Interim evaluation

Background and core learning partnership

The Western Mindanao Community Initiatives Project (WMCIP) targeted the poor, including indigenous people, in four provinces in Western Mindanao. WMCIP was executed between 1999 and 2007 by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the Government of the Philippines (GOP), in co-operation with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The evaluation of the project was conducted in 2007 by IFAD's Office of Evaluation (OE).

Following usual practice for OE evaluations, a Core Learning Partnership¹ was established providing critical inputs at key stages in the evaluation, including towards the preparation of the Agreement at Completion Point.

This Agreement at Completion Point reflects an understanding between the GOP represented by DAR and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) represented by the Asia and Pacific Division on key findings from the evaluation (see section II below), and their agreement to adopt and implement the evaluation's recommendations listed in section III - according to the established timeframes.

Main evaluation findings

Design features. The project components were designed to emphasize participatory planning and implementation, community development and institutional capacity building, natural resource management and enterprise development. The project was admirable in its attempt to work from head waters to blue waters².

Although the targeting of some municipalities was based on a landscape approach, the actual barangay sites were spread out, meaning that the interconnectivity of upland-lowland-coastal ecosystems was not adequately captured. Thus, environmental disturbances beyond the control of the project affected results.  For example coastal initiatives were affected by upstream activities and upland river-based initiatives affected by upstream mining. This was further aggravated when the resource abuse was located beyond the municipality/province concerned. Similarly, the spread of project sites and the number of government agencies (DA, DAR, DENR)³ involved in the project made supervision and implementation support challenging. The project design had weaknesses in the small enterprise development and credit component, while the targeting of three different beneficiary groups (upland, lowland, and coastal) contributed to the complexity, adding to project management difficulties. Thus, in order to simplify the project, the credit and coastal communities could have been excluded.

Implementation, outputs and attaining project objectives. By June 2007, the project achieved or exceeded practically all quantitative targets, apart from some infrastructure provisions such as water supply systems. Initial project start-up was significantly delayed by 18 months while issues of project management were resolved by IFAD and GOP; performance up to mid 2004, when the project was originally due to be completed, was slow. The project was therefore extended by three years. Over 9,300 poor farmer households and almost 2,400 poor fishermen households have directly benefited, including nearly 3,400 vulnerable households. Nearly 9,000 households are involved in the process of enterprise development, although sustainability remains a challenge. Based on the 2007 WMCIP survey, average annual income of WMCIP beneficiaries has increased by about 38 per cent since 2005. This was largely due to higher farm incomes, which may be attributed to the beneficiaries' adoption of new agricultural technologies under the project.

Relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. The project objectives and activities are relevant to the needs and aspirations of the stakeholders in the project area, as well as to the needs of conflict-affected and post-conflict communities. They are also in line with the priorities of GOP in meeting the basic needs of the poor, and to IFAD's strategic objectives and targeting priorities in the Philippines. The project goal was accomplished, nearly 22,000 households benefiting by June 2007.

Physical accomplishments exceeded targets. Incomes increased, but generally remain below the poverty threshold. The small enterprise development and credit component, however, was not very effective. Resource use on most components was good, with almost all loan funds likely to be utilised before project closing, but the three year project extension enabled this.

Performance of IFAD and its partners. Initially, IFAD was constrained by having no field presence,, but its involvement was lacking at two crucial stages in project implementation, namely at start up and during the mid term review. The government and its partner agencies have complied with loan covenants and implemented most recommendations of the supervision missions.  Initially project implementation progress was slow, but improved after the project was mainstreamed in DAR in late 2003. UNOPS fielded qualified supervision missions and their reports addressed major concerns.

However, for the first half of the project life, UNOPS project personnel and location changed and there was little consistency of knowledge on project progress which may have impacted negatively on the processing of project management requirements during this period. For example, during supervision missions and the MTR the project missed an opportunity to make positive changes to the Small Enterprise Development Component (SEDC). The performance of NGOs was moderately unsatisfactory, as it was not consistent across sites due to varying levels of capacities and experience.

