1

AGCA Marine Sanctuary Campaign

Campaign Learning Report

Catherine B. Demesa

Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts, Inc

August 2012

2

How to Use this Document

There are four sections to this document each of which correspond to assignment for the MA degree Section 1: Plan for Change: Executive Summary Section 2: Managing for Impact: Methods of Determining Results Section 3: Learning and Planning through Critical Analysis Section 4: will be replaced by the MPA sustainability plan

Each section has an introduction entitled “Purpose” and instructions are provided written in grey highlight. This describes the intent and expected content of each section. IMPORTANT NOTE: This introductory narrative should be deleted after you complete each section.

3

Contents

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

CF Introduction yay ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Section 1 - Plan for Change: Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Site Overview: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

1.2 Campaign Theory of Change: A Strategy for Change ..................................................................................................................... 15

1.3 Summary of Results ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Section 2 - Methods used for Determining Results .................................................................................................................................. 23

2.1 Pre- and Post-Campaign Quantitative (KAP) Survey: ...................................................................................................................... 24

A. Background on Pre/Post KAP Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 24

B. Comparing pre and post KAP survey: the method and approach ............................................................................................ 24

C. The Comparability of the Surveys ............................................................................................................................................. 26

2.2 Qualitative Research or Observational Research............................................................................................................................ 32

2.3 Measuring the effectiveness of Barrier Removal ............................................................................................................................ 46

2.4 Measuring threat reduction: methods and approach ............................................................................................................... 48

2.5 Measuring conservation result: methods and approach ........................................................................................................... 50

Section 3 – Learning and Planning through Critical Analysis .................................................................................................................... 52

4

3.1 The situation analysis and the process of planning ........................................................................................................................ 52

3.2 The Campaign Strategy ................................................................................................................................................................... 54

3.3 The Campaign Implementation: Achievements and lessons learned ............................................................................................. 56

3.4 The Impact of the Campaign ...................................................................................................................................................... 84

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 105

A: Questionnaire Surveys (pre and post) ........................................................................................................................................... 105

B: Full report on post-campaign survey results .................................................................................................................................. 159

C: Full Governance and Enforcement Action Plan (from Project Plan)............................................................................................... 206

D: List of blog links written on RarePlanet .......................................................................................................................................... 235

E: Photo essay..................................................................................................................................................................................... 235

5

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the support of Tinambac LGU, Rare and IUCN-NL.

I am grateful to the full support of Hon. Mayor Ruel Velarde, the mentoring of Mr. Stuart Green of Rare and the generosity of Maartje

Hiltermarn of IUCN-NL. I am grateful as well for the opportunity to be mentored by Mr. Fernando Gervacio and Orlando Arciaga.I greatly

appreciate the guidance and mentorship of Rare’s Pride Program Managers: Crissy, Jappy, Fel, Jong, Lito, Brooke, and Annalisa.

I would also like to acknowledge the members of the AGCA Technical Working Group and Mancom.

My sincere thanks to the following persons: Randy, Bibi, Rachelle, Erl, Nanay, Tatay, the LCFs, and a lot more.

6

Hello! My name is Cathy and I’m very happy to tell you stories about my community and to share with you lessons

learned from our AGCA Pride Campaign.

Like many of you, I also belong to the 80% of our country’s population who lives near the coastal area. I came from a

fishing village in Bicol Region in the Philippines. I belong to a family of fishers. Both of my grandfathers were fishers. My

father had been a fisher, as well. He helped my grandpa in his fishing and selling the fish.

Seashore had been my play ground when I was a kid. Every afternoon, I and my playmates would go to the

shore and play around. As I child I have a lot of questions, then. I am very curious why the sky is blue? Why

the sea is blue? What is under the water? What is on the other side of the sea? Why there is a high tide? What

CF INTRODUCTION

7

there is low tide? Where does the water go? How the fish swims underwater? Do they sleep? How do they eat?

In short, I have a lot of interesting questions about the sea. So when I went to university to study biology, I

joined environmental conservation organizations in our university and learned that our country has very rich

natural resources- we have beautiful corals and lots of fish; thick mangrove forest, and diverse wildlife species.

This paved my way to work for marine conservation.

When I returned to my hometown, I used what I learned to help my village. I also co-founded an NGO and our

mission is to create a no-take zone similar to what my other CFs were doing. In 2006 we set up a marine

protected area because we knew that we were losing fish from our seas. When I was a child I watched fishers

come and go… and often heard them “maluya and dakop” (means almost no catch, just enough for family to

eat) or sometimes they would sell their fish to my mother and tell her “ pambakal lang bagas” (to have

something to buy rice for family). Studies shows that in our province (Bicol) almost 40% of family were living

below poverty line, which means they were earning below 7$/day.

We already have MPA even before the Rare’s Pride Program came. Unfortunately, only 20 percent of fisherman

respected the no-take zone. Majority of the community feel that they don’t have the ownership of the

Sanctuary. In fact, whenever we came to the village, they call us “ mga taga-AGCA”. They have the notion that

the NTZ was owned by us. They even said, they won’t respect any law for in their village they were the law.

We also had a problem with commercial fishers coming into our area and overfishing. I knew that we needed to

do something different and I applied to be trained by Rare to run a Pride Campaign. I went back to the

community and talked with them and learn about what they understood about the no-take zone.

Our campaign started by giving the message that the sanctuary is locally owned and managed by the

community themselves. Our campaign tagline is SATUYA INI (This is ours). We also used arts and music in our Pride Campaign. Rare provided additional money so that we could buy instruments to the kids and teach them

songs about the important message we were teaching them. We created a thousand shirts for all the kids and

8

village leaders in the community. The teachers made it their school’s official uniform worn by student every Wednesday. Our campaign signs were used on local boats and passenger boats. We also created a hot line so

that people could report if they saw someone illegally fishing in the no take zone. We are seeing success.

There is a 20% increase in seaweed yield. That means that the coral reefs are healthier because the water quality has improved a lot when the dynamite and cyanide fishing had been stopped. There were no longer

compressor fishers fishing nearby the NTZ! Bio-physical monitoring shows that live coral cover has improved by 10% and fish inside the sanctuary were getting bigger and has improved by five times. Before the

campaign, local people were apathetic about their problems in illegal fishing, now they starts to report violations especially intrusion inside the sanctuary. Because of this, an alliance of LGU in our district invited me

to talk about CRM and NTZ to their Fisheries Officers; I was interviewed at New York time; and I appeared at the National television to share about my campaign. I am looking forward to run another campaign next year

and I am happy to be of help to the 4 new Pride Campaign sites!

9

Section 1 - Plan for Change

Executive Summary

1.1 Site Overview: Date of writing this table August 2012

Site Name AGCA Marine Sanctuary

Site Description AGCA Marine Sanctuary in Tinambac, Camarines Sur, Philippines. This site is in Province of Camarines Sur is part of the Bicol Peninsula in southeastern portion of Luzon. On the north is Pacific ocean, on east is Maqueda Channel, on the south is the province of Albay, and on the west is the Ragay Gulf and on the northwest by the Provinces of Camarines Norte and Quezon. According to local folks the area before is like a paradise where its pristine beauty attracted their father and grandfather to settle and live in the area. The coasts have very fine and powdery white sand. Within the coastal zones are lowland forests covered with very sturdy and robust species of Philippine Dipterocarps. But come the American and Japanese occupation the area was stripped by logging concessionaires and what is left are the plantation of coconut trees and patches of grassland. The sanctuary is located off the coast of Barangays Agay-ayan and Caloco in Tinambac, Camarines Sur facing the turbulent waters of the Pacific Ocean. There are two core zones comprising the MPA. The site is found on a gradual reef slope. Topographic relief is not high and coral bommies are not common. The reef is generally flat with occasional spurs and grooves. The reef experiences high wave energy in surges and currents. The water is generally turbid, probably due to sediment input from a nearby river as well as thorough disturbance of the substrate. There has been no research conducted on site’s biodiversity except from the AGCA Sanctuary

Assessment on 2005 that was conducted by BFAR (as requested by LGU to serve as basis for MPA site

10

selection). The rest of the data available and research being conducted were from Participatory

researches by NSLC, Inc and MPA managers (fish catch monitoring, bantay-dagat journal, manta tow,

etc ).

MPA total Area (ha) AGCA Marine Sanctuary comprises 98 Ha (50 ha no-take zone and 48-ha buffer zone) of coral reef and sea grass.

Number of NTZs in campaign 2

Combined total area of NTZs in campaign (ha)

NTZ 1: 25 has (mostly of monitoring conducted) NTZ 2: 25 has

Protected Area Category (National Park, locally managed)

Locally managed

Primary Threat Overfishing; illegal fishing

Total Population size (of Municipality) 56,000

Size of target audience (number of people)

Total population 2275 (NSO, 2007) TARGET AUDIENCE AGCA Fishers: ~350 AGCA Community: 1236

Target audience primary profession Fishers

Campaign’s Social Context (using the sub-sections to the right or the same as in your project plan)

AGCA Fishers are predominantly male (98%). 95% of the respondents are Catholic. 47% of respondents can say that their fish catch has improved. Average household size is 5 (NSO, 2007) Average monthly income of fishers: US$ 40-65 /month or below (=approx. percentage of total income?) Of 358 fishers we interviewed, more than 60% said they were not sure how much is the percentage of their income comes from fishing and about 20% said their income from fishing is about 40% of the total income. Fishing gears commonly used: net, hook and line, spear fishing, compressor and traps.

11

Primary livelihood: fishing, farming and seaweed farming Secondary livelihoods: fish trading, carpentry, and some go to cities to look for job especially during lean season. Peak season starts on the month of March until June when the sea is calm. Surveys showed they were in the preparation stage when it comes to the behavioral change continuum. In the Diffusion theory of innovation this target audiences are at early and late majority. They are the people who will not adopt behavior change until most other members of the community have done so. The pressure of peer is necessary to motivate them to adopt new behavior. Majority of the AGCA fishers knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary (80%) its location (80%) and its rules and regulation (82%).

12

Figure1: MAP OF BARANGAY AGAY-AYAN SHOWING THE NTZ2

13

Figure 2: Map of Barangay Caloco showing the NTZ1

14

Table 1. CAMPAIGN SITE

Name of Zones of campaign focus Size (ha)

AGCA NTZ 1 and NTZ 2 50 has

Buffer 48 has

Navigational zone (if any) none

Multiple use zone none

TOTAL combined area of NTZs in campaign 98 has

15

1.2 Campaign Theory of Change: A Strategy for Change

AGCA Theory of Change

What knowledge is

needed to increase

awareness and help

shift these attitudes

What attitudes must

shift for these

conversations to

happen?

What conversations

are needed to

encourage people to

adopt the new

behavior?

What are the barriers

to adoption of the

desired new behavior,

and how can we

remove them?

What behaviors for

which group(s) must

change in order to

reduce this threat?

What threats need

to be reduced in

order to achieve the

stated conservation

results

What conservation

results in the

campaign seeking to

achieve?

AGCA Fishers are aware

of AGCA Sanctuary rules

and regulations

especially the provision

prohibiting to fish/glean

inside the sanctuary

AGCA community

residents can state at

least 1 benefit of a

strictly enforced and

managed MPA

AGCA Fishers believes

that AGCA sanctuary rules

and regulations must be

followed to gain economic

and ecological benefits

AGCA community

residents believe that

they can do something to

reduce illegal fishing

activities in their barangay

by reporting intrusions

inside the MPA

AGCA fishers can say

that they have spoken

to anyone about the

consequences of not

following AGCA Rules

and regulations

AGCA community can

say that they have

spoken to anyone about

the benefits of s strictly

enforced and managed

MPA

There is 24/7 guarding of

MPA in place

AGCA community who

said they will report

someone

intruding/violating to

either kapitan or Bantay-

dagat

AGCA Fishers can say

that they no longer

fish inside the

sanctuary and that

they have reported

someone breaking the

sanctuary rules

AGCA Community who

can say they attended

meeting regarding

AGCA Sanctuary

AGCA fishers and

community who can

say that there are no

longer poaching (NTZ2)

and compressor fishing

(NTZ 1) activities in

the core zone

especially at night

1. Increase in hard coral cover inside AGCA Sanctuary by 2012.

2. increase in fish abundance inside the AGCA MPA by 2012

3. increase biomass

inside AGCA MPA by 2012

4. AGCA fishers believe that their fish catch has improved due to AGCA MPA by 2012

16

Theory of Change is a Rare’s hypothesis of how the campaign can help address critical biodiversity issues, namely that: an increase in knowledge plus a change in attitude resulting from interpersonal communication, in the presence of an appropriate barrier removal tool, leads to behavior change which facilitates threat reduction and ultimately ensures conservation.

Drafting a Theory of Change is an important process in identifying which biodiversity threat to will focus on, in ensuring adoption of behavior change by the target audience and in designing strategies how to achieve conservation result. It contains “how to” or steps on how to bring the target audience that causing the biodiversity threats to change. AGCA Statement of Theory of Change To achieve conservation result of improving biodiversity inside the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, threats from overfishing will be addressed by reducing intrusion and destructive fishing activities inside and within 500m from sanctuary boundaries. This will happen if there is 24/7 guarding of sanctuary and good reporting system in place. For this to be effective, Pride Campaign will use both conservation and social marketing strategies to improve sanctuary social-buy-in and promote community pride and ownership. Key target audiences follow sanctuary rules and regulations and report violators to the authorized law enforcer. Rare Pride Campaign will be deemed successful if there is reduction of intrusion, increase in fish abundance and fish density by 10%, and increase in hard live coral cover by 5% by the 2012 inside AGCA Sanctuary.

17

1.3 Summary of Results

A. Summary:

AGCA Pride campaign aims to improve biodiversity inside the AGCA Marine Sanctuary and reduce threats from overfishing using conservation and social marketing strategies. To determine its impact, qualitative and quantitative studies were conducted before the start of the campaign and after its implementation. Rare’s historical data was used as basis in formulating SMART objectives. After the post survey, result from site baseline and post-campaign surveys were compared for primary target audiences: the AGCA fisher and AGCA Community Residents (15 years old and above). Overall, SMART objectives for conservation results (CR) and behavior change (BC) have been achieved and even went beyond the campaign target. AGCA Fishers Campaign result shows a 7 percentage point increase in the number of AGCA fishers who knows that fishing inside the NTZ is prohibited by law from 82% to 89%. Likewise, maintained the ratio that nine in every 10 fishers in the site believes that they should follow AGCA rules and regulations; and the number of fishers who said that they have spoken with someone about the consequences of violating the AGCA rules and regulations. Before the campaign, 7 in every 10 fishers said they no longer fish inside the NTZ, after campaign it appears that 8 in every ten fishers were saying they no longer fish inside the NTZ.

Figure 3. AGCA

fishers

18

It also appears that there was a significant decrease (20pp) of threats inside the NTZ 1 and significant increase in the mean hard coral cover (a 9 point percentage increase), fish abundance (with 48 percentage point increase) and fish biomass (with 57 percentage point increase) inside the sanctuary, probably as a result of protection and no-fishing activities policy inside the NTZ. AGCA Community Overall, it appears that there were significant increase in the result of pre and post-survey analysis for AGCA Communities’ knowledge, Interpersonal communication and behavior change measures. Specifically, Knowledge has increased by 11 percentage point, Attitude by 1.8 percentage point, IC by 5.8 percentage point, and BC with 12.6 percentage point.

Figure 4: AGCA Community

Residents

19

B. Primary Results Table:

Target Audience 1: Fishers

SMART Objective

ToC Category Pre campaign Result (FREQUENCY ERROR)

Target Post campaign result (FREQUENCY ERROR)

Chi square significant of change at site

By June 2012, have statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA fishers who can state that it is in It is in a law or in regulation to prohibit the fishers to fish and glean inside the core zone of AGCA Marine Sanctuary from 82% t0 92% (an increase of 10pp)

Knowledge

82 (±4.9) 92 89 (±4.0) yes at 75%

By June 2012, have maintained the percentage of AGCA fishers who can say that they strongly agree and agree that " fishers must follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary at 91% or better. Attitude

90.6 (±3.7) 91 91 (±3.8) yes at 75%

By June 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say they have spoken to someone about the "consequences of breaking the AGCA Sanctuary Rules and Regulation" from 22% to 42 (an increase of 20p).

Interpersonal

Communication

22.1 (±5.3) 42 22.6 (±5.6) yes, under 50%

By 2012, have statistically significant increase in the AGCA Fishers who can say that enforcers were guarding AGCA Marine Sanctuary 24/7 from 34% to 60% (an increase of 26pp)

Barrier Removal

33.6 (±6.4) 60 36.3 (±6.1) yes at 75%

20

By 2012, the % of AGCA fishers who says "I have not fished/gleaned in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months." will go up frpom 69% to 83%, a 14 pp increase

Behavior Change

69.3 (±5.9) 83 83.3 (±4.8) yes at 99%

By 2012, have a statistically significant decrease in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say that there are still poachers at night inside the NTZ 2 of AGCA Marine Sanctuary from 55% to 35% (a decrease of 20pp).

Threat Reduction

54.9 (±6.4) 35 54.3 (±6.4) yes under 50

By 2012, the % of AGCA fishers who say that they have "seen" fishers using compressor fishing inside the NTZ 1 of AGCA will have decreased from 25% to15%, a 10pp decrease.

Threat Reduction

24.6 (±6.0) 15 5.4 (±4.1) yes at 99%

By 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say that their fish catch has increase from 47% to 62% (an increase of 15pp).

Conservation Result

47.5 (±6.4) 62 56.7 (±6.1) yes at 75%

21

Target Audience 2: AGCA Community

SMART Objective

ToC Category Pre campaign Result (FREQUENCY ERROR)

Target Post campaign result (FREQUENCY ERROR)

Chi square significant of change at site

By 2012, have statistically significant increase in the percentage of AGCA community who can state that atleast 1 benefit from a strictly enforced MPA from 36% to 47% (an increase of 21pp)

Knowledge

36.3 (±4.5) 21 47.3 (±4.6) yes at 99%

By 2012, the % of AGCA community residents that agree or strongly agree that they can do something or contribute in reducing/eliminating illegal fishing in the barangay will go up from 66% to 79%, a 13pp increase.

Attitude

66.6 (±4.3) 13 68.4 (±4.2) yes at 75%

By June 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA community who can say they have spoken to someone about the "benefits of a well-enforced MPA" from 5% to 30 (an increase of 25pp).

Interpersonal

Communication

7.3 (±2.3) 25 13.1 (±3.1) yes at 95%

By 2012, have maintained the number of AGCA community who can say that they will report someone who has broken the rules and regulation of the AGCA Sanctuary to either of the barangay captain, bantay-dagat or local law enforcement team.

Barrier Removal

89.3 (±4.0) 15 95.9 (±2.5) yes at 50

22

By 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA community who can say that they have attended at least 1 meeting or gatherings about AGCA Sanctuary from 19% to 30% (an increase of 11pp)

Behavior Change

18.6 (±4.4) 12 37.1 (±4.5) yes at 99%

By 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA community who can say that in the past 6 months they heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations to the enforcement team from 25% to 40% (an increase of 15pp)

Behavior Change

25.1 (±4.6) 15 31.8 (±4.5) yes at 99%

By 2012, the % of AGCA community who say that they have "seen" fishers using compressor fishing inside the core zone I of AGCA will have decreased from 6.5% to1.5%, a 5pp decrease.

Threat Reduction

6.5 (±4.3) -5 0.9 (±4.4) yes at 99%

By 2012, have a statistically significant decrease in the number of AGCA Community who can say that there are still poachers at night inside the core zone II of AGCA Marine Sanctuary from 36% to 21% (a decrease of 15pp).

Threat Reduction

35.9 (±4.6) -1.9 34 (±4.4) yes at 75%

23

Section 2 - Methods used for Determining Results (max 500)

It was very common for organizations and programs to set goal but only few measures it. Rare keep track of the progress of Pride campaign and measure it at the end. The campaign has its theory of change at the start, it tells how to manage and monitor it; implement and test assumptions; adapt the change and learn from it. Rare has three categories of measures identified to be critical in running pride campaign; these are to build capacity, create constituencies and conservation impact.

Measuring results is important in ensuring the success and effectiveness of the campaign. Before the start and at the end of the campaign, baseline and post-campaign measures were taken. This is important in tracking the impact to the change in the behavior of target audience, to the threats and conservation result at the end of the campaign. This helps in identifying what social marketing strategies and conservation strategies worked to achieve goal and to know if the campaign has succeeded. This can be used to share with stakeholders about the progress and accomplishment of the project. It can contribute also in reporting to partners and funders to inform them where their money goes. The pride campaign implementation and the theory of change were designed to have specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-bound

(SMART) objectives. Pride Campaign is also regularly monitored during implementation to ensure that the campaign SMART objectives are being met and right audience is targeted. Every after rolling out of major collaterals, mini-survey test is conducted to determine whether there is a need for revision or changes. This is to know how the target audience is responding, were they comfortable or receptive of the campaign massage. This helps the CF in prioritizing and allocating resources. By monitoring the CF can estimate the resources, time, and work required to complete the campaign so corrective actions will be taken. This strategy of creating a change in environment and learning from doing is called adaptive management.

24

2.1 Pre- and Post-Campaign Quantitative (KAP) Survey:

A. Background on Pre/Post KAP Survey

To gain a better understanding of the knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of the target audiences in relation to the AGCA Sanctuary and to establish a baseline for measuring the impact of the campaign on these audiences, on March-April 2011, a pre-campaign survey was conducted. The results from this survey served as the basis for the creation of SMART objectives relating to the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices components of the campaign’s Theory-of-Change (ToC). A second post campaign survey was implemented on June-July 2012 to measure any change in these KAP variables and to assess the level of attainment of the SMART objectives. The pre and post KAP survey was conducted in barangays Agay-ayan and Caloco where the sanctuary is located. The survey was implemented by trained enumerators endorsed by the barangay council.

B. Comparing pre and post KAP survey: the method and approach

Background Information on the Pre- and Post Campaign Surveys

Audience Information for Campaign Site

Total Targeted Audience Population: ~1586

Target Audience #1: AGCA Fishers (Population Size: ~350)

Target Audience #2: AGCA Community (Population Size: ~1236)

25

Audience Information for Campaign site for Pre-campaign survey

N of people Sample size at 95%CL and 3%CI

Sample size at 95%CL and 5%CI

Final sample size achieved

TA 1 : 265 AGCA Fishers (130 fishers from Agay-ayan and 135 fishers from Caloco)

212 157 242

TA 2 : 1236 AGAC Community Residents ( 645 community residents from Agay-ayan and 591 community residents from barangay Caloco)

573 293 479

Total 785 450 721

Audience Information for Campaign site for Post-campaign survey

N of people Sample size at 95%CL and 3%CI

Sample size at 95%CL and 5%CI

Final sample size achieved

TA 1 : 331 AGCA Fishers (150 fishers from Agay-ayan and 181 fishers from Caloco)

253 178 245

TA 2 : 1236 AGAC Community Residents ( 645 community residents from Agay-ayan and 591 community residents from barangay Caloco)

573 293 491

Total 826 471 736

26

C. The Comparability of the Surveys : Independent Variables to Assess Comparability of the Surveys

Target Audience 1: AGCA Fishers

Variable Pre-campaign result Post-campaign result Difference (Post-Pre) Percentage Point (pp)

Chi-Square (X2) Significance difference

Age group 14 or younger

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54

55 or older

0.4%; 1 2.9%; 7

7.8%; 19 15.6%; 38 11.9%; 29 11.1%; 27 13.5%; 33 12.3%; 30 9.0%; 22

15.6%; 38 100.0%; 244

0.4%; 1

13.1%; 32 12.2%; 30 13.9%; 34 10.2%; 25 10.2%; 25 14.3%; 35 4.9%; 12 5.7%; 14

15.1%; 37 100.0%; 245

0 (pp

10.2 pp 4.4 pp -1.7 pp -2.1 pp -0.9 pp 0.8 pp -7.4 pp -3.3 pp -0.5 pp

Yes, at 75% Change is not

statistically significant; data are

comparable

Formal education No school completed

Some elementary school Elementary school completed Some secondary completed

Some high school High School Completed

Some College

0.4%; 1 27.5%; 67 38.9%; 95 14.3%; 35 7.4%; 18 6.6%; 16 2.0%; 5 0.4%; 1

1.2%; 3 23.7%; 58 34.7%; 85 6.1%; 15

15.5%; 38 12.2%; 30

2.9%; 7 1.2%; 3

-0.8 pp -3.8 pp -8.2 pp 8.1 pp 5.6 pp 9.0 pp

Yes at 50% Change is not

statistically significant; data are

comparable

27

College Graduate Vocational course

pastor/religious course Refuse to answer

Totals

1.2%; 3 0.4%; 1 0.8%; 2

100.0%; 244

0.8%; 2 0.4%; 1 1.2%; 3

100.0%; 245

0.8pp -0.4 pp

0 pp 0.4 pp

Gender Male Female Totals

98.0%; 239 2.0%; 5

100.0%; 244

98.8%; 242 1.2%; 3

100.0%; 245

0.8pp -08pp

Under 50% Change is not

statistically significant; data are

comparable

Number of HH members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 10 and above

Totals

0.8%; 2 2.5%; 6

10.7%; 26 12.7%; 31 17.2%; 42 13.1%; 32 16.4%; 40 11.9%; 29 7.8%; 19 4.5%; 11 2.5%; 6

100.0%; 244

0.4%; 1

4.9%; 12 11.8%; 29 9.4%; 23

18.4%; 45 18.4%; 45 11.4%; 28 11.4%; 28 7.3%; 18 4.9%; 12 1.6%; 4

100.0%; 245

-0.4 pp 2.4 pp 1.1 pp -3.3 pp 1.2 pp 5.3 pp -5.0 pp -0.5 pp -0.2 pp 0.4 pp -0.9 pp

Under 50% Change is not

statistically significant; data are

comparable

Income Yes at 50%

28

Below 30,000 Pesos Between 30,000 and 50,000 Between 50,001 and 75,000 Between 75,001 and 100,000 Not sure Refused Totals

31.6%; 77 13.1%; 32

1.6%; 4 0.4%; 1

44.7%; 109 8.6%; 21

100.0%; 244

24.1%; 59 8.2%; 20 0.8%; 2 0.8%; 2

53.9%; 132 12.2%; 30

100.0%; 245

-7.5 pp -4.9 pp -0.8 pp 0.4pp 9.2 pp 3.6 pp

Change is not statistically

significant; data are comparable

Number of years in Fishing 4 years and below

5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54

refuse to answer Not Applicable

Totals

13.1%; 32 16.4%; 40 12.7%; 31 12.3%; 30 11.9%; 29 6.6%; 16 8.6%; 21 3.7%; 9

5.3%; 13 0.8%; 2 1.2%; 3 2.5%; 6

4.9%; 12 100.0%; 244

16.3%; 40 16.7%; 41 18.4%; 45 9.8%; 24 9.4%; 23 4.5%; 11 6.5%; 16 2.4%; 6 2.9%; 7 0.4%; 1 0.4%; 1

6.9%; 17 5.3%; 13

100.0%; 245

3.2 pp 0.3 pp 5.7 pp -2.5 pp -2.5 pp -2.1 pp -1.9 pp -1.3 pp -2.4 pp -0.4 pp -0.8 pp 4.4 pp 0.4 pp

Under 50% Change is not

statistically significant; data are

comparable

Target Audience 2: AGCA Community

Variable Pre-campaign result Post-campaign result Difference (Post-Pre Chi-Square (X2) Significance

29

difference

Age group 14 or younger

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54

55 or older

0.2%; 1

15.0%; 72 13.8%; 66 10.9%; 52 10.4%; 50 9.0%; 43 6.5%; 31 5.6%; 27 4.4%; 21

24.2%; 116 100.0%; 479

0.2%; 1

13.6%; 67 10.0%; 49 11.0%; 54 12.8%; 63 9.4%; 46 9.2%; 45 7.5%; 37 4.1%; 20

22.2%; 109 100.0%; 491

0 pp -1.4 pp -3.8 pp 0.1 pp 2.4 pp 0.4 pp 2.7 pp 1.9 pp -0.3 pp -2.0 pp

Under 50% Change is not statistically

significant; data are comparable

Formal education No school completed

Some elementary school Elementary school completed Some secondary completed

Some high school High School Completed

Some College College Graduate Vocational course

pastor/religious course Refuse to answer

Totals

1.5%; 7 19.2%; 92

25.5%; 122 18.4%; 88 14.4%; 69 12.3%; 59 2.3%; 11 2.1%; 10 0.6%; 3

3.5%; 17 0.2%; 1

1.2%; 6 20.0%; 98

26.9%; 132 5.3%; 26

20.6%; 101 17.5%; 86 3.5%; 17 4.7%; 23 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0

-0.3 pp -0.8 pp 1.4 pp

-13.1 pp 6.2 pp 1.2 pp 2.6 pp -0.4 pp -3.3 pp -0.2 pp

Yes at 99% Change is statistically

significant; data are not comparable

30

100.0%; 479 100.0%; 491

Gender Male Female

37.4%; 179 62.6%; 300

100.0%; 479

27.3%; 134 72.7%; 357

100.0%; 491

-10.1 pp 10.1 pp

Yes at 99% Change is

statistically significant; data are

not comparable

Number of HH members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 10 and above

Totals

0.8%; 4

7.5%; 36 10.9%; 52 11.7%; 56 18.8%; 90 15.7%; 75 13.8%; 66 8.4%; 40 5.4%; 26 4.0%; 19 3.1%; 15

100.0%; 479

0.6%; 3

5.5%; 27 12.6%; 62 11.4%; 56

20.8%; 102 14.5%; 71 10.0%; 49 10.8%; 53 6.5%; 32 4.5%; 22 2.9%; 14

100.0%; 491

-0.2 pp -2.0 pp 1.7 pp -0.3 pp 2.0 pp -1.2 pp -3.8 pp 2.4 pp 1.1 pp 0.5 pp -0.2 pp

Under 50% Change is not statistically

significant; data are comparable

Income Below 30,000 Pesos Between 30,000 and 50,000 Between 50,001 and 75,000 Between 75,001 and 100,000 Greater than 100,000 Pesos Not sure

19.6%; 94

3.8%; 18 1.5%; 7 1.0%; 5 0.6%; 3

12.4%; 61 3.9%; 19 0.6%; 3 0.4%; 2 1.8%; 9

-7.2 pp 0.1 pp -0.9 pp -0.6 pp 1.2 pp

Yes at 99% Change is

statistically significant; data are

not comparable

31

Refused 62.2%; 298 11.3%; 54

100.0%; 479

42.6%; 209 38.3%; 188

100.0%; 491

-29.6 pp 27.0 pp

Primary Occupation

Farming Fishing

Seaweed Farming Copra making

Charcoal making small business/buy&sell

Office work Carpentry

construction worker house attendat factory worker

Professional housework/housewife

student pension

government (honorarium) remittance from abroad

unemployed Refuse to answer

Other Not Applicable

Totals

27.1%; 130 11.5%; 55 2.1%; 10

11.3%; 54 0.4%; 2

5.4%; 26 0.0%; 0 1.0%; 5 0.6%; 3

2.1%; 10 0.2%; 1 1.7%; 8

18.2%; 87 7.9%; 38 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1

6.3%; 30 0.2%; 1 0.6%; 3

2.9%; 14 *; *

15.5%; 76 8.8%; 43 2.9%; 14

14.1%; 69 1.6%; 8

4.5%; 22 0.4%; 2 0.0%; 0 0.4%; 2 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1

2.9%; 14 28.7%; 141

8.8%; 43 0.2%; 1 1.2%; 6 0.2%; 1

4.3%; 21 1.0%; 5 0.8%; 4

4.9%; 24 *; *

±4.1%*

-11.6 pp -2.7pp 0.8 pp 2.8 pp 1.2 pp -0.9 pp 0.4 pp -0.1 pp -0.2 pp -1.9 pp

0 pp 1.2 pp

10.5 pp 0.9 pp 0 pp

1.1 pp 0 pp

-2.0 pp 0.8 pp 0.2 pp 2.0 pp

Yes at 50% Change is not

statistically significant; data are

comparable

32

There is no significance difference between pre- and post-surveys except for the time of implementation. The pre campaign survey was conducted during on the month of March of 2010 and post-campaign survey was implemented on the month of June 2012. For the AGCA fishers, data from pre- and post-surveys were comparable across all independent variables- age group, income, education, gender, number of household members, and number of years in fishing. They’ve got a chi-square of 75% and below, which suggests that change were not statistically significant, hence data are comparable. For the AGCA residents, pre- and post-campaign surveys for the independent variable, only age group, household members and primary occupation were comparable. They’ve got chi-square of 50% and below, which suggests that changes among these independent variables was not significant and data are comparable. For other variables, a post-campaign result when compared to pre-campaign, has higher % of respondents who said they were able to finish high school; has higher % of women than men; and has lower percentage of those respondents who said they were unsure of their annual household income. Significant differences in gender and formal education between pre-campaign and post campaign can be attributed to the time when the survey was conducted. The pre-campaign survey was conducted March-April 2011 wherein the students were gone to work in nearby city and in Metro Manila. Another reason could be, during the post campaign survey, has time limitation especially in Agay-ayan wherein enumerators can do the interview during day time only. Mostly wives and children were left in the house.

