommendation recommendation recommendation recommendation Lanuza Bay – 1 policy National – 1 policy National – 1 policy Lanuza Bay – 1 policy recommendation recommendation recommendation recommendation National – 1 policy At least one (1) national and At least one (1) national recommendation five (5) local policy and five (5) local policy National – 1 policy At least one (1) national and recommendations with recommendations with recommendation five (5) local policy draft ordinances that draft ordinances that At least one (1) national and recommendations with support MPA and MPAN support MPA and MPAN five (5) local policy draft ordinances that management incorporating management recommendations with draft support MPA and MPAN gender and IP rights. incorporating gender ordinances that support MPA management incorporating and IP rights. and MPAN management gender and IP rights. incorporating gender and IP rights. Output 3.2 Effective policy and regulatory frameworks in place for the designation and management of MPA Networks (MPANs) encompassing subsets of the national MPA system according to ecological connectivity and/or management effectiveness criteria. Presence of 2016 Policy and regulatory At least five (5) local A comprehensive MPA and A comprehensive MPA and A comprehensive MPA and comprehensive MPA, review to be conducted policy review MPAN Policy Framework in MPAN Policy Framework in MPAN Policy Framework in MPAN, and MKBA policy in Year 2 (2016) instruments place incorporating gender place incorporating gender place incorporating gender framework that is also drafted/amended (e.g. equality and IP rights equality and IP rights equality and IP rights gender and IP- sensitive. local ordinances) at the developed and effectively developed and effectively developed and effectively site level. implemented addressing at implemented addressing at implemented addressing at least 50% of the policy least 50% of the policy least 50% of the policy Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) recommendations identified recommendations identified recommendations identified through the policy review. through the policy review. through the policy review.

Number of proposed local 2016 Policy and regulatory At least 1 policy Verde Island Passage – 1 local Verde Island Passage – 1 "Verde Island Passage – 1 and national policies that review to be conducted instrument in the policy instrument in the local policy instrument in local policy instrument in govern major facets of in Year 2 (2016) establishment and establishment and the establishment and the establishment and MPA, MPAN and MKBA management of MPANs management of MPAs management of MPAs management of MPAs management following drafted. developed. developed. developed. scientifically grounded principles. Gathered pertinent Southern Palawan – 1 local Southern Palawan – 1 local Southern Palawan – 1 local documents for the policy instrument in the policy instrument in the policy instrument in the drafting of the "Manual establishment and establishment and establishment and of Establishment, management of MPAs management of MPAs management of MPAs Planning and developed. developed. developed. Management of MPA/MPAN". Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – 1 local policy Seascape – 1 local policy Seascape – 1 local policy instrument in the instrument in the instrument in the establishment and establishment and establishment and management of MPAs management of MPAs management of MPAs developed. developed. developed.

Davao Gulf – 1 local policy Davao Gulf – 1 local policy Davao Gulf – 1 local policy instrument in the instrument in the instrument in the establishment and establishment and establishment and management of MPAs management of MPAs management of MPAs developed. developed. developed.

Lanuza Bay – 1 local policy Lanuza Bay – 1 local policy Lanuza Bay – 1 local policy Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) instrument in the instrument in the instrument in the establishment and establishment and establishment and management of MPAs management of MPAs management of MPAs developed. developed. developed.

National – 1 policy instrument National – 1 policy National – 1 policy in the establishment and instrument in the instrument in the management of MPANs establishment and establishment and developed. management of MPANs management of MPANs developed. developed. Manual of Establishment, Planning and Management of Manual of Establishment, Manual of Establishment, MPA/MPAN drafted. Planning and Management Planning and Management of MPA/MPAN finalized. of MPA/MPAN finalized. "

All policies for MPA and MPAN management incorporate scientifically based ecological conservation criteria (species abundance and distribution, threats and pressure, larval transmission and dispersal, climate change stresses, etc.) Output 3.3 Existing mechanisms and resources for fisheries and marine PA policy implemented at BFAR and DENR assessed, improved and institutionalized. Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) Proxy indicator: Number of 2015 No DENR and BFAR 30 personnel from DENR Verde Island Passage – 15 Verde Island Passage – 15 Verde Island Passage – 15 DENR and BFAR personnel personnel fully and BFAR trained on personnel (DENR and BFAR personnel (DENR and BFAR personnel (DENR and BFAR trained concerning ICRM, capacitated/trained on ICRM-related Regional Office and PA Regional Office and PA Regional Office and PA MPA and MPAN ICRM, MPA and MPAN competencies. managers) managers) managers) management. management. Competency Southern Palawan – 0 Southern Palawan – 15 Southern Palawan – 15 development personnel (DENR and BFAR personnel (DENR and BFAR personnel (DENR and BFAR programme for MPA and Regional Office and PA Regional Office and PA Regional Office and PA ICM practitioners managers) managers) managers) developed. Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Tañon Strait Protected Seascape – 0 personnel (DENR Seascape – 15 personnel Seascape – 15 personnel and BFAR Regional Office and (DENR and BFAR Regional (DENR and BFAR Regional PA managers) Office and PA managers) Office and PA managers)

