Summary of Terminal Evaluation Report
１. Project Outline
Country Name：The Philippines

ProjectName ： Comprehensive
Outreach and Fish Breeding Project
Category：Fishery-Aquaculture
Type of Cooperation ： TechnicalCooperation
Competent Section：
Total Amount of Cooperation ： JPY
JICA Philippines Office285,000 thousand（ R/D ） : November 2006 ～ Counterpart Agency ： Department ofApril 2010
Agriculture, Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR),
National
Integrated
Fisheries
ProjectTechnology
Development
CenterPeriod(NIFTDC)
Japanese
Other
Cooperation
Agency：N/A
Other Cooperation：N/A
１－１ Project Background and Outline
The Philippines holds about 36,000km coastline 、 and it consists ofabout 800 islands with widely dispersed population. Most of thepopulation is living in the coastal areas and those people have been
depending on coastal resources for their livelihood. In thePhilippines, the fishery industry accounts for 4% of the country’s GDP
and 5% of the total working population. Especially fish farming
industry is recognized as one of the prominent industries with annual
average 10% growth.
On the other hand, one of the major commodities for fish farming in
the Philippines, milkfish production has recently confronted somedifficulties. Milkfish is produced mainly in Regions I, III, and VI but
there is a decrease of wild fry supply due to deterioration of coastalresources. To address this situation, millions of artificially-produced
fry are imported from Indonesia and Taiwan, but these fry are degradedtheir quality due to the long period for the transportation and thissituation hinder the development of milkfish farming industry. Thus,
there is a need to stabilize the local supply of good quality fry.

Also, as most of the fisher folks are in poverty, it is necessary toaddress their concerns not only for productivity but also for income
generation.
In the light of this situation, the Government of the Philippines
through DA- BFAR and NIFTDC established the Philippines Bangus
Development Program (PBDP) which aims at stabilizing the production andsupply of artificial fry, distribution of fry to fish farmers throughlocal hatchery managed by several stakeholders like central government,
local government units and private sector and the government of thePhilippines requested official development assistance to the governmentof Japan. In response to the request, this project was started fromNovember 2006 aiming to transfer technology to NIFTDC and to conductvarious trainings such as training for workers at hatchery, fisher
farmer and extension worker for fish farming. Pilot activities which
included water quality improvement at fish farming site, middle seeding
nursing and sales promotion were implemented at the following threepilot project sites (Pangasinan (Region I), Pampanga (Region III) and
Oriental Mindoro (Region IV-B), which were selected based on the
preliminarily socio-economic survey in order to solve issues of eachsites and improve fish farmers income.
１－２ Summary of the Project(1) Overall Goal
Livelihood of fish farmers is enhanced in the pilot municipalities.
(2) Project Purpose
Aquaculture outreach functions in the pilot municipalities.
(3) Outputs
1 ： Fry Production process and management are improved at PBDP
hatcheries.
2 ： Fish farmers and extension workers’ knowledge of and skill inaquaculture production and management are improved at the pilot
municipalities.
(4) Input
Japanese Side
Dispatch of Japanese Experts：1）Team Leader／Extension、2）Training、
3 ） Aquaculture Technology 、 4 ） Broodstock Management and SpawningTechniques、5）Feed Management、6）Marketing and Business Management、7 ） Monitoring 、 8 ） Resource Environment Research 、 9 ） HatcheryManagement 、 10 ） Project Coordinator
Total man-months (M/M) for
dispatch of experts to the Philippines up to the end of April 2010 is
71.99.
Provision of Equipment ： Vehicles: 2 units 、 Seawater intake pipe:1
set、Total Cost: Php 3,140,000（up to the end of April 2010）
Local Cost Expenditure： Php 12,150,000（up to the end of April 2010）
Counterpart Training：6（In Indonesia: 5, In Japan: 1）
Philippine Side
Assignment of Counterpart personnel ：9 （ Due to 1 personnel
relocation, cumulative number is 10）
Provision of the Office Space
Local Cost Expenditure ： About Php 25,510,000 （ up to the end ofDecember 2009）
２. Outline of Evaluation TeamSurveyor（Study Area：Name and Position）
Japanese Team
Team Leader ／ Aquaculture Technology ： Mr. Satoshi Chikami(JICA Senior Advisor)
Cooperation Planning ： Mr. Nick Baoy (JICA Philippines Office
In-house consultant)
Cooperation Planning ： Mr. Ryutaro Kobayashi / Mr. Pablo
Lucero (JICA Philippines Office Representative/ProgramOfficer)
Project Evaluation：Ms. Miki Ozaki (Evaluation Consultant)Philippine TeamTeam Leader ： Ms. Ma. Theresa M. Mutia, Agricultural Center
Chief III, National Fisheries Research and Development
Institute, DA-BFAR
Aquaculture Technology ： Mr. Rene Geraldo G. Ledesma, Senior
Aquaculturist, National Fisheries Research and Development
Institute, DA-BFAR
Evaluation February 8 to 26, 2010
Type of Evaluation ： Terminal
Schedule
Evaluation
３. Outline of Evaluation Result
３－１ Confirmation of Achievements(1) Output
The Output 1 “Fry production process and management are improved at