2.2 Qualitative Research or Observational Research

There are important information and processes that the quantitative research cannot capture such as: how to gain better understanding of target audience and stakeholders’ level of knowledge, attitude and practices; what are issues at hand in the AGCA Sanctuary management that needs clarifying and more discussion; and how to map the changes perceived and felt by the community. Focus group discussions, directed conversations and reflection sessions were done.

33

For the directed conversations 3 salient questions were asked: Do you think the community benefitted from the AGCA Sanctuary? What advice can you give to improve these benefits? And how is your agency/organization willing to support to increase those benefits? Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with the AGCA Management Committee, People’s Organization, Bantay-dagat group and with the AGCA technical working group. During the discussions same questions were asked to the participants.

a. Directed Conversations with the local chief executive

Hon. Ruel T. Velarde the local chief executive of Tinambac at his second term declared Tinambac as environmental

friendly municipality. When asked about his commitment to the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, he said he will be providing

materials for the installation of buoys and will be allotting PhP 300,000.00 (USD $6500) for the construction of

guardhouse. On top of this he will continue to provide for the honorarium of 4 bantay-dagat, 3 bantay-baybayo and 2

bantay-bakawan.

According to him “behavior change” is key to address the problem of resource degradation and poverty in Lamit Bay.

Materials for marker buoys Mayor Velarde delivering his pitch

34

b. Directed conversation with the municipal agriculture officer (MAO)

c. Directed conversation with the local fishers and residents

Cathy interviewing (MAO) Reynaldo Rivera

He said two dynamite fishers were imprisoned last October 2010. There is a significant

reduction in number of illegal activities since then. Bantay-dagat were actively patrolling and

guarding the sanctuary. He also confirmed that there is additional Bantay-dagat to be assigned

in San Antonio, the adjacent barangay of AGCA.

According to him the office of Municipal Agriculture is very supportive in improving

management of AGCA Marine Sanctuary. Strengthening the enforcement of AGCA Marine

Sanctuary and enforcement within the municipal waters of Tinambac will be one of the

priorities of Mr. Jogie Salages, The Municipal Fisheries Technician.

There was also a discussion on strengthening of Mancom and TWG. Cathy asked who should be invited to

the TWG and Mancom Meetings; if is it okay to hold the meeting inside the Municipal Hall; and can the

LGU provide some counterparts for the expenses during meetings? His response was very positive- just

let him know of the schedules ahead of time and his department will be there to cooperate in the Pride

Campaign.

On 2004, Mr. Tariman claimed that he is one of the few fishers in Barangay Caloco. When I asked

isn’t it a fishing village? He said nobody fish here because there is no fish to catch. The price of

gasoline is too much to the fishers. Most of the residents were cultivating seaweeds and some

were doing compressor fishing in other barangays and municipalities. After three years, Mr.

Tariman left for Manila.

Early this year, when I visited barangay Caloco I saw him fixing his boat. I talked to him and asked

is the community benefitting from AGCA Sanctuary. He said, he had a good catch the other day

even the sea is rough and choppy. He can catch 3 to 5 kilos of fish without getting that far. He

was fixing his boat because he wants to go back to fishing. He confirmed that there are more fish

and bigger fish out there as a result of good protection of the AGCA Sanctuary.

He said he is willing to apply as a volunteer bantay-dagat. He requested to advise him if there

will be trainings or seminars regarding AGCA Sanctuary.

35

Mr. Cenon Tariman (AGCA Fisher)

36

Cathy and Jean (LGU staff) Interviewing Caloco women Regarding AGCA Sanctuary

NIEVES YANAN (49 years old)

According to her fishers have improved income with minimum fish catch range at 5 kg as minimum as compared to the

time when there is no protection and management of marine resources . Almost 90% of illegal fisher is gone. The other

10% cannot do destructive fishing like they do before because local people are now reporting and guarding the sanctuary.

The other day, one fisher caught a 13-kg tanigue between the sanctuary and Cimarron Island.

LINDA YANAN (53 years old)

Mrs. Yanan was one of the core group members who

lead in the establishment of AGCA Marine Sanctuary.

According to her, fishers in their barangay were happy

that their fish catch has improved. There are more fish.

Fishers can catch fish with their non-motorized banca.

She said, there were more local people reporting

intrusion and illegal activities to the enforcement team

and the barangay council.

37

ROMEO TATEL (46 years old)

According to him fish catch has improved.

There are no compressor fishers anymore. Compressor units are

currently utilized to install mainline and fix area for seaweed farming.

He confirmed that even ordinary resident are not only aware that

intrusion inside the sanctuary is prohibited they are already reporting

incidents to the Bantay-dagat and bantay-baybayon.

38

d. Focus group discussions with Technical Working Group

e. Focus Group Discussions with the Mancom- Barangay Level.

There were about 25 participants to the first technical working group meeting held last December 8, 2010 and to the second meeting held

last February 9, 2011.

During the first TWG meeting, topic revolves around on how to improve benefits from AGCA Marine Sanctuary. There is a consensus among

participants that community benefitted from the management and enforcement of AGCA Sanctuary. The second TWG meeting focuses on

VMG setting, organizational development assessment and second day was allotted for scheduling of PCRA, Merf survey and MPA

effectiveness rating and planning workshops. The discussion ends with signing of commitment wall.

39

F. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH ENFORCEMENT TEAM

AGCA Mancom held its monthly meeting either at the Barangay Hall of Agay-ayan or Barangay Hall of Caloco. Sometimes

meeting it is being held at the municipal hall if there are urgent matters to be discussed with the local chief executive.

FGD with the mancom focuses on the following: VMG setting ; discussion on roles and responsibilities of the mancom and TWG;

re-structuring of AGCA Council structure; and the AGCA Sanctuary enforcement system (e.g. regular guarding of sanctuary

24/7).

40

Understanding our audience

RESULT OF THE ANNUAL ASSESMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF BANTAY-DAGAT FOR 2010

Strengthening of enforcement team is one of the priorities of the project. FGD with the members of Bantay dagat was one of the top priorities of the

conservation fellow. The following FGDs were conducted with the enforcement team:

1. Assessment of the 2010 AGCA enforcement system held last January 5, 2011. Result shows that last 2009 about 61 violations committed and on 2010 it went down to 39 violations. Though there is significant reduction in number of intrusion inside the MPA and illegal activities nearby, there is still a need to do more capacity building trainings, improve logistic support and coordination among members of the enforcement team.

2. Identifying illegal activities and illegal fishers from within the barangay. According to the barangay captain of Agay-ayan, there is no longer illegal fishers in the barangay and poachers are coming from barangay Caloco. According to barangay officials of Caloco, there is only 1 fisher that is still using compressor and some poaching inside the sanctuary at night time.

3. Recruitment of new Bantay-dagat volunteers. There were nearly 20 invitees to the FGD on orientation and recruitment for the bantay-dagat members.

4. Logistic and strategic planning sessions. 5. Roles, responsibilities and functions of bantay-dagat given by Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to the new recruits.

41

TA1 - PRIMARY AUDIENCE – FISHERS FROM AGAY-AYAN and CALOCO (data from quantitative and qualitative research conducted for this campaign. What do we know about this group?

AGCA Fishers are predominantly male (98%). 95% of the respondents are Catholic. 47% of respondents can say that their fish catch has improved. Surveys showed they were in the preparation stage when it comes to the behavioral change continuum. In the Diffusion theory of innovation this TA are at late majority. They are the people who will not adopt behavior change until most other members of the community have done so. The pressure of peer is necessary to motivate them to adopt new behavior.

Knowledge

Majority of the AGCA fishers knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary (80%) its location (80%) and its rules and regulation (82%).

Attitude

The fishers have agood understanding of the rules and regulation, 91% of AGCA Fishers believe that it is important to follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary

72% of AGCA Fishers believe that it they have an important role in elimination illegal fishing activities in their barangay

67% said that they are willing to support in improving management of AGCA Marine sanctuary

Practice

Only 34% of AGCA fishers can say that 24/7 guarding of MPA is place and only 39% knows the member of Man Com (whom they will report the intrusion)

Research result indicates that more than half of the AGCA fishers say that they can still observed some poaching at night inside the core zone of the sanctuary.

But when asked they do some fishing or gleaning majority 41% said used to fish inside the sanctuary and only 6.2% of the AGCA fishers confessed that they still

fish inside the AGCA Sanctuary.

69% of AGCA fishers said that they no longer fish/glean inside the AGCA Sanctuary in the past 6 months. When they were asked the same question (paraphrased), result went up to 83%.

41% of AGCA Fishers says that they used to fish in the location of core zone before it was declared as marine sanctuary.

The main behavior changes and barrier removal activities that we will be trying to achieve during this campaign include stop intrusion inside the AGCA Sanctuary

and reporting intrusion to the enforcement team.

Trusted sources

Very respectful and highly trusting of religious leaders, as well municipal and barangay -LGU. Target population likes to hear news.

Media sources

Little access to radio and yet preferred TV. Preferred stations are “DZRH and Bombo Radyo,” preferred programming is news.

Any other relevant information

They will report if there is a good system that will act promptly and will protect them by remaining their identity anonymous. (good reporting system)

Fisher’s main concern is providing for their family. They would be willing not to intrude inside the sanctuary but there should be additional support to their livelihoods.

42

Comments According to the report gathered by Bantay-dagat, using 2000 as the baseline about 98% of the illegal fishers in the community were transformed, however, there were some fishers who said that they will revert back to fishing if there is no appropriate enforcement.

TA2 - PRIMARY AUDIENCE – Local Community of barangay Agay-ayan and Caloco (data from quantitative and qualitative research conducted for this campaign.

What do we know about this group?

The gender split of AGCA community is 37% male and 63% female. 94% of the respondents are Catholic. Surveys showed they were in the preparation to validation stage when it comes to the behavioral change continuum. Majoruty of the TA are at early majority. These are the group that the campaign needs the participation in meetings but they don’t have leadership position. These TA are people who are careful but who accept more quickly than most others.

Knowledge

Majority of the AGCA Commumity knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary (60%) its location (48%) and its rules and regulation (72%).

Attitude

88% of AGCA community believe that it is important to follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary

62% of AGCA community believe that it they have an important role in elimination illegal fishing activities in their barangay

69% said that they are willing to support in improving management of AGCA Marine sanctuary

Practice

61% of AGCA community do not knows the member of Man Com (whom they will report the intrusion).

Only 18% of AGCA Community said they attended atleast 1 meeting in the past 6 months.

Trusted sources

Very respectful and highly trusting of religious leaders, as well municipal and barangay -LGU. Target population likes to hear news.

Media sources

Little access to radio and preferred TV. Preferred stations are “DZRH and Bombo Radyo,” preferred programming is news.

Any other

Community members seems not interested to talk about benefits of MPA (93%), discuss consequence of breaking the rules (92%) and communicate their role in management (92%).

43

relevant information

Comments

NSLC’s Previous survey showed (PCRA, 2005) majority of the community perceived and experienced impact of overfishing brought about by frequent occurrence of dynamite fishing and encroachment of commercial fishers in municipal waters but only few talked about it and majority did nothing to solve the problem. KAP Survey (2011) showed that 69% of AGCA Community said that they are willing to support AGCA Sanctuary.

TA 4 – SECONDARY AUDIENCE – LGU-Tinambac What do we know about this group?

Surveys showed they were in the pre-contemplation stage of behavior continuum. It is very important to know their needs and motivations. This TA is vital in sustaining the impact of campaign goals.

Knowledge

Among 53 repondents, only 15% knows about the existence of AGCA Marine sanctuary and its location.

Attitude

94% of 53 respondents believe that it is important to follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary

100% of 53 respondents agree and strongly agree that that they have an important role in elimination illegal fishing activities in their barangay

96% said that they are willing to support in improving management of AGCA Marine sanctuary

Practice

36% of 53 repondents said that they have attended atleast 1 meeting regarding AGCA Sanctuary.

30% of 53 respondents said that they have heard someone anyone reporting someone breaking AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations.

Trusted sources

Very respectful and highly trusting of municipal officials (93%) and NSLC (91%).

Media sources

Little access to radio and preferred TV. Preferred stations are “DZRH. LOVE RADIO, and Bombo Radyo,” preferred programming is local news and local music.

Any other relevant information

LGU executive and legislative branch are supportive of AGCA Sanctuary. The local chief excutive has appointed more than 3 fish wardens for every coastal barangay of Tinambac.

44

Comments

These TA are key influencers to the primary audiences of the campaign. Their participation and active involvement in data gathering and social marketing campaign are key to the success of the Pride Campaign and in sustaining its impact.

There were also qualitative researches conducted at the middle and at the end of the campaign period. Every month, a focus group discussion with fishers was conducted. Last December 2011, a monitoring and evaluation for the local law enforcement team was held. There were also structured and semi-structured interview conducted.

A. Focus Group discussion with law enforcers (reporting) During the Bantay-Dagat FGD, Mr. Roberto Refugio relates about the reporting by a fish buyer regarding intrusion inside the sanctuary. According to him the buyer gave them information that the kind of fish and lobster that the “suspected” poachers were selling can only be found inside the AGCA Sanctuary. “I strongly believe that they are poaching. So check it out and try to monitor this person.”

B. Focus Group discussion with law enforcers (self-efficacy)

One fisher said: We need to act on this. Warning every time is no longer accepted. People will not respect us if we will let this case of intrusion pass without undergoing due process of law. Let us enforce what is in the ordinance. It seconded by the local CF who reported that there were fishers who would like to go back to his illegal fishing activities if nothing will happen to the intrusion case. In the survey conducted five in every 10 community residents said that intruders should be penalized.

C. Directed Conversation with Local CFs (stimulating interpersonal communication) Local CFs held a seminar-workshop. During free time, I make it a point to have a conversation with some of the local CFs. I talked with Ate Malyn, one of the CFs and asked her, what she thinks about the Local CF program. She said, it a learning experience for her and she was happy that she shared this experience with his friends. To quote: “ I enjoyed attending workshops for I learned a lot on how to help in protecting our sanctuary. I have witnessed how fish population came back and I saw fish catch has improved. However, there were some fishers who were against it in the beginning but they were

45

forced to change because the gear they were using was already ban. I was explaining to them about the benefit of giving up that gear and adopting a less extractive gear in fishing. I feel happy to be able to talked with these people and I was able to do it because I attended seminars and training. So, One day, if I can do it (im just a mere housekeeper) others can do it, too. I asked Freda, my friend to join us in LCF. She lives in sitio Nalbugon, the zone where mostly of the laggards live. If we will be able to change her attitude and behavior she will be a good influence to his neighbors. Im happy to see that she’s enjoying this kind of learning and I am glad she’s talking now with her family and relatives regarding the sanctuary.”

D. Video documentary of maintaining the NTZ Compilation of photos and videoclips showing the community installing markers buoys in the NTZ2. This document shows how local enforcers and mancom were doing buouys out of indigenous materials.

E. Directed conversation with Berting (local key influencer)

“There are more fish now. Everytime I fish, its zero no more. Fish were no longer scared of me.”

F. Directed conversation with Jun Dianela (BFARMC) There is no more dynamite. And more are reporting to the bantay-dagat.

G. Directed conversation with Willy Vergara (intruder)and Dante Solo (intruder)

They should have brought us to the barangay captain and did not bring us directly to the fiscal to file a case. They don’t have an evidence. It was not inside the sanctuary, it was still outside the NTZ. There is no case here.

46

2.3 Measuring the effectiveness of Barrier Removal

In measuring effectiveness of barrier removal the following was track monthly: the number of sectors represented at mancom meetings, the number of days per month that there is a record of 24/7 guarding coverage in logbook, number of activities conducted by enforcement team, and number of apprehensions/arrests.

AGCA Mancom has three levels of measuring the effectiveness of these barrier removals:

1. During the monthly meetings of barangay level mancom, where deputized bantay-dagat and Local CF presented the monthly update regarding the “logbook story” for the month.

2. Semi-annual and annual assessment and evaluation of mancom 3. Self-assessment using MPA Effectiveness Rating System

Before the campaign it was the deputized bantay-dagat only who were attending the meetings and doing the monitoring. It was seen as a one of the barriers to an effective enforcement and management. Using social marketing strategies, the school teachers, barangay council and youth sector were invited as mancom member. It was legalized thru an Executive Order signed by the Local Chief Executive. Now, these sectors were participating in decision-making and community mobilizations. Also, local leaders who were endorsed by the barangay captain to attend the Local CF Program, are now assisting in the research and documentation.

Every 15th of the month, barangay level mancom meets regularly. During this meeting the summary of the logbook and other MPA related activities were reported. There were updates and action planning. The mancom conduct this action, reflection and planning regularly. Currently, the logbook is being maintained by the assigned Local CF who is working directly with the Bantay-dagat. Deputized bantay-dagat were required to submit a monthly accomplishment report to the mayor.

47

SMART OBJECTIVE (Br) VARIABLE PRECAMPAIGN DATE

BASELINE

Q1 Q2 Q3 POST CAMPAIGN LEVEL

DIFFERENCE

25% of members of the management committee are composed of local village leaders, influential family members, local women’s associations, private sector representatives, local religious groups, civil service and the youth sector.

N of sectors represented at Mancom Meetings

April 2011 3 5 5 6 >7

From September 2011 onwards there is a regular documented daily and nightly guarding system for the MPA in place 24/7

% of days per month that there is a record of 24/7 guarding coverage in log book

April 2011 0 0 90%

80%

~50-90%

Arrests increase by 100% in year 1, and slowly reduce thereafter 50% of the community attends Brangay assembly where management council updates is an agenda item

N of apprehensions and n of arrests every 3 months

April 2011 0 0 1 1 1

Increase in MPA rating system management effectiveness score of at least one full point and achieves at least level 3 (enforced) rating within 2 years and level 5 (institutionalized) within 5 years

Level of rating (100%) indicators achieved within 2 and 5 years

1 1 1 1 1 2 and 3 (c0nditional)

Enforcers functioning with a clear enforcement system that has a plan, defined roles and

N monthly acitivites

48

increased support and resources that guards the MPA at all times

conducted by enforcement team (outreach, sea and foot patrol)

2.4 Measuring threat reduction: methods and approach

MANCOM has a regular recording in logbook of the number of intrusion from community members, number of intrusion from adjacent villages community members, and number of illegal destructive fishing incidents in municipal waters and 500m boundary. This is a daily recording and is being reported to the mancom every 15th of the month by Bantay-dagat and LCF.

An inventory of threats was also discussed during regular

meeting. In addition to this, in KAP Survey that was conducted,

target audience was asked regarding their knowledge about

the presence of compressor fishers and intruders inside the

NTZ.

49

SMART Objective ToC

Category Target

Audience

Pre-campaign

result

Pre-campaign

95% confidence interval (if relevant)

Target Post-

campaign result

Post-campaign

95% confidence interval (if applicable)

Chi-squared

significance (if

applicable)

Difference between pre- and

post-campaign

By 2012, have a statistically significant decrease in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say that there are still poachers at night inside the NTZ 1 of AGCA Marine Sanctuary from 57% to 37% (a decrease of 20pp)

Threat Reduction

AGCA Fishers

57 ±6.4 37 42.4 ±6.2 Yes at 95% 15

By 2012, have a statistically significant decrease in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say that there are still poachers at night inside the NTZ 2 of AGCA Marine Sanctuary from 55% to 35% (a decrease of 20pp).

Threat Reduction

AGCA Fishers

54.9 ±6.4 35 54.3 ±6.3 Yes UNDER

50 -0.6

By 2012, the % of AGCA fishers who say that they have "seen" fishers using compressor fishing inside the NTZ 1 of AGCA will have decreased from 25% to15%, a 10pp decrease.

Threat Reduction

AGCA Fishers

25 ±6 15 4.9 ±4.1 YES AT 99 19. 7

By 2012, the % of AGCA fishers who say that they have "seen" fishers using compressor fishing inside the NTZ 2 of AGCA will have decreased from 12% to 2%, a 10pp decrease.

Threat Reduction

AGCA Fishers

12 ±5.1 2 14.7 ±5.4 UNDR 50 -3.2

By 2012, statistically significant decrease

intrusions from within village community

members into the MPA by year 2

Threat

Reduction AGCA Fishers

28.3 ±5.9 16 or lower

35.1 ±6.3 YES AT 99% -9.8

50

By August 2012 the majority (target: >

80%) of continued intrusions within the

No-take zone after year 1 come from

outsider fishers (not from local

community) (up from xx in August 2011)

Threat

Reduction

Non-AGCA

Fishers 25.4 ±5.7

16 or lower

13.3 ±5.2 Yes at 99 11.9

2.5 Measuring conservation result: methods and approach (700)

To measures conservation result the following were being measured: live hard coral cover, fish abundance, fish biomass and fishers’

perception. Pre and post campaign survey was conducted by trained staff of MERF in both of the NTZ1 and NTZ.

51

BIOPHYSICAL SURVEYS were done in 10 replicate 50-m transect per site (5 inside and 5 outside the MPA. For each 5 transects (both inside

and out), two are permanent while three are random. Permanent transects were marked with concrete blocks fixed using galvanized iron

pegs and place at 5 m intervals of the transect line.

Benthic surveys were done using Line intercept method (LIT) from English er at., (1997). To determine the species diversity, abundance,

and biomass Fish visual technique was used. All fish sizes of major, target species were estimated to the nearest centimeter using the total

length (TL). Target species are the commercially important species, coral indicator are coral-associated, and major species are those that

belong to the neither group.

Fisheries survey was also conducted using a snowball one-on one interviews with atleast 89 (total of 2274) small scale fishers from four

barangays. In addition, FGD were also conducted in the barangays surveyed to validate results of one-on one interview and to discuss

various issues concening the fishery.

SMART OBJECTIVE (CR) Variable Pre campaign

survey DATE

Pre-campaign level

Post campaign

survey DATE

Post-campaign

level

Difference Statistical Significance

(if applicable)

10% increase in live hard coral cover by 2012

Live hard coral cover

March 2011 29.30 May 2012

35.50 6.2

5% increase in fish abundance

Fish abundance

334 495 161

5-10% increase in fish biomass for key species per 1000m2

Fish biomass 32.8 55.6 22.8

Increased perceived fish catch

47.5 (±6.4)

56.7 (±6.1)

9.2

52

Section 3 – Learning and Planning through Critical Analysis

3.1 The situation analysis and the process of planning

A. Situational Analysis

The Philippines ranked first with the most number of MPAs in the world. About 25% of the worlds MPAs are found in the Philippines. However, 15% of these MPAs are doomed to fail in an annual basis due to poor governance and weak enforcement (Aliňo 1998). In fact, during the Rare-initiated workshop in Cebu, on February 2010, these 2 issues surfaced as the most pressing compared to pollution, sedimentation, land-use issues, and climate change. This workshop was attended by scholars and experts in their fields in the Philippines. Governance refer to the clarity of processes in selecting leaders to manage the MPA and enforcement [a subset of governance] refer to the capacity and availability of logistics to perform such roles that involves the entire continuum such as deterrence, apprehension, case filing and decision. The poor selection of leaders and weak capacity to enforce MPA boundaries and policies will result in the lack of community buy-in to support leaders and projects, unregulated unsustainable fishing activities inside MPAs, and unpopular MPA boundaries and ownership. Subsequently, MPA benefits are not maximized and the community will lose pride over the local MPA. This AGCA Pride Campaign is geared towards changing the behaviour of local fishers and community in order to stop intrusions into the MPA and gain greater community buy-in for improved MPA governance and enforcement. The current plan seeks to strengthen the structures and processes supporting the MPA management and enforcement so that the fishers and community are able to embrace these behaviour changes and take ownership of the MPA and the benefits that it can provide. B. the Process of Planning (~700 words limit)

To ensure that the campaign will be addressing the right issue and will be achieving the conservation result, various tools were used during the planning

in the first university phase. The use of Concept Model, the result chain, the theory of change (TOC) and SMART Objectives of the TOC had been useful

both in planning and running the AGCA Pride Campaign.

53

The Concept Model helped in identifying the direct and indirect threats, and other contributing factors the can affect the conservation target. There

were several issues determined; however the campaign plan would like to focus only on improving the live coral cover, fish density/abundance, and

invertebrate abundance inside the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. The pre-identified threats that have direct impact to the biodiversity target were: use of

cyanide, dynamite, compressor in fishing; overfishing; sedimentation; and temperature stress. These targets were validated at the site through a focus

group discussion with LAP and key stakeholders. The tool shows that there were numerous threats to the health of corals and fish, this requires the use

of another tool (threat ranking), wherein threats were prioritized according to scope, severity and irreversibility of the issue and identified the one

which when addressed will have an impactful conservation result. After series of discussion with PPM and consultation with LAP supervisor it was

decided to focus only on overfishing. However, overfishing is very broad issue.

After identifying the threats to be addressed by the campaign, another tool (Results Chain) was used in coming up with a most practical yet impactful strategies to address the prioritized threats. This is a very simple graphical summary of how to achieve conservation targets. Results chains clearly and concisely lay out the expected sequence of results that the campaign is expected to create all along our Theory of Change for each of our target audiences. It is generally recognized that before adopting a new behavior a person moves through a series of stages. These stages can be summarized as pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, validation, action, and maintenance. Not all individuals in a target segment will be in the same stage of behavior change, so activities and messages will need to be tailored to the different stages at which the target audiences are. Understanding the steps in our results chain has also helped narrow down our preliminary objectives for each target audience before we begin collecting data. The result chains were also used as a foundation for developing the campaign quantitative survey and obtaining the information1 that would be required to design effective social marketing and behavior change interventions for the campaign. The theory of change is a simple summary of what the campaign would like to achieve, why it is importnant, what it will do, and what success will look

like in terms of behavior change, threat reduction and conservation. This shows how the acmapign will build capacity, create constituencies and yield

measurable, sustainable conservation impact. This can be best understood by the equation K+A+IC+BR=BC=TR=CR which means an increase in

knowledge plus a change in attitude resulting from interpersonal communication, in the presence of an appropriate barrier removal tool leads to

behavior change which facilitates threat reduction, and ultimately ensures conservation. This Pride Campaign can build momentum for conservation by

54

creating the constituencies necessary for initiating policy changes, legislative forum, and new protected areas; by shifting public behavior toward more

sustainable practices; and by focusing public attention on critically threatened ecosystems and species in the ecosystem.

Specific, Measurable, Action Oriented, Realistic, and time-bound objectives for each intermediated result in the result chain were formulated. SMART

Objectives is important part of the monitoring plan which has been helpful in understanding of what needs to be measured, when, by whom, and how.

A. Identifying the Barriers to behavior change

Barriers to behavior change identified were: management plan adopted by the SB/LGU: Management Body who will govern and execute

the plan; lack of 24/7 guarding and patrolling; financing; and maintenance of infrastructure and systems. Community residents will report if

they can see that there is a clear and working reporting and enforcement system and there is available information to them on who,

where, and how to report. For Fishers their main concern is providing for their family. They are willing not to intrude inside the sanctuary

but there should be additional support to their livelihoods. There were three participatory assessment methods used to identify these

barriers, these are: Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment; MPA effectiveness Rating System; And Organizational Development

Workshops.

3.2 The Campaign Strategy

A. Deciding your marketing vehicles

The desired action for this campaign is to protect the NTZ by reporting intrusion inside the sanctuary to authorize mancom. Most of the intrusion happens at night time by spear fishers and compressor fisher and at day time by hook and line. Almost 80% of dynamite and cyanide fishers were already transformed, however they said they will revert back to fishing if there is no enforcement. About 83% of the AGCA fishers says they no longer fish inside the AGCA NTZ at this behavior stage, they need activities with high in depth and can increase IC. To help this fishers reinforce their behavior, the plan is there will be strong promotion to be done on reporting intrusion and strict

55

enforcement of the rules and regulations. Simultaneous with the conduct of seminars trainings for Bantay-dagat and fishers; improve incentive system; roll out of materials with guide to reporting; and scaling up of skills and capacity of mancom. Based on the survey data, the most trusted sources of information about the environment are MLGU, BLGU, and religious person. Based on focus discussion with transformed fishers, the person who helped them sustained their behavior change are their wife and children.

