Barrier Removal Framework

1. Barrier Removal Framework January 26, 2010 Napantao, San Francisco, Southern Leyte

2. Activity Flow • Session 1: Presentation • Logical model • Barrier Removal framework • MPA Governance and Enforcement • Session 2: Presentation • Generic Cohort indicators • Session 3: Workshop: Where we are? • Presentation

3. Session 1 [15minutes] • Objectives: • Understand the barrier removal framework • Process • Power point presentation

4. Logic model • Outputs • Changes in: • Knowledge • Skills • Attitude • Institutions • Systems • Infra • Impact • Changes in: • People lives • Health of • the environment • Outcomes • Changes in: • Behavior • (individuals) • Practices • (organizations) • Inputs • People • Resources Will do Can do

5. Cohort Theory of Change: Social marketing strategy Conservation strategy Barrier removal: Stronger organization of municipal Fisher’s “People’s Organizations” to manage MPAs, Local Government committed to follow through with prosecution of offenders Behavior Change: More reporting of offenses, illegal fishing in MPAs drops dramatically Threat reduction: Less fish removed from municipal MPAs, less damage to habitat caused by fishing practices Knowledge: Increase understanding of the importance of MPAs, examples of successful MPAs for securing long term fish catches, and presence of local enabling conditions for positive change Attitude: Shift from seeing MPAs as a restriction on fish catches, towards MPAs as a method for securing long-term fish catches. Shift from passivity to proactivity in desire to manage MPAs Interpersonal communication: Discussion about the benefits of MPAs in securing long term fish catches, and the need for more effective community support and enforcement + Conservation results Conservation Result: By 2012 , a 10% increase in coral reef health and fish & invertebrate abundance and diversity in more than 1% of Philippine MPAs, together with increased perceived community fish catch in 12 coastal communities attributed to their MPAs

6. MPA governance and Enforcement • Identified as the 2 key BR strategies during initial evaluation of TOC documents in January 2010 (Cebu workshop output). • These are priority over livelihood, tourism, waste management, mangrove management, registration of local fishers, gear swapping etc. • Barrier Removal– it just means these two (in fact enforcement is a subset of governance, but for ease of implementation we included both)

7. Barriers of behavior change in the context of MPAs • Lack of enforcement capacity and infrastructure • Lack of disincentive for law breakers • Lack of incentives for following the law • MPA Governance structure lacks clarity of roles and responsibilities internally (community / fishers) and externally (support agencies and partner NGOs, academic institutions, enforcement agencies, government agencies and civil society) • Lack of mainstreaming and practice

8. Thereby…issues of sustainability • lessons learned over time particularly in community-based initiatives have not been applied and translated • National, regional, and municipal efforts to link sites and to learn from experience in order to improve management and enforcement performance seems insufficient • growing realization that site management alone is not enough for achieving sustainable biological and community buy in at significant levels

9. Cont.. issues on sustainability • Dependence on project cycle initiated by previous external assisting organizations (NGOs). • Dependence on assistance provided by individuals from different levels (NGOS-community organizers, Municipal-MAO, barangay, PO member). • Erroneous identification and quick turnover of target audience as recipients of skill i.e. basic functions planning, budgeting, networking, and operations. • Poor assessment of capacity building needs • Lack sustainability plan at the start of the project • Imbalanced expectations between assisting groups and local, POs and MLGU as to the goal of MPAs and objectives • Lack practice in coordination functions between organic institutions (MLGU and Barangay and/or PO) • Dole out system practiced by NGOs, and political leaders representing MLGU and BLGU-defeats the purpose of practice

10. This is our sustainability: MPA Governance • Governance = the processes by which leaders are selected and how organizational policies are formulated and reviewed. • Simply put…. • Clear Responsibility center for who is in charge and of what • Organizational Development (TWG and MPA ManCom-hopefully ManCom in close coordination with the MAO/MENRO)

11. Not new to us.. Proud to have the experience and tools • PCRA • Exposure trips • Training / orientation / re-orientation • Develop incentive and disincentive systems for good and bad behavior • MPA governance – planning, evaluation and organizational development • Participatory and transparent processes for governance • Community empowerment and capacity building • Capacity building and institutional development of MPA management organizations • Networking and linkaging with other institutions and partners and resources

