Final Evaluation-CARE Nederland-SHO Filipijnen-eindversie · 2Bayanihan (pronounced as...
Transcript of Final Evaluation-CARE Nederland-SHO Filipijnen-eindversie · 2Bayanihan (pronounced as...
FINAL EVALUATION
“Recovery and Resilience Project” -Promoting Recovery and Enhancing
Resilience of Vulnerable Communities in the Philippines Most Affected by
Typhoon Haiyan
Funded by: Giro 555 (SHO) Netherlands
Barangay Mag-aso, La Paz, Leyte
Written by: Mrs. Corazon T. Urquico
Table of Contents
Page
I. BACKGROUND 1
II. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 4
III. METHODOLOGY 5
IV. ANALYSIS 6
V. CONCLUSIONS 28
VI. LESSONS LEARNED 32
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 34
LIST OF REFERENCES 36
ANNEXES
A. Case Study 1: Mainstreaming Gender in Early Recovery
B. Case Study 2: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction Recovery
C. Evaluation Matrix
D. Project Intervention Areas
E. Log frame of Project
F. List of FGDs Participants
G. List of Key Informants
H. Schedule of Evaluation Process
I. Itinerary of Field Visits
J. On-site Programme
K. Photos
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACCORD Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and
Development
BDRRMC Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committee
CGI Corrugated Galvanized Iron
CWGER Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery
CBO Community Based Organization
CEF Community Enterprise fund
DRR(M) Disaster Risk Reduction(Management)
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FSL Food Security and Livelihoods
HCT Humanitarian Country Team
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
IASC Inter-Agency Steering Committee
KII Key Informant Interview
LDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
LGU(s) Local Government Unit(s)
MDRRMO Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office(r)
MIRA Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NFIs Non-food Items
OECD/DAC Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/
Development Assistance Committee
PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women
PWD Persons with Disabilities
PDA/M Post-Distribution Assessment/Monitoring
SHO Dutch Cooperating Aid Agencies
SRK Shelter Repair Kit
UNDP United Nations Development Program
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
1
I. BACKGROUND
This is the final project evaluation of CARE’s project Recovery and Resilience: Promoting Recovery and
Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Communities that are Most Affected by Typhoon Haiyan in the
Philippines. This two-year project was undertaken by CARE Nederland in partnership with the Filipino NGO
Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development (ACCORD). Implemented in the
context of the early recovery phase after Typhoon Haiyan, the project was supported by national
fundraising action for the Philippines of the Dutch Cooperating Aid Agencies (SHO)/Giro555.
Typhoon Haiyan (locally known as Typhoon Yolanda) battered the central region of the Philippines on 8
November 2013 with an unprecedented strength of 315kph (196mph), creating a major humanitarian
crisis spread across 44 provinces, where 171 municipalities were listed as worst hit1. Officially, the
government reported 6,300 dead, 1,061 missing and 28,689 injured; the casualties came mostly from
areas where storm surges occurred. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA) estimated about 11 million people affected with 4 million left homeless. Access to basic
services was disrupted and means to livelihoods were paralyzed; total damage was estimated at US$15B.
Six landfalls that never dissipated in strength. Typhoon Haiyan ravaged the Visayan region of the Philippines with
unprecedented fury.
1 Source: Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery
2
Rural areas dependent on fisheries and agriculture were completely ruined and became unproductive.
The poorest of the poor in the Philippines were affected - fisher folk, landless farmers, small landholders
and micro entrepreneurs - and the most vulnerable groups: women, children, elderly and persons with
disabilities. Typhoon Haiyan hit one of the poorest regions in the Philippines, Region VIII, where Leyte is
located. Leyte was one of the two hardest-hit provinces covered by the project; the other was Iloilo,
located in Panay Island (Region VI).
The project addressed the urgent needs of targeted communities in Leyte and Iloilo, most affected by the
disaster, for early recovery which comprised activities on shelter, food security and livelihoods. Disaster
risk reduction (DRR) and gender equality were cross-cutting themes throughout the project. It enhanced
the on-going humanitarian assistance and complemented other CARE and partners’ humanitarian
responses in food distribution, non-food items (NFIs) and emergency shelter implemented during the first
three months following onset of the disaster. The project’s duration (of 2 years) ran between 11
November 2013 and 31 December 2015.
A. Project Objectives, Intended Results, Beneficiaries and Main Activities
The hardest hit by Typhoon Haiyan came from agricultural and coastal areas, where poverty groups are
found. Some 70% of the poorest sectors in the country are found in the rural areas. They are the most
vulnerable during disasters owing to their lack of capacities and means for risk reduction and resilience.
The project targeted these remote and underserved areas, which are characterized as Geographically
Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA). The project focused on farming and upland communities which
raised rice, corn and coconut (mainly monocrop) and were engaged in household microenterprises.
The following table describing the project has been drawn from the project proposal and updated to
reflect adaptations:
Objectives Overall objective - Communities recover from the disaster, build back safer (BBS), and
strengthen their resilience. Specific objective – Provide access to food security and livelihoods (FSL) and shelter services that incorporates disaster risk reduction (DRR) to speed up the recovery of most affected populations in targeted remote and underserved communities of Leyte and Iloilo Provinces, Philippines.
Target groups and Location
Primary target groups: 9,180 vulnerable households mainly in the agriculture sector
whose livelihoods were most affected by typhoon Haiyan; 225 local public officials Location: 5 municipalities in the province of Leyte (Region 8 –Eastern Visayas): La Paz,
Dagami, Santa Fe, Tabon-tabon, and Pastrana; 2 municipalities in the province of Iloilo (Region 6 – Western Visayas): San Dionisio and Estancia.
Results Results related to the Specific Objective R1. Short-term food security and livelihood needs of targeted vulnerable households are met R2. Shelter recovery by targeted vulnerable households is adequately supported
Main activities R1.1 Provision of livelihood recovery inputs to targeted households prioritising crop and
livelihood diversification and other resilient livelihood strategies
3
R1.2 Capacity building of households in targeted communities on sustainable agriculture, organic farming, disaster risk reduction, organization development and financial management. R1.3 Capacity building of and coordination with local authorities in targeted city and
municipalities R2.1 Assessment of damaged houses and strengthening capacities of targeted
households to build back safer homes R2.2 Distribution of shelter repair kits and cash transfers to targeted households
Beneficiaries Beneficiary targets per activity
R1.1 Provision of livelihood recovery inputs 5,420 households (27,100 persons)
R1.2 Capacity building of households 9,180 households (45,900 persons)
R1.3 Capacity building of local authorities 225 persons
R2.1 Strengthening capacities to build back safer 1,240 households (6,200 persons)
R2.2 Shelter repair kits 1,240 households (6,200 persons)
Beneficiaries without double-counting 46,125 persons
The 46,125 direct beneficiaries of the Project represent 90% of the population and local government officials in the targeted barangays. Beneficiaries targeted for livelihood recovery (R1.1) also received shelter repair kits (R2.2).
Main Expenditures
• Distribution of cash grants to households and community groups for the purchase of livelihood inputs
• Purchase of shelter repair kits and cash transfers
• Training costs
• Transportation of goods and staff travel costs
• Personnel
• Office costs, bank charges etc.
B. Features of Strategy
The project addressed the urgent needs of the targeted beneficiaries in the food security and livelihoods
(FSL) and the shelter sectors, where serious gaps have been identified. It built on earlier food, NFI and
emergency shelter assistance for more comprehensive response to targeted communities. Community-
based and rights-based approaches were consistently applied as the project’s main strategy to empower
communities for early recovery, resilience building and ensuring sustainability. This approach gave
primary importance to: (1) participation; (2) organization, building on traditional mutual-aid practices as
bayanihan2; and (3) meeting the real needs of disaster-affected people guided by the principle that
upholds the right to life with dignity. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) was systematically integrated by means
of explicit DRR activities such as contingency planning and drills, and incorporation of appropriate DRR
measures in community and household FSL and shelter strategies. Gender and inclusion were woven into
the project cycle: sex, age, vulnerability disaggregated data were collected; vulnerable groups were
2Bayanihan (pronounced as buy-uh-nee-hun) is a Filipino custom derived from a Filipino word “bayan”, which means nation,
town or community. The term bayanihan itself literally means “being in a bayan”, which refers to the spirit of communal unity,
work and cooperation to achieve a particular goal. https://themixedculture.com/2013/09/25/filipinos-bayanihan/
4
targeted and identified and their situation and needs addressed, where possible, in FSL, shelter and DRR.
Sharing of knowledge and training complemented delivery of materials inputs to livelihood and shelter.
Coordination with local government units (LGUs) and other actors in the disaster response, INGOs, NGOs
and multilateral organizations, was given importance to facilitate information sharing, mobilize support
to the community, avoid duplication in service delivery, and direct assistance where it was most needed.
C. Brief Profile of Implementing Partners
CARE has a long track-record in the Philippines that dates back to 1949, at a time when the country was
still recovering from the impact of World War II. For decades, CARE had a regular program and also
provided emergency relief; its program also included helping communities prepare for disasters. Since the
turn of the century, CARE’s projects have included promoting microfinance, economic and conservation
development, empowering youth to deal with emergency situations, and developing community disaster
response, preparedness and mitigation activities. More recently, CARE extended assistance in 2009 after
typhoon Ketsana and all subsequent major disasters that devastated large areas in Luzon (typhoons Meari,
Nesat and Nalgae), Visayas (Bohol earthquake) and Mindanao (typhoons Washi and Bopha). For Typhoon
Haiyan, CARE was immediately on the ground providing food, shelter, livelihoods assistance and other
essentials to survivors.