Rural poverty reduction impacts. Positive impacts were achieved in improvements in physical assets, agricultural productivity, food security and nutrition, human assets, social capital and empowerment, and institutional capacity development. However, its impact on financial assets and markets was limited.

Sustainability and ownership. Sustainability of WMCIP initiatives is dependent on the capabilities of individual beneficiaries, barangay communities, Peoples Organizations (POs) and cooperatives to sustain the community-initiated programs and projects. Capacity building takes time, and will need the continued support of Municipal Local Government Units (MLGUs), Provincial Local Government Units (PLGUs) and other agencies. Mainstreaming of the programs and projects into regular provincial and regional programs and continued provision of support activities was an important feature for the sustainability of WMCIP. The participatory planning and social empowerment processes of WMCIP were critical in generating ownership of project activities by communities and beneficiaries, which will help in promoting sustainability.

Innovation, replication and scaling up. WMCIP used proven procedures such as the use of a Community Organization – Community Development (CO-CD) framework, community development volunteers (CDVs) and participatory approaches, for the Community and Institutional Development (CID) component - while innovative technologies were adopted in natural resources management, some of which have already been scaled up.

Overall assessment. WMCIP targeted the poorest in 81 barangays in 21 municipalities in the four provinces, and the inclusion from 2003 of vulnerable households significantly enhanced outreach and distribution of benefits. Incomes increased, and significant changes at the household level are evident, although poverty remains prevalent. Crop and fisheries production has led to diversification that improved food security and nutrition intake. Much was achieved in capacity building at barangay and LGU levels, with partnerships developed for supporting development activities. The SEDC component achieved limited impact in developing small enterprises, business advisory services and a sustainable credit delivery system. The focus on indigenous people, and on barangays within conflict areas is seen as a bold and praiseworthy initiative.

Key recommendations agreed by partners

The following recommendations from the evaluation have been discussed with GOP and IFAD during the final WMCIP evaluation stakeholders meetings held in Manila on 17 December 2007. It was agreed they will be considered for possible follow up to the extent possible, depending on resource availability and taking into account mutually agreed priorities at the time.

Recommendation – IFAD activities should continue to support development in upland areas where poverty remains persistent and IFAD has experience. In particular, it will be desirable to continue working in the WMCIP upland areas of Zamboanga Peninsula⁴ . This recommendation could be part of a future IFAD-funded project covering two or three other upland regions in the Philippines. Its objectives would be to strengthen ongoing WMCIP activities, address its weaknesses, and help ensure sustainability of benefits. Requirements of coastal communities are different, and thus should be handled under a different project to ensure the required developmental results of those involved in artisanal fisheries.

If IFAD and the Government subsequently decide to undertake a future project focusing on upland areas such as in WMCIP areas then, the following sub-recommendations should be taken into account. These are grouped under recommendation 1.1 clarity of design, recommendation 1.2 project organisation and management, and recommendation 1.3 specific project components and implementation.

Recommendation 1.1 - Clarity of Design

Integrate the principles of a watershed and landscape approach to Natural Resource Management (NRM). For this it is recommended that:

• In order to promote better control and accountability over resource destructive activities and the flow of positive benefits between communities (e.g. less siltation and improved water quality) within the project area, future interventions should work in a more limited geographic area.  Future interventions should be limited to headwater areas incorporating the principles of a landscape approach (see next bullet) considering downstream effects, but limiting implementation or support to critical uplandreas.

• Within the upland areas, targeting of project sites should be to the extent possible contiguous for better environmental benefits and incorporate the principles of a landscape approach, which integrates social, cultural, and environmental concerns with the management of the land area, but with special care taken of the possibilities of environmental disturbances beyond the control of the project.

• A locus for intervention in terms of geographic coverage and beneficiary needs has to be clearly identified during design of a potential second phase - together with the corresponding institutional considerations for the development of improved monitoring and supervision and implementation support arrangements.