Davao Gulf – 15 personnel Davao Gulf – 15 personnel Davao Gulf – 15 personnel (DENR and BFAR Regional (DENR and BFAR Regional (DENR and BFAR Regional Office and PA managers) Office and PA managers) Office and PA managers)

Lanuza Bay – 0 personnel Lanuza Bay – 15 personnel Lanuza Bay – 15 personnel (DENR and BFAR Regional (DENR and BFAR Regional (DENR and BFAR Regional Office and PA managers) Office and PA managers) Office and PA managers)

National - 15 personnel (DENR National - 15 personnel National - 15 personnel and BFAR Central Office) (DENR and BFAR Central (DENR and BFAR Central Office) Office) Proxy indicator: Number of 2015 No JMC and/or A/DO One (1) Joint One (1) Joint Memorandum One (1) Joint Memorandum One (1) Joint Memorandum Joint Memorandum issued for the exchange Memorandum Circular/Order (JMC/JAO) Circular/Order (JMC/JAO) Circular/Order (JMC/JAO) Circular/Order (JMC/JAO) of ideas and knowledge Circular/Order between DENR and BFAR between DENR and BFAR between DENR and BFAR between DENR and BFAR and how to address (JMC/JAO) between drafted. issued. issued. and/or overlapping functions, DENR and BFAR drafted. administrative/department conflicting policies Two (2) Two (2) Two (2) ordinances (A/DO) issued between DENR and administrative/department administrative/department administrative/department (site level). BFAR. Baseline Targets End of Project Target Project Indicator/s Year Quantity / Quality 2016 2017 2018 (2019) ordinances (A/DO) drafted (site ordinances (A/DO) issued ordinances (A/DO) issued level). (site level). (site level).

Output 3.4 Tools, guidance and best-practice examples available to support LGUs in implementing effective regulations and policies for MPA establishment, management and financing within their local government regulatory frameworks. Proxy indicator: Number of 2015 Good practices Verde Island Passage – 0 Verde Island Passage – 2 (good Verde Island Passage – 2 Verde Island Passage – 2 good practices and video contained in achieving Southern Palawan – 0 practices for Provincial and VIP (good practices for Southern Palawan – 2 production from the five synergies through Tañon Strait Protected level MPANs are documented) Provincial and VIP level Tañon Strait Protected sites documented, MPANs of USAID-CTSP Seascape – 1 Southern Palawan – 1 MPANs are documented) Seascape – 2 analysed and published. (Alino, et al, 2011). Davao Gulf – 0 Tañon Strait Protected Southern Palawan – 1 Davao Gulf – 2 Lanuza Bay – 0 Seascape – 2 Tañon Strait Protected Lanuza Bay – 2 Davao Gulf – 1 Seascape – 2 Lanuza Bay – 2 Davao Gulf – 2 Lanuza Bay – 2

ToR ANNEX E: MTR Ratings

Ratings for Progress Towards Results: (one rating for each outcome and for the objective) The objective/outcome is expected to achieve or exceed all its end-of- Highly 6 project targets, without major shortcomings. The progress towards the Satisfactory (HS) objective/outcome can be presented as “good practice”. The objective/outcome is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project 5 Satisfactory (S) targets, with only minor shortcomings. Moderately The objective/outcome is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project 4 Satisfactory (MS) targets but with significant shortcomings. Moderately The objective/outcome is expected to achieve its end-of-project targets 3 Unsatisfactory with major shortcomings. (HU) The objective/outcome is expected not to achieve most of its end-of- 2 Unsatisfactory (U) project targets. Highly The objective/outcome has failed to achieve its midterm targets, and is not 1 Unsatisfactory expected to achieve any of its end-of-project targets. (HU)

Ratings for Project Implementation & Adaptive Management: (one overall rating) Implementation of all seven components – management arrangements, work planning, finance and co-finance, project-level monitoring and Highly evaluation systems, stakeholder engagement, reporting, and 6 Satisfactory (HS) communications – is leading to efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive management. The project can be presented as “good practice”. Implementation of most of the seven components is leading to efficient 5 Satisfactory (S) and effective project implementation and adaptive management except for only few that are subject to remedial action. Implementation of some of the seven components is leading to efficient Moderately 4 and effective project implementation and adaptive management, with Satisfactory (MS) some components requiring remedial action. Moderately Implementation of some of the seven components is not leading to 3 Unsatisfactory efficient and effective project implementation and adaptive, with most (MU) components requiring remedial action. Implementation of most of the seven components is not leading to efficient 2 Unsatisfactory (U) and effective project implementation and adaptive management. Highly Implementation of none of the seven components is leading to efficient 1 Unsatisfactory and effective project implementation and adaptive management. (HU)

Ratings for Sustainability: (one overall rating) Negligible risks to sustainability, with key outcomes on track to be achieved by 4 Likely (L) the project’s closure and expected to continue into the foreseeable future Moderately Likely Moderate risks, but expectations that at least some outcomes will be sustained 3 (ML) due to the progress towards results on outcomes at the Midterm Review Moderately Significant risk that key outcomes will not carry on after project closure, although 2 Unlikely (MU) some outputs and activities should carry on 1 Unlikely (U) Severe risks that project outcomes as well as key outputs will not be sustained

ToR ANNEX F: Evaluation Consultant Code of Conduct Agreement Form

Evaluators:

1. Must present information that is complete and fair in its assessment of strengths and weaknesses so that decisions or actions taken are well founded.