As an implementing partner of CARE, ACCORD Inc. traces its roots to the Strengthening Assets and
Capacities of Communities and Local Governments for Resilience to Disasters Project, which was a
collaboration amongst CARE Nederland, the Corporate Network for Disaster Response and the Agri-Aqua
Development Coalition, with funding from ECHO. As a project then under CARE, ACCORD figured
prominently in the aftermath of the 2006 Guinsaugon landslide in the province of Leyte. One of the
important lessons from the ACCORD Project was that serious gaps existed in programming capacities of
communities, people’s organizations, local government units and NGOs. In 2010, ACCORD Inc. was
established specifically to fill this need, to build local capacities in programming so that poverty reduction
and other programmes would be more effective, with sustainable outcomes, replication and scaling up.
From June 2010 to date, ACCORD has participated in seven emergency response and recovery projects in
partnership with CARE, in the sectors of FSL, WASH, shelter and NFIs. DRR elements were consistently
incorporated in these projects.
II. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The overall objective of this final project evaluation is to ascertain the level of achievements of the
program objective and results in the course of its two-year implementation. To be assessed are the
appropriateness and effectiveness of program interventions and strategies/operational modalities,
drawing lessons learned and generating recommendations towards enhanced response interventions for
future programming.
5
Specifically, the objectives of the evaluation are to:
• Assess the overall achievement of results of the program at the objective and result levels. This
will include an assessment of how effective gender and protection and disaster risk reduction
were integrated to achieve or contribute to the achievement of project results.
• Evaluate the program model and operational strategy/approach in terms of the Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability.
• Identify lessons learned, and any particular challenges in the implementation of the program
and achievement of results.
• Provide recommendations to CARE for improvement of future programming.
• Produce 2 case studies that demonstrate evidence of program results towards recovery and
resilience building and empowerment of women.
III. METHODOLOGY
The overall approach of the evaluation process was participatory, pursuing the views and experiences of
the project’s stakeholders and beneficiaries. The evaluation followed a phased process using a mix of
methods (triangulation) to obtain both primary and secondary data.
The evaluation has proceeded as follows (see the Annex for a complete timeline):
Literature review
Documentary analysis included the review of project documents, regular monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) reports, annual reports, final project report, mid-term evaluation and relevant documents on
Typhoon Haiyan prepared by the government and OCHA.
Field work
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with stakeholders: CARE and ACCORD management and
staff, other NGOs and INGOs, local government units (LGUs) officials from the municipal down to the
barangay3 level.
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held with beneficiaries in the project areas, with beneficiaries
selected through purposive sampling. Based on the entire coverage of the project, three out of the five
municipalities in Leyte were chosen: Dagami, La Paz and Tabon-tabon. In Iloilo, the two municipalities of
San Dionisio and Estancia were covered (see the maps of the project areas in the Annex). A total of 107
beneficiaries participated in the seven FGDs (80 women and 27 men). (See Annexes E and F for lists of FGD
participants and key informants.)
3 The barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines. A municipality or city is composed of a number of barangays. The
head of a barangay is a barangay captain who is elected every three years with a group of council members who together
compose the Barangay Council.
6
Draft report and final report.
A draft report of the analysis, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations was submitted to CARE
for comments before the execution of this final evaluation.
The key evaluation questions were framed around the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) Criteria for Evaluating Development
and Humanitarian Assistance. These are:
• Relevance: the extent to which an aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target
group, recipient and donor.
• Effectiveness: a measure of the extent to which an aid activity has attained its objectives.
• Efficiency: an economic term which signifies the least costly resources possible to achieve the
desired results were used; and generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving
the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.
• Impact: the positive and negative changes produced by an intervention, directly or indirectly,
intended or unintended.
• Sustainability: assessing the probability that the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after
the program cycle.
Limitation
This evaluation took place immediately after the project ended in 2015 December, covering two years of
implementation. As such, the evaluation of the project impact will only be limited to its short-term impact.
This evaluation will however factor in the potentials that this short-term impact will produce in the
medium and long terms.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Relevance
The objectives and outcomes of the project have been consistent with the objectives of the Philippine
government’s Yolanda (Haiyan) Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Plan, as well as with the
objectives of the Typhoon Haiyan Strategic Response Plan developed by the Philippines Humanitarian
Country Team. Vulnerable households in geographically isolated and depressed areas, locations that were
most affected but receiving comparatively less assistance were targeted as project beneficiaries. Rapid
needs assessments that were periodically updated ensured that assistance has addressed the urgent
needs of the targeted vulnerable households, including specific needs of the most vulnerable groups. The
synergy of activities implemented, the mix of hard (e.g. shelter repair kits, cash transfers) and soft
(trainings, livelihood groups, shelter roving teams) inputs has resulted in meeting the project outcomes
of meeting short-term food security needs, supporting resilient livelihood strategies, building back safer
shelters, and contributing to the resilience of targeted vulnerable households and communities.
7
Relevance of objectives
Table 1: Specific Objectives
The project was implemented in the context of the early recovery phase which starts and overlaps with
the later part of the humanitarian phase, about 1 month to 2 months after onset of the disaster. As
expounded by the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER), early recovery occurs in parallel
with humanitarian activities, but its objectives, mechanisms and expertise are different. Early recovery
aims to: enhance ongoing humanitarian assistance operations; support spontaneous recovery initiatives
by affected communities; and establish the foundations of longer-term recovery.4 The project objectives
were in line with these early recovery aims. They were also consistent with the Typhoon Haiyan Strategic
Response Plan developed by the Philippines Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), to address the urgent
early recovery needs identified by the Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA). The MIRA
was undertaken immediately after the typhoon. In particular, the project addressed MIRA’s
recommendations for:
• Revitalization of food security through support to livelihoods and re-establishment of productive
capacity.
• Protection of the most vulnerable (including women, children, the elderly and disabled)
particularly those displaced and residing in temporary evacuation centers.
• Undertaking all interventions with a view to enhancing resilience.5
While it took the Philippine government almost a year to approve its Haiyan rehabilitation and recovery
plan, the Yolanda Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Plan (CRRP) nonetheless set the following
objectives:
• To restore, rehabilitate or reconstruct damaged infrastructure necessary to sustain economic
and social activities in the affected areas;
• To repair houses or rebuild settlements and basic community facilities and services that are
more resilient to hazard events;
• To restore the peoples’ means of livelihood and continuity of economic activities and business;
and
• To increase resilience and capacities of communities in coping with future hazard events.6
4 https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/clusters/early-recovery 5 The other recommendations of MIRA were: Addressing urgent food, water and shelter needs; Preventing deterioration of
health and nutritional status of those in worst-affected areas. Restoration of essential community services for water and
sanitation, education, and social welfare. 6 http://yolanda.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yolanda-CRRP.pdf
Objectives Overall objective - Communities recover from the disaster, build back safer (BBS),
and strengthen their resilience. Specific objective – Provide access to food security and livelihoods (FSL) and shelter services that incorporates disaster risk reduction (DRR) to speed up the recovery of most affected populations in targeted remote and underserved communities of Leyte and Iloilo Provinces, Philippines.
8
The project’s shelter, livelihoods and disaster risk reduction components were aligned with three of four
CRRP objectives, except the first (rehabilitation of infrastructures).
The project thus responded to a number of objectives designed to address the most relevant concerns
and needs in the Haiyan early recovery, as set by the Philippine government and also by the Humanitarian
Country Team. First, was the provision of assistance for shelter and livelihoods recovery to the most
vulnerable and most affected. Second was strengthening resilience through explicit DRR activities and
integrating DRR in livelihood and shelter strategies. Third was responding to protection needs of the most
vulnerable by considering gender as a cross-cutting theme of the project. Finally, the application of
community- and rights-based approaches that give priority to participation, and organizational capacity
development of communities, as well as inclusion of DRR in the project design, provided some of the
foundation for sustainable early recovery and development.
Relevance to target group and recipients
The project targeted agricultural lowland and upland communities that belonged to the Geographically
Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA)7 category, where the poorest of the poor in the Philippines live8.
These groups are landless tenants, small landholders, small leaseholders and micro-entrepreneurs who
are dependent on planting coconut, rice, corn and on microenterprise. Typhoon Haiyan turned the
agriculture sector in the affected areas into a virtual wasteland with totally or partially damaged houses
and means of livelihood levelled to the ground.
The project ensured that its beneficiaries came from to the most affected among vulnerable households
by using a set of criteria that also identified the most vulnerable (women, children, the elderly and
disabled) among them. The selection criteria and process were validated through consultations with the
municipal and barangay LGUs, monitoring visits, interviews and the use of a scoring system for the
selection. The project also enforced transparency and allowed the selection of beneficiaries to be
challenged if any of the proposed beneficiaries did not meet the criteria – through community meetings,
or through a confidential feedback mechanism. With gender as cross-cutting theme, the project promoted
gender equality and participation of women. Specific needs of households with family members belonging
to the vulnerable groups such as the elderly, pregnant and lactating women, and single-headed
households were considered and adjustments made in order not to exclude them from benefiting from
resilient livelihoods options and shelter repair or construction.
Guided by the HCT recommendations based on the MIRA, and the project’s own assessments, the needs
of the targeted beneficiaries were thoroughly examined. CARE and ACCORD conducted an assessment
immediately following the disaster. The assessment findings were periodically updated in order for the
response to continue to be relevant to the evolving needs of beneficiaries. The project prepared barangay
profiles or factsheets that provided data on description of area, demographics, sources of income
(livelihood profiles), extent of damage of shelter and livelihoods and humanitarian actors in the area and
7Refers to communities with marginalized population physically and socio-economically separated from the mainstream society
and characterized by: Physical Factors - isolated due to distance, weather conditions and transportation difficulties (island,
upland, lowland, landlocked, hard to reach and unserved/underserved communities); and Socio-economic Factors (high poverty
incidence, presence of vulnerable sectors, communities in or recovering from a situation of crisis or armed conflict). 8 According to the Philippine Statistical Authority, 70% of the poor in the Philippines live in the rural areas, mainly in the
agricultural and coastal sectors.
9
their interventions. The ability to be relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries was also ensured by
coordinating with the stakeholders, LGUs, UN Cluster Teams and the beneficiaries themselves in order to
stay abreast on vital information regarding the continuing and changing context of the post-Typhoon
Haiyan situation.