PBDP hatcheries” has been achieved with the exception of someindicators. Meanwhile, the Output 2 “Fish farmers and extension
workers’ knowledge of and skill in aquaculture production andmanagement are improved at the pilot municipalities” has been achieved
most of the indicators, thus it can be said that the Output of theProject has been almost accomplished.
For Output 1, the improvement plan of seed production process andsystem has been developed and it has been implemented at NIFTDC basedon the result of research for hatcheries. As a result, stabilization ofprimary food production, improvement of water intake facilities andhatchery operation system enhancement have been successfullyimplemented and milkfish egg and fry production and fry survival rate
has been significantly improved.
Further, the technical manual and training program for hatchery
workers have been created and revised accordingly.
Based on these materials, the trainings for PDBP hatchery workers
have been conducted and the PBDP hatchery information network meetings
have been held twice a year regularly after 2008. Consequently,
majority of active hatchery workers have used the skills and knowledge
acquired from the training for hatchery workers provided by theProject.
Some PBDP hatcheries stopped the milkfish fry production due toserious damage from Typhoon, but the increase in production can be seenat the hatchery where production activities have not stopped.
The mid-term review suggested that it was better and more realistic
to focus on the NIFTDC and Naujan hatchery only rather than targetingat the whole PBDP hatcheries improvement. In this connection, theroadmap for Naujan hatchery fry production has been created and On theJob Training for the hatchery workers has been also conducted.
As a result, the Naujan hatchery successfully produced fry in 2008
and 2009. However, as a result of the serious damage brought by Typhoonin 2009, which was beyond the control of the Project, Naujan hatchery
stopped its operation. Herewith some of the indicators of Output 1 havenot been accomplished.
For Output 2, the pilot areas were selected according to the issues
identified by each targeted area. The training program for extension

workers and fish farmers were developed and training manuals andmaterials were revised accordingly. Six (6) extension worker trainings
were held and fish farmers training has been conducted twice a year byeach pilot province up to year 2008 (after 2008, it has been organizedby each pilot municipality). Consequently, almost all participants ofthe training have been applying the skills and knowledge which havebeen introduced by the Project. Also, the skills and knowledge of fish
farmers who participated in the training were enhanced. Moreover, 16
fish farmer meetings were held to share good practices among thefarmers.
(2) Project Purpose
Project Purpose has been mostly achieved.
As stated above, NIFTDC has improved its egg and fry production
significantly due to the Project’s effort. NIFTDC also improved its
fry production even during off-season months (July-February).
Trainings were provided to fish farmers and majority of theparticipants have applied the skills and knowledge introduced by theProject.
On the other hand, fertilized egg supply from NIFTDC decreased
compared to the figure in 2006 because some of the satellite hatcheries
served by NIFTDC stopped its milkfish fry production due to the serious
damage brought by typhoons or difficulty to compete in the market with
import seeds.
３－２ Summary of Evaluation Result(1) RelevanceThe relevance of the Project is high considering that the Project
Purpose and Overall Goal are in conformity with the current
Development Policy of the government of the Philippines and Japanese
ODA policy. The Project Pilot sites and activities are selected byconsultation among stakeholders and it was determined based on its
social and economic survey results. Therefore it sufficiently addressed
the needs of the target group.
(2) EffectivenessAs 3-1 shows, the Project Purpose is achieved for the most part. Thesystem of milkfish fry production has been organized at NIFTDC.
Further, the utilization of natural food and fermented D1 rice bran has
been recognized by the pilot municipalities and the improvement ofextension workers and fish farmers’ skill and knowledge has
contributed to the achievement of the Project Goal.
However, some part of the project outputs and goals have not beenaccomplished due to several reasons like typhoons which stopped theoperations of the PDBP hatchery, including the Naujan hatchery.
(3) Efficiency
The Project, in general, was efficiently implemented.
Most of the Inputs have been adequately provided as planned andeffectively utilized to produce the Outputs. Inputs from the Japanside, namely: dispatch of experts in 10 fields, counterpart training,supply of equipment, and provision of budget for local expenditures,
were well utilized for the activities. The improvement of seawater
intake facilities through the provision of 6-inch pipes contributed toimproved fry production and training activity in pilot municipalities
enhanced the knowledge and skills of extension workers and fish
farmers. In addition, the dispatch of Japanese experts during peakseason of milkfish spawning from March to April, and additional
assignment of Japanese expert on hatchery management which wererecommended by mid-term review contributed improvement of efficiency.
Despite of the time-consuming and costly travel for monitoring owing to
the long distance between NIFTDC and other pilot sites, the project isstill efficiently managed to monitor their activities through theregular visit to the pilot sites. Though operations of the Naujan
hatchery was stopped due to the significant damage of the typhoon inspite of the success for fly production from 2008 to 2009 and this fact
affected the efficiency of the project implementation, these naturalcalamities were beyond the control of the Project.
(4) Impact
It is still early to assess the Project’s contribution to theOverall Goal but the results of demonstration activities in pilot
sites, however, showed the possibility that the project can contributeto the Overall Goal of improving the livelihood of fish farmers inpilot municipalities over the long term. For instance, the Project has