2. Must disclose the full set of evaluation findings along with information on their limitations and have this accessible to all affected by the evaluation with expressed legal rights to receive results.

3. Should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants. They should provide maximum notice, minimize demands on time, and respect people’s right not to engage. Evaluators must respect people’s right to provide information in confidence, and must ensure that sensitive information cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators are not expected to evaluate individuals, and must balance an evaluation of management functions with this general principle.

4. Sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing while conducting evaluations. Such cases must be reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Evaluators should consult with other relevant oversight entities when there is any doubt about if and how issues should be reported.

5. Should be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs and act with integrity and honesty in their relations with all stakeholders. In line with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender equality. They should avoid offending the dignity and self- respect of those persons with whom they come in contact in the course of the evaluation. Knowing that evaluation might negatively affect the interests of some stakeholders, evaluators should conduct the evaluation and communicate its purpose and results in a way that clearly respects the stakeholders’dignity and self-worth.

6. Are responsible for their performance and their product(s). They are responsible for the clear, accurate and fair written and/or oral presentation of study imitations, findings and recommendations.

7. Should reflect sound accounting procedures and be prudent in using the resources of the evaluation. Evaluation Consultant Agreement Form10

Agreement to abide by the Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System

Name of Consultant: ______

Name of Consultancy Organization (where relevant): ______

I confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code of Conduct for Evaluation.

Signed at (place) on date

Signature: ______

ToR ANNEX G: Evaluation Report Outline11

Opening Page  Title of UNDP supported GEF financed project  UNDP and GEF project ID#s.  Evaluation time frame and date of evaluation report  Region and countries included in the project  GEF Operational Program/Strategic Program  Implementing Partner and other project partners  Evaluation team members  Acknowledgements

Executive Summary  Project Summary Table  Project Description (brief)

10 www.undp.org/unegcodeofconduct 11 The Report length should not exceed 40 pages in total (not including annexes).  Evaluation Rating Table  Summary of conclusions, recommendations and lessons

Acronyms and Abbreviations (See: UNDP Editorial Manual12 )

1. Introduction  Purpose of the evaluation  Scope & Methodology  Structure of the evaluation report

2. Project description and development context  Project start and duration  Problems that the project sought to address  Immediate and development objectives of the project  Baseline Indicators established  Main stakeholders  Expected Results

3. Findings (In addition to a descriptive assessment, all criteria marked with (*) must be rated13 )

3.1 Project Design / Formulation  Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic /strategy; Indicators)  Assumptions and Risks  Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into project design  Planned stakeholder participation  Replication approach  UNDP comparative advantage  Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector  Management arrangements

3.2 Project Implementation  Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation)  Partnership arrangements (with relevant stakeholders involved in the country/region)  Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management  Project Finance  Monitoring and evaluation: design at entry and implementation (*)  UNDP and Implementing Partner implementation / execution (*) coordination, and operational issues

3.3 Project Results  Overall results (attainment of objectives) (*)  Relevance(*)  Effectiveness & Efficiency (*)  Country ownership

12 UNDP Style Manual, Office of Communications, Partnerships Bureau, updated November 2008 13 Using a six-point rating scale: 6: Highly Satisfactory, 5: Satisfactory, 4: Marginally Satisfactory, 3: Marginally Unsatisfactory, 2: Unsatisfactory and 1: Highly Unsatisfactory, see section 3.5, page 37 for ratings explanations.  Mainstreaming  Sustainability (*)  Impact

4. Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons  Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project  Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project  Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives  Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success

5. Annexes  ToR  Itinerary  List of persons interviewed  Summary of field visits  List of documents reviewed  Evaluation Question Matrix  Questionnaire used and summary of results  Evaluation Consultant Agreement Form

ToR ANNEX H: Evaluation Report Clearance Form (to be completed by CO and UNDP GEF Technical Adviser based in the region and included in the final document)

Evaluation Report Reviewed and Cleared by

UNDP County Office

Name:______

Signature:______Date:______

UNDP GEF RTA

Name:

Signature:______Date:______

ToR Annex I: Co-Financing Table For UNDP Supported GEF Financed Projects

IA Own Financing Government Other Sources14 Total Financing Total Disbursement Co Financing (Million US $) (Million US $) (Million US $) (Million US $) (Million US $) Types/Sources Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Grant Credits Equity In Kind Non grant instruments15 Other Types TOTAL

14 Other Sources refer to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs, the private sector, etc. Specify each and explain “Other sources” of co-financing when possible. 15 Describe “Non-grant instruments” (such as guarantees, contingent grants, etc.)