Relevance of activities
Table 2: Main Activities
The implemented activities were generally consistent with the project design, and have contributed to
the realization of the two project outcomes: meeting short-term food security and livelihood needs, and
providing adequate support to shelter recovery, with both outcomes incorporating DRR in order to help
build community resilience.
The shelter component consisted of the provision of shelter repair kits (SRKs), as well as instructing the
communities on how to apply the build back safer (BBS) approach. This was based on an assessment
conducted by the project of pre-Haiyan houses, which identified a number of weaknesses that made the
structures weak and indicated major gaps in BBS techniques. Rather than employing cash transfer as the
modality, in-kind SRKs were distributed given the inhibiting conditions, e.g. market forces like availability
and supply, as well as price, that made access to shelter materials difficult, especially for the poor. The
SRKs addressed the issues of availability and access since these were not available locally after the
typhoon. The SRKs also ensured quality, especially the thickness of CGI sheets, which is critical in building
back safer, where the high quality standard of materials is paramount. The project also adjusted the costs
of its SRKs when the initial SRK package was assessed to be inadequate for the needs of the beneficiaries.
Capacity-strengthening on BBS of targeted households were in the form of awareness raising activities,
training of community members on BBS techniques, and organization of shelter roving teams with the
task of providing technical support in the assessment of damage and in the actual repair or construction
of houses. To tap the communities’ own capacities, the project also promoted self-help, self-recovery and
mutual aid. It capitalized on the Filipino custom of ‘bayanihan’) to mobilize communities to rebuild their
houses.
The project provided the adequate support to the communities by providing the means (knowledge on
BBS) and the materials to build sturdier homes. SRKs provided a sturdy core structure, a strong roof and
foundation of houses, and raised beneficiary awareness on the BBS standards.
Main activities
R1.1 Provision of livelihood recovery inputs to targeted households prioritising crop
and livelihood diversification and other resilient livelihood strategies. R1.2 Capacity building of households in targeted communities on sustainable
agriculture, organic farming, disaster risk reduction, organization development and financial management. R1.3 Capacity building of and coordination with local authorities in targeted city and municipalities R2.1 Assessment of damaged houses and strengthening capacities of targeted households to build back safer homes R2.2 Distribution of shelter repair kits and cash transfers to targeted households
10
For the livelihoods component, the project provided livelihood recovery inputs in the form of cash
transfers. This distribution modality was deemed the more feasible approach – in this way, beneficiaries
were allowed certain level of flexibility, yet adhering to the general livelihood plans and strategies drawn
up with assistance from the project. could use the obtained assistance as they saw fit. The project
combined this with technical assistance, promoting in particular resilient livelihood strategies by
strengthening household and community capacities on sustainable agriculture, crop and diversification,
and management skills. The technical inputs were provided to ensure that beneficiaries would be able to
use properly the cash transfers and livelihood assets on which the cash transfers were spent, resulting in
more sustained livelihood activities. As tenants and small landowners, the project recommended the
maximization of the use of their land with the intercropping of short-gestating crops and vegetable
gardening to ensure immediate and steady supply of food for the household, thus contributing to
household food security. Investments in livestock, such as the raising hogs, chicken and goats which also
have short gestation periods further diversified livelihood activities and gave households additional
income that could be used to complete the repair of their houses and other needs such as education of
children.
The livelihood component incorporated a range of sustainability elements. As households’ livelihoods
recovered through the first cash transfer, the project provided a second cash transfer to amplify the effect
of the first grant and invest in a group-based livelihood to prepare them for joint and collective enterprises
and widen their opportunities for additional income through shared facilities (e.g., pre-and post- harvest
facilities, farm animals) and thus enabling a more long-term impact. Towards the latter part of its
implementation, the project also provided funds for enterprises to Community Based Organizations
(CBOs), promoting a value chain approach. This can be considered a timely activity towards the end of an
early recovery phase after a disaster, as it establishes the foundations of longer-term recovery and
development, introducing a new entrepreneurial and market-driven perspective. The main benefit of the
value chain approach is its multiplying impact which when translated in an enterprise means the widening
of opportunities and options - a requirement to achieve long-term development. Linking poverty groups
to value chains is the first step towards disengagement from income poverty.
The project also responded to the need for DRR capacity strengthening of communities and local
government units. DRR capacity strengthening was in the form of awareness-raising or information,
education and communications (IEC) activities, training and mentoring on resilient livelihood strategies,
building back safer shelters, conducting participatory or community risk assessments, formulating
contingency plans, and testing the effectiveness of plans through evacuation drills. The project also
provided DRR training to LGUs at the municipal and barangay levels. The focus on DRR aligned the project
to the goals of the Republic Act 10121 of 20109 which provides that LGUs should lead in DRR at the
community level. This enabling law on DRR provides for the setting up of a Local Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Office (LDRRMO) in every province, city and municipality, and a Barangay Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Committee (BDRRMC) in every barangay which shall be responsible for
setting the direction, development, implementation and coordination of disaster risk management
programs within their territorial jurisdiction.
9Known as the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (NDRRM) Act of 2010, this act mandated a strengthening of
disaster management in the Philippines.
11
LGU officials who participated in the DRR training of the project pointed out the relevance of the training
to their mandate and how the tools they have learned are useful for risk assessment, strategic and
contingency planning and early warning systems. As the law requires municipalities and provinces to lead
in disaster preparedness, the training enabled municipalities and barangays to prepare their barangay
level contingency plans that were consolidated at the municipal level. At the barangay level, DRR training
was capped with the community drill that provided communities the experience of a systematic and
orderly early warning system and contingency plan at work.
Beneficiaries also confirmed that the project had responded timely to their real needs immediately after
Typhoon Haiyan. The project provided the resources that were critical for beneficiaries to take the first
steps towards recovery, specifically for their shelter, food security and livelihoods. The introduction of the
concepts of BBS and DRR was very timely because their own experience of the disaster had made these
two concepts most relevant to their daily lives. FGD participants attributed the resilience of their houses
and the viability of their livelihoods today to the inputs of the project. Beneficiaries were optimistic that
with these new and enhanced knowledge that combined recovery with resilience, that the impact of
future challenges from nature can be mitigated.
Relevance of the cash transfer scheme
The report of the Inter-Agency Steering Committee (IASC) Humanitarian Evaluation of the Typhoon Haiyan
Response (OCHA) notes that “the experience of the Philippines illustrates the potential effectiveness of
Cash Transfer Programmes (CTPs) as a flexible means to support people's self-recovery, as demonstrated
by post-distribution monitoring, which shows very diverse expenditure patterns that cannot be easily
replicated by in-kind assistance. This gives more power to individuals to manage their own recovery.
However, cash transfers for emergency employment (cash for work) tended to be sufficient to meet only
immediate household needs”. The same IASC report states the “the evidence suggests that cash for assets,
and those cash CTPs which included elements of training, have been more successful in supporting people
to regain livelihoods”.
The mix of modalities applied in the project, i.e., in-kind distribution of SRKs to address issues of
availability and access, and applying a cash transfer method for food security and livelihoods, allowed a
level of flexibility that enabled beneficiaries to adjust implementation arrangements according to their
particular situation. At the same time, “social contracts” entered into amongst beneficiaries, project
management and local government units, as well as appropriate monitoring have ensured that the cash
transfers, and the in-kind transfers, were not misused.
B. Effectiveness & Efficiency
For the measurement of effectiveness of the project, one can look broadly at 2 sub questions: 1. To
what extent were the objectives achieved? And 2. What were the major factors influencing the
achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
12
Two years after covering 107 barangays located in seven worst-hit municipalities in the provinces of Leyte
and Iloilo, the project had supported a total of 9,768 households or 48,840 individuals, eliminating double
counting. The total number reached is slightly exceeding the project’s target of by 6%.
For the short-term food security and livelihood component, a total of 5,359 households or 27,259
individuals were assisted against a target of 5,420 households, short by 1%. For the shelter component,
the project reached 1,282 households or 6,410 individuals, exceeding the target by 3%.
For the DRR activities , that were delivered on top of inputs on resilient livelihood strategies and building
back safer techniques, only 68% was achieved of the targeted number of local government
representatives participating in training, risk assessment and planning activities. On the other hand, 107
barangay or villages were covered by the project, exceeding the target by 5%.
Table 3. Summary of Beneficiaries Reached Target Actual
Household
Individual Household
Individual
Result 1: Short-term food security and livelihood needs of targeted vulnerable households are met
Number of beneficiaries receiving livelihood recovery inputs (cash transfers) to support crop and livelihood diversification and other resilient livelihood strategies
5,420
27,100
5,359
27,259
Number of beneficiaries receiving capacity building inputs on sustainable agriculture, organic farming, disaster risk reduction, organization development and financial management
9,180
45,900
9,768
48,840
Number of members of CBOS that received additional cash grants from the community enterprise facility (CEF)
n.a.
1,060
5,300
Number of livelihood groups formed by households receiving livelihood recovery inputs and capacity building
n.a.
142
Number of CBOs that received additional cash grants from the CEF
n.a.
25
Result 2: Shelter recovery by targeted vulnerable households is adequately supported
Number of beneficiaries receiving shelter repair kits and cash transfers
1,240*
6,200
1,282
6,410
Number of beneficiaries receiving capacity building inputs on building back safer
1,240*
6,200
1,282
6,410
Other Disaster Risk Reduction mainstreaming activities
Number of beneficiaries receiving training on DRR 2,010 10,050
Number of local government unit representatives participating in disaster risk reduction trainings
n.a.
225
n.a.
155
Number of barangay (village) that conducted risk assessments and drafted contingency and risk reduction plans
102
n.a.
107
n.a.
Number of barangay that conducted evacuation drills 14 *Original target was 1,500 households but was revised to 1,240 due to an increase in the shelter package from €133 (PhP7,600)
to €181 (PhP10,500) per household.