B. The barrier removal strategies designed

Barrier Removal Strategies identified by the team were:

Barrier: Lack of training and tools for managing MPAs (MPA governance systems)

Removal strategy: Installing a formal community group empowered with human and financial capital, train the group to develop patrolling and

reporting capabilities, better demarcation of the sanctuary, and providing hotlines and mancom visibility (24/7 guarding).

Barrier: Belief that sanctuary is owned by the LGU and LAP

Removal strategy: social marketing strategies with campaign messaging satuya ini!

Barrier: Lack of incentive and disincentive system

Removal strategy: Encourage a broad local constituency developed through the campaign about the incentive system

Barrier: Lack of long term management plan

Removal strategy: Conduct KAP survey and observational research to come up with a plan and have it adopted by SB. Passing of executive order

for Mancom and TWG .

56

C. The marketing approach designed

3.3 The Campaign Implementation: Achievements and lessons learned

A. Campaign Social Marketing Activities

The key target audiences for AGCA Pride Campaign were AGCA Fishers (N=489) and AGCA Community (N=970). The overall behavior

change for these key target audiences was to report intrusion inside the AGCA No-Take Zone (NTZ) and additional behavior change for

fishers was to fish outside the NTZ. During the planning process the CF was advice to use only one (1) marketing mix and one (1) creative

brief for both audiences. Hence, majority of the campaign collaterals created and activities conducted were designed to targeting both

AGCA fishers and AGCA Community.

CAMPAIGN COLLATERALS

KAP surveys, mini-market tests and observational researches showed that the most effective campaign collaterals used for AGCA

Community (15 years old above) were the AGCA T-shirts and for AGCA Fishers the most effective were the AGCA Billboards installed in

conspicuous places in the community. Whereas the least effective campaign collaterals are AGCA button pins and the AGCA cap.

AGCA CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

School visits of AGCA Rondalla/choir and AGCATOn had been the most effective activities to reach AGCA Communities and to disseminate

the campaign message, whereas, the use of personal media channels (used in facilitating the Local Community Facilitator Training

Program, Fishery Law Enforcement Training and one-on-one discussions) had been effective in reaching out to the AGCA fishers to adopt

behavior change. On the other hand, Guardhouse blessing was considered to be the least effective activity for both of the target

audiences.

57

ASSIGNMENT 1: Campaign Material Outreach

To achieve a conservation result, AGCA PRIDE CAMPAIGN used various collaterals such as AGCA T-shirt, Mascot, Billboard, Buttons Pins,

cap, stickers, bags, mugs, water bottles, calendar, and CDs. Target audiences were exposed to these collaterals. At certain point of the

campaign period, some collateral had been very effective in achieving the campaign goals. For the sake of this document I would like to

discuss about the effectiveness of AGCA-Tshirt as campaign collateral.

Arnel, Marinel and Rosabel (AGCA Children) wearing AGCA Shirt and Button pin

58

AGCA T-shirt was among the first AGCA collateral that had been roll out bearing the AGCA Hotline number and campaign message Satuya

Ini (It is ours). AGCA T-Shirt (clothing) was considered as the most effective campaign material (at the start of campaign) for the AGCA

Community for the following reasons:

a. Target audience had been identified to be in preparation stage of behavior continuum. Emotional activities are critical to them and strong emotions are their primary motivators for adopting new behavior. Majority of them have already appropriate knowledge, but need information reinforcement. The plan was to use key influencers identified in the KAP survey conducted last 2010 as “bearer of the campaign message”. This will need a material that will create a buzz and promote to the public that there is a hotline number for AGCA Marine Sanctuary. Colors, images, and messages were chosen and pre-tested with the Mancom and Community. It was printed on a t-shirt with messages, colors and images that was consistent with the AGCA Billboard, AGCA jingle, AGCA Mascot (to establish consistency and repetition).

b. AGCA Shirt achieved (more than 1000 pieces) the desired reached and frequency. Almost everybody in the target market was exposed to this campaign material with 92% exposure (AGCA KAP survey, 2012). Since its distribution almost every week (frequency), the target audiences were exposed to the message. The school teachers (50 persons) and school children (~700 persons) used it as their official school uniform (May 2012, mini-market test).

c. The school children, school teachers, barangay officials, municipal officials, mancom members and TWG members were used as marketing channels. At the start of the campaign, they were the group in the community who did the selling of “ownership” of the MPA by the community and introduced the hotline number. Even until now, target audience were proud wearing it and showing it to other people. The T-shirt still has its “attention-getting” effect. (Tuazon, Terrobias, and Abordo personal communication)

d. Mini market tests revealed that T-shirt was one of the favorite’s campaign materials of the target audience (twenty-five out of thirty respondents) because of its usefulness. Since not all parents can afford to buy school uniform, It was considered as school uniform of school teachers and students in Caloco Elementary School, Refugio Elementary School and Agay-ayan Elementary School.

e. The “satuya Ini” message had neutral and inclusive impact to the target market. It made everybody feel that they were all part of the campaign. The release of T-shirt was accompanied by Billboard, AGCA jingle and inspirational talk by the Local Chief Executive, which reinforces the campaign message.

59

f. CONTRIBUTED TO ACHIEVING 7 pp increase (2012, KAP SURVEY) In the number of AGCA community who can say that in the past 6 months they heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations to the enforcement team from 25% to 32%.

Button Pins was considered as the least effective campaign material for the target audience for the following reasons: a. The button pin has an AGCA logo which developed and designed by the AGCA artist based from the creative brief. It was a good

collateral for a certain target audience whom we want to introduce the existence of AGCA Marine Sanctuary in our municipality. It was intended to nearby municipalities but we gave some to the AGCA Volunteers and some children.

b. It does not create a buzz though. It is very small compared to other collaterals. It competes with printed T-shirt and Printed CAP. There is no space for it except to pin into bags and other less conspicuous place. After the distribution (more than 1000 pieces) it lasted only for at least three months. It tarnished when get wet.

c. The desired reached and frequency for AGCA community had not been achieved. d. Button pin does not have emotional appeal to the target audience. e. Mini market tests (May, 2012) revealed that it was voted as least favorite by the target audience. f. The “satuya Ini” message was written very small.

60

ASSIGNMENT 2: In depth Material

61

AGCA BILLBOARD LOCATED IN MASLOG PORT (maintained by LoLa Enciang)

AGCA Billboard was among the first AGCA collateral that had been roll out. It has the following information: image of the mascot, AGCA Hotline, message of valuing the NTZ as sacred and a map showing both the NTZ 1 and NTZ 2. It was considered as one of the most effective campaign material (from the start and onwards) for the AGCA Fishers for the following reasons:

a. AGCA Billboard was designed according to the AGCA creative brief drafted during social marketing planning. The colors, images, and messages were well chosen and pre-tested with the Mancom and Community. AGCA Billboard’s messages, colors and images were consistent with the AGCA t-shirt, AGCA jingle, AGCA Mascot (to establish consistency and repetition).

b. It has achieved its purpose of showing to the fishers the NTZ, where they are not allowed to fish. (December 2011, Bantay-dagat meeting) Two out of ten AGCA fishers know the boundary of the NTZ. (June 2012, AGCA KAP survey).

c. Six (6) billboards with 4X8 ft size were installed in conspicuous places: Ports, schools, texting and recreation area of fishers. d. The AGCA Community was identified to be in preparation stage of behavior continuum. Emotional activities are critical to them

(AGCA Pride Campaign Creative Brief). Strong emotions are their primary motivators for adopting new behavior. Majority of them have already appropriate knowledge, but need information reinforcement. This particular campaign collateral used AGCATON to be the “bearer of the campaign message”: This campaign message resonates with the AGCA SONG: HARANA NI AGCATON sang by AGCA Children.

ANG HAGAD KO SA KATAOHAN, SAKUYANG HARONG SANA INGATAN. DAE PAGLAOGON INING SANKTUWARYO SAINDO IGALANG, GIBOHON SAGRADO.

e. The desired reached and frequency had been achieved. Nine out of ten AGCA fishers said they saw and read about the AGCA sanctuary through billboards.

f. Contributed to the achieving the target of 14pp increase of AGCA Fishers who says that in the past 6 months they followed AGCA Sanctuary Rules and regulations by not fishing inside the core zone from 69% to 83%.

g. Contributed to the increase in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say that in the past 6 months they heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations to the enforcement team from 35% to 47% (an increase of 12pp).

AGCA cap was considered as the least effective campaign material for the AGCA fisher for the following reasons:

62

AGCA caps serve as prompts that the wearer is certified AGCA Volunteer. Though mini market tests (May, 2012) revealed one of the useful collateral by the target audience, it does not create a buzz and is very small in number- around 80 pieces. It just reminds the fisher but does not move the fisher to adopt a new behavior change. Reach is slow. No significant impact to behavior adoption.

ASSIGNMENT 3: Pride Activity with mix several materials

School visits with AGCA Community Choir and Rondallaand AGCATON had been one of the most effective Pride Campaign Activities both

for AGCA Community and Fishers. However, for this document I will be discussing the most effective activity/strategy that compels the

target audience to move from contemplation to action stage- the personal communication thru one-on-one discussion, focus group

discussion, seminar-workshops and mentoring.

63

The LCF summarizing the logbook in preparation for Bantay-Dagat Monthly Meeting and Updating

64

The use of personal media channel to disseminate campaign message and influence the target audience to adopt behavior change was

considered to be one of the most effective Pride Campaign Activity for AGCA Fishers and Community.

a. In the formative research conducted in Barangay Agay-ayan and Caloco shows that compressor fishing directly affecting the fish

population in the campaign site. At the start of the campaign there were six (6) families who owned compressor units in Barangay

Caloco and another three (3) units operating nearby (August 2011, Inventory of the fishers using destructive methods in fishing).

During the campaign implementation, the AGCA Mancom talked and negotiated with the owner of compressor units. Because of

the personal influence of the barangay captain, he was able to convince the compressor owners to stop operating. It was not a one

shot-deal face-to-face communication, though. There were several discussions and negotiations before the compressor was

completely ban in the campaign site. Right now, threats from fishing using compressor decreases, from 3 out of 10 fishers (during

pre-campaign) to 1 out of 10 (post-campaign) fisher said they can see compressor fishers operating near AGCA Sanctuary.

b. If this kind of communication had been effective in adopting new behavior of the target audience, it is even more effective in

influence adopting bad behavior. Last June 2012, one of the mancom members conspired with other member and fisher to intrude

inside the Mairne Sanctuary. He convinced them that they will not be caught and that they can get away from law.

c. In response, Mancom included in the Local Community Facilitator (LCF) Program the leadership, negotiation and facilitation skills to

the LCFs. This was the time when almost all the campaign collateral had been rolled out and yet in just one incident (intrusion),

result of the campaign can be derailed. If good news travels fast, the bad news travels even faster. Another situation was that there

is difficulty in maintaining the barrier removal strategies.

d. Majority of the LCFs were in contemplation to preparation stage when they joined the program. Last July 12, 2012 during their self-

evaluation, they rate themselves into action stage of behavior continuum. Ten (10) out of 13 “enrollees” were able to finish the

program. The campaign needs not only influential personality in the community. They should also be knowledgeable and skilled at

communicating campaign messages. Included in the module is the actual training on facilitating meeting, one-on-one

communication, and leading community mobilization.

a. The desired reached and frequency had been achieved though slowly at the start of the campaign but it can sustain the impact of

the campaign result.

65

b. This is very important in sustaining the impact of the campaign and maintaining/improving AGCA fishers behavior of not intruding

inside the AGCA Sanctuary. KAP survey shows that 8 out of 10 AGCA fishers no longer fish inside the NTZ.

WORKING WITH FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATION

“AGCA fishers are very religious person and have strong family ties. Most of them are father who are considered as head of their family

and as provider of daily family needs. These duties compel them to work hard and do everything to the extent of violating government

laws. In the campaign site, there is very little opportunity on adult education and values formation. These are what the sermon sheets and

homilies will be addressing.”

With this premise it was expected that working with faith-based organization will be one of the most effective AGCA Pride Campaign

Activities. In fact, it has the highest number of SMART Objectives in the Workplan. However, when validated in the area:

a. The parish priest though respected has very little influence to the target audience.

b. Holy mass is being held only once a day/ month (low frequency)

c. Only few are going to church to attend the mass (low reach)

On May 3, 2012 the Parish Priest was invited to celebrate the Holy Mass and Blessing of the New Guardhouse. About 500 people were

expected to attend; however, it was attended by about 200 people only. Some people seem not interested to attend the mass because

they were busy tending for their livelihoods.

Memory recall of the message of the homily was very low. Only 2 out of 10 church goer can remember what the homily was all about.

66

Collateral (print materials, media spots) tracking template

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Results from pre-testing (how was it pretested, main results)

Number produced

Number distributed

Date distributed

How and where distributed

Summary of results of mini-market test (lessons learned, improvements made)

T-Shirt

AGCA Community

Satuya ini!

Distributed on: October 25, 2011 and March 17, 2012 and during community mobilizations WORN BY: Students

PLANNING FOR DESIGN AND COLOR: First design: A simple LOGO But during FGD they suggested to use the image of the Mascot (whole body); make it lively and friendly; use simple white

1024 (white) and 100 (blue)

Caloco (NTZ 1): Ocotber 25, 2011 142 pupils 8 teachers 40 barangay Officials 30 other community members Sitio Maslog: October 25, 2011 212 pupils 10 teachers 34 barangay officials 30 other community members Agay-ayan Proper: March 17, 2012 228 pupils

Two weeks after the launching the team visited the schools to see and count how many students were wearing the AGCA Shirt. -In Caloco Elementary school, both the school teachers and pupils were wearing the AGCA Shirts. They decided to make the AGCA Shirt as their official uniform every Friday. -In Refugio elementary School (Maslog); they declared Wednesday as official day to wear the AGCA Shirt

67

1-2X a week Teachers: 1/wk Officials 1/wk

T-shirt

7 teachers 30 other community members Rare : 14 pcs VA workshop Participants: 25 NSLC staff/friends/ volunteers: 50

- SURVEY ABOUT MOST LIKE and SEEN: (May 2012) 25 said yes out of 30 respondents OTHER OBSERVATION:

- They wear AGCA Shirts whenever there is an interschool competition

- The children singing the AGCA Jingle and performing Musical Play were wearing AGCA Shirt during their performances

BUTTON PINS AGCA Community

Satuya Ini!

December, 2012

SURVEY ABOUT MOST LIKE and SEEN: (May 2012) Voted by 20 people as least like

1000 Schools Visit: 300 PDA visit: 100 Others: 600

Majority of the respondents said that button pins were not useful for them.

Button pins got stained after several weeks

68

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Results from pre-testing (how was it pretested, main results)

Number produced

Number distributed

Date distributed How and where distributed

Summary of results of mini-market test (lessons learned, improvements made)

billboard AGCA Fishers

Satuya Ini! “Ang Hagad ko sa kataohan, Sakuyang Harong sana Ingatan”

October 25, 2011

FGDs Pre-tested with NSLC TEAM: -there were suggestion to insert a Map showing the NTZ Pre-tested with LGU- Tinambac: -suggested to fade the corals and give emphasis on the messages Pre-tested with fishers: Suggested to use local dialects Focus Discussion Pre-tested with Rare’s PPM: -suggested to insert logo of sponsors Pre-tested with 5 community members:

- Color

6

Men-N/A

Women- N/A

2 Caloco: October 25, 2011

3 Agay-ayan: October 25, 2011 and January; March 2012

1 Barangay Tambang: January

Estimating billboard exposure: CALOCO (NTZ1) -there were 600 pax present during the installation in Barangay Caloco - about 150 to 200 pax exposed to the Billboard inside the Caloco Elementary School AGAY-AYAN (NTZ2) -there were 400 pax present during the installation in Sitio Maslog -about 150 to 200 pax are exposed to it everyday TAMBANG (Reach) -there were more than 1000 pax exposed to it every day coming from various coastal barnagays in Lamit Bay Comments taken from the intercept interview:

- Majority said the one that attracts them first is the image of AGCATON, then his message of about his home

- Some of the fishers (not supportive and not participating before) realized that protecting

69

combinations were good and attractive

- They like AGCATON

- Message simple and easy to understand

2012

and managing AGCA Sanctuary is a multi-sectoral work and is participated by various agencies (as shown by Logos).

-

AGCA Cap AGCA Fishers

AGCA BANTAY-DAGAT

February 2012

AGCA Cap was requested by the volunteers.

80 10 70 Barangay Agay-ayan Barangay Caloco

-AGCA volunteers were proud wearing the AGCA cap. During the mini-survey test, it was one of the most like collateral because of its usefulness.

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message Date implemented

Results from pre-testing (how was it pretested, main results)

Number produced

Number distributed

Date distributed

How and where distributed

Summary of results of mini-market test (lessons learned, improvements made)

Mascot AGCA Community

MESSAGES:

1. AGCA Sanctuary Satuya ini

2. Ang hagad ko, sa

kataohan, Dae paglaogon ang sakuyang harong,

October 25, 2011 December 2011

Flagship species: top choices were: lobster and senyora. After series of discussions, we decided to use senyora for the following reasons:

1. Lively and attractive

1

N/A

October 25, 2011 Used in musical play; during story telling; meetings; presentations; intermissions; and school visits

70

saindong igalang gibohon sagrado

3. Dagat kong Padangat

March 2012

color 2. Presence

inside of the sanctuary

3. Very interesting life cycle

4. Relevance to the campaign message

5. More charismatic

Other helpful suggestions:

- Make the marking realistic

- Use tail-like feet instead of wearing shoes

- Child-like appearance

71

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Results from pre-testing (how was it pretested, main results)

Number produced

Number distributed

Date distributed

How and where distributed

Summary of results of mini-market test (lessons learned, improvements made)

AGCA Jingle and Music Album

AGCA Fishers and Community

AGCA Jingle: Satuya INI MUSIC ALBUM: Our sea Our life Our future

October 2011 December 2012

6 songs Women: 15 Men: 10 And Refugio Elementary School: 2 Caloco Elementary School: 2 Agay-ayan Elementary school: 3 Tinambac LGU: 1 Radio Station (Garchitorena): 1

REACH: Caloco: 75% of community residents Maslog: 99% of community residents Agay-ayan: 70% of community residents Focus Discussion: -mostly were able to relate to the Song about Buli-Buli -majority of the fishers said the song appealed to them emotionally.

72

Community Outreach Activity tracking template

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Location of activity

Total No. of attendees

Men

Women

Comments/Description of activity

Campaign Launch and School Visits

AGCA Fishers and community

AGCA Sanctuary Satuya Ini

October 25, 2011

Caloco (NTZ1)

600 pax 300 300 -More than 500 AGCA Shirts were given away - first public appearance of AGCA Mascot -TWG and MANCOM were present

October 25, 2011

Maslog (NTZ2)

400 pax 200 200

February 4, 2012

Tambang 400 pax -AGCA Jingle and Music Album performed by AGCA Pupils -AGCATON first public appearance outside AGCA -18 schools with 10-15pax/school

March 17, 2012

Agay-ayan Proper

400 pax 200 200 - About 300 AGCA Shirts were given away

-AGCA reporting system was introduced

73

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Location of activity

Total No. of attendees

Men

Women

Comments/Description of activity

AGCA Jingle; AGCA Musical Recording and Performances

AGCA Fishers and Community

1. Satuya ini

2. Dagat kong Pandangat

3. Bantay-dagat Magbantay

October 25, 2011

Caloco and Sitio Maslog

>1000 pax 500 500 -AGCA Jingle was played (minus one and complete with melody and lyrics) -AGCA Jingle was used as musical piece for singing contest among students

December 15, 2011

Caloco and Sitio Maslog

Maslog: 300 pax Caloco: ~100 pax

200 200 -Six AGCA Songs were sung by AGCA pupils -AGCATON joined their Christmas Pary -Bad weather condition

January 16, 2012

Naga City 25 pax 7 20 Six songs was recorded. It was sang by 20 Elementary students from AGCA.

January 25, 2012- present

Caloco and Sitio Maslog

>1000 pax 500 500 About 40 CDs were given away and being played within the community

February 4, 2012

Tambang 400 pax 200 200 Six song were sang by AGCA pupils

March 17, 2012

Agay-ayan 400 pax 200 200 Six song were sang by AGCA Pupils

74

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Location of activity

Total No. of attendees

Men

Women

Comments/Description of activity

Bantay-Dagat and PO Annual Assessment

Bantay-Dagat (Enforcement Team)

Bantay-Dagat Magbantay

November 24, 2012

Tinambac Poblacion

15 13 2 -assessment of 2011 plan by PO and Bantay-dagat -attended by core group in three barangays -1 year planning (for 2012)

December 15, 2011

Sitio Maslog

20 15 5 -attended by core group and volunteers -continued the planning

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Location of activity

Total No. of attendees

Men

Women

Comments/Description of activity

LCF Orientation and Formation

Research and Monitoring Team

Satuya Ini January 16, 2012

Sitio Maslog and Caloco

Caloco: 10 Maslog: 5

6 9 NSLC team Brainstorming and Pre-orientation of LCF

February 17-18, 2012

Sitio Maslog

12 5 7 LCF Orientation - Rationale: sustainability

strategy

March 7-8, 2012

Caloco and Sitio Maslog

11 4 9 Local Reef Monitoring -attended by LCF -facilitated by rare -2 staff from PDa joined the activity

75

Activity Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Location of activity

Total No. of attendees

Men

Women

Comments/Description of activity

AGCA Choir/Rondalla and AGCATON Visits

AGCA Fishers and community And NON-AGCA Communities

AGCA Sanctuary Satuya Ini (ownership) AGCA Sanktuwaryo, Samuyang Orgulyo (pride)

May 21, 201

Maslog (NTZ2 )

200 pax 100 100 - Organizers and participants were wearing AGCA Shirts - 30 AGCA Children (fishers’ kids) singing AGCA Songs and Playing Rondalla Instruments -Story telling (AGCATON Story) -TWG and MANCOM were present

July 21, 2012

Caloco (NTZ1)

300 pax 100 200

March and May 2012

PDA 60 pax 45 15 - CF sharing pride campaign - LCF giving testimony - AGCATON entertaining the

participants - A fun way of introducing

MPA and learning about social marketing by nearby municipalities

76

Activity

Target Audience

Campaign Message

Date implemented

Location of activity

Total No. of attendees

Men

Women

Comments/Description of activity

Personal Media Channel (face-to-face communication and mentoring)

AGCA Fishers and Community

Our Sea Our Pride Our Life

January 2012

Barangay Agay-ayan Barangay Caloco

OLD LCF: 3-5 NEW LCF- 10

9

6

One-on-one discussion with illegal fishers and target audience Monthly sessions Seminars and Actual Training Community Service LCF Program

AGCA Guardhouse Blessing (Working with faith-based Organization)

AGCA Fishers and COmmunity

AGCA Guardhouse, Samuyang Orgulyo

May 3, 2012

Sitio Maslog 200 120 80 - Mass - Blessing - Snacks

77

Media Outreach Activity (newspaper, tv coverage, web-based media) tracking template

Media Outreach

Name of Program/Newspaper

Campaign Message

Date

Time, and Frequency

Estimated Total No. of Readers and Listeners

Estimated Male Audience

Estimated Female Audience

Summary of article/weblink (attach hard copy as an appendix)

e-PRINT NEW YORK TIMES

Social Buy-in of MPA is important to achieve conservation result

February 9, 2012

online >10000 CBD CBD http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/harnessing-local-pride-for-global-conservation/?scp=1&sq=david%20bornstein&st=cse

Newspaper Bicol Mail Bicol Reporter

Climate Change Is Already here

February 17, 2012 February 25, 2012

online >1000 CBD CBD http://www.bicolmail.com/issue/2012/feb16/xcoastal.html

National Media

ANC-Green Living

Social Buy-in of MPA is important to achieve conservation result

June online >1000 CBD CBD http://www.rareconservation.org/blog/2012/07/19/video-rare-in-the-philippines-inspiring-marine-conservation/

78

B. Timeline of activity implementation & links to Barrier removal (600 words)

79

Before starting the campaign, the CF prepared first the LAP’s support staff and resources. Financial support was sought from the LAP’s long-term partner IUCN-NL. Also, the political, financial and moral support from the local chief executive and barangay captains was secured. Together, they helped in the formation of the technical working group and in strengthening the management committee. Having all the support from key stakeholders the launching of the AGCA Pride Campaign was a success. Key influencers were there to talk about the benefits of having a strictly enforced sanctuary. The Tinambac-LGU pledged to continue their support to the 5 deputized bantay-dagat, 3 bantay-bakawan, 2 bantay-baybayon. They even increase the budget for the construction of guardhouse from PhP 150,000 to 650,000.00. They provided raincoat, flashlight, and cellphone with hotline number. They helped in spreading the message that the sanctuary is owned by community. It is their legacy to their children. To reinforce this messaging, the CF roll-out a mascot (AGCATON), t-shirts and a jingle sang by a 10-year old boy. There was also a billboard, wherein the community can refer as to where the NTZ was located. As a result of the campaign messaging “Satuya ini” there were local constituents volunteering to help both in social marketing and barrier removals aspect of the campaign. Compressor fishing was stopped. Regular patrolling and guarding was in placed. Regular mancom meeting was held monthly. There was a regular recording in the logbook, though they have a hard time in documentation. In the mini-survey result, it was learned that the local people loves music and festivities in the community- a music album was produced (with call to action for fishers not to fish inside the sanctuary) and community rondalla was created. Along with this, Local CF was conceived. In response to the research and documentation need by the mancom. They were local people endorsed by the Barangay Captain to attend a values formation and skills enhancement trainings offered by the LAP. They will be the new breed of community residents to lead in the sanctuary related activities, assist the PO and LGU in managing and enforcing the sanctuary. Having seen that the LGU has the full support to the sanctuary, that more volunteers are coming in to help (youth sector, professional, school teachers, friends and partners), and fishers feedback that fish catch has improve- the campaign messaging also evolved into “AGCA Sanktuwaryo, Samuyang Orgulyo” or AGCA Sanctuary, Our Pride and Legacy. Boat awnings and calendars were roll out with this tagline and photos showing proud AGCA community, proud fisher, proud leaders and proud children. Then unexpected intrusion inside NTZ happened. One local fisher reported a trusted bantay-dagat poached inside the sanctuary. Because of this, the poacher was caught in the act fishing inside the NTZ. Image of bantay-dagat went down. If good news travels fast, bad news

80

travels even faster. Laggards took this opportunity to dissuade the community about the benefits of the sanctuary and to get rid of it. They even said they wanted to petition the removal of the sanctuary. This is the benefit of having a community social buy-in of the sanctuary. The LGU was firm to their decision to protect the NTZ and penalized the intruder. Community volunteers put more buoys and markers along the NTZ (total of more almost 50 markers). AGCA children continue with their songs and skills enhancement to play stringed instrument. Local CF and local officials were there to explain what happened and what will be the direction of the case. The sanctuary has to have a local people who are ready to defend it and protect it. This was the time of the campaign, local people were confused and mancom got demotivated. The campaign needed SM materials that are inspiring and get the people to move forward. The CF, roll out the result of the KAP Survey and the sanctuary monitoring by MERF. It was also another benefit of measuring the change. Times like this, a concrete evidence that there is a positive change going has helped a lot in regaining local people’s trust and LGU’s continued support to the sanctuary. School visits with AGCA Community Rondalla and AGCATON were conducted. New campaign messaging will be roll out- I “heart” AGCA Sanctuary. This will be roll out after the last university phase.

81

C. Reaching the audience Exposure to the Pride Campaign Activities

Activity / Target Audience 1 FISHERS (post-campaign %)

Target Audience 2 COMMUNITY (post-campaign %)

Post-Campaign Total

T-shirt

94.7%; 231 92.0%; 449 92.9%; 680

AGCA Calendar

92.7%; 227 90.0%; 440 90.9%; 667

Billboard

92.2%; 226 87.0%; 427 88.7%; 653

AGCA Jingle

87.7%; 214 83.6%; 409 85.0%; 623

Mascot- AGCATON 73.4%; 179 67.8%; 331 69.7%; 510

AGCA Boat Awnings

75.4%; 184 65.2%; 319 68.6%; 503

AGCATON Story

64.8%; 158 66.8%; 326 66.1%; 484

Public Meetings 48.0%; 117 42.5%; 208 44.3%; 325

AGCA spoken by Faith-based Leaders 27.0%; 66 29.9%; 146 28.9%; 212

82

89.9

37.6

17.6

92.5

65.6

89.9

64

50.4

86.7

0

87.5

51.4

40.8

93.3

73.9

91.9

73.5

82.6 83.2

Billboard Publicmeeting

Mass Tishirt Mascot AGCACalendar

Boat Awning AGCATONStory

Jingle

Collateral Exposure for AGCA Fishers and AGCA Community

Caloco (NTZ1) Agay-ayan (NTZ2)

83

The top 5 collateral wherein the target audiences have been exposed are AGCA T-Shirt, AGCA Calendar, AGCA Billboard, AGCA Jingle, AGCA Mascot. AGCA T-shirt were distributed to almost >800 children and >150 adults (reach) and it was being used 1-2 times a week (frequency). The AGCA billboard was installed with a ceremony attended by >800 people (reach) and it is located in a conspicuous place wherein more people are passing by or spending most of their time (frequency). AGCA Calendar was distributed to all the households (~400) in both barangays. It contains the hotline number and AGCA songs. Obviously, AGCA jingle and song wherein lyrics were included in a calendar, ~100 CDs were distributed and played in their respective houses and during school visits. Moreover, the community rondalla has made it popular as well.

0

20

40

60

80

100

AGCA T-shirt AGCACalendar

AGCABillboard

AGCA Jingle AGCATON AGCA BoatAwnings

AGCATONStory

Publicmeeting

Mass

Ranking of the Collateral where the TA had the most exposure

collateral

84

3.4 The Impact of the Campaign

A. Achieving positive changes to Knowledge, Attitude and Interpersonal Communication

Target Audience 1: FISHERS

ToC Category

Pre campaign (baseline) at site (%)

FREQUENCY ERROR (PRE) (%)

Desired pp change at site (pp)

Post campaign result at site (%)

FREQUENCY ERROR (POST) (%)

Attained pp change at site (pp)

Chi square significant of change at site

pp change that can be attributed to campaign at site (pp change at site - pp change at control site) (%)

By June 2012, have statistically signicant increase in the number of AGCA fishers who can state that it is in It is in a law or in regulation to prohibit the fishers to fish and glean inside the core zone of AGCA Marine Sanctuary from 82% t0 92% (an increase of 10pp)

Knowledge

82 ±4.9 10 89 ±4.0 7 yes at 75%

70.0

By June 2012, have maintained the percentage of AGCA fishers who can say that they strongly agree and agree that " fishers must follow the rules and regulations of AGCA Marine Sanctuary at 91% or better.