12. With those plus this campaign.. • To sustain biological results from baseline even after the project • To maintain behavior change after launching the campaign even after the project • To instill the practice of planning, budgeting, networking, and operations at different levels (MENRO/MAO, TWG, ManCom, Pos) for MPA governance and enforcement • To train individuals from organic institutions who will practice the functions such as planning, budgeting, networking, and operations. • To reinforce capacity development i.e. planning, budgeting, networking, and operations • To improve community resiliency

13. This is were we begin…our Theory of Change Module 2, Unit 5, Session 4

14. Summary • Strengthening MPA Governance (Planning, Implementation, Evaluation, Organizational Development) so that it engages community stakeholders and asserts leadership over the MPA • Embedding practices via our inputs (structure and system-in organic institutions in the locality)

15. Session 2 • Objective: • Outline the indicators for barrier removal • Process • Powerpoint presentation

16. Indicators: Barrier Removal • (A) At least 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.(B) At least 50%of the community attends management council general assembly(C) Increase in MPA rating system management effectiveness score of at least one full point and achieves at least level 3 (sustained) rating within 2 years and level 5 within 5 years • Enforcers functioning with an enforcement system that has a plan, defined roles and increased support and resources that guards the MPA at all times • Community stops fishing in MPA because they begin to see financial benefits and opportunities from livelihood activities and/or from MPA-related tourism services (boat operating, guiding, food and services) • Achieve indicators 2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,15,17,18, 19,20,21,22,23 and 24 of the Eco Gov CCEF MPA rating system within 2 years and indicators 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48 and 49 within 5 years

17. Indicators: Conservation Result • 10% increase in coral habitat health by 2012 as determined by increase in live hard coral cover over time as compared to control sites. • (A) 10% increase in fish diversity within the MPA by 2012 • (B) 10% increase in fish density for key indicator species • 10% increase in invertebrate density and diversity (non coral) for key indicator species • 60% of fishers believe their fish catch and economic situation has increased “significantly” due to the MPA by 2012 [to be refined when site-level surveys designed]

18. Indicators: Threat Reduction • Regular documented daily and nightly guarding for the MPA is in place 24/7 • Arrests increase by 100% in year 1, and slowly reduce thereafter • There is a 90% decrease in intrusions from community and adjacent village community members into the MPA by year 2 • There is a 90% decrease in illegal and destructive fishing within 500 meters from MPA boundaries by year 2 and 99% reduction by year 5 • Achieve indicators 25, 26, and 36 of the Eco Gov CCEF MPA rating system within 2 years and indicator 47 within 5 years.

19. Indicators: Behavior Change • The majority (target: >80%) of continued intrusions after year 1 come from outsider fishers (not from local community) • Reported intrusions from intelligence information passing to the management committee increase by 60% by year 2 • Local community members join in (a) annual monitoring surveys which track trends within the MPAs and (b) management committee general assemblies • Enforcement of reported incursions into the MPA increase to 90% within 2 years. • Achieve indicators 13 and 24 of the Eco Gov CCEF MPA rating system within 2 years.

20. Indicators: Interpersonal Communication • Fishers talking amongst themselves about the benefits of protecting their marine resources. • Indicators 7,8,14,16 and 23 of the Eco Gov CCEF MPA rating system within 2 years and indicators 31,44 and 46 within 5 years.

21. Session 3: Homework [due on February 1, 2010 23:59 email: projas@rareconservation.org and cc your PPMs] • Objective-At the end of the session, the CFs will be able to • Assess rating • Track progress (necessary for the project) • Identify what areas need work • Process • Generate baseline (when you circle back your answers to me..) • Working progress: monitoring and updating (I can help you track your progress…Promise!)

22. MPA Effectiveness Rating System • A harmonized report checklist of the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc. as modified by the Philippine Environmental Governance Project 2. • This reporting document contains categories and elements that are used to gauge and highlight important threshold indicators and processes that help promote and achieve MPA management effectiveness outputs and outcomes. (Arceo et al. in prep), CCEF et al. 2004); EcoGov2

23. Purpose of MPA Effectiveness rating system • A tool to measure performance • A system intended to assist local governments and communities to improve MPA management • Minimum set of criteria/activities for every level needs to be satisfied first to be assigned that particular level • Based on the principles of functionality, participatori-ness, transparency, accountability and participatory decision-making • With this system – you can always add things at the different levels, but cant remove things – we may want to add later on based on our experience vis a vis SM at the end of the campaigns • (CCEF 2005)

28. Level 4 Continued

30. Level 5 cont..

31. End