13
Food security and livelihoods (R1)
The livelihoods component started after the completion of the shelter component. It was designed to
meet short-term food security needs of vulnerable households and to develop household livelihoods that
are better protected from hazards and are quickly restored through: (1) cash transfers (CTs) to
immediately restart quick impact livelihood activities; (2) cash assistance to community-based
organizations (CBOs) to set up group managed enterprises; and (3) a series of capacity building activities.
The strategy involved a combination of supporting household livelihood activities and stimulating group
enterprise and pooling of resources through developing organizational skills and capacities and building
on local traditions of mutual aid. To strengthen resilience, crop and livelihood diversification and
sustainable agriculture practices were promoted. Understanding weather, seasonal variability and climate
change and adjusting livelihood activities accordingly was also introduced as part of resilient livelihood
strategies.
Table 4. Core activities
Cash Transfers for households Cash Grants for CBOs
• Community-led beneficiary selection • Proposal preparation and approval
• Orientation and planning • Sub-grant signing and disbursement of funds
• Cash transfer round 1: distribution to individual households
• Enterprise establishment and operation
• Cash transfer round 2: distribution in part to individual households, in part to 10-member groups
• Capacity building, technical assistance, monitoring and assessment
• Capacity building
Cash transfers to individual households (R1.1)
Based on project documentation, interviews and FGDs, and field visits to project locations, there is every
reason to believe that the project was successful in disbursing the grants to the target group, as intended
under R1.1. The project provided two tranches of conditional cash transfers to enable beneficiaries to
restart their livelihood activities. The first transfer was for individual households and the second was in
part supplied as additional funds for the household livelihood, and part was invested in a 10-member
group livelihood activity (table below). Between CT1 and CT2, the level of drop-outs was negligible (23
households, with project documentation citing as main reasons either migration or inability to properly
utilize the CT1 grants).
Table 5. Amounts of Cash Transfer Cash Transfer 1 (CT1) (for individual household) PhP3,000 EUR61
Cash Transfer 2 (CT2) (part for individual household and part for groups of 10) PhP5,000 EUR102
14
The question is whether these cash transfers were
instrumental in recovering beneficiaries’ livelihoods? To
this end, focus group discussion participants were asked to
rate how far they had recovered in their livelihoods. 20%
of participants said they were at 50% recovery; 50% at 75%
recovery and 25% at 100% recovery. There were also some
(5%) who said that they had recovered beyond their status
before Typhoon Haiyan. All the FGD participants attributed
their economic recovery after Typhoon Haiyan to the cash grants, technical assistance and training
provided by the project (no other organizations were active in the area). They said that the project
responded effectively to their needs. FGD participants attributed the varying rates of recovery of
beneficiaries to the following: (1) household expenditures to support children’s education10 and/or sick
member(s) of the family; (2) the onset of El Niño that brought about drought in 2014 to 2015; and (3) the
need to pay outstanding debts. Thus, some FGD participants explained, the grant of PhP3,000 was not
entirely used for livelihoods. A part was also used to purchase food, medicine and for the needs of their
children.
In addition to this, data from the project’s internal assessment shows that all beneficiaries were able to
re-establish/start up a combination of livelihood activities as a means to ensure food security while
diversifying possible income sources. 91% of sampled respondents continued to operate livelihoods from
the cash grant at the time of the survey: 78% have existing livelihoods, 10% have diversified, 3% have
changed and 9% have stopped. For those who changed or stopped livelihoods, the most common reason
was a lack of funds (75%), and limited knowledge and skills (19%). 59% of beneficiaries surveyed were
able to earn an income, ranging from below PhP500 (€9.60) to PhP30,000 (€579). Of this group, 34% had
incomes that range from PhP1,200 (€23) – PhP3,000 (€58). 88% said this income was used for food,
education of children, other basic needs, rolling capital/reinvestment, and shelter repair.
The most popular choice of livelihood was hog raising, although the sustainability of this was mixed. The
project taught the beneficiaries to plant cassava as its roots and leaves can be used as food for the hogs.
According to beneficiaries, this eliminated the commercial feeds, a major cost in hog raising, which gave
them higher margins. There were FGD participants who said that their hog raising venture resulted in
more capital for more hogs; some have gone into breeding. But there were also those who said that after
selling the hog after three months, the revenue was used to purchase consumer needs which basically
ended the cycle. There were also those who said that the hog served as food for the household.
Another typical livelihood activity, for women in particular, were vegetable gardens. Woman FGD
participants indicated that they were very happy with the vegetable gardens that they now tended,
providing a regular supply of vegetables and an additional source of income. The fact that it brought food
to their tables was most fulfilling, according to the women. A group of women from Barangay Mag-aso,
La Paz, Leyte, who before Typhoon Haiyan had already existed as a group, pooled their cash transfers as
early as CT1 and procured farms tools that they shared.
10 FGD participants said that the monthly cash grant from the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programme of the government to
ensure that children are kept in school is not enough, if the family size is large. The CCT programme is calculated to support a
family with a maximum of three children.
“ With the PhP3,000, I used PhP1,500 to
buy my husband’s medicine and I bought
a piglet from the remaining PhP1,500.
When I sold the pig after it was fattened, I
bought a breeder which has given us
more income.”---FGD participant from
Dagami, Leyte
15
Of important note is the continuing plight of coconut farmers, who lagged behind in recovery compared
to rice and corn farmers. Coconut trees have to be replanted and it takes a coconut tree 6 to 10 years to
bear fruit. Coconut is a monocrop in the region and farmers had traditionally relied on this single crop for
their income. Although at a lesser pace compared to other farmers, crop diversification have taught
coconut farmers to sustain their food security by planting root crops and peanuts, hog raising, renting
farm equipment and tending small retail stores.
Grouping beneficiaries into ‘mutual-aid production clusters’ of each around 10 households was an
important aspect of CARE’s livelihood intervention strategy. The final report of the project describes that,
at the end of the project, around 90% of these groups were still active – with a number of success stories,
providing evidence of some groups merging to form larger groups, joint procurement of draught animals,
farm tools, post-harvesting machinery and joint cultivation of land in different barangays targeted by the
project. Some groups who have generated income from their group livelihood activities have distributed
dividends to their members. This was especially the case for those who were already organized as a group
before Typhoon Haiyan. Previous track records with these groups had nurtured trust that motivated
beneficiaries to pool their funds during the second Cash Transfer round.
FGD participants said there were exceptions to this observation, especially those groups that were formed
only after Typhoon Haiyan. FGD participants reported that some of their members had withdrawn their
financial share. A group member said that they sold some of the
shared tools so that the withdrawing members could be paid. One
group which invested in motorized tricycles is now on the verge of
breaking up as some members insist on getting their shares to pursue
their livelihoods individually – because they are not satisfied with the
income generated through the group activity. Other groups either
divided their shares to engage in individual livelihood activities or completely dissolved due to
management or personal issues.
Cash assistance to CBOs (R1.1)
Because some funds were left unallocated due to budgetary adjustments and a favorable exchange rate,
the project utilized the remaining €112,250 for cash grants to CBOs using the guidelines of CARE’s
Community Enterprise Facility (CEF). CBOs could apply through a proposal outlining information on target
beneficiaries, the problems that the enterprise wanted to address, its viability scenario and its stage in
the value chain. As table 3 describes, a total of 25 CBOs with 1,060 members located in Leyte, Aklan,
Antique, Capiz and Iloilo were able to access funds; monitoring documents indicate these were invested
in a range of productive assets. The CBOs received a number of trainings through the project, and engaged
in a variety of activities, such as vegetable production and trade, root crops production, organic fertilizer
production, native chicken growing, crab fattening, handicrafts production, and integrated rice farming.
At the time of this evaluation, these enterprises had not yet completed their first business operation cycle;
however, because of the way these have been set up, their potential is promising.
Capacity building and technical assistance (R1.2)
Capacity building and technical assistance were important elements of livelihoods assistance, focusing on:
(1) Livelihood assessment and planning support, and training on a range of topics (see table 6); and (2)
Facilitation of government support, i.e. agricultural extension services of the (municipal) LGU. All of the
households that were targeted in the project, participated in the series of capacity building activities. All
“If you ask me, we need to do
values formation first with
these new groups.” --- Zolita
Besa, Municipal Agriculture
Officer (MAO), Tabontabon, Leyte
16
of the 5,359 households that received the two CT tranches participated in livelihood orientations and
planning sessions. Also, the internal monitoring documents provided evidence that members of the CBOs
participated in numerous trainings.
Table 6. Training Activities
Training Content Livelihoods Orientation and Planning (1 day)
Provide practical inputs to beneficiaries to better plan quick impact livelihood activities that make maximum use of limited cash assistance. DRR tools such as seasonal calendars and risk mapping were introduced.
Leadership and Financial Management (2 days)
Identify critical actions including revising and improving livelihood policies on dividend sharing and proper budgeting and clarifying tasks and responsibilities of the organization.
Sustainable Agriculture (2 days)
Includes soil fertility management, alternative pest management, improved techniques on rice production, organic corn and vegetable production; organic fertilizer and pesticides.
DRR on Specific Livelihoods
Includes basic concepts on DRR including risk assessments and livelihood specific tips for different crops, livestock, trading activities, and management of common service facilities.
Specific Trainings for Assisted CBOs
Relevant technical and management training for each particular enterprise to enhance viability and develop resilience as a sustainable source of livelihoods, including community enterprise planning/validation and proposal writing, Marketing and Negotiation, Good Vegetable Practices, participatory value chain analysis and Governance and Record Keeping.
The results of these training activities were discussed during the focus group discussions. Participants said
that new technical knowledge and how-to’s that challenged their traditional agricultural practices, taught
them how to maximize the use of their land, mono-cropping vs. multi-cropping. Crop diversification was
strongly promoted by the project to ensure food security. Adjusting livelihood activities according to
seasonal calendars that anticipate seasonal variability and climate change was also discussed during risk
assessments, and livelihood and DRR trainings.
At the same time, crop diversification was key to the maximum use of their relatively small land resources.