Attitude

90.6 ±3.7 0 91 ±3.8 0.4 yes at 75%

100.0

By June 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say they have spoken to someone about the "consequences of breaking the AGCA Sanctuary Rules and Regulation" from 22% to 42 (an increase of 20p).

Interpersonal Communicatio

n

22.1 ±5.3 20 22.6 ±5.6 0.5 yes, under 50%

2.5

Though not a significant change, the campaign has achieved positive changes to knowledge, attitude and interpersonal communication measures for AGCA Fishers. About 9 in every 10 fishers are aware about the AGCA Rules and regulations and believe that fishers must follow it. However, only 2 in every 10 fishers said that they have not talk to anyone about the consequences of breaking it. It appears that the campaign has achieved a very low on IC using this SMART Objective, however, it does not mean that there is no conversation happening in the area. The proxy question was used to measure this was an open ended question where the fisher was asked what are the

85

prevailing issues that he think their community has right now? 5 out of 10 fishers answered that sanctuary must be protected and action must be taken to penalize those who violate the laws. This result is more realistic than the question on whom they talked with because the issue on the bantay-dagat who poached inside the sanctuary was still fresh. Another explanation could be that the recent murder incident had been stickier than talk about the consequences of breaking the sanctuary rules. The major goal of the campaign to talk about the subject being measured was overshadowed by the issue on murder. Target Audience 2: AGC COMMUNITY.

ToC Category

Pre campaign (baseline) at site (%)

FREQUENCY ERROR (PRE) (%)

Desired pp change at site (pp)

Post campaign result at site (%)

FREQUENCY ERROR (POST) (%)

Attained pp change at site (pp)

Chi square significant of change at site

By 2012, have statistically significant increase in the percentage of AGCA community who can state that atleast 1 benefit from a strictly enforced MPA from 36% to 57% (an increase of 21pp)

KNOWLEDGE 36.3 ±4.5 21 47.3 ±4.6 11 Yes at 99%

By 2012, the % of AGCA community residents that agree or strongly agree that they can do something or contribute in reducing/eliminating illegal fishing in the barangay will go up from 66% to 79%, a 13pp increase.

ATTITUDE 66.6 ±4.3 13 68.4 ±4.2 1.8 yes at 75%

86

By June 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA community who can say they have spoken to someone about the "benefits of a well-enforced MPA" from 5% to 30 (an increase of 25pp).

IC 7.3 ±2.3 25 13.1 ±3.1 5.8 yes at 95%

The campaign has achieved positive changes to knowledge interpersonal communication measures for AGCA Community. About 47.35 of AGCA Community can state at least 1 benefit of having a strictly enforce MPA from 36.3% (a 11percentage point increase). It has maintained, the 7 in every 10 community residents who said that they can contribute something to eliminate the illegal fishing activities in their barangay. It appears again that AGCA community has even lower percentage point on IC result. Though the change from pre to post survey result has been significant, data indicates that only 1 in every 10 community residents talk about the benefits of having a strictly enforce MPA. If the same proxy question will be used, where the fisher was asked -what are the prevailing issues that he think their community has right now? 4 out of 10 residents answered that sanctuary must be protected and action must be taken to penalize those who violate the laws. Another explanation could be that the recent murder incident had been stickier than talk about the consequences of breaking the sanctuary rules. The major goal of the campaign to talk about the subject being measured was overshadowed by the issue on murder.

87

B. Removing the barriers to behavior change

The barrier removal strategies identified for the cohort were improved membership of mancom; 24/7 guarding of the NTZ; improved

attendance of community during general assembly; improve MPA rating and functioning enforcement system that has a plan, defined roles

and increase support and resources that guards the MPA and apprehensions are leading to arrests. For AGCA Pride Campaign the CF

focused on having a clear and functional enforcement system by having a good governce system who will be implementing the 24/

guarding of NTZ, construction of guardhouse, provide and manage patrol boat and gasoline, work to achieve MPA rating level 3, and draft

management plan adopted by SB.

For AGCA fishers and AGCA Community, it appears that the result in the barrier removal used of pre and post KAP survey was not

significant, except for the measure about to whom they will report the intrusion or violations with 16.7 percentage point increase from

55.7% to 72.4%.

88

SMART Objective ToC

Category

Target area (or

Audience)

Pre-campaign result

Pre-campaign

95% confidence interval

Target

Post-campa

ign result

Post-campaign

95% confidence

interval

Chi-squared

significance

Change (in pp if applicable)

By 2012, have statistically significant increase in the AGCA Fishers who can say that enforcers were guarding AGCA Marine Sanctuary 24/7 from 34% to 60% (an increase of 26pp)

Barrier Remova

l Fisher

33.6 ±6.4 60 36.3 ±6.1 2.7

yes at

75%

By 2012, have increase in the number of AGCA community who can say that they

will report someone who has broken the rules and regulation of the AGCA Sanctuary to either of the barangay

captain, bantay-dagat.

Barrier Remova

l

Community

55.7 ±4.5 15.0 72.4 ±4.3 16.7

yes at

99%

By 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA

community who can say that there is communication program about NTZ

from 64% to 75% (an increase of 11pp)

Barrier Remova

l

Community

63.9 ±4.2 65.8 ±4.1

Yes under

50

89

Guarding 24/7 of the NTZ

The fish warden training was conducted by BFAR in June 2011. The municipality has about 100 fish wardens with honoraria (ranging from

PhP 500.00 to 1,500 pesos per month). Two of these fish wardens are based in Caloco and 2 in Agay-ayan. A night patrolling system was

established and there is a duty logbook system in place. There is a specific form that volunteer fish wardens complete to record their

observations. The incidence of violations is summarized monthly. The record shows several incidences of violations caught by the volunteer

fish wardens. One of these violations was done by volunteer fish wardens!

There are two patrol boats and one campaign boat.

MANAGEMENT FOCUS TO ACHIEVE MPA RATING LEVEL 3

The total score the Tinambac MPA management body got for this review is 62 points for Barangay Agay-ayan and 65 points for Barangay Caloco. The score for the Agay-ayan marine sanctuary is slightly lower because of the incidence of fishing caught inside the marine sanctuary in Agay-ayan during the review period. The current score is a big improvement from the score of 43 points that the MPA management body got during the first review. However, the management remained in level 1 as it failed to satisfy a level 2 indicator, indicator number 10 on the adoption of the MPA managementplan by the municipal legislative council.

90

However, apart from the monthly summary being done by the NGO where the CF belongs, there is no other oversight system on the

enforcement system

AGCA MANAGEMENT PLAN

The MPA management committee (MC)at the barangay level met regularly to craft short term plans and to review its implementation. But a

municipal-wide MPA management plan has not been done and currently being draft.

The barangay level MCs have been used to regular short-term planning and reviewing of the implementation of the plan. The presence of

community mobilizers in the NGO of the conservation fellow (CF) who facilitated these meetings was seen as a facilitating factor in the

successful conduct of short-term planning and review at the barangay level.

People in the site are not used to long-term planning. Not having a long-term plan have not deterred them from carrying out activities. The

downside of this of course is that they are not able to anticipate future needs and prepare for these early. The municipal LGU in the site

does not have enough people who can lead the activities related to the formulation of the plan. During the planning workshop on 8 to 9

June 2012 facilitated by RARE staff, a need for an MPA Coordinator from within Municipal LGU was identified. It is important to have

someone from the LGU who can lead activities related to the formulation of the MPA management plan and to oversee its implementation.

Interestingly, the site has about 3 million pesos budget allocated for coastal resources management (CRM) activities for 2012, even without

a plan. So the budget essentially contains an item on CRM but with no specific details.

FACILITATING FACTORS

The support from RARE was seen as a key facilitating factor in the improvement in this management focus area.

The good track record of the community was seen as another facilitating factor that convinced the mayor to provide support to the

barangays.

Billboards were constructed in prominent locations: in the two barangay centers and in Tamban, the commercial hub in the area.

91

The mayor has provided three years supply of replacement for the markers and buoys. There were more than 50 market buoys in place.

The fish wardens are equipped with telescopes, flashlights, camera, rain coat, and cellphones. There is no cell phone signal in the two

barangays but there is in adjacent barangays and in Tamban.

The enforcement hotlines are handled by the mayor and one of the volunteer fish wardens..

HINDERING FACTORS

A hindering factor identified was the absence of a signal in the site that makes the hotline inoperable at least in the barangays.

The construction of the guard house has been completed. The patrol boats are now being used. A maintenance plan, however, was not

formulated. And the barangay resolution on the use of fines for maintenance has not been discussed.

Next steps

Finalize the MPA management plan and present the plan to the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) for approval.

The site intends to place information materials in the guard house to educate visitors about the sanctuary.

There is still an on-going discussion within the MC executive committee on who will manage the AGCA Guardhouse. The LGU would like to

turn over the management of the guardhouse to the MC barangay level or local institutions who will maintain, manage and develop the

guardhouse. Currently, the key for the guardhouse is temporarily with the BFARMC chairman. The municipal LGU spend for its wiring and

electrification and NSLC will shoulder the electric consumption for the year 2012. However, it is important that guidelines on how it will be

run and who will be responsible for its maintenance and management should be included in the AGCA Management Plan.

.

92

C. Achieving behavior change Both of the target audiences demonstrated a significant change in behavior change being measured thru KAP survey. Results suggest a significant increase in number of AGCA Fishers who no longer fish inside the AGCA Sanctuary and significant increase in AGCA fishers who is now doing a reporting. Likewise, AGCA Community Residents showed a significant increase in number of AGCA Community residents who is now attending meeting and reporting intrusion/violation to the management committee.

Target audience: Fisher

SMART Objective ToC

Category

Pre-campaign

result

Pre-campaign 95%

confidence interval

Target Post-

campaign result

Post-campaign 95%

confidence interval

Chi-squared significance

% point change

By 2012, the % of AGCA fishers who says "I have not fished/gleaned in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months." will go up frpom

69% to 83%, a 14 pp increase

Behavior Change

69.3 ±5.9 14 83.3 ±4.8 Yes at 99%

By 2012, the % of AGCA fishers who say "yes" they have heard of someone reporting someone

breaking the AGCA marine

Behavior Change 25.1 ±4.6 15 31.8 ±4.5 yes at 99% 6.7

93

sanctuary rules and regulations will go up from 35% to 49%, a 14pp

increase.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fishing Inside

Fishers who said they did not Fish inside NTZ

Pre-Campaign

Post Campaign

Six billboards were all over the 2 barangays for more than six

months and markers were visible from the shoreline. Fishers were

told about that fishing is prohibited inside the NTZ. There is also a

song which tells about the call of AGCATON to respect his house

and treat it as a sacred place. These could have contributed to the

significant increase in number of fishers who said that they no

longer fish inside the NTZ for the last six months from 69.9% to

83.8% ( 14 pp increase). This information was also reinforced by

the local chief executive and other key influencers during public

meetings and FGDs with fishers

Result shows an increase in number of people who said they

heard someone reporting anyone about the intrusion inside the

NTZ both for AGCA Fishers and AGCA Community, though,

hotline number is not functioning.

There is a cellphone and a hotline number where everybody can

text and report intrusion, but there is no signal in both

barangays. The kind of reporting that was going on is the

traditional one, where the witness will go to the local enforcer.

During FGDs with the Bantay-dagat, they said more fishers were

reporting now compared last year.

94

Target audience 2: AGCA Community

SMART Objective ToC Category Pre-

campaign result

Pre-campaign

95% confidence

interval

Target Post-

campaign result

Post-campaign

95% confidence

interval (if

applicable)

Chi-squared significance

(if applicable)

% point change

By 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA

community who can say that they have attended ateleast 1 meeting or

gatherings about AGCA Sanctuary from 19% to 30%% (an increase of 11pp)

Behavior Change

18.6 ±4.4 12 37.1 ±4.5 18.5

yes at

99%

By 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number they heard of anyone reporting someone breaking

the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules and regulations to the enforcement team

from 25% to 40% (an increase of 15pp)

Behavior Change

25.1 ±4.6 15 31.8 ±4.5 6.7

yes at

99%

95

D. Achieving Threat Reduction and Conservation Results

ACHIEVING THREAT REDUCTION

“One day, while waiting for a passenger boat to come I heard a fisher said, “mancom should not recruit spear fishers as Bantay-dagat

Volunteers. The sanctuary is in danger! It took more than a month before it sinks in to my mind the message that: sanctuary is not safe even

to the members of the Management Committee. “

Six months after the launch of the campaign, the AGCA Mancom has already achieved its SMART objectives in reducing biodiversity threats

in AGCA Marine Sanctuary (Bantay-dagat Meeting, 2012). Bantay-dagat were actively guarding the sanctuary. Compressor fishing and

dynamite fishing were gone. Then, one evening news came in that one bantay-dagat was caught fishing inside the sanctuary. One week

after, KAP survey was conducted which shows the following result:

In NTZ 1, SMART objectives have been achieved and even went beyond the target percentage point change. The barangay council

and Municipal LGU deployed additional three volunteers called- tanod dagat.

In NTZ2, though there was no significant change in the SMART objectives, it shows a negative change. This could be attributed to

the incident of bantay-dagat who was caught fishing inside the NTZ2. The incident of intrusion had been a big issue in the

community.

96

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NTZ1 NTZ2

Compressor Fishing inside the AGCA Sanctuary

Pre Campaign

Post Campaign

At the start of the Pride Campaign there were 6

compressor unit operators in Barangay Caloco and 3

compressors from nearby barangays.

Compressor fishing in the Barangay has been going on for

more than 10 years. It was used in catching lobsters and

in fixing the mainline of seaweed plots. Fish catch of

compressor fisher is 75% more efficient than spear

fishers.

It was not an easy task to talk with these fishers. Thru the

help of key influencers (Barangay Captain, Pastor,

Barangay Officials, and Municipal officials), they slowly

get rid of their compressors. Some sold it. Some keep it.

This supports the result of the KAP Survey wherein the

result suggests a significant decrease in number of

compressor fishers seen in NTZ from 25 to 24.9 (down by

19.1pp.

97

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NTZ 1 NTZ 2

Poaching inside NTZ

Pre Campaign

Post Campaign

0

10

20

30

40

Fishers fromwithin AGCA

Fishers fromnearbyVillage

CommercialFishers

Fishing Activities Seen Within and Nearby AGCA Sanctuary

Pre Campaign

Post Campaign

Aside from compressor fishing, other forms of fishing were

prohibited in NTZ.

KAP survey shows significant decrease in number of respondents

from Barangay Caloco who said that there was no longer fishing

activities inside the NTZ1. The same thing with what happen to

compressor fishers, the both barangay and municipal officials were

were actively advocating for no-compressor and no-fishing inside

the NTZ.

Likewise, in the NTZ 2, though not significant, there was a decrease

in number of respondents from Barangay Agay-ayan who said there

were no longer fishing activities inside the NTZ 2.

Figure ____ shows post KAP survey of AGCA fishers suggesting

that AGCA Fishers posed more threat to AGCA Sanctuary than

fishers from village nearby and from commercial fishers.

This is contradictory to the result of NON-KAP survey and KAP

survey mentioned earlier which shows a significant decrease in

compressor fishing and poaching seen according to AGCA

Fishers.

98

ACHIEIVING CONSERVATION RESULTS

Both the Non-KAP and KAP SMART Objectives achieved a positive change. SMART objectives of increase in fish biomass and abundance

inside the NTZ up by 10 percentage point have been achieved beyond its target by almost five times. Also, the recently conducted KAP

survey shows an increased in numbers of AGCA Fishers who said that their fish catch has increase from 47.5% to 56.7% (up by 10pp).

This positive change was true for both barangay Agay-ayan and Caloco.

NON-KAP SMART OBJECTIVES

SMART OBJECTIVE VARIABLE PRE-CAMPAIGN SURVEY DATE

BASELINE POSTCAMPAIGN SURVEY DATE

POSTCAMPAIGN DATA

DIFFERENCE IN TREND

10% increase in live hard coral cover by 2012

LHC March 2011 29.3 May 2012 38.18 Up by

10% increase in fish abundance for key species per 500 m2

Fish abundance

March 2011 304 May 2012 482 Up by

10% increase in fish density for key species per 500 m2

Fish biomass

March 2011 32.8 May 2012 55.6 Up by

Fishers perception Fisheries survey conducted by the UP-MERF last November 2011 revealed that 60% (N=89) of AGCA fishers were pelagic

fishers and 40% were demersal fishers. They also do monitoring of the AGCA Sanctuary for 2011 and 2012.

In the recent conducted KAP survey (June 2012), shows that 62% (N=245) of AGCA fishers were net fishers, 42% were hook and line fishers

and 42% were spear fisher.

99

KAP SMART OBJECTIVES

SMART Objective ToC

Category Target

Audience

Pre-campaign

result

Pre-campaign

95% confidence

interval

Target Post-

campaign result

Post-campaign

95% confidence

interval

Chi-squared

significance

Difference between pre- and

post-campaign

By 2012, have a statistically significant increase in the number of AGCA Fishers who can say that their fish catch has increase from 47% to 62% (an increase of 15pp).

Conservation Result

AGCA Fishers

47.5 ±6.4 15 56.7 ±6.1 yes at 75% 9.2

AGCA Benthic Community

This community is comprised dominantly of Porites, favids (Family Faviidae), and Galaxea,

with lifeforms mostly massive, submassive and encrusting which are highly adapted to high

energy. Soft corals, sponges and some zoanthids are also present in low abundances. AGCA

Sanctuary is found on a gradual reef slope. Topographic relief is not high and coral

bommies are not common. The reef is generally flat with occasional spurs and grooves. The

reef experiences high wave energy in surges and currents. The water is generally turbid,

probably due to sediment input from a nearby river as well as thorough disturbance of the

substrate.

On 2011, many dead coral with algae were observed in the sites. This may be due to recent

bleaching events and tsunami aftershock that caused massive coral deaths. It was

dominated by high algal cover (approximately 63% both inside and outside the MPA).

Though there has been observed increase in mean hard coral cover from 29% (baseline) to

38 % in 2012, it was not that significant. This positive change can be attributed to the

threat reduction from dynamite blasting and cyanide fishing and presence of active law

enforcers, a result of pride campaign activities.

Generally, there is not much of a difference inside and outside the MPA in terms of benthic cover; the covers of the different benthic attributes as well as the reliefs and rugosities are very similar.

100

FISH COMMUNITY

Baseline of AGCA Sanctuary is characterized by having poor reef fish abundance and high reef fish biomass. Both of the NTZ of Agay-ayan and Caloco

were surveyed to characterize and determine differences in reef fish community structure between the two sites and two research periods. Although

the baselines of both NTZ have similar mean biomass, Agay-ayan has 30% more individuals per unit area than Caloco (Figure _______). The higher

abundance in Agay-ayan is brought about by the numerous cardinalfishes (Apogon spp.) found in the area. In contrast, Caloco has higher abundance of

parrotfishes (Scarus bleekeri) which contributed to its high biomass (Figure ____). Other dominant groups in both sites are roving fusiliers (Caesionids)

and site attached damselfishes (Chromis agilis and Neopomacentrus sp.). Other notable groups observed are large-sized surgeonfishes. The mean

abundance of fishes outside Caloco is 22% higher than the Caloco NTZ but is 10% lower than the Agay-ayan NTZ. The area outside the MPA has

relatively higher mean abundance of target species (mainly fusiliers) and corallivores (Chaetodon octofasciatus) but has the lowest mean biomass

among the three. However, biomass values do not significantly differ across the sites.

101

This could be attributed to the response of the management team in their effort to have 24/7 guarding in place which give time for fish to

replenish and grow bigger inside the sanctuary.

On the contrary, measure of fish biomass and fish abundance outside NTZ shows a declining trend. Outside of NTZ, traditional fishers using

non-active gears are allowed to fish. This difference could be attributed to the fact that fish inside the NTZ were protected while outside

NTZ were not.

This improvement in the health of coral cover and fish population has been slowly felt by the AGCA Fishers wherein in the results of the

The nearly 24/7 guarding of NTZ, threat reduction from compressor fishers and intruders has brought this conservation results (hard coral

cover, fish biomass, fish abundance) and positive change in number of fishers telling that their fish catch has increase

51.2

43.7

59.6 52.9

Caloco Fishers Agay-ayan Fishers

Perceived Fish Catch of AGCA Fishers

Pre Campaign Post Campaign

102

E. Summary of Key Achievements in the campaign The AGCA Pride campaign has been successful for it has improved biodiversity inside the sanctuary as a result from significant reduction of threats and improvement in sanctuary governance. The social marketing strategies and conservation approaches facilitated the buy-in of the broader community support to AGCA sanctuary and hopefully influence long-term behavioral change to conserve marine biodiversity. After two years of campaign, more than 6 in every 10 local fishers perceived an increased in their fish catch and can say that biodiversity inside the sanctuary has improved. Likewise, result of the sanctuary monitoring conducted by MERF shows an improve coral reef health inside the sanctuary. The result from the bio-physical monitoring conducted indicates a significant change with 10 percentage point increase in mean hard coral cover, 48.20 percentage point increase in fish abundance and 69.51 increases in fish biomass were observed. Reduction in threat must have contributed to the achievements of these conservation targets. Almost 98% of cyanide fishers and dynamite fishers within target community have stopped; 9 in every 10 AGCA fishers in target barangay respects and follows sanctuary rules and other related fishery laws; and 8 in every 10 AGCA fishers said they no longer fish inside the NTZ. More than half of the AGCA fishers were happy with the result and are willing to continue their support and involvement in enforcement and management of AGCA Sanctuary. The CF was able to train and produced 10 local campaign managers called local community facilitators or LCF.

103

F. Lessons Learned

This pride campaign has provided insights on how to improve management effectiveness of marine sanctuary. Lessons are as

follows:

Management should starts with a plan. If there is no plan, there is nothing to manage. While the barangay level MC had a short-term plan

for MPA management, the LGU did not have any clear plan at all, despite having a relatively huge budget for CRM.

Draft a detailed maintenance plan for the MPA structures and equipment and include it in the MPA management planning process.

Another lesson identified was that presentations are more effective if done by the fishers themselves telling their stories of how they

worked together to addressed fishery and community issues. It is important to show data in the form of trends so that people can see the

results of MPA management related activities.

Even trained volunteer fish wardens can be tempted to intrude in the MPA. So setting up barangay and municipal- LGU level oversight

system is necessary. As has been stated, the need for an MPA coordinator at the LGU level has been identified.

Enforcement visibility is a deterrent against intrusions.

The LCF concept is a good strategy for ensuring that a succession plan for MPA management at the barangay level is in place. This ensures a

pool of community leaders who can succeed the current leaders and ensure the sustainability of MPA-related activities.

Good performance attracts interest and more support.

Sponsorship of the campaign activities from the highest political leader is important/key influencer.

Having a critical mass of supporters in the community is important

104

105

Appendices

A: Questionnaire Surveys (pre and post)

AGCA Marine Sanctuary Survey Baseline Survey (2010) Hello, my name is ..................., and I am working with the ............... We are conducting a survey of people in this area about the natural environment. We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey by answering a few questions about the environment. Whatever information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and your name and answers will not be shown to or shared with any other person except for those people who are working on the survey. Your answers will help us to plan and implement a communication program. You must be at least 15 years old in order to participate in our survey. Participation in this survey is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any individual question or all of the questions. However, your views are important to us and I hope you will participate. May I begin the interview now? Respondent agrees to be interviewed (If no, keep tally on separate sheet of paper) [ ] Yes Section 1 Background information filled in prior to the interview without asking the respondent (1) Interviewer/Enumerator:

106

[ ] Felicito delos Santos [ ] Erly Refugio [ ] Liezel Icaro [ ] Elna Brillantes [ ] Christine Brillantes [ ] Manuela Solo [ ] Marie Cris Reyna [ ] Michael Delfino [ ] Annie Besco [ ] Alma Malazarte [ ] Jessa Karen Oquialda [ ] Salve Corporal [ ] Emely B. Llarenas [ ] Janice Mojar [ ] Jean Abordo [ ] Leny Esplana [ ] Miles Celestial [ ] Janice Delfino [ ] Zenaida Plamiano [ ] Leoniza Abayon [ ] Veronica Rodavia [ ] Noemi Sarmiento [ ] Anabelle Tripulca [ ] marissa atun [ ] Annie Besco [ ] baby joy b.clores [ ] Jessabel Delos Reyes [ ] Mariane Chavez [ ] janice april Rivera [ ] Maricel Tresvalles [ ] Alma Empeno [ ] Aileen Ubaldo [ ] Cathy Demesa (2) Target Barangay: [ ] Agay-ayan [ ] Caloco [ ] San Antonio [ ] Pag-asa [ ] LGU/service provider (3) Enumeration area (EA): [ ] Zone #1 [ ] Zone #2 [ ] Zone #3 [ ] Zone #4 [ ] Zone #5 [ ] Zone #6 [ ] Zone #7 [ ] Unidentified [ ] LGU/service provider (4) Survey period: [ ] Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) [ ] Post-campaign (June 2012) (5) Gender of respondent: [ ] Male [ ] Female (6) Sampling methodology [ ] Target Audience 1A- fishers from Caloco [ ] Target audience 1B- fishers from Agay-ayan [ ] Target audience 2A- Caloco Community [ ] Target audience 2B- Agay-ayan Community [ ] Target audience 3A- fishers from San Antonio [ ] Target audience 3B- fishers from Pag-asa [ ] Target audeince 4A- LGU and service provider (7) Date (month/day/year): ________________

107

Section 2 Socioeconomic and Demographic Questions "To begin, I would like to ask you some questions about yourself" (8) What is your current marital status? [ ] Single [ ] Married [ ] Widow [ ] Live-in [ ] Separated (9) Where do you live in relation to the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Do you live inside of Agay-ayan and Coloco, in Tinambac, or somewhere else? [choose only one] [ ] I live in Agay-ayan [ ] I live in Caloco [ ] I do not live in AGCA but live in Tinambac [ ] I live outside Tinambac [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (10) How old were you at your last birthday? [ ] 14 or younger [ ] 15 to 19 [ ] 20 to 24 [ ] 25 to 29 [ ] 30 to 34 [ ] 35 to 39 [ ] 40 to 44 [ ] 45 to 49 [ ] 50 to 54 [ ] 55 or older (11) Household members [ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7 [ ] 8 [ ] 9 [ ] 10 [ ] 10 and above (12) What is your highest level of education attained?". [choose only one] [ ] No school completed [ ] Some elementary school [ ] Elementary school completed [ ] Some secondary completed [ ] Some high school [ ] High School Completed [ ] Some College [ ] College Graduate [ ] Vocational course [ ] pastor/religious course [ ] Refuse to answer (13) If you belong to a religion, please tell me which religion. If you do not belong to a religion, please say "none". [choose one only] ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE

108

[ ] Roman catholic [ ] Aglipay [ ] Iglesia Ni Kristo [ ] Born Again [ ] Muslim [ ] Protestante [ ] church of Latter Day Saints [ ] Local/Traditional [ ] Mayong Relehiyon [ ] Other [ ] Refuses to answer [ ] Other ________________ (14) ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE - What is your primary occupation or sector in which you work? [choose one only] [ ] Farming [ ] Fishing [ ] Gleaning [ ] Seaweed Farming [ ] Copra making [ ] Charcoal making [ ] small business/buy&sell [ ] Office work [ ] Carpentry [ ] construction worker [ ] house attendat (pasulweduhan) [ ] factory worker [ ] Logging, mining [ ] Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife) [ ] Transportation (shipping) [ ] housework/housewife [ ] student [ ] private company [ ] pension [ ] government (honorarium) [ ] remittance from abroad [ ] unemployed [ ] Refuse to answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (15) ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE - What is your secondary occupation or sector in which you work? [ ] Farming [ ] Fishing [ ] Gleaning [ ] Seaweed Farming [ ] Copra making [ ] Charcoal making [ ] small business/buy&sell [ ] Office work [ ] Carpentry [ ] construction worker [ ] house attendat (pasulweduhan) [ ] factory worker [ ] Logging, mining [ ] Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife) [ ] Transportation (shipping) [ ] housework/housewife [ ] student [ ] private company [ ] pension [ ] government (honorarium) [ ] remittance from abroad [ ] unemployed [ ] Refuse to answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (16) In the past calendar year, from January to December, what is your best estimate of the total income earned by all family members that currently live in the same home with your. Again, this information will not be shared with anyone. [ ] Below 30,000 Pesos [ ] Between 30,000 and 50,000 [ ] Between 50,001 and 75,000 [ ] Between 75,001 and 100,000 [ ] Greater than 100,000 Pesos [ ] Not sure [ ] Refused (17) What percentage of this annual income comes from your primary occupation? [ ] 0% [ ] 1 - 20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] 81 - 100% [ ] Not sure [ ] N/A (18) What percentage of this annual income comes from fishing? [ ] 0% [ ] 1 - 20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] 81 - 100% [ ] Not sure [ ] N/A

109

(19) How long have you been fishing? [ ] 4 years and below [ ] 5 to 9 [ ] 10 to 14 [ ] 15 to 19 [ ] 20 to 24 [ ] 25 to 29 [ ] 30 to 34 [ ] 35 to 39 [ ] 40 to 44 [ ] 45 to 49 [ ] 50 to 54 [ ] refuse to answer [ ] N/A (20) Fishing gear used/using [ ] pangki [ ] boso(pana) [ ] bobo [ ] banwit [ ] boso(compressor) [ ] others [ ] refuse to answer [ ] N/A (21) Do you have your own boat used in fishing? [ ] owned-motorized [ ] owned-non-motorized [ ] mayong baroto [ ] refuse to answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A Section 3 Assign Respondent to Stage-of-Behavior-Change (22) I am going to read you a list of different types of fishers, and for each one, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing someone like that fishing in this area in the past 6 months (show the NTZ on a map of the area but don't mention whether it is NTZ or not) COHORT QUESTION - SHOW MAP LABELLED A (EACH CF WILL HAVE TO CREATE THEIR OWN MAP) (A) Subsistence fishers from your village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (B) Subsistence fishers from nearby villages [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (C) Subsistence fishers from outside areas [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (D) Small scale commercial fishers from your village

110

[ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (E) Small scale commercial fishers from nearby village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (F) Small scale commercial fishers from outside areas [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (G) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (H) Large-scale industrial fishers using large trawls, purse seiner [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (I) Sports / Game fishers targeting Tuna, Bill fish, marlins etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (J) Other resource users specializing in target fish such as aquarium fish, mollusks (trochus) and live fish etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (23) I am going to read you a list of different types of fishers, and for each one, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing someone like that fishing in this area in the past 1 year (show an area that is NOT a NTZ on a map of the area but don’t mention whether it is NTZ or not) COHORT QUESTION - SHOW MAP LABELLED B (EACH CF WILL HAVE TO CREATE THEIR OWN MAP) (A) Subsistence fishers from your village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember

111

(B) Subsistence fishers from nearby villages [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (C) Subsistence fishers from outside areas [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (D) Small scale commercial fishers from your village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (E) Small scale commercial fishers from nearby village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (F) Small scale commercial fishers from outside areas [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (G) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (H) Large-scale industrial fishers using large trawls, purse seiner [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (I) Sports / Game fishers targeting Tuna, Bill fish, marlins etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (J) Other resource users specializing in target fish such as aquarium fish, mollusks (trochus) and live fish etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (24) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone I of AGCA Sanctuary in the past 6 months?