Specify more accurately the target groups. Aligned with the GOP development thrusts and directions, the project design should be in line with the IFAD targeting policy and clear on the poverty level of the targeted groups, and whether to include the enterprising poor and vulnerable groups. WMCIP had a selection guide for vulnerable households and during implementation these were integrated with the KALAHI (Linking Arms to Fight Poverty) program priorities of the National Anti-Poverty Commission at the barangay and municipal level. This approach was useful and should be considered in the design of future projects.

Improved integration of components.In WMCIP, the different project components had impacts on the effectiveness of succeeding components.  For example, technologies under Component 2 had a high rate of adoption of innovations, this being partly attributed to a high rate of awareness resulting from the social preparation initiatives under Component 1. However the links between components 2 and 3 were not as strong (i.e. poor SEDC).  Also, the integration was not consistent across all project areas.  As such, any future operation should build on and improve the implementation of the approach adopted in WMCIP to ensure improved integration and sequencing of components and activities.

Enhance the government's participation in the design process.  In line with the evolving operating model within IFAD, future project design should involve the country program management team (CPMT) and enhance the participation of government, in all levels, in order to improve country ownership, relevance, and partnership.

Recommendation 1.2 - Project Organisation and Management

Mainstreaming for sustainability. Activities should be mainstreamed into regular regional and provincial operations of all agencies and sustainability instituted from project onset ⁵. In this regard, clear coordination mechanisms between partner agencies should be established. NRM in particular cuts across institutional mandates of several agencies, and the project design and logical framework should be clear on inputs, activities and expected outputs and impact. To enhance project mainstreaming, coordination mechanisms between the IFAD and the GOP/Executing Agency should be in line with the institutional set ups negotiated and agreed in the project loan agreement, based on a transparent assessment of the needs of the project and the existing institutional capabilities. Clarity of responsibilities is also important if the project covers parts of Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) as well as Region 9 (e.g. in Basilan).

Project management in conflict zones. Project execution and supervision and implementation support mechanisms need to be flexible, given the constantly changing security circumstances in the region. For example, reliance on local agencies may be necessary. Project management staff must be able to work with and communicate across the varied different groups in conflict areas: at local levels, being indigenous to the area or of the same ethnic group would be advantageous.

Increased IFAD visibility. IFAD needs to make its presence felt more widely during project execution, for example, by ensuring that its policy priorities and declarations (e.g. related to indigenous people) remain areas of focus throughout the project life cycle and undertaking direct supervision and implementation support including participation of the field presence officer.  The continuation of direct supervision and the strengthening of the field presence officer are contingent on available resources allocated within the wider framework of IFAD activities related to field presence and direct supervision..

Screen community initiatives. New community infrastructure projects, while continuing to be selected in a participatory manner by communities, should also be screened by the project for technical and environmental feasibility. Project appraisal mechanisms to ensure objective review and approval of infrastructure projects should be established.

Recommendation 1.3 - Specific Project Components and Implementation

Resources and Environment

• Mindanao conflict and regulation of resource use. Control and development of the region's lands and natural resources has contributed to the Mindanao conflict, particularly in terms of the inequitable use/control of resources. WMCIP made initiatives in peace and development, such as peace zones formation in Basilan, peace process consultation between the government and a splinter local rebel group from the Communist Party of the Philippines, and some training in conflict sensitivity and peace building. Future projects must recognize and support the dynamics of tri-communities (Muslim, Christian and Indigenous Peoples) in conflict areas by bringing these partners together to resolve conflicts and manage natural resources.  This good practice from WMCIP should be continued as conflicts around natural resource use are intrinsically anchored in the diversity of ethnicity, religion and socio-economic and cultural knowledge, structures and practices.
• Environment. The influx of mining activities within the four provinces poses a clear threat to the sustainability of WMCIP and needs to be kept under review. If there is no IFAD follow on intervention, as part of the mainstreaming, DAR, DENR, and relevant LGU should be involved in this review.
• Indigenous Peoples and Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADCs).  Based on the WMCIP experience working with three communities to Convert their CADCs to Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs)⁶ , there are two pressing issues that affect the concern for Indigenous People and should be incorporated into future activities; (i) financing of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans; and (ii) organizing other indigenous peoples groups within the region to formally file their respective CADC where viable under Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.