FGD participants also explained how group and collective effort showed them how far ‘strength in
numbers’ can go in rising above the devastation brought by Typhoon Haiyan. They confirmed that groups
now have also formal structures, policies to govern their livelihood activities and uphold the bayanihan
spirit. This is in line with results of an internal assessment of the project, which showed participants
recalling similar topics: sustainable agriculture – applying organic pest spray, planting calendar, planting
drought-resistant crops like corn, peanuts, eggplant, ways to prevent hog diseases, financial literacy and
leadership – how to grow funds, organizational management, leadership.
The site visits confirmed what was said during the FGDs. Beneficiaries were engaged in group and
household enterprises, sharing common facilities, into multi-cropping, root crops production (root crops
are typhoon resilient), organic fertilizer production, backyard gardening and raising of chicken and hogs,
and microenterprise. Beneficiaries also indicated that they improved their management practices,
especially in leadership and financial matters. They were also aware of the need to adjust their planting
season in tune with the changing climate patterns. Similarly, the evaluation also found evidence of an
improved access to government support: the Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) in Tabontabon, Leyte
17
was often tapped as resource person for sustainable agriculture. The production clusters of beneficiaries
were also supported by community facilitators,
who monitored and resolved issues. During the
FGDs, group members said that these issues
mostly revolve around the resolution of
members who want to disengage and withdraw
their membership along with their
contributions.
Shelter (R2)
The shelter component of the project preceded the livelihoods component. The objective of shelter
assistance was to provide targeted vulnerable households in remote, most affected and underserved
communities with adequate shelter services for speedy, better and safer recovery. And in response to the
larger challenge of building resilient communities, the ‘Building Back Safer (BBS)’ standard was applied in
repair and construction, which promotes construction techniques to make homes sturdier.
Table 7. Core activities
Distribution of shelter repair kits and cash transfers
• Assessment of damaged houses
• Community-led beneficiary selection
• Training for community members and shelter Roving Teams
• Distribution of construction materials and top-up cash grants
• Technical support by project staff, carpenters, and Roving Teams
• Observance of 8 BBS key messages
Targeting of vulnerable households
The project applied selection criteria to ensure the most vulnerable and most in need were prioritized,
and the selection process was transparent and participatory. At the outset, during the first General
Assembly in the barangays, the project staff explained to the community what was to be expected for
shelter assistance. To ensure that the most vulnerable were reached, the project validated the results of
the first selection conducted during the first General Assembly through ocular inspection of the houses,
using a scoring system based on the criteria. The final lists of beneficiaries were posted in the Assembly
Hall and discussed and challenged during the second General Assembly. According to FGD participants
some cases were excluded who did not fulfill the criteria. These were households who either had a
member who was employed by the government11, or had relatives working overseas. FGD participants
said that those excluded fully understood the criteria and accepted the final decision. Beneficiaries also
pointed out that there were cases of people who were first excluded but later included in the final list,
after community members vouched that they fell within the criteria. The project’s Post-Distribution
Assessment12 also confirmed that it had correctly identified and assisted the most vulnerable. Though the
process took some time, it reduced tensions among beneficiaries, from other community members not
11The government provided emergency assistance to its employees through the Government Service Insurance System. 12SHO Final narrative report. February 2016.
“The project covered 12 out of the 16 barangays in
Tabon-tabon. I was a resource person for sustainable
agriculture where I shared knowledge on resilient
crops, vegetable production, organic fertilizer
production. The households now produce ampalaya
(bitter gourd), sweet corn, stringbeans, squash,
watermelon and cucumber. This helped in achieving
food security”--- Zolita Besa, MAO, Tabontabon,
18
selected for assistance, formal and non-formal leaders in the community and project staff. It also
contributed to developing community capacities for managing on their own important community affairs.
According to FGD participants, the project staff also explained that in an emergency situation where
funding resources were scarce, the objective was to be inclusive and reach a greater number of
beneficiaries. The project staff underscored the need to promote self-recovery, equity and impart
knowledge on BBS and joined the community to link their desire to further improve their shelter with the
outcome of their livelihoods, whereas incomes increase, they could allot their earnings for this purpose.
Better and safer structure
The effective delivery of new-built or rehabilitated houses was dependent on the quality of the repair kits,
as well as training for households, and the shelter roving teams. The quality of the repair kits was ensured
by distributing in-kind construction materials. In addition, the training for community members and
shelter roving teams, technical support by project staff, carpenters and Roving Teams, and the observance
of the eight BBS key messages all made better and safer structures possible.
The shelter intervention built on the traditional culture of ‘bayanihan’ of Filipinos, which reinforces the
thinking and behaviour that puts emphasis on community organizing. By pooling together community
resources, including time and human resources, difficult tasks became easier to undertake. By building on
and catalyzing this practice, repairing or rebuilding a house became a lighter and more manageable task,
and repairs became quicker and less expensive. Bayanihan also made the task of organizing the RTs and
tapping facilitators from the ranks of the community easier. An Roving Team had an average size of five,
two of whom were panday (carpenters). Its composition was gender balanced and Roving Teams were
trained on BBS standards before deployment for the SRKs distribution and actual construction. Each
Roving Team was always accompanied by project staff.
As narrated by a member of a Roving Team, they were trained on how to use BBS construction techniques
so a shelter could withstand the impact of natural hazards. It was “learning by doing”, following a model
house that had been built to incorporate all of the BBS techniques. The same training was echoed to
households by the RTs during construction. The RTs also facilitated the monitoring of the progress and
accomplishments of the shelter assistance. Community members confirmed that with the combination of
knowledge on BBS, acquired carpentry skills and tools provided by the project, “we can continue repairs
on our own.”
BBS makes shelters more durable and can thus better protect households from hazardous events. It
demonstrated that there were less expensive ways for households and communities to make their
houses stronger and more durable. Instructions on BBS were informed by an assessment of pre-Haiyan
houses, which identified a number of weaknesses that made the structures vulnerable and indicated
major gaps in BBS techniques. The project utilised a combination of capacity building methods to ensure
beneficiaries increased their awareness on BBS throughout the shelter process, including a general
assembly, explaining BBS messages before distribution of SRKs, training Roving Teams composed of
carpenters and community mobilizers as well as the leaders of all shelter groupings, monitoring and
mentoring by Roving Teams during repairs, and distribution BBS posters and flyers.
19
The Post-Distribution Assessment (PDA) found that beneficiaries were well on their way to recovery, with
a majority now having dignified and safe shelter, a high beneficiary ownership of the recovery process
and of their houses, and most people confident that they will complete their houses to meet their
household’s requirements, although the time this will take varies considerably. The PDA also found that
repaired houses are stronger and safer, with a high level of awareness of BBS principles, and high levels
of incorporation of BBS principles. According to an ACCORD staff member, “Overall, the shelters built
through the project averaged 6 out of 8, in terms of compliance to the BBS indicators.”13
Adequate shelter recovery services: Shelter repair kits (SRKs)
Intended primarily to augment materials salvaged by beneficiaries after the typhoon and to provide the
means to rebuild resilient shelters, the standard shelter repair kit (SRK) consisted of selected construction
provisions made up of a roofing kit and materials needed for bracing and building strong foundations.14
The SRK also had a ‘top-up’ cash grant of PhP3,000 (approx. €52) to provide beneficiaries with the
flexibility to cover other needs like timber and labor to complete the repair process. A model shelter was
designed in consultation with the shelter cluster to meet the technical requirements and specifications
for safer shelters. By deciding to increase the costs for the SRKs from PhP7,600 (€133) to PhP10,500 (€181)
at the start of the project, CARE ensured the adequacy of the kits for the target group.
The majority of FGD participants said that the Project “provided what was essential, the means to make
our houses stronger through the SRKs”. FGD participants expressed their satisfaction with their shelter,
especially when compared to what they had before Typhoon Haiyan when their houses were made of
light materials and nipa thatched roofs15. Their indicator on the sturdiness of their new houses was
Typhoon Hagupit which hit the area a year after Typhoon Haiyan. According to them, with the wind
strength of 215kph, an evacuation would normally have been necessary. But by this time, their houses
which have been rebuilt through the project, withstood the typhoon. This expression of satisfaction
among beneficiaries is supported by the Post-Distribution Assessment conducted among beneficiaries
which showed that at least 92% said that they were satisfied with the assistance provided. The same
assessment found that beneficiaries indicated that the shelter support was appropriate and enabled them
to repair and rebuild safer shelters, which is in line with the objective of the project.
There were some participants in the FGDs who indicated that the provided kits had not met their needs.
• Some beneficiaries who had a family size larger than four said that the shelter kit could have
provided for more and longer CGI sheets; FGD participants said that the model house was suited
for smaller families or a family of four. Larger sized families therefore did not follow the exact
dimensions of the model, and reconstructed their houses using a wider space, reinforced with the
13 The project utilized the following eight BBS principles, which translate into indicators: Be prepared; Site your house safely;
Simple shape to keep safe; Build on strong foundations; Tie-down from bottom up; Brace against storm; Use strong posts; Good
house needs a good roof. 14 A shelter repair kit typically consisted of the following materials: 10x CGI gauge 26, 3ft x 8 ft, 1 aluminium screen 1mx3.8m, 1
plain sheet 0.5mm 4 ft x 6 ft, 1 elastomeric seal 500ml, 3 kg umbrella nails 2.5 inches, 1 box staple wire, 3/4inch, 100pcs/box, 2
kg common wire nail 3 inches, 1 tin snip, 2 kg common wire nail 4 inches, 1 hammer, 1 kg flat nail 1.5 inches, 1 saw, 1.6kg GI
wire #16, 1 bag 15 In rural Philippines, the typical house is called a nipa hut. Posts, walls, and floors are typically made of wood or bamboo and
other light materials. The hut is topped by a thatched roof, often made out of nipa, anahaw or some other locally plentiful plant.
(Wikipedia)
20
SRKs provided and complemented with additional materials salvaged from the debris. Thus, the
evaluation found that there were houses that had a combination of new roofs from the SRKs and
old roofing materials.