112

[ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (25) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone II in the past 6 months? [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (26) Have you heard before about the Agay-ayan and Caloco Marine Sanctuary (AGCA)? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (27) Do you know where the AGCA Sanctuary is located? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (28) Do you know about core zone and buffer zone in AGCA? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (29) Have you been using/fishing inside the core zone before it was established as sanctuary? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (30) Right now, can you still enter the core zones and fish inside? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (31) CUSTOMIZE TO BEHAVIOR CHANGE, ONE QUESTION FOR EACH BC IN YOUR TOC I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about following regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. I would like you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you: [ ] I have never considered stopping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. [ ] I have considered stopping fishiing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary but not stopped yet [ ] I intend to stop fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the next 6 months. [ ] I have talked to someone about stopiping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. [ ] I

113

have only gone fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary a few times in the past 6 months [ ] I have not fished/gleaned in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. [ ] Behavior not relevant to this respondent Section 4 Trusted Sources of Information & Media Access/Exposure (32) People hear information about the environment from many different sources. I am going to read you a list of sources from which you might hear information about the environment, and I would like you to tell me whether you would find that source "Most trustworthy, Very trustworthy, Somewhat trustworthy, or Not trustworthy. (A) Person on the radio [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (B) Person on television [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (C) Police/Army [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (D) DENR [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (E) BFAR [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (F) Government Officials -municipal [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know

114

(G) Government officials -barangay [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (H) Religious leaders [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (I) Friends or family members [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (J) Teachers [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (K) Scientist [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (L) Information on poster or billboard [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (M) Information in printed booklet [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (N) Information from puppet show [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (O) Information from public meeting [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know

115

(P) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (Q) NSLC [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (R) Bantay dagat [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (S) PO [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (33) In the past month, would you say that you usually listened to the radio never, up to 3 days per week, 4 to 6 days per week, or 7 days per week. [ ] Never [ ] Up to 3 days per week [ ] 4 to 6 days per week [ ] 7 days per week (A) When you listen to the radio, which radio stations are your most preferred stations? Please indicate up to 3 stations that you listen to the most. CUSTOMIZE LIST OF OPTIONS [ ] DZRH [ ] Love Radio [ ] TX100 [ ] Bombo Radio [ ] No favorite station [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't listen to the radio [ ] DZGE [ ] DWNX [ ] MOR [ ] Other ________________ (B) When you listen to the radio, what is your favorite type of program that you like to listen to? Please indicate up to two program types that you like to listen to. CUSTOMIZE TO SITE [ ] Local music [ ] International music [ ] News [ ] Sports [ ] Talk shows [ ] Dramas [ ] Religious [ ] No favorite [ ] Don't listen to radio [ ] Other ________________

116

(C) When you listen to the radio during the week, Monday to Friday, what are the most likely times for you to listen to the radio? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are most likely to listen. [ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. [ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [ ] After 10:00 p.m. [ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen (D) When you listen to the radio during the weekend, Saturday and Sunday, what are the most likely times for you to listen to the radio? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are likely to listen. [ ] Before 6:00 a.m. [ ] 6:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. [ ] 10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ ] 2:01 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. [ ] 6:01 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. [ ] After 10:00 p.m. [ ] No particular time [ ] Off and on all day [ ] Don't know [ ] Don't watch/listen (34) I am going to list some different types of media programs, and I would like you to tell me how much you like each program type. Do you like it the most, like it a lot, like it a little, or not like it? CUSTOMIZE LIST OF OPTIONS (A) Tagalog Love Songs [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK (B) Local news [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK (C) Religious programs [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK (D) Drama Shows [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK

117

(E) Comedy Shows [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK (F) Puppet Shows [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK (G) Movies/Films [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK (H) What other types of media programs do you like to watch, listen to, or read about? ________________ (35) Of the following entertainers who would you listen to most if they produced a song or jingle about the environment? [ ] ÿƒ110Willie Revillame [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Bogoy Drilon (Bugayan) [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Jovit Baldivino [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Sarah Geronimo [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Venus Raj [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Enchong Dee [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Robin Padilla [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Jerico Rosales [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004karyle [ ] No answer [ ] Not Applicable [ ] Other ________________ (36) Local Ambassador [ ] Municipal Mayor Ruel Velarde [ ] Bantay-dagat [ ] Cong. Noli Fuentebella [ ] Barangay captain [ ] Gov. L-ray Villafuerte [ ] SB- Franco Alvarez [ ] Darlen Tuazon [ ] Other ________________ Section 5 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Knowledge SMART Objectives Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the local environment and wildlife that live in this area.

118

(37) Please state below whether you believe each regulation is either true or false as a AGCA Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies: CUSTOMIZE QUESTION AND STATEMENTS (A) ÿs004AGCA Sanctuary doesnt have a legal basis to prohibit fishers to fish inside the core zone? ÿÿƒ133 ÿÿƒ100ÿs000 [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (B) It is in a law or in regulation to prohibit the fishers to fish and glean inside the core zone of AGCA Marine Sanctuary [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (C) ÿs004There is a law that prohibits the use of sodium and dynamite inside and near the AGCA Sanctuary.ÿs000 [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (38) There is a law that prohibits the use of trawl to operate inside the municipal water of Tinambac. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (39) There is a law that prohibits the cutting and burning of mangrove trees? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (40) There is a law that prohibits the catching and slaughtering of sea turtles. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (41) Some of the questions I am going to ask you are about the no-take fishing area that is going to be or has been created in your local area. A no-take fishing area is a clearly identified area where no fish are allowed to be caught at any time by anyone. (COHORT QUESTION)

119

(A) Are there any benefits to the local community from having a no-take area nearby? (If respondent answers YES then please also ask next question) COHORT QUESTION) [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (B) (Ask only of those who said yes to previous question) What local community benefits are there from having the no-take area nearby? You can tell me up to 3 that you know. (Do NOT read out answers but tick as appropriate or add to other) (COHORT QUESTION - need to choose format B or C for this question) [ ] more fish [ ] area for fish to reproduce [ ] bigger fish [ ] bigger or better coral / habitat for fish [ ] more fertile fish [ ] bank of the sea / food security [ ] better regulation/management of fishing activities [ ] no more destructive fishing in that area [ ] community ownership [ ] new skills [ ] better/new access to tourism [ ] better community cohesion [ ] i dont know [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (42) I am going to read you a list of people, and I would like you to tell me for each one how much you believe they have been involved during the past 6 months in important management decisions, such as in determining the size and location of your local no-take fishing area. Were these individuals regularly involved, occasionally involved, or never involved? (COHORT QUESTION) (A) National Government officials (BFAR, DENR etc) [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (B) Local Government officials (municipal) [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (C) Local Government officials (barangay) [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know

120

(D) Local fishers [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (E) PO or civil society organizations [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (F) NGO [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (43) I am going to read you a list of people, and I would like you to tell me for each one how much you believe that during the past 6 months they have been able to determine the regulations for your local no-take fishing area. Were these individuals the most important decision makers, involved but not the decision makers, or not involved in decision-making? (COHORT QUESTION) (A) National Government officials (DENR and BFAR) [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (B) Local Government officials from Municipio [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (C) Scientists and/or fisheries experts [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (D) Local Government officials from barangay [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (E) Local fishers [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know

121

(F) PO [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (G) NGO [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (H) PNP Tinambac [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (I) Philippine Army [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (44) Do you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), disagree (D), strongly disagree (SD), Not sure/Don't know (NS/DK) with the following statement: (A) Climate Change is not going to cause any problem in my community [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (B) Climate change is already a problem in my community [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (C) Climate change is likely to become a real problem in my community in the next 5-10 years [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (D) If NTZ is well managed it will buffer the effect of clmate change in the future [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know

122

(45) Name up to 3 ways in which you believe climate change could affect your community in the next 5-10 years (DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS - SELECT UP TO 3) [ ] sea level rise [ ] increase typhoon frequency [ ] more people from the upland will move to the coastal areas in case of crop failure [ ] increased water temperature leading death of corals and lesÿƒ133ÿs002s [ ] increase of typhoon strength, less reliable work and crops [ ] less rain [ ] fish shortage [ ] Life will be more Difficult [ ] No answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A Section 6 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Attitude SMART Objectives (46) OPTIONAL-CUSTOMIZE AS APPROPRIATE Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements on the possible impacts on the local community if the AGCA Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies are not strictly observed by fishers: (B) Fish Species will become smaller and rare [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (C) ÿƒ122ÿs004Illegal fishers from outside will be encouraged to come in and blast fish within the AGCA Marine Sanctuaryÿƒ100ÿs000 [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (D) ÿƒ122ÿs004The corals begin to die ÿƒ100ÿs000 [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (E) ÿƒ122ÿs004The local community will have experience decline in fish catch and will be poorerÿƒ100ÿs000 [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (47) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with this statement: if mangrove forest will be cut and deforested there is a possiblity that it will affect livelihoods of fishers

123

[ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (48) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with this statement: continued use of cyanide and dynamite has possible effect on the growth and harvest of seaweeds in our barangays [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (49) There are still abundant supply of fish in Lamit bay Tinambac [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (50) There is a need to protect our seas and additional marine sanctuaries in Tinambac [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (51) What do you think of the size of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? (A) size of core zone 1 [ ] too big [ ] too small [ ] just right [ ] dont know [ ] N/A (B) size of core zone 2 [ ] too big [ ] too small [ ] just right [ ] dont know [ ] N/A (52) the location of AGCA Sanctuary.. how is it located

124

(A) location of core zone 1 [ ] right location [ ] not good location [ ] i dont know [ ] N/A (B) location of core zone 2 [ ] right location [ ] not good location [ ] i dont know [ ] N/A (53) OPTIONAL/CUSTOMIZE Who should primarily enforce the rules and regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Should it be the Coastguard, Fishers/gleaners, the Bantay dagat, the National Police, local village officials, or someone else? (CHOOSE ONE ONLY) [ ] Coastguard [ ] Fishers/Gleaners [ ] Bantay dagat (licensed enforcers) [ ] National Police [ ] Local village officials [ ] Philippine Army [ ] LGU Municipal [ ] Other ________________ (54) CUSTOMIZE Has your catch increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? (If the person does not fish or glean mark as NA) [ ] Decreased [ ] Increased [ ] Stayed the Same [ ] Not sure [ ] N/A (55) I am going to read you a number of statements about the management of the local no-take area. For each statement, I would like you to tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with it. (COHORT QUESTION) (A) There is a clear plan for how the no-take area will be managed [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (B) Local village fishers regularly participate in management decisions of the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know

125

(C) Local people know boundaries of the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (D) There was not enough planning done before the no-take area was established [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (E) There is enough money and other resources to fully manage and enforce the rules of the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (F) The rules of the no-take area are regularly enforced so that violators are caught and punished [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (G) The rules of the no-take area are unclear and local fishers don't understand them [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (H) The rules of the no-take area are designed more to protect the fish than to help the fishers [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (I) The infrastructure, equipment and facilities to enforce the rules of the no-take area are adequate [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (J) There is an adequate communications program about the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (K) Staff of the no-take area are adequately trained [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (L) There is a regular management effectiveness assessment conducted for the no-take area

126

[ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (M) Research and monitoring activities of the no take area are adequate [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (N) There are no current problems with the no-take area management [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know Section 7 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Interpersonal Communication SMART Objectives (56) CUSTOMIZE to IC objectives in TOC - In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about benefits to the community of a well enforced sanctuary? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to village fishers [ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials [ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO) [ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA [ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________ (A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK OPTION [ ] more fish [ ] bigger fish [ ] improved fish catch/livelihood [ ] improved growth of gulaman [ ] gained knowledged on conservation [ ] stop intrusion and other destructive fishing activities [ ] protect sea turtles [ ] improved corals [ ] community development [ ] NO ANSWER [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (57) OPTIONAL, CUSTOMIZE In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "the consequences of breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to village fishers [ ] Talked to

127

village leaders/barangay offcials [ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO) [ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA [ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________ (A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK OPTION [ ] Pagkulong [ ] Pagmulta [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (58) OPTIONAL - In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "your own role in managing your local marine resources"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to village fishers [ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials [ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO) [ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA [ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________ (A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK OPTION ________________ Section 8 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Behavior SMART Objectives (59) During the past 6 months, would you say that you have been regularly involved, occasionally involved, or not involved with the creation and/or the management of a no-take fishing area in your local area (COHORT QUESTION) (A) [ ] Regularly involved [ ] Occasionally involved [ ] Never involved [ ] Don't know / not applicable

128

(60) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE In the past 12 months, have you attended any meetings or gatherine where management of AGCA Sanctuary was discussed? If so, about how many times in those 12 months did you attend? [ ] Yes [ ] no [ ] I dont Know (A) if yes, how often have you attend the meeting in 12 months [ ] Never attended a meeting [ ] Attended at least 1 meeting [ ] Attended at between 2-5 meetings [ ] Attended at least 6 meetings [ ] More than 7 meetings [ ] Not applicable (61) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE - In the last six months have you heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations to the enforcement team? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] not sure/dont know (62) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE If you were to report someone who has broken the rules & regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, who would you report them to? [YOU CAN CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER]. [ ] Local police [ ] Local law enforcement [ ] Barangay Captain [ ] Municipal mayor [ ] Next door neighbor [ ] Husband/Wife. [ ] Would Not Report [ ] Bantay dagat [ ] I dont know [ ] Other ________________ (63) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE OR REMOVE Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements associated with poor governance of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary: (A) Majority of residents of AGCA were involved in managing AGCA MArine Sanctuary? [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (B) There were poachers in core zone 1 of AGCA Marine Sanctuary at night time [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know

129

(C) There were poachers in AGCA Sanctuary core zone 2 at night time [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (D) AGCA Marine Sanctuary were being guarded 24/7? [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (E) Only men were participating in Sanctuary governance. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (F) Residents of AGCA were following rules and regulations. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (64) Do you agree or disagree that you can do something or contribute in reducting/eliminating illegal fishing activites in barangay? [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (65) Do you agree or disagree that community will benefits in developing the Caloco Beach Resort? [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know Section 9 Understand Barriers & Benefits of Behavior Change (66) Do you agree or dis agree that the AGCA Management committee (AGCA ManCom) are activelyh involve in governance of AGCA. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know

130

(67) Are yoou aware of who comprise the AGCA Mancom (pls check all, that apply [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from Municipal-LGU [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from barangay-LGU [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from PO [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from DENR/BFARO [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004officers from Philippine National Police and Philippine Army [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from the Province [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from NGO [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from BFARMC [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Mga Bantay-Dagat [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Mga Tanod [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Teachers [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004women sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004youth sector [ ] Fisher's sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004business sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004church [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004I dont know [ ] Other ________________ (68) what have been done in the past six months? ________________ Section 10 Exposure to Campaign Activities & Messages (69) CUSTOMIZE QUESTION AND ANSWERS TO YOUR SITE (IT IS CRUCIAL FOR THIS QUESTION THAT YOU MAKE IT SPECIFIC BY ASKING PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE HEARD OF SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THE CAMPAIGN WILL COVER AND HAS NOT BEEN COVERED BY OTHER CAMPAIGNS/ORGANISATIONS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTION IS TO MEASURE EXPOSURE TO YOUR CAMPAIGN SPECIFICALLY) I am going to ask you about a number of ways in which you may or may not have seen or heard about the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. For each method, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing or hearing that source in the past 6 months. (A) Tagalog Love Song [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (B) Local News [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (C) Drama [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know

131

(D) Comedy [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (E) Puppet Show [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (F) Locally Produced Video [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (G) Poster or Billboard [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (H) Printed Booklet [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (I) Public Meeting (Festival) [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (J) Celebrity/Soap Star/Entertainer [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know (70) CUSTOMIZE TO YOUR SITE (AS ABOVE, MAKE QUESTION SPECIFIC TO YOUR CAMPAIGN) Of all of the different ways in which you remember seeing or hearing about AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, which one, if any, did you think had the most impact on you? ________________

132

(71) CUSTOMIZE TO SITE Of all the different ways in which you learned about AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, what do you think was the most important message that you learned from them? ________________ Section 11 Ground truthing - no objective (72) Please name 3 creatures that live in the sea that you are particularly fond or proud of. (do not read out options but tick box as appropriate and/or fill in the blank for any additional answers) FLAGSHIP SP QUESTION - 1st OPTION [ ] Sea turtle [ ] lobster [ ] Whaleshark [ ] Mameng [ ] Tanigue [ ] Malasugi [ ] Bangkulis [ ] Maya maya [ ] Putian [ ] Lapu lapu [ ] dalagang Bukid [ ] Langkoy [ ] Salay [ ] Buraw [ ] Bangus [ ] Kataway [ ] Seaweeds [ ] Alatan [ ] Titso [ ] Sahang [ ] Corals [ ] Samong [ ] Maming [ ] Abo [ ] Burarat [ ] Maya maya [ ] Damos [ ] Sapsap [ ] Rayado [ ] Surahan [ ] turingan [ ] bulinaw [ ] mamsa [ ] Tabangungo [ ] Solid [ ] Pakan [ ] pagi [ ] NS/DK [ ] Mamsa [ ] turos [ ] tanique [ ] Other ________________ (73) Please have a look at the 4 photographs labeled A,B,C,D. Which of the sea creatures shown on the photograph do you like best? FRAGSHIP SP QUESTION - 2nd OPTION (Involved providing enumerators with labeled images) [ ] A spiny lobster [ ] B napoleon wrasse [ ] C lana [ ] D alatan [ ] NS/DK (74) I am going to read you a number of strategies that might help solve any possible current problems in the management of your local no-take area. For each strategy, I would like you to tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that it would help solve any current problems with managing the no-take area. COHORT QUESTION (A) Increased local community involvement in management of the no-take area [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK

133

(B) Limiting involvement in management of the no-take area to fishers only [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (C) Increased and strict law enforcement of the no-take area rules by Police / Navy and Enforcers [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (D) Increased and strict law enforcement of rules by local community fishers with enforcement rights [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (E) Develop new rules for the no-take area in a process that includes the whole community [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (F) Change the size and/or the location of the no-take area [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (G) Make sure that local fishers have the exclusive right to fish in the areas around the no-take area [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (75) Expand the marine sanctuary to include island ecosystems. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (76) Make sure suppliers of dynamite and sodium in Lamit Bay must be stopped and put behind the jail. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (77) We must protect and take care of corals, sea grasses and mangrove forests in our municipality. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (78) Fishers in Lamit Bay must follow the rules and regulation of AGCA MArine Sanctuary

134

[ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (79) "Pugon" system of charcoal making must be dismantled in every barangay to stop mangrove deforestation. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (80) Are you willing to support in improving AGCA's governance effectiveness or in establishing addtional sanctuary in our municipality? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Sure Thank you for all of your help in responding to this anonymous questionnaire survey

POST SURVEY

AGCA Marine Sanctuary Post Campaign Survey (2012) Hello, my name is ..................., and I am working with the ............... We are conducting a survey of people in this area about the natural environment. We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey by answering a few questions about the environment. Whatever information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and your name and answers will not be shown to or shared with any other person except for those people who are working on the survey. Your answers will help us to plan and implement a communication program. You must be at least 15 years old in order to participate in our survey.

135

Participation in this survey is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any individual question or all of the questions. However, your views are important to us and I hope you will participate. May I begin the interview now? Respondent agrees to be interviewed (If no, keep tally on separate sheet of paper) [ ] Yes Section 1 Background information filled in prior to the interview without asking the respondent (1) Target Barangay: [ ] Agay-ayan [ ] Caloco (2) Enumeration area (EA): [ ] Zone #1 [ ] Zone #2 [ ] Zone #3 [ ] Zone #4 [ ] Zone #5 [ ] Zone #6 [ ] Zone #7 [ ] Unidentified [ ] LGU/service provider (3) Survey period: [ ] Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) [ ] Post-campaign (June 2012) (4) Gender of respondent: [ ] Male [ ] Female (5) Sampling methodology [ ] Target Audience 1A- fishers from Caloco [ ] Target audience 1B- fishers from Agay-ayan [ ] Target audience 2A- Caloco Community [ ] Target audience 2B- Agay-ayan Community (6) Date (month/day/year):

136

________________ Section 2 Socioeconomic and Demographic Questions "To begin, I would like to ask you some questions about yourself" (7) What is your current marital status? [ ] Single [ ] Married [ ] Widow [ ] Live-in [ ] Separated (8) Where do you live in relation to the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Do you live inside of Agay-ayan and Coloco, in Tinambac, or somewhere else? [choose only one] [ ] I live in Agay-ayan [ ] I live in Caloco [ ] I do not live in AGCA but live in Tinambac [ ] I live outside Tinambac (9) How old were you at your last birthday? [ ] 14 or younger [ ] 15 to 19 [ ] 20 to 24 [ ] 25 to 29 [ ] 30 to 34 [ ] 35 to 39 [ ] 40 to 44 [ ] 45 to 49 [ ] 50 to 54 [ ] 55 or older (10) Household members [ ] 1 [ ] 2 [ ] 3 [ ] 4 [ ] 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7 [ ] 8 [ ] 9 [ ] 10 [ ] 10 and above (11) What is your highest level of education attained?". [choose only one]

137

[ ] No school completed [ ] Some elementary school [ ] Elementary school completed [ ] Some secondary completed [ ] Some high school [ ] High School Completed [ ] Some College [ ] College Graduate [ ] Vocational course [ ] pastor/religious course [ ] Refuse to answer (12) If you belong to a religion, please tell me which religion. If you do not belong to a religion, please say "none". [choose one only] ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE [ ] Roman catholic [ ] Aglipay [ ] Iglesia Ni Kristo [ ] Born Again [ ] Muslim [ ] Protestante [ ] church of Latter Day Saints [ ] Local/Traditional [ ] Mayong Relehiyon [ ] Other [ ] Refuses to answer [ ] Other ________________ (13) ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE - What is your primary occupation or sector in which you work? [choose one only] [ ] Farming [ ] Fishing [ ] Gleaning [ ] Seaweed Farming [ ] Copra making [ ] Charcoal making [ ] small business/buy&sell [ ] Office work [ ] Carpentry [ ] construction worker [ ] house attendat (pasulweduhan) [ ] factory worker [ ] Logging, mining [ ] Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife) [ ] Transportation (shipping) [ ] housework/housewife [ ] student [ ] private company [ ] pension [ ] government (honorarium) [ ] remittance from abroad [ ] unemployed [ ] Refuse to answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (14) ADD CATEGORIES AS APPROPRIATE - What is your secondary occupation or sector in which you work? [ ] Farming [ ] Fishing [ ] Gleaning [ ] Seaweed Farming [ ] Copra making [ ] Charcoal making [ ] small business/buy&sell [ ] Office work [ ] Carpentry [ ] construction worker [ ] house attendat (pasulweduhan) [ ] factory worker [ ] Logging, mining [ ] Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife) [ ] Transportation (shipping) [ ] housework/housewife [ ] student [ ] private company [ ] pension [ ] government (honorarium) [ ] remittance from abroad [ ] unemployed [ ] Refuse to answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (15) In the past calendar year, from January to December, what is your best estimate of the total income earned by all family members that currently live in the same home with your. Again, this information will not be shared with anyone. [ ] Below 30,000 Pesos [ ] Between 30,000 and 50,000 [ ] Between 50,001 and 75,000 [ ] Between 75,001 and 100,000 [ ] Greater than 100,000 Pesos [ ] Not sure [ ] Refused

138

(16) What percentage of this annual income comes from your primary occupation? (17) What percentage of this annual income comes from fishing? [ ] 0% [ ] 1 - 20% [ ] 21 - 40% [ ] 41 - 60% [ ] 61 - 80% [ ] 81 - 100% [ ] Not sure (18) How long have you been fishing? [ ] 4 years and below [ ] 5 to 9 [ ] 10 to 14 [ ] 15 to 19 [ ] 20 to 24 [ ] 25 to 29 [ ] 30 to 34 [ ] 35 to 39 [ ] 40 to 44 [ ] 45 to 49 [ ] 50 to 54 [ ] refuse to answer [ ] N/A (19) Fishing gear used/using [ ] pangki [ ] boso(pana) [ ] bobo [ ] banwit [ ] boso(compressor) [ ] others [ ] refuse to answer [ ] N/A (20) Do you have your own boat used in fishing? [ ] owned-motorized [ ] owned-non-motorized [ ] mayong baroto [ ] refuse to answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A Section 3 Assign Respondent to Stage-of-Behavior-Change (21) I am going to read you a list of different types of fishers, and for each one, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing someone like that fishing in this area in the past 12 months (show the NTZ on a map of the area but don't mention whether it is NTZ or not) COHORT QUESTION - SHOW MAP LABELLED A (EACH CF WILL HAVE TO CREATE THEIR OWN MAP) (A) Subsistence fishers from your village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember

139

(22) I am going to read you a list of different types of fishers, and for each one, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing someone like that fishing in this area in the past 1 year (show an area that is NOT a NTZ on a map of the area but don’t mention whether it is NTZ or not) COHORT QUESTION - SHOW MAP LABELLED B (EACH CF WILL HAVE TO CREATE THEIR OWN MAP) (A) Subsistence fishers from your village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (B) Other resource users specializing in target fish such as aquarium fish, mollusks (trochus) and live fish etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (C) Subsistence fishers from nearby villages [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (D) Subsistence fishers from outside areas [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (E) Small scale commercial fishers from your village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (F) Small scale commercial fishers from nearby village [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (G) Small scale commercial fishers from outside areas [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (H) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember

140

(I) Large-scale industrial fishers using large trawls, purse seiner [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (J) Sports / Game fishers targeting Tuna, Bill fish, marlins etc [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (23) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone I of AGCA Sanctuary in the past 6 months? [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (24) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone II in the past 6 months? [ ] Seen [ ] Not seen [ ] Not sure / Don't remember (25) Have you heard before about the Agay-ayan and Caloco Marine Sanctuary (AGCA)? (26) Do you know where the AGCA Sanctuary is located? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (27) Do you know about core zone and buffer zone in AGCA? (28) Have you been using/fishing inside the core zone before it was established as sanctuary? (29) Right now, can you still enter the core zones and fish inside? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (30) CUSTOMIZE TO BEHAVIOR CHANGE, ONE QUESTION FOR EACH BC IN YOUR TOC I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about following regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. I would like you to listen to all 6 statements, then tell me which one statement best represents you: [ ] I have never considered stopping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. [ ] I have considered stopping fishiing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary but not stopped yet [ ] I intend to stop fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the next 6

141

months. [ ] I have talked to someone about stopiping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. [ ] I have only gone fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary a few times in the past 6 months [ ] I have not fished/gleaned in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. [ ] Behavior not relevant to this respondent Section 4 Trusted Sources of Information & Media Access/Exposure (31) People hear information about the environment from many different sources. I am going to read you a list of sources from which you might hear information about the environment, and I would like you to tell me whether you would find that source "Most trustworthy, Very trustworthy, Somewhat trustworthy, or Not trustworthy. (A) PO [ ] Most trustworthy [ ] Very trustworthy [ ] Somewhat trustworthy [ ] Not Trustworthy [ ] Not sure/Don't know (32) In the past month, would you say that you usually listened to the radio never, up to 3 days per week, 4 to 6 days per week, or 7 days per week. (A) When you listen to the radio, which radio stations are your most preferred stations? Please indicate up to 3 stations that you listen to the most. CUSTOMIZE LIST OF OPTIONS (B) When you listen to the radio, what is your favorite type of program that you like to listen to? Please indicate up to two program types that you like to listen to. CUSTOMIZE TO SITE (C) When you listen to the radio during the week, Monday to Friday, what are the most likely times for you to listen to the radio? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are most likely to listen.