proven that the use of natural food and fermented D1 rice bran canreduce feed cost by as much as 50% compared to commercial feeds,
thereby raising the profitability level of milkfish farming. Achieving
the goal of improving the livelihood of fish farmers in pilot
municipalities, however, requires not only sustained fry production andsupply from NIFTDC but also the firm extension system of its flyproduction.
Other positive impacts of the Project include: 1) the increased
interest in using natural food with the help of local news coverage, 2)
three (3) municipalities are now planning to establish the joint
monitoring committee on water quality to undertake monitoring
activities on their own.
(5) Sustainability
From the policy standpoint, sustainability of the Project is secured
considering that the milkfish development program will remain as one ofthe priority programs of DA-BFAR. Considering that milkfish aquaculture
development is a priority program of DA-BFAR, it is likely that NIFTDC
will receive adequate budget and human resources to continue theiroperations. On the other hand, though technical transfer to local
government units was also well conducted, there is a concern for budget
allocation at local government units for expansion of extension
activity. Though some local government units allocated budget forextension program, some municipalities might have difficulty for theallocation of budget for extension.
３－３ Positive factor of the Result(1) Regarding the Planning
N/A(2) Regarding Implementation Process
One of positive factors of the results is the establishment of asmooth coordination network system among DA-BFAR, BFAR regional
offices, and LGUs in the pilot project areas by adequately grasping
their respective institutional roles in fishery extension activities.
Also, the good coordination network has been seen among NIFTDC
counterparts and hatchery workers, which strengthened the NIFTDC

internal teamwork especially while the latter part of the project.
３－４ Issues and Negative factor of the Issues(1) Regarding the Planning
N/A(2) Regarding Implementation Process
Throughout the project period, there were several natural disasters
like typhoons and floods which damaged the project sites and caused
serious negative impacts on the pilot activities.
３－５ Conclusion
The Project has mostly achieved the Project Purpose as a result ofefficient implementation and effective interventions. Though thestoppage of fry production at some hatchery hindered project
accomplishment, it was due to the natural disaster which is beyond
project control. To achieve overall goal of the project, further
efforts to sustain increased fry and egg production and supply, andstrengthen extension works among fish farmers are deemed necessary.
３－６ Recommendations(1) For DA-BFAR
1) To increase seeds and fry production, i) reactivate the PBDP
satellite hatchery system in Region I and nearby areas and ii)
establish a backyard hatchery system near the center. Such systems
can be good models for other central hatcheries to follow.
2) Considering some hatchery couldn’t continue their fry production
due to the deterioration of facility by natural calamities, DAFBFAR should re-conduct feasibility study for each hatchery andreview the hatchery development plan.
3) Hatchery networking should further be strengthened as a platform toshare the development issues and future perspectives of themilkfish industry.
4) DA-BFAR regional offices should assist the LGUs in sustaining theactivities of the Project by providing technical assistance andextension services.
5) DA-BFAR, in close coordination with the LGUs, should monitor andevaluate the utilization of the technical manuals and training
materials provided by the Project, and update them as necessary.
6) Moreover, it is also important to consider the creation offavorable policy environments for the private sector to invest in
milkfish production and for the LGUs to prioritize its extension
activities.
(2) For Pilot Municipalities
As for the grow-out technology extension, it is the LGU that is
responsible for sustaining the project activities through closemonitoring. In addition, it is recommended to replicate or expand
those good practices of pilot fish farmers to other fish farmers. In
so doing, it is suggested to facilitate good coordination with theprovincial government and BFAR regional offices for replication of theactivities.
３－７ Lessons Learned(1) For projects implemented in calamity-prone areas, project planners
need to carefully consider at the outset countermeasures to mitigate
if not avoid the disastrous effects of calamities on project
activities in order to achieve planned objectives. In addition, theproject plans should be adjusted accordingly in response to fortuitous
events like typhoons and floods that could happen anytime in thecourse of project implementation.
(2) Proper recognition of the mandate and role of each stakeholder at theplanning stage of the project is really important for project
implementation.
(3) Selection of pilot sites should consider the capacity of theimplementing agency to monitor outreach activities and provide timely
response to issues affecting project implementation. In case far
distant place from project base is selected as pilot sites,
alternative implementation arrangements may need to be considered forthe project implementers to be able to manage future outreachactivities in distant pilot sites.

(4) In areas where intensive fish farming is a common practice,aquaculture outreach projects should incorporate activities aimed ataddressing environmental issues.
３－８ Follow-Up Status
N/A.