• There were also two FGD participants (from La Paz, Leyte and Estancia, Iloilo) who said that the
shelter kits could also have provided materials for walling. Those who were able to install walling
said that they either used wood salvaged from the debris and fallen coconut trees. Others
apportioned funds from the cash grant of the SRKs and the cash transfer for livelihoods. There
were also those who allotted funds as their livelihoods earned.
Beneficiaries said that in a span of two years, improvements were further made as they earned income
from their livelihoods. This is reflected by the state of the houses, inspected during the field visits for this
evaluation (see the photos in the annex). Some houses have been painted and are made of concrete
walling or hardwood. Others still use tarpaulin for walling: they said that they simply could not save
enough yet because they have not economically recovered. Thus, beneficiaries reconstructed their houses
reflecting the level of their economic recovery after the typhoon.
Speedy recovery
The combination of factors that included access, adequacy of materials, training, technical assistance,
community organization and mobilization (bayanihan) ensured shelter recovery the soonest time
possible. It took an average of three days to complete construction.
The shelters were completed by the middle of 2014 with the exception of two barangays in Dagami, Leyte
which were done in August. The delay was attributed to the delivery of the wrong specifications for the
CGI sheets, which were returned to the supplier for replacement. According to FGD participants from
these barangays, by the time the SRKs with the right specifications came, the livelihood component was
about to start. They said that these simultaneous activities were difficult to manage for the Roving Teams
and community facilitators, who had two priority concerns to deal with. But by and large, the general
sentiment on the shelter component of the project was a feeling of gratitude for the assistance because
“it came in time of their great need, when we had to start over”.
Disaster Risk Reduction
The project applied a two-pronged approach to mainstreaming DRR: 1) integration of appropriate and
simple DRR and climate change adaptation measures into the different components of the project; 2)
formal training activities to increase community knowledge and skills on DRR and CCA. The knowledge
and skills would be applied in community and household level planning. Knowledge sharing was critical in
mainstreaming DRR.
In shelter, DRR mainstreaming took the form of ensuring that beneficiaries understand and apply BBS
standards. Orientation sessions on shelter, as well as information material, also introduced key DRR
messages. The project introduced the BBS concept to the communities aided by the Roving Teams who
were organized and trained on BBS standards.
21
For food security and livelihoods, brief DRR/CCA sessions were conducted, followed by community risk
mapping. These provided important inputs to the identification, design and implementation of
livelihood activities. The inputs were utilised by beneficiaries in planning their livelihood activities,
particularly utilisation of the 2nd tranche of their cash assistance.16 Risk assessments informed livelihood
planning and activities. The seasonal calendar as a risk assessment tool to understand seasonal
variability, climate change and environmental degradation as risk factors to livelihoods was found to be
particularly useful. Contingency and risk reduction plans, which were concrete outputs following
trainings, included measures to protect livelihoods from damage following hazard events.
Formal training activities to increase knowledge and skills on DRR and CCA
DRR training covered Community Risk Assessment; Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction; Disaster
Preparedness [including Early Warning Systems (EWS)]; and Contingency (including Evacuation Planning)
and Risk Reduction Planning. The DRR training aimed to prepare communities and local officials up to a
point that they would have the competence to prepare a contingency plan and conduct a community drill.
The contingency plan17 was a consolidation of the risk assessment, EWS and evacuation plan into one
document. The drills were aimed to test the effectiveness of contingency plans, and to increase
community and barangay LGU awareness about plans.
Table 8. Core training activities
DRR training Reach
• DRR in livelihoods( basic concepts on DRR including risk assessments; livelihood specific tips for different crops, livestock, trading activities and management of common service facilities)
1,995 beneficiaries from 47 communities
• Community-Based Disaster Risk Management Training
At least 2,010 individuals (community officials, livelihood leaders and community members, and 151 municipal officials, staff, and sectoral representatives from all targeted barangays.
• Disaster Preparedness Trainings (risk assessments, contingency plans, reviewing existing DRR structures and early warning systems, reviewing comprehensive development plans)
60 trainings, aimed at municipal LGUs
• Contingency and risk reduction planning workshops (formulation of plans to mainstream DRR in local plans and processes)
45 clusters of 2-3 barangays
• Drill to test contingency plans (increase awareness and preparedness and improve systems and contingency plans of the LGU)
14 communities, 90%-100% of total households
16 SHO Final Report 17 Contingency planning is defined by Republic Act (R. A.) No. 10121 as a management process that analyzes specific potential
events or emergency situations that might threaten society or the environment in advance to enable timely, effective and
appropriate responses to such events and situations.
22
Evidence of these activities was clear during the field visits for this evaluation, with for example a color-
coded evacuation map reproduced in tarpaulin and displayed prominently in the barangay hall, and some
FGD participants who wore their community drill shirts during the FGDs (see annex for photos).
Participation and satisfaction
In general, CARE and ACCORD found that attendance to the trainings was satisfactory. More women
attended the training because the men, according to focus group discussion participants, were busy with
livelihood activities. Low attendance was reported in two barangays in Dagami, Leyte where there was
only one participant in one session and seven in another. During the FGD in Dagami, the community
facilitator said that the reasons behind low participation here were “no time, need to earn for food”. The
facilitator added that some wanted incentives to attend the training, either in kind or monetary. But all
the rest of the barangays had double-digit participation. In FGDs in Dagami and La Paz (Leyte), there were
comments that the training had “too many lectures” and “make the training more entertaining”.
Apart from these critical notes, feedback on the DRR training was positive.
During the FGDs, participants said that the knowledge they had learned on
DRR will certainly make a difference when another disaster comes. From the
communities, the level of confidence and feeling of safety was also high.
Aside from their sturdier houses, communities were conscious that
preparedness was essential and that contingency planning which includes an
evacuation plan had to be in place as it may become necessary.
Among LGU officials interviewed, the MDRRM Officer of Dagami, Leyte said that the barangays that the
project covered in their municipality benefitted from the details of the DRR training. According to him,
this greatly complemented the simple DRR orientation that the law [(National Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Act (NDRRM Act)18 normally provides.
This confirmed outcomes of a survey conducted by the project after the training, in which participants
from LGUs manifested a high level of confidence on DRR to the extent that they can share the knowledge
with others.19 The NDRRM Act mandates LGUs to take the lead in disaster preparedness and risk
reduction.
18 R.A. No. 10121, otherwise known as National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Act. 19 SHO Terminal Report
“After the many DRR training I already received, I still found something new and interesting from the ACCORD
training. It is very useful for strategic planning, DRRM planning and the preparation of a contingency plan. It
included coastal resource planning, cost-effective mitigation like the planting of mangroves. I found their
approach to CCA simple and easy to understand.”---Randy Baido, MDRRMO Officer, Municipal LGU of Estancia, Iloilo
“Knowledge is forever.
We learned a lot about
DRR, things we never
knew before.”---FGD
participant from Dagami,
Leyte
23
The barangay captain of Lonoy, Estancia, Iloilo said that his constituents now know “how it feels to have
a resilient house”. The barangay captain of Lumbia, Estancia, Iloilo said that his constituents now know
what it takes to build a sturdy house through the BBS standards. He added that the full appreciation of
DRR was achieved when the community drill exercise was conducted. This is in line with outcomes of the
project survey, which found that the vast majority of respondents rated their knowledge on DRR and
disaster preparedness from moderate (44%) to high (28%) and very high (21%), with similar high levels of
confidence in teaching DRR and disaster preparedness to their neighbors. The survey also found high
levels of feeling of safety, and confidence in dealing with unexpected environmental shocks related to
doing business. FGD pparticipants from communities who attended the DRR training recalled and
expressed confidence on the following: drawing and executing evacuation plan, where and how to
evacuate, what to bring, prioritizing the most vulnerable, securing valuables and animals, early harvest of
crops.
C. Impact and Sustainability
With this evaluation taking place immediately after the project ending, the evaluation of project impact
is limited to its short-term impact. This evaluation will however factor in the potentials that this short-
term impact will produce in the medium and long terms.
All the FGD participants and the project’s final report confirm that beneficiaries are now engaged in a
livelihood that they directly attribute to the project. As in shelter where the project’s added value is the
resilience element, the same can be said for livelihoods. The project’s value added for livelihoods is to
restore livelihoods that not only contribute to food security but are also grounded on resilience and
sustainability.
The project’s impact two years after the start of implementation can be summarized by the following
points:
• Overall resilience. The project ensured that the overall resilience of households and communities
through safer shelters, strengthened livelihoods, and increased capacities of households,
communities and local government units to assess, analyze, plan for, and act to reduce risks to
lives and livelihood assets contributed to building overall resilience.
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on BBS is demonstrated by the accomplishments of the
project’s shelter component. Beneficiaries now have resilient and livable houses, and beneficiaries
have expressed satisfaction over improved safety and security of their households. Knowledge of
BBS techniques is retained among community members and can be applied in future situations
when required.
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on how food security can be achieved through the maximum
utilization of both the households’ and communities’ resources, sustainable agriculture,
enhancement of skills, livelihoods and crop diversification and adoption of other resilient
livelihoods practices. Livelihood and crop diversification will help households and communities
reduce adverse impacts of future hazards as different crops and livelihoods have different
capacities to adapt to or recover from hazards and stresses. Acquired knowledge to adapt
24
livelihoods to weather conditions, seasonal variability and climate change will also help reduce
livelihood losses. Beneficiaries are also now more confident, especially with the security of being
part of a group or association, that their livelihoods, over time, can even take them beyond food
security and provide for their other needs. The CBOs, which are primed to follow the value chain
approach have the potential to provide that critical link that will enable the beneficiaries to break
away from the chains of marginalization. As the group enterprises have invested in tools and other
assets such as corn and rice mills, they can reduce transportation costs and ensure quality of
output, which can be expected to positively affect their income in the future.