Capacity Building

Community development. (i) Financial support by MLGUs should be continued for the CDVs to support POs and development work in barangays, in coordination with the Sangguniang Pambarangay (Barangay Council). The financial management capabilities of officers of People's Organizations, Farmers/Fishermen's Associations and Cooperatives should be further enhanced and include provisions for assessing the economic viability of proposed investment activities. In addition, assistance should be provided in establishing market linkages.

LGU capacity development. (i) Continue training and technical support to Municipal and Provincial LGU personnel in monitoring and evaluation; and (ii) Continue support to LGUs in assessing and updating of the Sustainable Barangay Development Plans responsive to the emerging needs of the barangays and for fund mobilization.

Line agency support and partnership: (i) Line agencies should continue providing technical support to community organizations in pursuing NRM, livelihood and marketing and credit; (ii) Linkage of ongoing and new programs using existing structures such as Barangay Development Team/ Municipal Development Team and Barangay Infrastructure Monitoring Board should be pursued to ensure continuity of institutional development (and avoid duplication) in the identification and implementation of projects funded by other agencies.

Enterprise development and credit

• Market-oriented approach. An integrated approach is needed covering production, processing and marketing, recognizing the importance of market linkages for the rural poor. Capacity-building and investment is needed in activities that are commercially viable in the market. NGOs may not have capabilities in enterprise development and business development services, and if used, need training.
• Credit. A different credit modality should be sought with other government entities. This should take into account lessons learned from the evaluation of the previously IFAD-funded Rural Micro-Enterprise Finance Program and the recently launched Rural Micro-Enterprise Promotion Project (RuMEPP).  For example, RuMEPP's effort to use the credit funds as a deposit/guaranty in the Small Business Guaranty and Finance Corporation working in partnership with MFIs is a step in the right direction.
• If IFAD and the Government subsequently decide to undertake a future project in coastal areas then the recommendations under 2.1 coastal areas should be taken into account.

Recommendation 2.1 – Coastal areas – These recommendation are only relevant if there is a future intervention related to coastal issues.

Environment. If a follow on intervention continues to work in coastal areas, greater effort has to be made to enhance the involvement of the DA- Regional Field units and Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, especially in regard to extending technical assistance to the various land and water resource management technologies.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) – complementarity of two laws, namely RA 7586 and RA 8550, affecting marine and coastal resource management and fisheries in National Integrated Protected Areas Systems (NIPAS), needs to be addressed. The Fisheries Code (RA8550) is more localized and operable at the Local Government Unit (LGU) level. NIPAS requires congressional approval across a vast stretch of protected areas.

---

1/ Members of the Core Learning Partnership included: Department of Agriculture, Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, National Economic and Development Agency, Asian Development Bank Philippine Country Office, USAID (Growth with Equity in Mindanao project staff), and the Country Program Manager and Field Presence Officer of IFAD.

2/ This is approach is optimal for natural resource management.  However, to be successful in this approach the project would have needed significantly more resources to work contiguously from headwater to coastal and even island ecosystems.

3/ The 1997 Technical Review Committee issues paper highlighted that working in the uplands, lowlands, and coastal areas and involving three major agencies complicated and added to a diffuse project.

4/ As this was an interim evaluation, a key question for the evaluation from the approach paper was whether or not a follow-up phase of the project should be pursued.  Thus, in addressing this question, the evaluation suggests the need for follow on activities.  The evaluation believes that there are opportunities to build on the stronger project activities and to help address some of its weaknesses in order to help ensure sustainability of benefits.  As with the CHARM project area, where IFAD has been involved for more than 20 years, the WMCIP upland areas are a challenging environment and a longer term perspective may be required to ensure impact and sustainability. 

5/ Specifically during design IFAD should consider: (a) the responsibilities between the regional directors and the project managers; (b) the role of other staff of the regional bureaus of the line departments vis-à-vis those who may need to be recruited on temporarily basis; and (c) how to deal with the issues around the implementation of convergence between different line departments (DA, DAR, DENR, etc). 

6/ See Table 1. The logical framework results chain from the PCR.