142

(D) When you listen to the radio during the weekend, Saturday and Sunday, what are the most likely times for you to listen to the radio? Please indicate up to 2 times during the day when you are likely to listen. (33) I am going to list some different types of media programs, and I would like you to tell me how much you like each program type. Do you like it the most, like it a lot, like it a little, or not like it? CUSTOMIZE LIST OF OPTIONS (A) Movies/Films [ ] Like the most [ ] Like a lot [ ] Like a little [ ] Not liked [ ] NS/DK (B) What other types of media programs do you like to watch, listen to, or read about? ________________ (34) Of the following entertainers who would you listen to most if they produced a song or jingle about the environment? [ ] Not Applicable (35) Local Ambassador Section 5 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Knowledge SMART Objectives Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the local environment and wildlife that live in this area. (36) Please state below whether you believe each regulation is either true or false as a AGCA Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies: CUSTOMIZE QUESTION AND STATEMENTS (A) ÿs004AGCA Sanctuary doesnt have a legal basis to prohibit fishers to fish inside the core zone? ÿÿƒ133 ÿÿƒ100ÿs000

143

[ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (B) It is in a law or in regulation to prohibit the fishers to fish and glean inside the core zone of AGCA Marine Sanctuary [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (C) ÿs004There is a law that prohibits the use of sodium and dynamite inside and near the AGCA Sanctuary.ÿs000 [ ] True [ ] False [ ] Unsure (37) There is a law that prohibits the use of trawl to operate inside the municipal water of Tinambac. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (38) There is a law that prohibits the cutting and burning of mangrove trees? [ ] N/A (39) There is a law that prohibits the catching and slaughtering of sea turtles. [ ] N/A (40) Some of the questions I am going to ask you are about the no-take fishing area that is going to be or has been created in your local area. A no-take fishing area is a clearly identified area where no fish are allowed to be caught at any time by anyone. (COHORT QUESTION) (A) Are there any benefits to the local community from having a no-take area nearby? (If respondent answers YES then please also ask next question) COHORT QUESTION) [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A

144

(B) (Ask only of those who said yes to previous question) What local community benefits are there from having the no-take area nearby? You can tell me up to 3 that you know. (Do NOT read out answers but tick as appropriate or add to other) (COHORT QUESTION - need to choose format B or C for this question) [ ] more fish [ ] area for fish to reproduce [ ] bigger fish [ ] bigger or better coral / habitat for fish [ ] more fertile fish [ ] bank of the sea / food security [ ] better regulation/management of fishing activities [ ] no more destructive fishing in that area [ ] community ownership [ ] new skills [ ] better/new access to tourism [ ] better community cohesion [ ] i dont know [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (41) I am going to read you a list of people, and I would like you to tell me for each one how much you believe they have been involved during the past 6 months in important management decisions, such as in determining the size and location of your local no-take fishing area. Were these individuals regularly involved, occasionally involved, or never involved? (COHORT QUESTION) (A) NGO [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (B) National Government officials (BFAR, DENR etc) [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (C) Local Government officials (municipal) [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (D) Local Government officials (barangay) [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (E) Local fishers [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know

145

(F) PO or civil society organizations [ ] Regularly [ ] Occasionally [ ] Never [ ] Not sure/ Don't know (42) I am going to read you a list of people, and I would like you to tell me for each one how much you believe that during the past 6 months they have been able to determine the regulations for your local no-take fishing area. Were these individuals the most important decision makers, involved but not the decision makers, or not involved in decision-making? (COHORT QUESTION) (A) National Government officials (DENR and BFAR) [ ] Most involved [ ] Involved [ ] Not involved [ ] Not sure / Don't know (43) Do you strongly agree (SA), agree (A), disagree (D), strongly disagree (SD), Not sure/Don't know (NS/DK) with the following statement: (A) Climate Change is not going to cause any problem in my community [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (B) Climate change is already a problem in my community [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (C) Climate change is likely to become a real problem in my community in the next 5-10 years [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (D) If NTZ is well managed it will buffer the effect of clmate change in the future [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know

146

(44) Name up to 3 ways in which you believe climate change could affect your community in the next 5-10 years (DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS - SELECT UP TO 3) [ ] sea level rise [ ] increase typhoon frequency [ ] more people from the upland will move to the coastal areas in case of crop failure [ ] increased water temperature leading death of corals and lesÿƒ133ÿs002s [ ] increase of typhoon strength, less reliable work and crops [ ] less rain [ ] fish shortage [ ] Life will be more Difficult [ ] No answer [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A Section 6 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Attitude SMART Objectives (45) OPTIONAL-CUSTOMIZE AS APPROPRIATE Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements on the possible impacts on the local community if the AGCA Marine Sanctuary Rules/Policies are not strictly observed by fishers: (B) Fish Species will become smaller and rare [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (C) ÿƒ122ÿs004Illegal fishers from outside will be encouraged to come in and blast fish within the AGCA Marine Sanctuaryÿƒ100ÿs000 [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (D) ÿƒ122ÿs004The corals begin to die ÿƒ100ÿs000 [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (E) ÿƒ122ÿs004The local community will have experience decline in fish catch and will be poorerÿƒ100ÿs000 [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (46) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with this statement: if mangrove forest will be cut and deforested there is a possiblity that it will affect livelihoods of fishers

147

[ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (47) Please state below whether you agree or disagree with this statement: continued use of cyanide and dynamite has possible effect on the growth and harvest of seaweeds in our barangays [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (48) There are still abundant supply of fish in Lamit bay Tinambac [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (49) There is a need to protect our seas and additional marine sanctuaries in Tinambac [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] Not sure/Dont KNow (50) What do you think of the size of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? (A) size of core zone 1 [ ] too big [ ] too small [ ] just right [ ] dont know [ ] N/A (51) the location of AGCA Sanctuary.. how is it located (A) location of core zone 1 [ ] right location [ ] not good location [ ] i dont know [ ] N/A

148

(B) location of core zone 2 [ ] right location [ ] not good location [ ] i dont know [ ] N/A (52) OPTIONAL/CUSTOMIZE Who should primarily enforce the rules and regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Should it be the Coastguard, Fishers/gleaners, the Bantay dagat, the National Police, local village officials, or someone else? (CHOOSE ONE ONLY) [ ] Coastguard [ ] Fishers/Gleaners [ ] Bantay dagat (licensed enforcers) [ ] National Police [ ] Local village officials [ ] Philippine Army [ ] LGU Municipal [ ] Other ________________ (53) FOR FISHER RESPONDENT: Has your catch increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? (If the person does not fish or glean mark as NA) [ ] Decreased [ ] Increased [ ] Stayed the Same [ ] Not sure [ ] N/A (A) If the answer is N/A or FOR RANDOM RESPONDENT: IN your opinion about the fish catch here in your barangay, dit it increased, decreased, or remain the same? [ ] decreased [ ] increased [ ] the same [ ] not sure/Do not know [ ] N/A (54) I am going to read you a number of statements about the management of the local no-take area. For each statement, I would like you to tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with it. (COHORT QUESTION) (A) There is a clear plan for how the no-take area will be managed [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (B) Local village fishers regularly participate in management decisions of the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know

149

(C) Local people know boundaries of the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (D) There was not enough planning done before the no-take area was established [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (E) There is enough money and other resources to fully manage and enforce the rules of the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (F) The rules of the no-take area are regularly enforced so that violators are caught and punished [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (G) The rules of the no-take area are unclear and local fishers don't understand them [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (H) The rules of the no-take area are designed more to protect the fish than to help the fishers [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (I) The infrastructure, equipment and facilities to enforce the rules of the no-take area are adequate [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (J) There is an adequate communications program about the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (K) Staff of the no-take area are adequately trained [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know

150

(L) There is a regular management effectiveness assessment conducted for the no-take area [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (M) Research and monitoring activities of the no take area are adequate [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (N) There are no current problems with the no-take area management [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (i) In your oipinion, what are the issues in your community that calls for immediate action? ________________ Section 7 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Interpersonal Communication SMART Objectives (55) CUSTOMIZE to IC objectives in TOC - In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about benefits to the community of a well enforced sanctuary? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to village fishers [ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials [ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO) [ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA [ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________ (A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK OPTION [ ] more fish [ ] bigger fish [ ] improved fish catch/livelihood [ ] improved growth of gulaman [ ] gained knowledged on conservation [ ] stop intrusion and other destructive fishing activities [ ] protect sea turtles [ ] improved corals [ ] community development [ ] NO ANSWER [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A

151

(56) OPTIONAL, CUSTOMIZE In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "the consequences of breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to village fishers [ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials [ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO) [ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA [ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________ (A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK OPTION [ ] Pagkulong [ ] Pagmulta [ ] Other ________________ [ ] N/A (57) OPTIONAL - In the past 6 months, have you talked to anyone about "your own role in managing your local marine resources"? If you have, please tell me all of the people with whom you have talked to about this. [ ] Have not talked to anyone [ ] Talked to spouse/partner [ ] Talked to parents, or in-laws [ ] Talked to your children aged 16 or older [ ] Talked to your children aged 15 or younger [ ] Talked to friend or neighbor [ ] Talked to village fishers [ ] Talked to village leaders/barangay offcials [ ] Talked to Local government from municipio [ ] Talked to DENR and/or BFAR [ ] Talked to NSLC (NGO) [ ] Talked to Bantay-dagat of AGCA [ ] Talked to teachers [ ] Other ________________ (A) If you did talk about this, can you tell me what the main thing was you discussed? CONSIDER INSERTING A LIST OF OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT READ OUT BY RESPONDENT AND ADD A BLANK OPTION ________________ Section 8 Establish Baselines for and Measure Change in Behavior SMART Objectives (58) During the past 6 months, would you say that you have been regularly involved, occasionally involved, or not involved with the creation and/or the management of a no-take fishing area in your local area (COHORT QUESTION)

152

(A) [ ] Don't know / not applicable (59) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE In the past 12 months, have you attended any meetings or gatherine where management of AGCA Sanctuary was discussed? If so, about how many times in those 12 months did you attend? [ ] Yes [ ] no [ ] I dont Know (A) if yes, how often have you attend the meeting in 12 months [ ] Never attended a meeting [ ] Attended at least 1 meeting [ ] Attended at between 2-5 meetings [ ] Attended at least 6 meetings [ ] More than 7 meetings [ ] Not applicable (60) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE - In the last six months have you heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations to the enforcement team? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] not sure/dont know (A) For the past six months, have you reported someone violating AGCA Rules and regulations to Mancom? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] not sure/dont know (B) In the past six months have were there chances that you were able to help in protecting or guarding the AGCA Sanctuary? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (61) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE If you were to report someone who has broken the rules & regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, who would you report them to? [YOU CAN CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER].

153

[ ] Local police [ ] Local law enforcement [ ] Barangay Captain [ ] Municipal mayor [ ] Next door neighbor [ ] Husband/Wife. [ ] Would Not Report [ ] Bantay dagat [ ] I dont know [ ] Other ________________ (62) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE OR REMOVE Please state below whether you agree or disagree with the following statements associated with poor governance of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary: (A) Majority of residents of AGCA were involved in managing AGCA MArine Sanctuary? [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (B) There were poachers in core zone 1 of AGCA Marine Sanctuary at night time [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (C) There were poachers in AGCA Sanctuary core zone 2 at night time [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (D) AGCA Marine Sanctuary were being guarded 24/7? [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (E) Residents of AGCA were following rules and regulations. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] Strongly Disagree [ ] I dont know (63) Do you agree or disagree that you can do something or contribute in reducting/eliminating illegal fishing activites in barangay? [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (64) Do you agree or disagree that community will benefits in developing the Caloco Beach Resort? [ ] Strongly Agree

154

Section 9 Understand Barriers & Benefits of Behavior Change (65) Do you agree or dis agree that the AGCA Management committee (AGCA ManCom) are activelyh involve in governance of AGCA. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (66) Are yoou aware of who comprise the AGCA Mancom (pls check all, that apply [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from Municipal-LGU [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from barangay-LGU [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from PO [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from DENR/BFARO [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004officers from Philippine National Police and Philippine Army [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from the Province [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from NGO [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Officers from BFARMC [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Mga Bantay-Dagat [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Mga Tanod [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004Teachers [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004women sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004youth sector [ ] Fisher's sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004business sector [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004church [ ] ÿƒ133ÿs004I dont know [ ] Other ________________ (67) what have been done in the past six months? ________________ Section 10 Exposure to Campaign Activities & Messages (68) CUSTOMIZE QUESTION AND ANSWERS TO YOUR SITE (IT IS CRUCIAL FOR THIS QUESTION THAT YOU MAKE IT SPECIFIC BY ASKING PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE HEARD OF SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THE CAMPAIGN WILL COVER AND HAS NOT BEEN COVERED BY OTHER CAMPAIGNS/ORGANISATIONS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTION IS TO MEASURE EXPOSURE TO YOUR CAMPAIGN SPECIFICALLY) I am going to ask you about a number of ways in which you may or may not have seen or heard about the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. For each method, I would like you to tell me whether you remember seeing or hearing that source in the past 6 months.

155

(A) Poster/Billboard/padukot [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (B) Libro [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (C) Public meeting [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (D) Misa o okasyon [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (E) Bikol na kanta [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (F) Banka [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (G) T-shirt [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (H) Mascot [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (I) estorya [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (J) Kalendaryo

156

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (69) CUSTOMIZE TO YOUR SITE (AS ABOVE, MAKE QUESTION SPECIFIC TO YOUR CAMPAIGN) Of all of the different ways in which you remember seeing or hearing about AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, which one, if any, did you think had the most impact on you? ________________ (70) CUSTOMIZE TO SITE Of all the different ways in which you learned about AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months, what do you think was the most important message that you learned from them? ________________ Section 11 Ground truthing - no objective (71) Please name 3 creatures that live in the sea that you are particularly fond or proud of. (do not read out options but tick box as appropriate and/or fill in the blank for any additional answers) FLAGSHIP SP QUESTION - 1st OPTION [ ] Sea turtle [ ] Other ________________ (72) Please have a look at the 4 photographs labeled A,B,C,D. Which of the sea creatures shown on the photograph do you like best? FRAGSHIP SP QUESTION - 2nd OPTION (Involved providing enumerators with labeled images) [ ] A spiny lobster (73) I am going to read you a number of strategies that might help solve any possible current problems in the management of your local no-take area. For each strategy, I would like you to tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that it would help solve any current problems with managing the no-take area. COHORT QUESTION

157

(A) Increased local community involvement in management of the no-take area [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (B) Limiting involvement in management of the no-take area to fishers only [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (C) Increased and strict law enforcement of the no-take area rules by Police / Navy and Enforcers [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (D) Increased and strict law enforcement of rules by local community fishers with enforcement rights [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (E) Develop new rules for the no-take area in a process that includes the whole community [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (F) Change the size and/or the location of the no-take area [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (G) Make sure that local fishers have the exclusive right to fish in the areas around the no-take area [ ] SA [ ] A [ ] D [ ] SD [ ] NS/DK (74) Expand the marine sanctuary to include island ecosystems. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (75) Make sure suppliers of dynamite and sodium in Lamit Bay must be stopped and put behind the jail. [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (76) We must protect and take care of corals, sea grasses and mangrove forests in our municipality.

158

[ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (77) Fishers in Lamit Bay must follow the rules and regulation of AGCA MArine Sanctuary [ ] Strongly Agree [ ] Agree [ ] Neutral [ ] Disagree [ ] I dont know (78) "Pugon" system of charcoal making must be dismantled in every barangay to stop mangrove deforestation. [ ] Strongly Agree (79) Are you willing to support in improving AGCA's governance effectiveness or in establishing addtional sanctuary in our municipality? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Sure (A) Would you like to continue the protection and management of AGCA Marine Sanctuary? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (B) Have you taken this survey before? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't know [ ] N/A (C) Can you give some qualities/character that the next bantay-dagat should have? ________________ (D) Anything you want to say: ________________ Thank you for all of your help in responding to this anonymous questionnaire survey

159

B: Full report on post-campaign survey results

FIGURE 1. GENDER OF AGCA FISHER RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED DURING PRE and POST CAMPAIGN SURVEY

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Overall 489

Survey period:

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

(4) Gender of respondent: Male

98.4%; 481 98.0%; 239 98.8%; 242

Female 1.6%; 8 2.0%; 5 1.2%; 3

No Answer 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245

Freq Error* ±1.1% ±1.8% ±1.4%

ChiSq Significance NA Under 50%* Under 50%*

FIGURE 2. GENDER OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS INTERVIEWED DURING PRE and POST CAMPAIGN SURVEY

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Overall 970

Survey period:

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

(4) Gender of respondent: Male

32.3%; 313 37.4%; 179 27.3%; 134

160

Female 67.7%; 657 62.6%; 300 72.7%; 357

Totals 100.0%; 970 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 491

Freq Error* ±3.0% ±4.4% ±4.0%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0%

FIGURE 3. AGCA FISHERS ENGAGED IN FISHING

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period:

Post-campaign (June 2012) Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011)

(18) Number of years in fishing 4 years and below

16.3%; 40 13.1%; 32

5 to 9 16.7%; 41 16.4%; 40

10 to 14 18.4%; 45 12.7%; 31

15 to 19 9.8%; 24 12.3%; 30

20 to 24 9.4%; 23 11.9%; 29

25 to 29 4.5%; 11 6.6%; 16

30 to 34 6.5%; 16 8.6%; 21

35 to 39 2.4%; 6 3.7%; 9

40 to 44 2.9%; 7 5.3%; 13

45 to 49 0.4%; 1 0.8%; 2

50 to 54 0.4%; 1 1.2%; 3

refuse to answer 6.9%; 17 2.5%; 6

161

Not Applicable 5.3%; 13 4.9%; 12

Totals 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 244

Freq Error* ±4.9% ±4.7%

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50%

FIGURE 4: AGCA FISHER'S INCOME PRE- AND POST SURVEY

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Overall 489

Survey period:

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

(15) Annual (2010) gross income Below 30,000 Pesos

27.8%; 136 24.1%; 59 31.6%; 77

Between 30,000 and 50,000 10.6%; 52 8.2%; 20 13.1%; 32

Between 50,001 and 75,000 1.2%; 6 0.8%; 2 1.6%; 4

Between 75,001 and 100,000 0.6%; 3 0.8%; 2 0.4%; 1

Not sure 49.3%; 241 53.9%; 132 44.7%; 109

Refused 10.4%; 51 12.2%; 30 8.6%; 21

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 244

Freq Error* ±4.5% ±6.4% ±6.4%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%*

162

FIGURE 5: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS INCOME FOR 2010 AND 2011

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Overall 970

Survey period:

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

(15) Annual (2010) gross income Below 30,000 Pesos

16.0%; 155 12.4%; 61 19.6%; 94

Between 30,000 and 50,000 3.8%; 37 3.9%; 19 3.8%; 18

Between 50,001 and 75,000 1.0%; 10 0.6%; 3 1.5%; 7

Between 75,001 and 100,000 0.7%; 7 0.4%; 2 1.0%; 5

Greater than 100,000 Pesos 1.2%; 12 1.8%; 9 0.6%; 3

Not sure 52.3%; 507 42.6%; 209 62.2%; 298

Refused 24.9%; 242 38.3%; 188 11.3%; 54

Totals 100.0%; 970 100.0%; 491 100.0%; 479

Freq Error* ±3.2% ±4.5% ±4.4%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%*

FIGURE 6: FORMAL EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF AGCA FISHERS

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Overall 489

Survey period:

163

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

(11) Educational attainment of the respondents No school completed

0.8%; 4 0.4%; 1 1.2%; 3

Some elementary school 25.6%; 125 27.5%; 67 23.7%; 58

Elementary school completed 36.8%; 180 38.9%; 95 34.7%; 85

Some secondary completed 10.2%; 50 14.3%; 35 6.1%; 15

Some high school 11.5%; 56 7.4%; 18 15.5%; 38

High School Completed 9.4%; 46 6.6%; 16 12.2%; 30

Some College 2.5%; 12 2.0%; 5 2.9%; 7

College Graduate 0.8%; 4 0.4%; 1 1.2%; 3

Vocational course 1.0%; 5 1.2%; 3 0.8%; 2

pastor/religious course 0.4%; 2 0.4%; 1 0.4%; 1

Refuse to answer 1.0%; 5 0.8%; 2 1.2%; 3

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245

Freq Error* ±4.4% ±6.2% ±6.1%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%*

FIGURE 7: FORMAL EDUCATION ATTAINMENT OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Overall 970

Survey period:

164

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

(11) Educational attainment of the respondents No school completed

1.3%; 13 1.5%; 7 1.2%; 6

Some elementary school 19.6%; 190 19.2%; 92 20.0%; 98

Elementary school completed 26.2%; 254 25.5%; 122 26.9%; 132

Some secondary completed 11.8%; 114 18.4%; 88 5.3%; 26

Some high school 17.5%; 170 14.4%; 69 20.6%; 101

High School Completed 14.9%; 145 12.3%; 59 17.5%; 86

Some College 2.9%; 28 2.3%; 11 3.5%; 17

College Graduate 3.4%; 33 2.1%; 10 4.7%; 23

Vocational course 0.4%; 4 0.6%; 3 0.2%; 1

Refuse to answer 1.9%; 18 3.5%; 17 0.2%; 1

Other 0.1%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 970 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 491

Freq Error* ±2.8% ±4.0% ±4.0%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0%

FIGURE 8: HOUSEHOLD NUMBER COMPOSITION OF AGCA FISHER'S FAMILY

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Overall 489

Survey period:

165

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

(10) Number of Household members where respondent belongs 1

0.6%; 3 0.8%; 2 0.4%; 1

2 3.7%; 18 2.5%; 6 4.9%; 12

3 11.2%; 55 10.7%; 26 11.8%; 29

4 11.0%; 54 12.7%; 31 9.4%; 23

5 17.8%; 87 17.2%; 42 18.4%; 45

6 15.7%; 77 13.1%; 32 18.4%; 45

7 13.9%; 68 16.4%; 40 11.4%; 28

8 11.7%; 57 11.9%; 29 11.4%; 28

9 7.6%; 37 7.8%; 19 7.3%; 18

10 4.7%; 23 4.5%; 11 4.9%; 12

10 and above 2.0%; 10 2.5%; 6 1.6%; 4

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245

Freq Error* ±3.5% ±4.8% ±4.9%

ChiSq Significance NA Under 50% Under 50%

FIGURE 9: HOUSEHOLD NUMBER COMPOSITION OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Overall Survey period:

166

970

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

(10) Number of Household members where respondent belongs 1

0.7%; 7 0.8%; 4 0.6%; 3

2 6.5%; 63 7.5%; 36 5.5%; 27

3 11.8%; 114 10.9%; 52 12.6%; 62

4 11.5%; 112 11.7%; 56 11.4%; 56

5 19.8%; 192 18.8%; 90 20.8%; 102

6 15.1%; 146 15.7%; 75 14.5%; 71

7 11.9%; 115 13.8%; 66 10.0%; 49

8 9.6%; 93 8.4%; 40 10.8%; 53

9 6.0%; 58 5.4%; 26 6.5%; 32

10 4.2%; 41 4.0%; 19 4.5%; 22

10 and above 3.0%; 29 3.1%; 15 2.9%; 14

Totals 100.0%; 970 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 491

Freq Error* ±2.6% ±3.6% ±3.7%

ChiSq Significance NA Under 50% Under 50%

167

FIGURE 10: AGE GROUP OF AGCA FISHERS

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Overall 489

Survey period:

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

(9) Age of respondernt 14 or younger

0.4%; 2 0.4%; 1 0.4%; 1

15 to 19 8.0%; 39 13.1%; 32 2.9%; 7

20 to 24 10.0%; 49 12.2%; 30 7.8%; 19

25 to 29 14.7%; 72 13.9%; 34 15.6%; 38

30 to 34 11.0%; 54 10.2%; 25 11.9%; 29

35 to 39 10.6%; 52 10.2%; 25 11.1%; 27

40 to 44 13.9%; 68 14.3%; 35 13.5%; 33

45 to 49 8.6%; 42 4.9%; 12 12.3%; 30

50 to 54 7.4%; 36 5.7%; 14 9.0%; 22

55 or older 15.3%; 75 15.1%; 37 15.6%; 38

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 244

Freq Error* ±3.3% ±4.6% ±4.6%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 90.0% Yes at 90.0%

FIGURE 11: AGE GROUP OF AGCA COMMUNITY

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

168

Overall 970

Survey period:

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

(9) Age of respondernt 14 or younger

0.2%; 2 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1

15 to 19 14.3%; 139 13.6%; 67 15.0%; 72

20 to 24 11.9%; 115 10.0%; 49 13.8%; 66

25 to 29 10.9%; 106 11.0%; 54 10.9%; 52

30 to 34 11.6%; 113 12.8%; 63 10.4%; 50

35 to 39 9.2%; 89 9.4%; 46 9.0%; 43

40 to 44 7.8%; 76 9.2%; 45 6.5%; 31

45 to 49 6.6%; 64 7.5%; 37 5.6%; 27

50 to 54 4.2%; 41 4.1%; 20 4.4%; 21

55 or older 23.2%; 225 22.2%; 109 24.2%; 116

Totals 100.0%; 970 100.0%; 491 100.0%; 479

Freq Error* ±2.7% ±3.8% ±3.9%

ChiSq Significance NA Under 50% Under 50%

PRIMARY OCCUPATION OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Survey period:

169

Post-campaign (June 2012) Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011)

(13) Primary occupation Farming

15.5%; 76 27.1%; 130

Fishing 8.8%; 43 11.5%; 55

Seaweed Farming 2.9%; 14 2.1%; 10

Copra making 14.1%; 69 11.3%; 54

Charcoal making 1.6%; 8 0.4%; 2

small business/buy&sell 4.5%; 22 5.4%; 26

Office work 0.4%; 2 0.0%; 0

Carpentry 0.0%; 0 1.0%; 5

construction worker 0.4%; 2 0.6%; 3

house attendat (pasulweduhan) 0.2%; 1 2.1%; 10

factory worker 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1

Professional (lawyer, teacher, doctor,midwife) 2.9%; 14 1.7%; 8

housework/housewife 28.7%; 141 18.2%; 87

student 8.8%; 43 7.9%; 38

pension 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1

government (honorarium) 1.2%; 6 0.2%; 1

remittance from abroad 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1

unemployed 4.3%; 21 6.3%; 30

Refuse to answer 1.0%; 5 0.2%; 1

Other 0.8%; 4 0.6%; 3

170

EXPOSURE MEASURE

Not Applicable 4.9%; 24 2.9%; 14

Totals *; * *; *

Freq Error* ±4.1% ±4.1%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%*

PRIMARY OCCUPATION OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

(19) Fishing gear used/using

(3) Survey period: -- TA: AGCA FISHERS

Overall (489)

Post-campaign (June 2012) (50.1%, 245)

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) (49.9%, 244)

Percents

0 100

pangki 60.5% 62.0% 59.0%

boso(pana) 34.6% 42.4% 26.6%

bobo 6.7% 10.6% 2.9%

banwit 34.2% 42.0% 26.2%

boso(compressor) 1.0% 0.4% 1.6%

refuse to answer 2.0% 2.4% 1.6%

Not Applicable 4.5% 4.9% 4.1%

Totals n/a n/a n/a

AGCA FISHERS AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTS' EXPOSURE TO VARIOUS COLLATERALS

Survey

TA on Q6:Target Audience Overall 736

AGCA Fishers 33.3%, 245

AGCA Community 66.7%, 491

(A) Poster/Billboard/padukot-Exposure Yes

92.2%; 226 87.0%; 427 88.7%; 653

No 4.9%; 12 8.4%; 41 7.2%; 53

Don't know 2.9%; 7 4.5%; 22 3.9%; 29

171

Freq Error* ±3.4% ±3.0% ±2.3%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(B) Libro-Exposure Yes

13.9%; 34 11.0%; 54 12.0%; 88

No 74.6%; 182 76.7%; 375 76.0%; 557

Don't know 10.7%; 26 11.5%; 56 11.2%; 82

Not Applicable 0.8%; 2 0.8%; 4 0.8%; 6

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±5.6% ±3.8% ±3.2%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(C) Public meeting-Exposure Yes

48.0%; 117 42.5%; 208 44.3%; 325

No 45.5%; 111 47.4%; 232 46.8%; 343

Don't know 6.6%; 16 9.8%; 48 8.7%; 64

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±6.4% ±4.5% ±3.7%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(D) Misa o okasyon-Exposure Yes

27.0%; 66 29.9%; 146 28.9%; 212

No 65.6%; 160 60.5%; 296 62.2%; 456

Don't know 7.4%; 18 9.4%; 46 8.7%; 64

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 0.1%; 1

172

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±6.1% ±4.4% ±3.6%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(E) Bikol na kanta-Exposure Yes

87.7%; 214 83.6%; 409 85.0%; 623

No 10.7%; 26 12.1%; 59 11.6%; 85

Don't know 1.6%; 4 4.1%; 20 3.3%; 24

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±4.2% ±3.3% ±2.6%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(F) Banka-Exposure Yes

75.4%; 184 65.2%; 319 68.6%; 503

No 23.4%; 57 28.8%; 141 27.0%; 198

Don't know 1.2%; 3 5.5%; 27 4.1%; 30

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.4%; 2 0.3%; 2

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±5.5% ±4.3% ±3.4%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 90.0%* Yes at 90.0%* NA

(G) T-shirt-Exposure Yes

94.7%; 231 92.0%; 449 92.9%; 680

No 4.1%; 10 5.3%; 26 4.9%; 36

Don't know 1.2%; 3 2.5%; 12 2.0%; 15

173

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 488 100.0%; 732

Freq Error* ±2.9% ±2.5% ±1.9%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(H) Mascot-Exposure Yes

73.4%; 179 67.8%; 331 69.7%; 510

No 23.4%; 57 26.6%; 130 25.5%; 187

Don't know 3.3%; 8 5.3%; 26 4.6%; 34

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 488 100.0%; 732

Freq Error* ±5.7% ±4.2% ±3.4%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(I) estorya-Exposure Yes

64.8%; 158 66.8%; 326 66.1%; 484

No 31.6%; 77 27.0%; 132 28.6%; 209

Don't know 3.7%; 9 5.9%; 29 5.2%; 38

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 488 100.0%; 732

Freq Error* ±6.1% ±4.3% ±3.5%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(J) Kalendaryo-Exposure Yes

92.7%; 227 90.0%; 440 90.9%; 667

No 5.7%; 14 6.5%; 32 6.3%; 46

174

Don't know 1.6%; 4 3.3%; 16 2.7%; 20

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 734

Freq Error* ±3.3% ±2.7% ±2.1%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Tagalog love song-Exposure Yes

100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Local na barita-Exposure Other

100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Drama show-Exposure Yes

100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

175

Comedy show-Exposure Other

100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 2

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Puppet show-Exposure Other

-; 0 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1

Not Applicable -; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals %; 0 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Pikikula-Exposure Other

-; 0 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1

Not Applicable -; 0 0.0%; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals %; 0 100.0%; 1 100.0%; 1

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

POST

Target Barangay: Overall 736

Caloco Agay-ayan Pag-asa San Antonio LGU/service

176

51.0%, 375 48.9%, 360 0.1%, 1 0.0%, 0 provider 0.0%, 0

(A) Poster/Billboard/padukot-Exposure Yes

89.9%; 337 87.5%; 315 100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 88.7%; 653

No 5.9%; 22 8.6%; 31 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 7.2%; 53

Don't know 4.3%; 16 3.6%; 13 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 3.9%; 29

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 360 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 736

Freq Error* ±3.1% ±3.5% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±2.3%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(B) Libro-Exposure Yes

12.8%; 48 11.2%; 40 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 12.0%; 88

No 74.9%; 281 77.1%; 276 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 76.0%; 557

Don't know 12.3%; 46 10.1%; 36 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 11.2%; 82

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 1.7%; 6 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.8%; 6

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 358 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 733

POST

Target Barangay: Overall 736

Caloco 51.0%, 375

Agay-ayan 48.9%, 360

Pag-asa 0.1%, 1

San Antonio 0.0%, 0

LGU/service provider 0.0%, 0

Freq Error* ±4.5% ±4.4% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.2%

177

ChiSq Significance Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* NA

(C) Public meeting-Exposure Yes

37.6%; 141 51.4%; 184 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 44.3%; 325

No 52.8%; 198 40.5%; 145 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 46.8%; 343

Don't know 9.6%; 36 7.8%; 28 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 8.7%; 64

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 358 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±5.2% ±5.3% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.7%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* NA

(D) Misa o okasyon-Exposure Yes

17.6%; 66 40.8%; 146 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 28.9%; 212

No 72.0%; 270 52.0%; 186 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 62.2%; 456

Don't know 10.4%; 39 7.0%; 25 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 8.7%; 64

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 358 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±4.6% ±5.3% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.6%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* NA

(E) Bikol na kanta-Exposure Yes

86.7%; 325 83.2%; 298 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 85.0%; 623

No 9.6%; 36 13.7%; 49 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 11.6%; 85

Don't know 3.7%; 14 2.8%; 10 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 3.3%; 24

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 358 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 733