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on DRR. Beneficiaries gained the knowledge and confidence to
be prepared for disasters, including the LGUs, which are mandated by law to lead in disaster
preparedness and recovery. Beneficiaries and LGU’s have succeeded to assess, analyze and
prepare for disasters, and put in place longer-term DRR contingency plans; as well as to
incorporate risk reduction in shelter and livelihood strategies. Longer-term disaster risk reduction
and management plans required by law have been prepared by LGUs. Risk reduction measures
have been incorporated in shelter and livelihood strategies
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on gender. This has given women the confidence to transcend
their stereotype role and become an equal partner in the household and the community. By
mainstreaming gender in the project activities, communities have seen what women can and are
able to contribute in times of disaster, a recognition that can transform the role of women in the
community and household based on equality.
Sustainability is enhanced as livelihoods assets such as shelter and livelihoods are better protected from
hazards, shocks and stresses. Sustainable agriculture practices enhance livelihood resilience and at the
same time contribute to environmental sustainability. In this way it nurtures resilience and continuity. To
ensure continuity, the project has promoted participatory processes such as building community
ownership and has linked the communities with the services of their LGUs, specifically for technical
assistance for agriculture and DRR/leadership coordination. In this way sustainability was also ensured.
Remote rural areas in the Philippines are historically underserved and have minimal access to government
services. Agricultural areas will always require an amount of ongoing technical assistance on farming
systems, a function that is devolved with municipal LGUs through the Municipal Agriculture Officers
(MAOs). That this link with the LGUs has been secured will ensure farmers have continuing access to
technical assistance and inputs from their LGUs. This also links to the Comprehensive Rehabilitation and
Recovery Plan (2014-2020) of the government for Typhoon Haiyan affected areas, in which the
government has given priority to shelter, livelihoods, infrastructure and social services.
The LGUs are also responsible for leading in disaster preparedness and response. Having been trained on
DRR with the communities, with the experience the project provided in DRRM planning and the
community drills, LGUs and communities have gained the confidence to work together in mitigating the
impact of disasters. This training became a venue for LGUs and their communities to collaborate and
cooperate on DRR. By enhancing shelter and livelihoods with resilience, DRR and gender equality, the
project contributed to the empowerment of communities to face the challenges from natural hazards.
Additionally, planning at barangay level fed into plans at municipal and higher levels, thus embedding
these plans in the overall provincial contingency plan.
25
The integration of DRR in all components and all phases of project implementation has contributed to the
protection of lives, livelihood assets, including shelters, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the
whole project. It is noted also that sustainable agriculture practice as a risk reduction strategy in turn
contributes to environmental sustainability.
The participatory processes, hallmarks of community- and rights-based approaches, help build
community ownership, and therefore contribute to sustainability.
The project was implemented in the context of early recovery which establishes the link or transition
between humanitarian assistance and development. Mainstreaming DRR provided that link between
response and development. Participatory processes, capitalizing on traditional practices such as mutual
aid, self-recovery, investing on essentials, etc., are elements in humanitarian response that are already
directed towards development. In the final analysis, in the face of hazards and everyday life, it will have
to be the communities and their LGUs who will be working together in the effort to be resilient and achieve
sustainability.
Similarly, the combination of livelihoods and shelter components enhanced the sustainability of the
project. Through first providing shelter, and then starting the livelihoods support, beneficiaries were able
to direct their full attention to the two components. By including shelter beneficiaries in the livelihoods
support, impact for these beneficiaries was maximised, and the sustainability of shelter support was
enhanced, as the beneficiaries could use the extra income generated through the development of
livelihoods, to further restore and improve their houses.
D. Gender
The project was designed with a specific intent to mainstream gender throughout the intervention. This
is reflected in the data collected about beneficiaries, as well as the involvement of women community
members in the implementation of the project. Data collected is all gender-disaggregated, for example
the data on the beneficiaries of the cash transfers (see the table). As such, the project has well passed
the objective that ‘ 30% of women and girls [would be] benefiting from, and participating in food
security and livelihoods, shelter and DRR activities.’
Table 9: gender and age-disaggregated data on beneficiaries of the cash transfers
Infant (0->5yrs)
Child (5-17yrs)
Adult (17-60 yrs)
Senior (>60yrs)
Total
Male 8.9% 17.4% 24.0% 2.6% 52.9%
Female 7.4% 15.1% 21.3% 3.3% 47.1%
Women FGD participants described the typical role for a Filipino woman as a full-time housewife who
does household chores like cooking, laundry, cleaning and raising the children. On another hand, the
stereotypical man is the moneymaker who provides for the family. The project attempted to influence
this by actively seeking out women beneficiaries and ensuring a gender balance in the composition of
the Roving Teams (RTs) and community facilitators.
26
This was confirmed by FGD participants. There were more
women than men who attended the FGDs conducted for the
evaluation. These women were articulate and vocal about
their ideas and demonstrated that they had actively
participated in the project and contributed to the attainment
of its objectives. According to women FGD participants, the
project provided them the ‘opportunity to discover’ their
potential and ‘what they were capable of doing’ beyond the
stereotype.
The project ensured gender balance in the composition of the
communities’ RTs and in the recruitment of community
facilitators. Women explained that they felt empowered
through taking part in these activities and bearing
responsibility. A female member of an RT said that her
involvement made her overcome being shy (natanggal ang
hiya), she is now proactive, it broadened her perspective (lumawak ang pag-iisip) and widened her
patience due to the interaction with other beneficiaries (lumawak and pasensya).
Women FGD participants spoke of how their participation in the shelter component had given them the
experience of working alongside men in the construction process, when construction was perceived as
an exclusive domain of men.
Economic empowerment due to their participation in the livelihoods component was pointed out as a
major leap for women. With women forming almost half of the beneficiaries under this component (see
the table above), FGD participants said that their capacity to earn and contribute to ‘food on the table’
has been most fulfilling and built their confidence. Additionally, the survey conducted by the project
after implementation revealed that 55% of respondents (of these, well over half (58%) were women)
said that both men and women were able to gain control of productive assets.
At a leadership level, women barangay captains said that their leadership and planning skills had been
enhanced by their participation in the project. The majority of the barangays that completed their
contingency plans were led by female captains.
E. Project Management
Coordination with local authorities and the UN cluster
Interviews with the MDRRM officers in Dagami, Leyte and Estancia, Leyte, 10 barangay officials and five
municipal LGU officials have provided evidence that the project coordinated with the local government,
specifically in the identification of project sites (barangays) and validating the needs of beneficiaries.
Likewise, the exchange of information on the project enabled the LGUs to provide their assistance to the
project, e.g. data and information on the target areas, resource persons for training and inputs for
agriculture production, and DRR training. Project staff also participated in the coordination meetings of
“We fetched the G.I. roofing
materials and handed these to the
men who were up fixing the roofs.”
“I am a widow, I didn’t know I could
handle a hammer and a nail, much
more fix our roof. But I did it.”
“I am a single parent. I can now
provide food for my children better
than before the typhoon because of
the livelihood assistance.”
Women FGD participants
27
the municipal LGUs and provided project updates. At the level of the UN-led Cluster Teams, CARE provided
the representation and coordination.
Feedback mechanism for target communities
The project set up a feedback mechanism using cellular phones and drop boxes as the means for
beneficiaries to raise their concerns. FGD participants said that the project addressed the concerns which
they brought up either by clarifications, explanations or outright action to address the situation. From the
beneficiaries themselves, these concerns included decisions on selection of beneficiaries, questions like
why one household was qualified when criteria were not met and vice versa. There were also concerns
on the amount of cash grants; participants asked if the grants could be increased and if more assistance
was to be expected. Beneficiaries also raised concerns about group problems such as management and
the uncooperative behavior of members. FGD participants said that between the two means they
preferred the cellular phone, because drop boxes could easily be opened by anyone and were less secure.
Collaboration between CARE and ACCORD
The overall coordination of the project was the responsibility of the CARE office in the Philippines with
local NGO ACCORD as implementing partner. The CARE Nederland Disaster Risk Reduction advisor also
provided technical advice, especially on DRR. In terms of collaboration and project management, a
number of issues were mentioned during the interviews for the evaluation: challenges related to
recruitment and turnover of staff, to reporting, and procurement of the necessary materials.
Prior to the project, ACCORD had a staff complement of
16, which was expanded almost 5-fold. Recruitment had
to be completed immediately given that the nature of the
project was a response to a major disaster. ACCORD
recruited, trained and deployed 60 field staff for Leyte,
and 10 covered Iloilo. This sudden increase in staff and
relatively high turnover in some positions, affected the
quality and timeliness of reporting.
Two types of reports were expected to be submitted to CARE by ACCORD: a narrative report and a financial
report. The timeliness of the submission of reports, more especially the financial reports was an issue
between the two partners. ACCORD experienced a turnover of its senior Finance staff, causing financial
reporting to lag behind. On the other hand, ACCORD hired a fulltime Monitoring and Evaluation officer,
based in Manila. But a high turnover of M&E staff in the field also affected the generation of reports from
the field. ACCORD submitted data/beneficiary figures to CARE, which the latter found incomplete and not
always on time. On the other hand, CARE also failed to supply regular feedback to the reports. ACCORD
also participated in program-wide joint monitoring with CARE such as post-distribution monitoring,
assessments and evaluations, but not just specifically for SHO. CARE NL also conducted monitoring field
visits to the project.
“The biggest challenge we faced was
human resources (HR). With a moving
work plan and targets, we had to
immediately hire and train a number of
staff for the project. It wasn’t easy.”---
ACCORD
28
Another challenge cited by partner organization ACCORD was dealing with the logistical requirements of
a disaster response project given the scale of Typhoon Haiyan. This required an amount of multi-sectoral
coordination; sound budgeting; and the speedy procurement and delivery of inputs and supplies in a
situation where demand was huge and supplies were meagre, which significantly affected prices and
sourcing of supplies.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Relevance
The humanitarian phase of assistance immediately after Typhoon Haiyan focused on the provision of
emergency food relief and non-food items (NFIs) such as temporary shelter, water, hygiene kits, clothes,
cooking utensils, etc. The project was implemented in the context of the early recovery phase which
starts and overlaps with the later humanitarian phase, about 2 to 3 months after the disaster. Guided
by the HCT recommendations based on the MIRA, and the project’s own validation in the field, the
needs of the targeted beneficiaries for early recovery were thoroughly assessed. The ability to be
relevant to the needs of a project’s target beneficiaries was ensured by the project continuously
monitoring the context of the situation.