178

Freq Error* ±3.5% ±3.9% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±2.6%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(F) Banka-Exposure Yes

64.0%; 240 73.5%; 263 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 68.6%; 503

No 32.5%; 122 21.2%; 76 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 27.0%; 198

Don't know 3.5%; 13 4.7%; 17 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 4.1%; 30

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.6%; 2 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 358 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 733

Freq Error* ±5.0% ±4.7% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.4%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%* NA

(G) T-shirt-Exposure Yes

92.5%; 347 93.3%; 333 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 92.9%; 680

No 5.3%; 20 4.5%; 16 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 4.9%; 36

Don't know 2.1%; 8 2.0%; 7 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 2.0%; 15

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 357 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 732

Freq Error* ±2.7% ±2.7% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±1.9%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

(H) Mascot-Exposure Yes

65.6%; 246 73.9%; 264 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 69.7%; 510

No 29.1%; 109 21.8%; 78 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 25.5%; 187

Don't know 5.3%; 20 3.9%; 14 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 4.6%; 34

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

179

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 357 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 732

Freq Error* ±4.9% ±4.6% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.4%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* NA

(I) estorya-Exposure Yes

50.4%; 189 82.6%; 295 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 66.1%; 484

No 42.7%; 160 13.7%; 49 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 28.6%; 209

Don't know 6.9%; 26 3.4%; 12 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 5.2%; 38

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 357 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 732

Freq Error* ±5.2% ±4.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.5%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* NA

(J) Kalendaryo-Exposure Yes

89.9%; 337 91.9%; 329 100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 90.9%; 667

No 7.5%; 28 5.0%; 18 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 6.3%; 46

Don't know 2.7%; 10 2.8%; 10 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 2.7%; 20

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.3%; 1 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.1%; 1

Totals 100.0%; 375 100.0%; 358 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 734

Freq Error* ±3.1% ±2.9% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±2.1%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Tagalog love song-Exposure Yes

100.0%; 1 -; 0 100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 %; 0 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 2

180

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Local na barita-Exposure Other

100.0%; 1 -; 0 100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 %; 0 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 2

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Drama show-Exposure Yes

100.0%; 1 -; 0 100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 %; 0 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 2

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Comedy show-Exposure Other

100.0%; 1 -; 0 100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 100.0%; 2

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 %; 0 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 2

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Puppet show-Exposure Other

100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 100.0%; 1

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0

181

Totals 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 1

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

Pikikula-Exposure Other

100.0%; 1 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 100.0%; 1

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0

Totals 100.0%; 1 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 %; 0 100.0%; 1

Freq Error* ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

KNOWLEDGE OF AGCA FISHER REGARDING THE LOCATION OF AGCA SANCTUARY

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(26) Do you know where the AGCA Sanctuary is located? Yes

79.9%; 195 81.2%; 199 80.6%; 394

No 13.5%; 33 12.2%; 30 12.9%; 63

Don't know 6.6%; 16 5.7%; 14 6.1%; 30

Not Applicable 0.0%; 0 0.8%; 2 0.4%; 2

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±5.1% ±5.0% ±3.6%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

KNOWLEDGE OF AGCA FISHERS THAT FISHING/GLEANING IS PROHIBITED INSIDE THE NTZ

agca FISHERS1

182

Overall Survey period:

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(B) It is in a law or in regulation to prohibit the fishers to fish and glean inside the core zone of True

85.5%; 418 82.0%; 200 89.0%; 218

False 5.7%; 28 7.8%; 19 3.7%; 9

Unsure 8.8%; 43 10.2%; 25 7.3%; 18

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245

Freq Error* ±3.2% ±4.9% ±4.0%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 75.0% Yes at 75.0%

AGCA FISHERS WHO SAID THEY BELIEVED THAT RULES OF AGCA SANCTUARY MUST BE FOLLOWED

agca FISHERS1

Overall 489

Survey period:

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

(77) Numbers of respondents who says that they must follow the rules and regulation of AGCA MArine Sanctuary Neutral

1.8%; 9 3.3%; 8 0.4%; 1

I dont know 7.4%; 36 6.1%; 15 8.6%; 21

SA and A 90.8%; 444 90.6%; 221 91.0%; 223

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245

183

Freq Error* ±2.6% ±3.7% ±3.7%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 75.0%* Yes at 75.0%*

AGCA FISHERS WHO SAID THEY TALKED TO ANYONE ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF HAVING AN NTZ

agca FISHERS1

Overall 489

Survey period:

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

(55) Benefits to the community Have not talked to anyone

78.1%; 382 77.9%; 190 78.4%; 192

other community member 21.9%; 107 22.1%; 54 21.6%; 53

Other 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0 0.4%; 1

Totals *; * *; * *; *

Freq Error* ±3.7% ±5.3% ±5.3%

ChiSq Significance NA Under 50%* Under 50%*

AGCA FISHERS WHO SAID THEY KNOW AGCA BOUNDARIES

agca FISHERS1

Overall 489

Survey period:

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

184

(C) Local people know boundaries of the no-take area Disagree

2.5%; 12 2.0%; 5 2.9%; 7

Strongly Disagree 0.6%; 3 1.2%; 3 0.0%; 0

I dont know 12.7%; 62 11.5%; 28 13.9%; 34

SA and A 84.3%; 412 85.2%; 208 83.3%; 204

Totals 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245

Freq Error* ±3.3% ±4.5% ±4.8%

ChiSq Significance NA Under 50%* Under 50%*

AGCA COMMUNITY SELF EFFICACY

cOMMUNITY 1

Survey period: Overall 970

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

(63) Do you agree or disagree that you can do something or contribute in reducting/eliminating illegal fishing activites in barangay? Neutral

2.4%; 12 6.1%; 29 4.2%; 41

Disagree 0.0%; 0 0.4%; 2 0.2%; 2

I dont know 29.1%; 143 26.9%; 129 28.0%; 272

SA and A 68.4%; 336 66.6%; 319 67.5%; 655

Totals 100.0%; 491 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 970

Freq Error* ±4.2% ±4.3% ±3.0%

185

ChiSq Significance Yes at 75.0%* Yes at 75.0%* NA

COMMUNITY IC ON BENEFITS

cOMMUNITY 1

Overall 970

Survey period:

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

(55) Benefits to the community Have not talked to anyone

89.9%; 870 86.9%; 425 92.9%; 445

combined 10.2%; 99 13.1%; 64 7.3%; 35

Other 0.1%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.0%; 0

Totals *; * *; * *; *

Freq Error* ±1.9% ±3.1% ±2.3%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 95.0%* Yes at 95.0%*

KNOWLEDGE ON BENEFITS OF MPA

cOMMUNITY 1

Survey period:

Post-campaign (June 2012) Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011)

(B) Number of respondents who says that there are community benefits from having the no-take area nearby i dont know

34.5%; 162 60.5%; 290

186

N/A 1.7%; 8 0.4%; 2

Other 23.5%; 110 8.1%; 39

benefits 47.3%; 222 36.3%; 174

Totals *; * *; *

Freq Error* ±4.6% ±4.5%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%*

AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS KNOWS ABOUT THE MANCOM

cOMMUNITY 1

Overall 970

Survey period:

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.4%, 479

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.6%, 491

(61) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE If you were to report someone who has broken the rules & regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, who would you report them to? [YOU CAN CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER]. Local police

7.5%; 73 11.3%; 54 3.9%; 19

Barangay Captain 48.7%; 471 48.0%; 230 49.3%; 241

Municipal mayor 14.6%; 141 18.8%; 90 10.4%; 51

Next door neighbor 1.0%; 10 1.0%; 5 1.0%; 5

Husband/Wife. 0.2%; 2 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1

I dont know 1.7%; 16 0.6%; 3 2.7%; 13

Other 0.3%; 3 0.4%; 2 0.2%; 1

187

enforcer in baranagay 64.2%; 621 55.7%; 267 72.4%; 354

Totals *; * *; * *; *

Freq Error* ±3.1% ±4.5% ±4.0%

ChiSq Significance NA Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%*

MEASURE OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS' BARRIER REMOVAL STRATEGIES FOR PRE- AND POST-CAMPAIGN

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(A) There is a clear plan for how the no-take area will be managed I dont know

21.7%; 104 29.2%; 143 25.5%; 247

SA and A 76.6%; 367 67.8%; 332 72.1%; 699

SD and D 1.7%; 8 3.1%; 15 2.4%; 23

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 490 100.0%; 969

Freq Error* ±3.9% ±4.2% ±2.9%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 95.0% Yes at 95.0% NA

(B) Local village fishers regularly participate in management decisions of the no-take area I dont know

23.4%; 112 30.5%; 149 27.0%; 261

SA and A 72.4%; 347 64.2%; 314 68.3%; 661

188

SD and D 4.2%; 20 5.3%; 26 4.8%; 46

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 968

Freq Error* ±4.1% ±4.3% ±3.0%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 75.0% Yes at 75.0% NA

(C) Local people know boundaries of the no-take area I dont know

25.7%; 123 26.3%; 129 26.0%; 252

SA and A 71.8%; 344 71.5%; 351 71.6%; 695

SD and D 2.5%; 12 2.2%; 11 2.4%; 23

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 491 100.0%; 970

Freq Error* ±4.1% ±4.1% ±2.9%

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50% NA

(D) There was not enough planning done before the no-take area was established I dont know

31.1%; 149 68.6%; 324 49.7%; 473

SA and A 53.7%; 257 28.0%; 132 40.9%; 389

SD and D 15.2%; 73 3.4%; 16 9.4%; 89

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 472 100.0%; 951

Freq Error* ±4.6% ±4.3% ±3.2%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

(E) There is enough money and other resources to fully manage and enforce the rules of the no-take are I dont know

33.4%; 160 33.9%; 166 33.7%; 326

SA and A 57.6%; 276 58.5%; 286 58.1%; 562

189

SD and D 9.0%; 43 7.6%; 37 8.3%; 80

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 968

Freq Error* ±4.5% ±4.5% ±3.2%

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50% NA

(F) The rules of the no-take area are regularly enforced so that violators are caught and punished I dont know

25.3%; 121 23.7%; 116 24.5%; 237

SA and A 69.3%; 332 56.2%; 275 62.7%; 607

SD and D 5.4%; 26 20.0%; 98 12.8%; 124

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 968

Freq Error* ±4.2% ±4.5% ±3.1%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

(G) The rules of the no-take area are unclear and local fishers don't understand them I dont know

26.7%; 128 27.4%; 134 27.1%; 262

SA and A 56.2%; 269 53.0%; 259 54.5%; 528

SD and D 17.1%; 82 19.6%; 96 18.4%; 178

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 968

Freq Error* ±4.5% ±4.5% ±3.2%

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50% NA

(H) The rules of the no-take area are designed more to protect the fish than to help the fishers I dont know

24.6%; 118 26.8%; 130 25.7%; 248

SA and A 70.1%; 336 63.5%; 308 66.8%; 644

190

SD and D 5.2%; 25 9.7%; 47 7.5%; 72

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 485 100.0%; 964

Freq Error* ±4.2% ±4.4% ±3.0%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 90.0% Yes at 90.0% NA

(I) The infrastructure, equipment and facilities to enforce the rules of the no-take area are adequate I dont know

28.0%; 134 33.5%; 164 30.8%; 298

SA and A 62.6%; 300 60.5%; 296 61.6%; 596

SD and D 9.4%; 45 5.9%; 29 7.6%; 74

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 968

Freq Error* ±4.4% ±4.4% ±3.1%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 75.0% Yes at 75.0% NA

(J) There is an adequate communications program about the no-take area I dont know

27.8%; 133 29.0%; 141 28.4%; 274

SA and A 63.9%; 306 65.8%; 320 64.9%; 626

SD and D 8.4%; 40 5.1%; 25 6.7%; 65

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 486 100.0%; 965

Freq Error* ±4.4% ±4.3% ±3.1%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 50.0% Yes at 50.0% NA

(K) Staff of the no-take area are adequately trained 26.5%; 127 23.6%; 115 25.1%; 242

191

I dont know

SA and A 69.3%; 332 71.5%; 348 70.4%; 680

SD and D 4.2%; 20 4.9%; 24 4.6%; 44

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 487 100.0%; 966

Freq Error* ±4.2% ±4.1% ±2.9%

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50% NA

(L) There is a regular management effectiveness assessment conducted for the no-take area I dont know

27.1%; 130 23.3%; 114 25.2%; 244

SA and A 69.5%; 333 70.6%; 345 70.0%; 678

SD and D 3.3%; 16 6.1%; 30 4.8%; 46

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 489 100.0%; 968

Freq Error* ±4.2% ±4.1% ±2.9%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 75.0% Yes at 75.0% NA

(M) Research and monitoring activities of the no take area are adequate I dont know

27.8%; 133 25.8%; 126 26.8%; 259

SA and A 68.5%; 328 64.3%; 314 66.4%; 642

SD and D 3.8%; 18 9.8%; 48 6.8%; 66

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 488 100.0%; 967

Freq Error* ±4.2% ±4.3% ±3.0%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

(N) There are no current problems with the no-take area management I dont know

32.6%; 156 41.6%; 203 37.1%; 359

192

SA and A 52.0%; 249 33.4%; 163 42.6%; 412

SD and D 15.4%; 74 25.0%; 122 20.3%; 196

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 488 100.0%; 967

Freq Error* ±4.6% ±4.5% ±3.2%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

MEASURE OF AGCA FISHERS' BARRIER REMOVAL STRATEGIES FOR PRE- AND POST CAMPAIGN

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(D) AGCA Marine Sanctuary were being guarded 24/7? Strongly Agree

4.1%; 10 9.8%; 24 7.0%; 34

Agree 29.5%; 72 26.5%; 65 28.0%; 137

Disagree 44.3%; 108 34.7%; 85 39.5%; 193

Strongly Disagree 1.6%; 4 0.4%; 1 1.0%; 5

I dont know 20.5%; 50 28.6%; 70 24.5%; 120

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±6.4% ±6.1% ±4.4%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 90.0% Yes at 90.0% NA

POST

Target Barangay: Overall

193

Agay-ayan Caloco San Antonio Pag-asa LGU/service provider

(66) Are you aware of who comprise the AGCA Mancom (pls check all, that apply Officers from DENR/BFARO

9.7%; 34 13.3%; 50 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 11.6%; 84

Officers from the Province 1.4%; 5 4.5%; 17 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 3.0%; 22

Teachers 4.6%; 16 3.7%; 14 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 4.1%; 30

women sector 0.3%; 1 1.9%; 7 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 1.1%; 8

youth sector 1.1%; 4 2.7%; 10 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 1.9%; 14

Fisher's sector 2.6%; 9 4.8%; 18 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 3.7%; 27

business sector 0.0%; 0 1.3%; 5 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.7%; 5

church 0.9%; 3 1.1%; 4 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 1.0%; 7

I dont know 41.3%; 144 38.1%; 143 -; 0 100.0%; 1 -; 0 39.7%; 288

Other 0.9%; 3 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.4%; 3

local law enforcer 58.2%; 203 60.5%; 227 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 59.3%; 430

Totals *; * *; * *; * *; * *; * *; *

Freq Error* ±5.3% ±5.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.6%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* NA

(67) what have been done in the past six months? 17

0.0%; 0 0.6%; 2 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

Dae ko aram 0.7%; 2 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.5%; 3

dai ko magiromduman 0.7%; 2 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

Guard house 1.0%; 3 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.5%; 3

Guarding and Patrolling 0.3%; 1 0.0%; 0 -; 0 100.0%; 1 -; 0 0.3%; 2

194

mayo akong aram 0.3%; 1 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

mayo man 0.3%; 1 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

mayo simbag 1.6%; 5 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.9%; 6

Meeting 0.7%; 2 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.5%; 3

Meeting,survey 0.7%; 2 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

NAG DAKOP KAN MGA NAG ILLIGAL LALO NA SA SANCTUARY 0.7%; 2 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

nag pa meeting 0.3%; 1 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

nagbugtak guardhouse 0.3%; 1 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

Naglaag guard house 0.0%; 0 0.6%; 2 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

naglaag guardhouse 2.6%; 8 1.7%; 6 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 2.1%; 14

Nagronda 0.0%; 0 1.4%; 5 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.8%; 5

Nagroronda 0.3%; 1 0.6%; 2 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.5%; 3

no answeer 0.7%; 2 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

No answer 29.3%; 89 64.8%; 230 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 48.3%; 319

Pagtao nin t-shirt 0.3%; 1 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

Plan and manage marine resources 0.3%; 1 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

Public meeting 0.7%; 2 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

wala 0.7%; 2 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.3%; 2

wala na po 6.6%; 20 0.3%; 1 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 3.2%; 21

wala po 2.6%; 8 5.9%; 21 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 4.4%; 29

Other 48.4%; 147 21.7%; 77 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 33.9%; 224

Totals 100.0%; 304 100.0%; 355 %; 0 100.0%; 1 %; 0 100.0%; 660

195

Freq Error* ±5.7% ±5.1% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.9%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* NA

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(61) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE If you were to report someone who has broken the rules & regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary, who would you report them to? [YOU CAN CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE ANSWER]. Local police

6.6%; 16 6.9%; 17 6.7%; 33

Municipal mayor 10.2%; 25 11.4%; 28 10.8%; 53

Next door neighbor 0.8%; 2 0.8%; 2 0.8%; 4

Husband/Wife. 1.2%; 3 0.0%; 0 0.6%; 3

Would Not Report 0.4%; 1 0.4%; 1 0.4%; 2

I dont know 2.5%; 6 1.6%; 4 2.0%; 10

Other 0.4%; 1 0.0%; 0 0.2%; 1

f 89.3%; 218 95.9%; 235 92.6%; 453

Totals *; * *; * *; *

Freq Error* ±4.0% ±2.5% ±2.4%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* NA

POST

196

Target Barangay: Overall 736

Agay-ayan 48.9%, 360

Caloco 51.0%, 375

San Antonio 0.0%, 0

Pag-asa 0.1%, 1

LGU/service provider 0.0%, 0

(52) OPTIONAL/CUSTOMIZE Who should primarily enforce the rules and regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? Should it be the Coastguard, Fishers/gleaners, the Bantay dagat, the National Police, local vill Coastguard

11.6%; 41 10.4%; 39 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 11.0%; 80

Fishers/Gleaners 10.2%; 36 11.2%; 42 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 10.7%; 78

National Police 1.7%; 6 1.6%; 6 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 1.6%; 12

Philippine Army 1.1%; 4 1.1%; 4 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 1.1%; 8

LGU Municipal 17.8%; 63 11.5%; 43 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 14.5%; 106

Other 2.0%; 7 0.0%; 0 -; 0 0.0%; 0 -; 0 1.0%; 7

c 55.5%; 196 64.3%; 241 -; 0 100.0%; 1 -; 0 60.1%; 438

Totals 100.0%; 353 100.0%; 375 %; 0 100.0%; 1 %; 0 100.0%; 729

Freq Error* ±5.3% ±4.9% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±3.6%

ChiSq Significance Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* Under 50%* NA

NUMBER OF INTRUSION INSIDE THE NTZ FOR PRE- AND POST CAMPAIGN

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

197

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011)

Post-campaign (June 2012)

(30) CUSTOMIZE TO BEHAVIOR CHANGE, ONE QUESTION FOR EACH BC IN YOUR TOC I am going to read you a list of 6 statement about following regulations of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary. I would like you to listen to I have never considered stopping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary.

2.0%; 5 3.7%; 9 2.9%; 14

I have considered stopping fishiing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary but not stopped yet

2.0%; 5 1.6%; 4 1.8%; 9

I intend to stop fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the next 6 months. 0.4%; 1 0.8%; 2 0.6%; 3

I have talked to someone about stopiping fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months.

13.5%; 33 3.7%; 9 8.6%; 42

I have only gone fishing/gleaning in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary a few times in the past 6 months

8.2%; 20 0.8%; 2 4.5%; 22

I have not fished/gleaned in the AGCA Marine Sanctuary in the past 6 months. 69.3%; 169 83.3%; 204 76.3%;

373

Behavior not relevant to this respondent 4.5%; 11 6.1%; 15 5.3%; 26

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%;

489

Freq Error* ±5.9% ±4.8% ±3.8%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0%* Yes at 99.0%* NA

NUMBER OF AGCA FISHERS REPORTING INTRUSION AND VIOLATIONS

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

198

(60) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE - In the last six months have you heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations to the enforcement team? Yes

35.7%; 87 46.9%; 115 41.3%; 202

No 50.8%; 124 39.2%; 96 45.0%; 220

not sure/dont know 13.5%; 33 13.9%; 34 13.7%; 67

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±6.4% ±6.4% ±4.5%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 75.0% Yes at 75.0% NA

NUMBER OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS REPORTING INTRUSION AND VIOLATIONS

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(60) OPTIONAL - CUSTOMIZE - In the last six months have you heard of anyone reporting someone breaking the AGCA Marine Sanctuary rules & regulations to the enforcement team? Yes

25.1%; 120 31.8%; 156 28.5%; 276

No 52.8%; 253 57.6%; 283 55.3%; 536

not sure/dont know 22.1%; 106 10.6%; 52 16.3%; 158

Totals 100.0%; 479 100.0%; 491 100.0%; 970

Freq Error* ±4.6% ±4.5% ±3.2%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

199

NUMBER OF AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS ATTENDING AGCA MEETINGS

TA: AGCA COMMUNITY RESIDENTS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(A) if yes, how often have you attend the meeting in 12 months Never attended a meeting

60.5%; 274 58.0%; 240 59.3%; 514

Attended at least 1 meeting 12.6%; 57 19.6%; 81 15.9%; 138

Attended at between 2-5 meetings 3.5%; 16 8.7%; 36 6.0%; 52

Attended at least 6 meetings 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 1 0.2%; 2

More than 7 meetings 2.0%; 9 1.4%; 6 1.7%; 15

Not applicable 21.2%; 96 12.1%; 50 16.8%; 146

Totals 100.0%; 453 100.0%; 414 100.0%; 867

Freq Error* ±4.6% ±4.9% ±3.3%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

AGCA FISHERS PERCEPTION ON FISH CATCH

Agay-ayan fishers

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

200

(53) FOR FISHER RESPONDENT: Has your catch increased, decreased or stayed the same as a result of the AGCA Marine Sanctuary? (If the person does not fish or glean mark as NA) Decreased

12.6% 10.6% 11.7%

Increased 43.7% 52.9% 48.0%

Stayed the Same 34.5% 21.2% 28.3%

Not sure 9.2% 13.5% 11.2%

Not Applicable 0.0% 1.9% 0.9%

Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

COMMERCIAL FISHERS SEEN NEAR THE MPA

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall 489

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

(H) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc Seen

12.3%; 30 8.2%; 20 10.2%; 50

Not seen 83.2%; 203 85.3%; 209 84.3%; 412

Not sure / Don't remember 4.5%; 11 6.5%; 16 5.5%; 27

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±4.8% ±4.5% ±3.3%

201

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50% NA

SUBSISTENCE FISHERS SEEN NEAR THE MPA

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(A) Subsistence fishers from your village Seen

38.7%; 94 25.0%; 3 38.0%; 97

Not seen 57.2%; 139 58.3%; 7 57.3%; 146

Not sure / Don't remember 4.1%; 10 16.7%; 2 4.7%; 12

Totals 100.0%; 243 100.0%; 12 100.0%; 255

Freq Error* ±6.3% ±28.5% ±6.2%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 50.0%* Yes at 50.0%* NA

COMMERCIAL FISHERS SEEN NEAR THE MPA

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall 489

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) 49.9%, 244

Post-campaign (June 2012) 50.1%, 245

(H) Commercial fishers using trawls, ring net, etc Seen

12.3%; 30 8.2%; 20 10.2%; 50

202

Not seen 83.2%; 203 85.3%; 209 84.3%; 412

Not sure / Don't remember 4.5%; 11 6.5%; 16 5.5%; 27

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±4.8% ±4.5% ±3.3%

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50% NA

COMPRESSOR FISHING INSIDE THE NTZ1

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(23) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone I of AGCA Sanctuary in the past 6 months? Seen

24.6%; 60 4.9%; 12 14.7%; 72

Not seen 68.0%; 166 88.6%; 217 78.3%; 383

Not sure / Don't remember 7.4%; 18 6.5%; 16 7.0%; 34

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±6.0% ±4.1% ±3.7%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

POACHING INSIDE THE NTZ1

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

203

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(B) There were poachers in core zone 1 of AGCA Marine Sanctuary at night time Strongly Agree

7.8%; 19 7.8%; 19 7.8%; 38

Agree 49.6%; 121 34.7%; 85 42.1%; 206

Disagree 16.0%; 39 20.8%; 51 18.4%; 90

Strongly Disagree 1.2%; 3 0.0%; 0 0.6%; 3

I dont know 25.4%; 62 36.7%; 90 31.1%; 152

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±6.4% ±6.2% ±4.5%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 95.0% Yes at 95.0% NA

POACHING INSIDE THE NTZ2

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(C) There were poachers in AGCA Sanctuary core zone 2 at night time Strongly Agree

4.5%; 11 14.3%; 35 9.4%; 46

Agree 50.4%; 123 40.0%; 98 45.2%; 221

Disagree 15.6%; 38 12.2%; 30 13.9%; 68

Strongly Disagree 1.2%; 3 0.0%; 0 0.6%; 3

I dont know 28.3%; 69 33.5%; 82 30.9%; 151

204

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±6.4% ±6.3% ±4.5%

ChiSq Significance Yes at 99.0% Yes at 99.0% NA

COMPRESSOR FISHING INSIDE THE NTZ2

TA: AGCA FISHERS

Survey period: Overall

Pre campaign - Baseline (Feb 2011) Post-campaign (June 2012)

(24) Have you seen compressor fishers operating inside the core zone II in the past 6 months? Seen

11.5%; 28 14.7%; 36 13.1%; 64

Not seen 79.9%; 195 77.1%; 189 78.5%; 384

Not sure / Don't remember 8.6%; 21 8.2%; 20 8.4%; 41

Totals 100.0%; 244 100.0%; 245 100.0%; 489

Freq Error* ±5.1% ±5.4% ±3.7%

ChiSq Significance Under 50% Under 50% NA

205

206

C: Full Governance and Enforcement Action Plan (from Project Plan)

AGCA MPA Governance and Management plan (BROP)

1. Abstract The AGCA Marine Sanctuary has been established over 5 years now through the Municipal Ordinance No. 05 Series of 2006. This ordinance describes rules and regulations in the inside the core zone and the buffer zone, penalties per violation, definition of boundaries, and a management body designated to oversee and perform day to day activities. The sanctuary was established through a collaborative effort of the local fishers and barangay councils of barangays Agay-ayan and Caloco, with support from Network of Sustainable Livelihoods Catalysts, Inc (NSLC). The purpose of setting up the sanctuary is to conserve marine biodiversity and to improve fish catch of fishers. The name AGCA was coined from the first two letter of the words Agay-ayan and Caloco. This name was chosen by the local leaders and barangay officials of the two barangays during the drafting of the joint barangay resolution requesting for the creation/establishment of marine protected area in both barangays. The management performance of AGCA Marine Sanctuary was rated “PASSING” based on recent MPA rating and is still at level “1” [initiated]. It has a functional management body called AGCA Resource Management Council comprising the Technical Working Group (TWG) and Management Committee (ManCom). Level of community participation is high but it failed to draft a management plan that is adopted though a municipal ordinance. The management body acknowledged this rating during the organizational development

207

workshops. This high rating of community participation can be attributed to the presence and sustained IEC activities of NSLC; active enforcement by local fish wardens; financial and logistic support from the mayor; and the perceived improvement in income by fishers and seaweed farmers (PCRA).This strong community support to the sanctuary resulted to decreasing intrusion inside the sanctuary, from 2000 incidents/year down to 32 incidents/year [PCRA]. Result of the KAP survey confirmed this high level of community participation as shown in the level of awareness and positive attitude of the majority of community residents towards the protection of AGCA Sanctuary and conservation of marine resource. Biophysical monitoring of sanctuary by MERF revealed that live hard corals cover is in fair condition ( 29%) and predominated by dead coral with algae (___%) and rubble (___%), indicative that the reefs are already recovering from excessive mechanical damage to corals. Fish communities are at 259 individuals/500 m2 with 12.2 MT/Km2 as biomass. This can be explained by extractive practices inside the core zone by compressor and net fishing before the sanctuary was fully protected. Overall, overfishing and sustained enforcement is one of the pressing the issues in the community.The diagnostic process [PCRA, MPA rating, OD]- had been instrumental in identifying such issues thereby used as basis in crafting this MPA Governance and Management Plan to improve governance, enforcement and more community buy-in. This MPA-GMP will be carried out by the MPA Management Body [TWG and ManCom] within the timeframe June 2011-June 2012 and will be assessed regularly during meetings. This MPA-GMP will be supported by funding opportunities from various sources such as the Municipal CRM budget, Line Agencies, NGOs and Small Grants from local organizations.

2. Introduction The Philippines ranked first with the most number of MPAs in the world. About 25% of the worlds MPAs are found in the Philippines. However, 15% of these MPAs are doomed to fail in an annual basis due to poor governance and weak enforcement (Aliňo 1998). In fact, during the Rare-initiated workshop in Cebu, on February 2010, these 2 issues surfaced as the most pressing compared to pollution, sedimentation, land-use issues, and climate change. This workshop was attended by scholars and experts in their fields in the Philippines. Governance refer to the clarity of processes in selecting leaders to manage the MPA and enforcement [a subset of governance] refer to the capacity and availability of logistics to perform such roles that involves the entire continuum such as deterrence, apprehension, case filing and decision. The poor selection of leaders and weak capacity to enforce MPA boundaries and policies will result in the lack of

208

community buy-in to support leaders and projects, unregulated unsustainable fishing activities inside MPAs, and unpopular MPA boundaries and ownership. Subsequently, MPA benefits are not maximized and the community will lose pride over the local MPA. This AGCA Pride Campaign is geared towards changing the behaviour of local fishers and community in order to stop intrusions into the MPA and gain greater community buy-in for improved MPA governance and enforcement. The current plan seeks to strengthen the structures and processes supporting the MPA management and enforcement so that the fishers and community are able to embrace these behaviour changes and take ownership of the MPA and the benefits that it can provide.

3. Objectives and scope 1. To improve MPA enforcement processes by November 2011 [i.e. upgraded guardhouse, enforcement, protocols/plans,

intelligence network and communication, logbook system] 2. To improve MPA governance system by November 2011 [i.e. regular meeting, increase membership, documentation, management

planning, evaluation, monitoring team] 3. Improve MPA effectiveness rating to level 3 [enforced] by June 2012

MAP OF AGCA (insert)

209

4. Tools There were three participatory assessment methods used to assess current status of fisheries, management performance and community knowledge and practices, namely, Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA), TWG and ManCom OD and planning workshops and KAP survey.

1. PCRA is a critical assessment tool that takes into account the community as the main source of information and data gatherers. It has been widely used in the Philippines since the birth of community-based resource management projects in over 3 decades now. This tool generated a whole suite of focused group discussions [FGDs] not limited to fishery enforcement, resource map, MPA history and etc. The objective of which is to improve community buy-in right at start of project and understand the fishery status in the locality.

2. MPA effectiveness rating system is a self-assessment tool initiated by CCEF and modified by EcoGov to determine management performance of MPA. It is a system that came about to address the need to improve the overall quality of management-since most MPA face difficulty in enforcement due to poverty and general lack of awareness about the coastal environment. This rating was administered on April 26,2011 with the newly reconstituted MPA management body [TWG and ManCom]. This tool generated conclusions on management status and management focus, collated documents supporting rating, and basis for planning.

3. Organizational development is a conceptual, organization-wide effort to increase an organizations effectiveness and viability through an external facilitator. In our case, we employed OD to assess the local organizations i.e. the TWG and ManCom vis a vis MPA management on separate dates. This workshops generated action plan focusing on improving organizational performance and strengthening for improve MPA governance and enforcement.

5. MPA profile

1. PCRA a. FGD on enforcement

Since the establishment of AGCA Marine Sanctuary on 2006, there were reported about 100 violations. Of these, 90 were merely sightings and testimonies by local Fisherfolk and community. Since then, intrusion to core zone using compressor fishing, cyanide and fish nets by fishers coming from neighboring towns and barangays were the most common violation committed.

210

Table 1 and 2 shows a decreasing trend in number of sightings, from 420-2000 incidents per year down to <20/year. Accounts of violations was recorded since 2010, two years after the deputation of Bantay-dagat. Form of fishing, number and provenance of intruders, and time of day or occasion as when and where the incident took place were recorded in the logbook. Gaps that were identified are improvement in the enforcement logistics, increase support from LGU, building the capacity of the enforcement team to practice the whole enforcement continuum.

MPA History and form of infringement (Core Zone 1) Year Number of

infringement

Types/forms of

infringement/gears used

Intruders (from

where, who, age

group)- 20 to 60

Course/s of action

taken

(apprehension,

affidavit writing,

litigation,

imprisonment)

Forms of

incentives/disincentives

2005 420/yr RA 8550/ commercial fishers

intruding inside the

sanctuary

Caloco and San

Antonio, Camarines

Norte,

Quezon

none none

2006 120/yr Intrusion inside the sanctuary Apad, Caloco none

2007 45 Intrusion inside the sanctuary San Antonio and

Caloco

Bocogan, Lagonoy

warning none

2008 33 Spearfishing, compressor

fishing, gill net fishing inside

the sanctuary

none

2009 3 + (58 others) Dynamite fishing and

galadgad inside the

municipal water

Pagmulta Honorarium; uniform,

insurance

2010 4 + (36 others) Dynamite fishing inside the

municipal water

Macurag Pag-asa;

Apad Caloco

Pagmulta

imprisonment

211

2011 10 Use of galadgad inside the

municipal water

Bucan/Isabel

Agay-ayan

Monitoring

MPA History and form of infringement (Core Zone 2)

Year Number of

infringement

Types/for

ms of

infringeme

nt/gears

used

Intruders (from where,

who, age group)

Course/s of action taken

(apprehension, affidavit

writing, litigation,

imprisonment)

Forms of

incentives/disincentives

2005 2000/yr R.A. 8550-

Use of destructive

fishing vessels and

gear

Use of dynamit (age

30+), compressor (age

18-50) and spear fishing

(age 15 to 50) inside the

sanctuary.

sodium (age 15+).

Buli-buli

(AGCA Fishers Non-

AGCA Fishers)

None None

2006 200

2007 20

2008 10

2009 61 Dynamite, galadgad,

buli-buli (Non-AGCA

Fishers)

Warning Honorarium

Uniform

Insurance

2010 39 Blotter, imprisonment.

Warning

2011 First Q- 0

Second Q- 2

Intrusion inside the

sanctuary

Compressor (night time) unknown

212

b. FGD on MPA Management History [use formative research results during pre 1st university phase] History management of AGCA Sanctuary in two barangays can be jointly discussed for it started through a joint resolution requesting for the establishment of a marine protected area in Tinambac. Few individuals ( about 15 persons) from the village started that action and are they are still active today. The first environmental education started on 2003 facilitated by then PAMANA KA sa Pilipinas- a network of community-based MPA managers in the Philippines. The MPA management that was set up at start used a bottom-up approach. It starts where the people are and build on with what they have, their level of knowledge and understanding. The facilitation process done by NSLC makes it sure that the local community has the ownership of the process and is willing to take the responsibility of continuing the conservation action. It is a slow process of creating change in community, taking into considerations that the process is more participatory, inclusive, holistic, empowering, and can be replicated to other areas. KAP survey results show AGCA Fishers and AGCA community has high level of knowledge (82%), attitude (91%) and practices (69%). Level of behavior change is quite high. For this campaign, sustaining mechanisms and infrastructure are needed to sustain and have a lasting impact to the community. Based from the MPA effectiveness rating result, gaps that were Identified are- improve coordination among enforcement system, conduct of regular monitoring and evaluation, and have a good management plan that is adopted through municipal ordinance.

213

YEAR(S)

PROJECT or EVENT

GOALS

RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTING

PARTY

OUTCOME

PUBLIC PERCEPTION of PROJECT or EVENT

NOTES

2003 First Orientation coastal recourse management

Give orientation on how to good fish harvest will recover.

-kap Yanan -NSLC

-awareness about coastal resource management

-They thought its okay to cut the mangroves- for it doest have a purpose or they cannot gain any benefit from it - They thought supply of fish is infinite and monetary value wont change

Improved awareness on conservation

2004-2005

Educational tour/ seminar (QUEZON)

Exposure NSLC, INC -plan to establish a marine sanctuary in barnagay

They see there still hope that fish population will recover

2006 Approved municipal ordinance -public hearing

Protect two- 25 hectares marine sanctuary

-Municipal LGU Barangay -PO - NGO

Reduction in illegal fishing activities

-there were many community residents not supportive (but not rejecting or opposing) only 15 pax started -Now, 95% of community members understand the importance of sanctuary

-according to some they will become poorer if the fish will be gone

2007

Deputation of bantay-dagat

Installation of buoys and markers

Guard the sanctuary

Protect the sanctuary

-Municipal LGU Barangay -PO - NGO -BFAR

Reduction in number of dynamite fishers and buli-boli

-according to some illegal fishers they will stop if somebody will enforce the law -bantay-dagat on their

-20 bantay-dagat volunteers started without incentive/honorarium

214

YEAR(S)

PROJECT or EVENT

GOALS

RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTING

PARTY

OUTCOME

PUBLIC PERCEPTION of PROJECT or EVENT

NOTES

patrol boat and uniform become deterrent

2009 Strengthen bantay dagat-some were given homorarium

-penalized the violators so that they wont do it again

-bantay-dagat -Barangay-LGU

-AGCA sanctuary intrusion almost gone

Buoys were gone during the typhoons but a habit had already been instilled to the fisher. Majority no longer fish inside the sanctuary. In return, good harvest of hairtail fish and seaweeds.

People start talking about the guarding of sanctuary and eliminating destructive fishing methods

2010 Additional member of law enforcement team: bantay-dagat, bantay-baybayon, bantay-bakawan trained and deputized in every coastal barangay in Tinambac

Protect the habitat of fish Strengthen enforcement system

LGU-barangay/municipal NGO BFAR/DENR/PA PNP

-more people involved in conservation and more people participate in protecting AGCA Sanctuary -only 1 illegal fisher left

-According to converted illegal fisher there were fusilier inside the sanctuary that is very attractive to the dynamite of fishers. One blast could give them a harvest of about 150kg of fish -mangrove deforestation was stop, community started to plan and rehabilitate mangrove -change is hard at the initial stage, now we are reaping the benefits.

-Barangay tanod now is involve in guradin the sanctuary -some of the community residents are reporting intrusion

215

c. Threats and management challenges of the MPA Table _._

Hard enforcement

Soft enforcement

Management Body

1. Commercial fishing operation inside

Municipal water

2. Absence of enforcement team /

bantay dagat

3. Use of cyanide and compressor

fishing

4. Dynamite fishing operations

1. Lack maintenance plan for marker

buoys

2. Lack of communication facilities–

handheld radio / cell phone

3. Lack pumpboat and maintenance plan

4. Lack of guardhouse and maintenance

plan

1. Coordination among members

2. Lack of understanding on roles and

functions

3. Some barangay officials own

compressor

4. Budget during meetings and community

activites

2. Marine Protected Area Effectiveness Rating The MPA rating for AGCA Sanctuary was level 1 though it had been established since 5 years now. This rating is better understood in the organizational development principles which include the management focus such as the absence management plan, management body, poor legal support and instrumentation, poor community participation, lack of financing, IEC, M and E, and maintenance of infrastructure and site development. Please refer to Table _._ for complete scores.

216

3. TWG and ManCom VM and composition, EO reference [discuss separately]-

1. AGCA resource management council AGCA Resource Management Council comprised the following management bodies- TWG (policy making body and the Management Committee 9implementing body). The creation of management council is stated in the municipal ordinance providing for the creation of AGCA Marine Sanctuary.

Management Focus Relevant indicators Total Available points

Actual Score per Management Focus

Actual Score divided by Total Available Points

Management Plan 4, 10, 27, 38, 39 9 1 11.1%

Management Body 5, 11, 20, 29,32, 40 10 4 40.0% Legal Instrument and support 6, 9, 37, 41 6 4 66.7% Community Participation 1, 3, 8 7 7 100.0%

Financing 12, 19, 28, 35, 49 7 5 71.4% IEC 7, 14, 23, 44, 45, 46 12 5 41.7%

Enforcement 13, 15, 21, 25, 26, 30, 36

19 10 52.6%

Monitoring and evaluation 2, 18, 24, 33, 34, 42, 43 9 3 33.3%

Maintenance of infrastructure and site development

16, 17, 22, 31, 47, 48 6 4 66.7%

85

217

TWG was organized in 2010 with Executive Order No. 5. This group is composed of department heads, line agencies, NGO representatives and sectoral representatives. Its main function is on governance aspect while the management committeewill act as the oversight committee on the MPA management body. In particular, they will discuss issues and provide updates to the bigger public and to generate reactions and thoughts coming from a community with a wider sectoral representation. It was only this year [2011] when they were reconvened and reconstituted to oversee MPA management with the assistance of the RARE Representative Office Philippines, Inc. They were reconvened by reviewing the ordinance through personal discussion with every member who have shown interest in the RARE Pride Campaign. A meeting was then held to review their functions and roles and renew their commitment via a signature. Since, the start of the RARE Pride process, coordination among ExeCom members have been showing very active support through attendance of meetings, providing logistics for diagnostic activities and providing finances to make a series of activities possible

218

RESULT OF MANCOM AND TWG FGD

219

Table_._. Technical Working Group Composition

Name Office and Position Contact Responsibilities

Hon. Ruel T. Velarde Local Chief Executive- Chairman 09292922326 Lead the execution of the plans

Diego Bayonito LGU-MPDC lgu_tunambac@yahoo.com Support

Jogie Sagales SB-Agriculture and Fisheries 09216521378 Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Municipal Kagawad.

Franco Alvarez

SB Committee on Fisheries-

n/a Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Municipal Kagawad

Ramon Ilano

SB Committee on Environment-

n/a Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Engr. Reynaldo Rivera Municipal Agriculturist Office-

n/a Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Mr. Juan Refugio Chairman of MFARMC n/a Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Mr. Igmedio Dianela

Chairman of BFARMC Agay-

ayan-

09084523320 Implement management plan

Mr. Eli Tatel Chairman of BFARMC Caloco-

09108604527 Implement management plan

Mr. Roberto Refugio Representative Deputized Fish Warden 09094596263 Implement enforcement plan

Santiago Noblefranca

and/or Mr. Joel Balasta

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources-

09205684730 Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Mr. Pio Bernal And/or Ms.

Rose Samson

Department of Environment and

Natural Resources-CENRO –

09285216862 Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

PSI Danilo Bagacina

and/or his representative

Municipal Police Office-

0542558033 Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

1st Lt.Dion Eliot and/or Philippine Army- 09084961141 Policy making-technical

220

his representative assistance on MPA monitoring

Mr. Fernando Gervacio

and/or his representative

Network of Sustainable

Livelihoods Catalysts Inc

09393632480 Assist the PO and Deputized

Bantay-dagat in managing

AGCA Marine Sanctuary

Mr. Charlie Balagtas

and/or his representative

Partido District Administration-

09228436258 Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Jack Tolentino Provincial Capitol- Camarines

Sur (EDMERO)

09207016507 Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

Flor Abiog Partido State University,

Professor

n/a Policy making-technical

assistance on MPA monitoring

221

TWG ACTION PLAN (excerpt from the result of the twg workshop last December 8, 2011)

222

223

224

225

COMMITMENT FROM TWG MEMBERS BFAR

IEC campaign as resource person

Provide technical assistance upon request

Assistance in drafting fishery ordinances

Livelihood support e.g fish paraphernalia

IEC materials, posters, video

LGU Provide incentive to bantay-dagat, bantay-baybayon, bantay bakhawan

Support to unified fishery ordinances

Guardhouse

Livelihood support

DENR Use of speedboat for patrolling and monitoring of AGCA

Provide technical assistance in mangrove reforestation and protection

Assist in pawikan monitoring and protection

Philippine Army Task-force composed of 9 pax in enforcement operation

Coordinate with B- LGU and M LGU

NGO

Community Organizing and Development

Social marketing campaign

Technical assistance- Research

GPS

Binocular

Training Center

2 sets of SCUBA gears

Mask and snorkel

Manta board

Coordination and networking among partners

Fundraising

PO Assist in patrolling

Install of boya

Assist in MPA monitoring

Assist in IEC

PDA Assist in Unified Fisheries Ordinance

Resource/Fundraising

IEC support

PNP Assist Fishery laws anytime

Task-force composed of 7 pax in enforcement operation

226

2. Management Committee The MPA Management Committee was legitimized by E.O. No. ? in 2011, five years after the protected area establishment. The committee underwent a series of trainings in enforcement, monitoring and organizational development since then. They are very active in setting up marker buoys and signages. However, during the northeast monsoon season [strong winds and wave action], those markers and buoys were impacted. They need to install markey buoys every year. ManCom was organized to strenthen the MPA management. Below is a matrix showing the committees, lead persons, and functions. This committee will be supported by another EO which is in progress for signing by the chief executive.

Table _._. AGCA Management Committee Composition and Functions

Committes Lead person Members Functions

Enforcement [patrol] Jogie Sagales [Municipal MC] Berting Refugio [Barangay MC]

Agay-ayan: bantay dagat

Caloco Bantay-dagat

Members of SAMACA and MFA (PO)

[1] guard the sanctuary 24/7 [2] maintain the patrol boat and equipments [3] Update the logbook [4] install and maintain buoys and markers

Research and Documentation Committee

Diego Bayonito [Municipal MC] Eli Tatel [Barangay MC]

Felecito delos Santos

Liezel Icarro

Members of SAMACA and MFA (PO)

Members of TWG

[1] Daily fish catch monitoring [2] Reef monitoring and fish visual census [3] Facilitating meetings and seminars [4] documenting meetings and seminars

227

5. Action Plan [This are the activities that resulted out of your MPA effectiveness rating action planning workshop and TWG and ManCom planning workshops. Timeline should follow the campaign life. You may include other strategies and activities from existing MPA plans and other meetings relevant to governance and enforcement.

The MPA action plan was drafted during the MPA Effectiveness Rating held on May 26, 2011. The management focus that needs work formed as basis for the action and specifically addresses each relevant indicators with strategies to achieve Level 3 ‘enforced’ by May 2012.

Critical Areas Relevant

indicators Smart Objective

Specific Activity

Persons responsible

Timeframe

Budget Source of budget

Support needed

Management Plan [11.1%]

□ l2/10 Managemen Plan adopted and legitimized by the LGU

By July 2012, drafted AGCA Sanctuary Management plan and have it adopted through municipal ordinance.

consultation

workshop to craft plan

- Cathy

consultation - Kgd Alvarez, Jogie Sagales, MPDC

- May 9 to 11

consultaton - June 3

mtg - from last week of June to be moved on the next TWG

- 15,000.00

consultations - 5,000.00

Meeting - 2,000.00

, NSLC, PO, municipal and Barangay LGU

Guide on the process of facilitating the drafting of AGCA Management Plan.

228

Meeting

Management Body (40%)

□L3/20 Management Body Active and supported by legal instrument (MANCOM EO)

By July 2012, to legalized Mc and have them fully functional to attain level 3 MPA management effectiveness level.

amend MO, include in public consultation

MC (done) □ Have the Mayor sign the EO

Kgd Alvarez and Jogie Sagales

□'June 2011

□ Meals and transpo5000.00

NSLC, PO, municipal and Barangay LGU

Approval from TWG and Local Chief Executive

Legal instrumenyt *83%)

Effective coordination with appropriate national & local agencies on CRM/MPA policies and with other LGUs achieved; accountabilitie

By July 2012, AGCA Marine Sanctuary Ordinance have been reviewed and ammended to include San Antonio and other pertinent provisions.

□ review and amendment of MO □Reflect OMA in MO structure □Expand MPA to include San Antonio □Coordination on

Kgd Alvarez and Jogie Sagales

□ starting June 2011

Trasnporatiojn and coordination cost= 10,000.00

NSLC, PO, municipal and Barangay LGU

advice fromTWG and approcal by local chief executive

229

s and working relationships among collaborating institutions clearly defined and formalized

implementation and resolution particularly of issues that transcend local boundaries including MPA networking with other MPAs etc.

Community participation (100%)

maintain

By July 2012, % AGCA community are involve in sanctuary governance and enforcement from 18% to 50% (increase by 32pp)

Participate in Festivals and Fiesta in □conduct of mancom meeting in the barangay □ inlcusion of incentive and disincentive system in the plan

PO/barangay officials, agay-ayan, NSLC

Fiesta dates-Tinambac (May 2012) Tamban May 18-19 Maslog May 22 Agay-ayan- August 15 Caloco-

general assembly: (2x/year) =15,000.00 incentives to encourage comm unity to report= 50,000/00

C/o barangay NSLC

advice fromTWG and approcal by local chief executive

230

Augsut 17

Financing (55.6%)

L5/46 MPA emphasizes on public education and is being used as a study tour site, residents advocate for MPAs

By 2012, have secured finances to be used in implementing AGCA management plan through adoption of user's fee system and penalties incorporated through an municipal ordinance; applying for a grant and other means.

consultationment □Review of m unicipal ordinance □Ammendment of municipal ordinance imposing fines and permit systems to generate additional income □ Proposal writing and submission

Kagawad Alvares, Jogiea Sagales, cathy demesa, municipal budget officer

June 5- IUCN deadline; June 30- GIZ deadlinen, October -planning. July- August -ammendment of AGCA Ordinance ordinance

10,000.00- workshops and writeshop intend to ammend sanctuary ordinance

NSLC, PO, municipal and Barangay LGU

advice fromTWG and approcal by local chief executive

231

IEC (91.7%) Updated long-term IEC/social marketing plan

by July 2012, >80% of AGCA fishers and AGCA community are aware of AGCA sanctuary rules and regulations and would be able to name atleast 1 benefit of having a srictly enforced and managed sanctuary.

□ designqExpand beyond community level □Involve PDA and provl govt support to MPA management (done) □ audience profiling and social marketing planninKAP survey will inform IEC/SM □crafting of messages and campaign material □ video production

Cathy and enumerators/MC

June-July 2011- research analysis and crafting of messages Ocotber- start launching of campign

350,000.00 campaign materials including but not limited to posters, billboards, signages, pins, shirts, ect. 1,000,000.00 videodocumentary (production and distribution)

NSLC, PO, municipal and Barangay LGU

advice fromTWG and approcal by local chief executive

232

Enforcement (52.6%)

□L3/25Collaborative Patrolling- PNP, Surveillance, Fish Wardens □L3/25 Fishing inside MPA stopeed□ L3/26 Illegal Fishing outside of MPA reduced

By July 2012, fishery law enforcement team with legal basis and functioning effectively as manifested by reduction of poaching inside the AGCA Sanctuary.

□Training of second line bantay dagat volunteers (done) and third line bantay-dagat volunteers □deputization of bantay-dagat with complete accessories such as uniform, enforcement manuals and IDs □bantay dagat meetiing and enforcment team meetings

Jogie Sagales and othe staff from OMA; BFAR trainers; other paralegal partners

Formation of second line bantay-dagat volunteers: June-December 2011 Formation of 3rd line bantay-dagat volunters: January to June 2012 Meeting

venue is c/o the barangay council seminar/training @ 150.00 per day/paxn (15-20 pax per session)

IUCN-NL, NSLC and LGU

advice fromTWG and approcal by local chief executive

233

M and E (33.3%)

□ L3/24 Regular participatory bio-physical monitoring

By july 2012, AGCA Marine Santuary has regular bio-physical and socio-economic monitoring and documentation conducted by MERf and by local partners.

□Conduct MEAT next year □Conduct of survey by MERF (baseline done) □Strengthening of local researchers capable of doing MPA monitoring (seminars and training, study tour)

Cathy and enumerators/MC

August 2011 to July 2012

□ Capacity building: 200,000.00 □ Research by Community including KAP survey (post campign survey): 100,000.00

Tinambac-LGU and Rare

Technical Assistance

Maintenance of Infrastructure and site development (66.7%)

□L3/22 MPA structures maintained

By November 2011, guardhouse and patrol boat in place and functioning.

□Follow up with mayor regarding the construction of the new guard house □Follow up barangay captain regarding

Kgd Noel Teope Jogie Sagales

Soonest possible time (due: August 2011)

□Guardhouse: 300,000.00 □ Patrol boat: 60,000.00

Municipal and barangay LGU

Additional logistic support from TWG

234

new/repair of patrol boat □Formulate and establish maintenance plan

Monitoring Progress of the BR implementation strategy will be measured against the specific SMART objectives outlined in the action table above. The overall success of the Governance and Management Plan will be measured through the EcoGov/CCEF MPA effectiveness rating tool. The goal of the Plan, in combination with the Rare pride campaign is to up 1 level higher from present or achieve level 3 “Enforced” by June 2012. The monitoring plan of the Pride campaign foresees the monitoring of a number of additional metrics to assess the progress on barrier removal, behavior change and threat reduction:

% of members of Mgt Committee belonging to listed categories (local village leaders, influential family members, local women’s associations, private sector representatives, local religious groups, civil service and the youth sector)

% of days per month that there is a record of 24/7 guarding coverage in log book

Increase in arrest for year 1

235

Number of attendees of Barangay Assemblies

Monthly activities conducted by enforcement team (outreach, market denial, foot patrols, meetings with community intelligence partners, etc.)

average n of reports of intrusions received per month by the enforcement team

N of intrusions from local versus outside fishers

Decrease in intrusions from community and adjacent village

Decrease in illegal and destructive fishing For more details on the frequency and methods for data collection please refer to the campaign monitoring plan. Feasibility and Impact This action plan underwent expert validation and approval process. The planning workshop was facilitated by an external auditor, Rodolfo Santos, PhD. He has a long history of organizational development facilitation in organizations of various level and scale in the Philippines following a diverse business model. The tool used in planning i.e. MPA Effectiveness Rating is a standard tool in the Philippines to assess management performance of MPAs which has been published by White et al. 2001 and was further enhance by EcoGov Philippine and UP-MSI [MEAT]. The action plans was an output of the 2 day workshop participated by the TWG, ManCom local fishers, enforcers, LGU department heads who are considered experts in their localities thereby producing a ground truth strategies. Since this will be integrated in the Project Plan where LAP/LCE endorsement is affixed, the same signature will suffice for approval. This action plan will be validated back to the community after a series of iterations during module 3 to serve as the road map to achieve Level 3 status by June 2012.

D: List of blog links written on RarePlanet

E: Photo essay

236

CONCEPT MODEL

Insert Concept model and provide a very brief description (1-2 paragraphs); Reference p 31 Serena; p 28 Lola)

237

RESULT CHAIN

238

239

240

241

242

BLOGS

243

1. Barangay Caloco Celebrates Nutrition Month with AGCATON and AGCA Community Rondalla.

2. Dagat Kong Padangat (My Beloved Song) MTV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkDxqFJmrzU&feature=youtu.be

3. Satuya Ini! (This is Ours) -by AGCA Community Sharing the MTV of the AGCA Pride Campaign Song sang by the community

members, here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vVmWRAD-sI

4. I was Interviewed by The New York Times!

5. BFARMC, Bantay-Dagat and Local CF Combined Forces to Improve AGCA Enforcement and Governance.

6. Benefits of Tuning in to WIIFM radio station!

7. AGCATON: Mabunying Tinanggap ng Agay-ayan Elementary School Pupils

8. LOCAL CF PROGRAM

9. "Rare" Way of Facilitating Local Reef Monitoring Training

10. PRE-TESTING OF THE NEW SET OF AGCA CAMPAIGN COLLATERALS

11. NEW AGCA SANCTUARY GUARDHOUSE

12. MAPPING OUT THE AGCA ENFORCEMENT MILESTONES SINCE THE START OF PRIDE CAMPAIGN

13. I was Interviewed by The New York Times! www.rareconservation.org/blog/2012/02/29/i-was-interviewed-by-the-new-york-

times/

14. Capturing How Fishers' Children Had the Grasped of our Campaign Message

244

15. AGCA PRIDE CAMPAIGN IN NEW YORK TIMES!

16. AGCA PRIDE CAMPAIGN MATERIALS

17. AGCA MUSIC ALBUM

18. AGCA MUSIC ALBUM (LYRICS)

19. What are the lessons learned in running Pride Campaign? NEW This was asked to me by Mr. David of New York Times during his

interview last February 9, 2012. For the full article the link is http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/harnessing-

local-pride-for-global-conservation/?scp=1&sq=david%20bornstein&st=cse.

20. Class for Local CF Formally Began NEW Sharing on the recently conducted orientation for the Local CF in Tinambac, Camarines Sur.

It was held last February 17-18 at AGCA Community Training Center located in Sitio Maslog, Barangay Agay-ayan, Tinambac

Camarines Sur.

21. Take Home Message from the Vulnerability Assessment Workshop in Tinambac NEW

22. Linking Vulnerability Assessment Workshop to Social Marketing

23. C. Demesa Presentation during Vulnerability Assessment for Tinambac: Linking VA to SM NEW

24. How Vulnerable Are Coastal Areas to Climate Change? Environmental experts answered this question during the Vulnerability

Assessment Training Workshop for the Municipality of Tinambac organized by the Marine Environment and Resources

Foundation (MERF) -UP Marine Science Institute (UPMSI)and RARE, a US-based environmental non-government organization

(NGO), last February 14-16, 2012 at Naga Regent Hotel, City of Naga.

245

25. How We Made Our Campaign Message STICKIER? NEW One of the lessons I learned in running Pride Campaign is that for

campaign message to be sticky, it must be short, must use simple words, must be in local dialect, must have RHYMES and could

be sung.

26. Harana ni AGCATON: A Song that Gave Voice to our Mascot in Spreading the Campaign's Message NEWSharing with you the song

that gave voice to AGCATON during Pride Campaign in Tinambac. In this song, AGCATON expressed his loneliness for missing his

mother (who was forced to fled when their house was attacked and destroyed by one of the fishers) and his plead to humanity to

take care of their house, protect and treat it as a sacred place for in return his house will give them benefits.This song was sung by

Georgie, a ten-year old pupil from sitio Maslog, Barangay Agay-yan, Tinambac, Camarines Sur.

27. Satuya Ini! AGCA's Campaign Jingle Now Ready to be Played with Guitar Sharing with you the chords of our Campaign Jingle (with

english translation) entiled: Satuya ini! Composed by Mr. Venrich Hermogeno, native of Tinambac. It was sang and performed by

the schoold children (see picture below) from AGCA communities.This coming vacation, NSLC will be sponsoring free guitar lesson

in AGCA Communities. Mr. Hermogeno, the composer of the jingle volunteered to bring with him his friends and students to

teach guitar lesson.

28. Fun Run Fever reaches Tinambac The Local Government of Tinambac, a rural first class municipality an hour outside of Naga,

hosted a fun run last September 1 to raise awareness and funds for their coastal management programs. Dubbed “Conservation

Run/Walk for Tinambac’s Seashore”, the run drew an impressive estimated 1200 residents of all ages and representing 42 of the

total 44 barangays.

29. MEET AGCATON! Agcaton is a juvenile red grouper who will be helping the AGCA mancom to "sell" the desired behaviour of

fishing outside the No-take zone and reporting intrusions/violations inside the AGCA Sanctuary.

30. AGCA Pride Campaign Branding Process After the module 3 I have already a slogan for our Pride Campaign but I am not confident

to use it.So, when I got back at the campaign site i asked various groups in the community, our mancom members, our board of

directors, and some of the TWG members about the kind of message they think is appropriate to be used for our Pride Campaign.

246

31. MPA MANAGEMENT: is like managing a husband-wife relationship! NEWRare Pride Campaign is not only about the Pride felt by

our target audience or community in our context.It is also about the pride that the LGUs, the Lead Agenceny Partners, Rare staff

and board, Mancom and TWG members feels and how they express it to the community. Granted that their is "community buy-

in" of our product.... we were able to build the foundation of connecting our community to our product.The challenge is How are

we going to sustain it?

32. AGCA Sanctuary Reporting System Upgraded! The AGCA Pride campaign is "selling" to the AGCA community fishers and residents

the desired behaviour of fishing outside the no-take zone and reporting intrusion to the authority, respectively. To implement

this effectively the local government of Tinambac and the management committee of AGCA Sanctuary invited all the 109

municipal fishery enforcement team volunteers last August 31, 2011.

33. 24/7 Guarding of AGCA Sanctuary Led by Local Fishers and Leaders On August 17, 2011 more than 30 local fishers and leaders

have pledged of their commitment to support and guard the AGCA Sanctuary infront of our municipal mayor, parish priest and

fellow villagers. These community fishers and leaders considered themselves as volunteers working to improve their local

fisheries and local economy.

34. The Sea Keepers

35. A Showcase of Dedication Why? As part of her presentation, Cathy made and shared a heartwarming video presentation of her

KAP survey implementation. Her video (a collection of images and vignettes) captured the experience of her and her KAP

enumerators while they were rolling out and encoding the KAP survey.

36. About My Site

37. The Power of Collective Visioning in our Theory of Change

(30 more blogs to be downloaded from Rareplanet)

247