The project coordinated with the stakeholders, LGUs, Typhoon Haiyan Cluster Teams and the
beneficiaries themselves that would provide vital information on the continuing and changing context of
the post-Typhoon Haiyan situation.
The project targeted agricultural communities that were dependent on coconut, rice, corn and
microenterprises. As agriculture-based communities, the project accurately saw that its beneficiaries
belong to the poorest of the poor in the Philippines, namely, the landless tenants, small landholders,
small leaseholders and micro-entrepreneurs. Typhoon Haiyan turned the agriculture sector in the
affected areas into a virtual wasteland with totally or partially damaged houses. To start the path
towards early recovery, food security, restoration of livelihoods and shelter needed to be addressed
urgently in the context of an agriculture sector.
The project’s criteria for the selection of beneficiaries ensured that the most vulnerable were reached.
To tap the communities’ own capacities, the project promoted self-help, self-recovery and mutual aid. It
capitalized on the Filipino custom of (‘bayanihan’) to mobilize communities to rebuild their houses and
recover their livelihoods. The project provided the adequate support to the communities to achieve this
by providing a basic SRK and cash transfers for livelihoods. The SRK provided the strong roof and
foundation of their houses and raised awareness on the BBS standards. With the provision of these
SRKs, the project provided the means (knowledge on BBS) and the materials for a strong roof and
foundation. FGD participants thus attributed the resilience of their houses today to these inputs of the
project.
29
For livelihoods, aside from cash transfers, the project went further by providing technical assistance in
sustainable agriculture, crop diversification, and management skills. As tenants and small landowners,
the project recommended the maximization of the use of their land with the intercropping of short-
gestating crops and vegetable gardening to ensure a steady supply of food for the household, thus
achieving food security. Investments in livestock, such as the raising hogs, chicken and goats which also
have short gestation periods gave the targeted households additional income that could be used to
complete the repair of their houses.
Aware of the fact that the impact of disasters can be mitigated by preparedness, the project also
responded to the need to provide knowledge on DRR. Throughout the project, DRR was mainstreamed
together with gender for the empowerment of women and enable them to participate actively in
meeting the challenge of coping with the impact of the disaster.
The beneficiaries themselves confirm that the project had responded to their needs at the time that it
was implemented immediately after Typhoon Haiyan. They said that the project provided the resources
that were critical in taking the first steps towards recovery, specifically for their shelter and livelihoods.
The introduction of the concepts of BBS and DRR, was, according to the beneficiaries, very timely
because their own experience of the disaster had made these two concepts most relevant to their lives.
B. Effectiveness
The project has fully achieved its intended outcomes; shelter, livelihoods and food security outcomes
were met. The project has been effective in catalyzing the beneficiaries to recover by banking on their
own capacities. Overall, the project had successfully laid the groundwork for the beneficiaries to start
over again immediately after the disaster. Evidence from the field shows how far many beneficiaries
have gone in upgrading their houses, although there still those who have only incrementally improved
their houses.
By enhancing cash grants with technical assistance, livelihoods show promise as individuals and groups
who have replaced their productive assets and are harnessing these for agriculture production are now
sharing the benefits with the HH members and group members.
FGD participants directly attributed food security to the livelihoods assistance, in particular, how a
productive resource such as land could maximize its productivity through crop diversification and how
other livelihoods such as hog raising, goat raising, chicken raising can all be integrated into a farming
system.
The mainstreaming of DRR and gender in all the activities of the project was timely and was therefore
effective in creating awareness and the experience on the concepts. The crisis brought about by
Typhoon Haiyan became an opportunity for the project to build capacities, impart knowledge and widen
perspectives on gender and embrace DRR as part of their daily lives.
30
C. Efficiency
What was essential in the design of the project was to provide target beneficiaries the means to have
resilient shelter that followed the principles of Building Back Safer (BBS). Least cost for this undertaking
meant investing in what was essential to build a resilient shelter. Following BBS standards, the
essentials are a strong roof and foundation or a strong shelter frame. That the project invested in this
strong shelter frame had ensured that beneficiaries would have resilient houses in the end (the project’s
desired result), as they filled in, through their own capacities and resources the completion of the
house.
All the FGD participants and the project’s final report also confirm that they are now engaged in a
livelihood that they directly attribute to the project. As in the shelter where the project’s added value is
the resilience element, the same can be said for livelihoods. The project’s value added for livelihoods is
to restore livelihoods that not only contribute to food security but are also grounded on resilience and
sustainability. In addition, gender and DRR were mainstreamed in these two components.
The project operated at an input costs to operating costs ratio of 73% to 27%. At this level, the project’s
efficiency level is high because it had achieved and even exceeded its targets within the duration of the
project at a cost of one-third (1/3) of its total budget.
D. Impact and Sustainability
The project’s impact two (2) years after implementation can be summarized by these points:
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on BBS is demonstrated by the accomplishments of the
project’s shelter component. Beneficiaries now have resilient and livable houses.
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on how food security can be achieved through the maximum
utilization of both the HH’s and communities’ own resources, sustainable agriculture,
enhancement of skills and crop diversification. Beneficiaries now are more confident, especially
with the security of being part of a group or association that their livelihoods, over time, can
even take them beyond food security and provide their other needs. The CEFs, which are primed
to follow the value chain have the potential to provide that critical link that will enable the
beneficiaries to break away from the chains of marginalization.
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on DRR have given beneficiaries the confidence to be
prepared for disasters, including the LGUs, which are mandated by law to lead in disaster
preparedness and recovery.
• Sharing and practice of knowledge on gender have given women the confidence to transcend
their stereotype role and become a truly equal partner in the household and the community.
As envisioned by the project, self-recovery, self-help and mutual aid leads to sustainability. As one FGD
participant said “knowledge is forever”, with more knowledge and skills on resilient shelter and
livelihoods and DRR, beneficiaries themselves are confident of sustainability.
The project has also successfully linked the communities with the services of their LGUs. Agricultural
areas will always require an amount of ongoing technical assistance on farming systems. That this link
31
with the LGUs have been secured will ensure farmers have continuing access to technical assistance and
inputs from their LGU.
The LGU’s are also responsible for disaster preparedness. Having been trained on DRR with the
communities, LGU’s and communities with the experience the project provided in DRRM planning and
the community drills have given them the confidence to work together in mitigating the impact of
disasters.
The overall objective of the project was for communities to recover from the disaster, build back safer
(BBS), and strengthen the resilience of their livelihoods. By mainstreaming DRR and gender in all the
components and its activities, the project has succeeded in not only creating awareness but also providing
the knowledge and opportunity to practice and experience the DRR process from planning to execution
and for it to become a part of their daily lives. The project had correctly targeted LGUs for DRR training
as the training became a venue for LGUs and their communities to collaborate and cooperate on DRR.
The highest priority of DRR is zero casualty. By linking shelter and livelihoods with DRR, the project
contributed to this end. The target communities of the project and their LGU officials are now confident
that people know what it means to assess risks and be prepared for a disaster including what to do in the
event of an evacuation. As members of communities who toil the land, people now have the knowledge
on resilient livelihoods and have applied it by raising/growing more resilient crops to ensure food security.
Livelihood groups that were assisted have transitioned from early recovery and are now showing the way
of what could be long-term development.
32
VI. LESSONS LEARNED
CARE’S work in humanitarian and early recovery after a disaster can benefit from the following lessons
learned from the project:
• There is no one-size-fits-all-approach that provides the answer to these type of early recovery
responses. The aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan was a complex situation. Early recovery is the
difficult phase of transitioning to developmental activities. Assessment of the situation needs to
be ongoing because the context keeps changing. Profiling of communities and beneficiaries,
deepens the understanding of the needs of beneficiaries.20
• Effective communication with the stakeholders of the project, i.e., beneficiaries, LGUs, etc., is very
important. Having an effective feedback mechanism, is a good tool to be constantly relevant.
Transparency has managed possible tensions during project implementation, e.g., expectations
from project, selection of beneficiaries.
• Coordination between NGOs is necessary to avoid duplication and to explore partnerships where
possible. Coordination with these stakeholders had provided the project access to information,
knowledge and even resources that the project needed for its effective implementation.
• An implementing organization can be overwhelmed by the enormity of the response required by
a complex humanitarian situation. Comprehensive operational planning and preparations
contingent to complexities and challenges are required. For a 2-year project, the turnover of staff
can hamper project activities like complying with reporting.
• Promoting self-help and mutual aid in early recovery is a major ingredient in achieving ownership
and sustainability. Beneficiaries felt that by providing labor, their capacities, their ideas, and their
own resources and by harnessing these with the project inputs, they became genuinely
responsible for their own recovery.
• Putting priority on the value of community organization is essential. In a very challenging
environment, community members need to help one another. There are times when community
members, exposed to urbanization, give lesser value to traditional practices, and become more
individualistic. The project has proven that reviving community tradition of working together,
helping each other, helps facilitate recovery and resilience.
• Groups in target communities that have existed and have worked together before the typhoon,
who have gone through the formation process, including values formation, were better prepared
20 This lesson is supported by other NGOs who were interviewed for the evaluation. According to a Team Leader of OXFAM:
“Everything that we do has to be really contextual. Regular assessment is needed. By doing this, a project will be able to see
what really works. For example, part of the context of a community is the LGU. And so, disaster response projects must work
with LGUs to make it work.” The same view was expressed by another NGO. A Programme Coordinator, Save The Children said:
“Our organization is also involved in the same interventions as the SHO project. We were very conscious of the need to
contextualize the situation. We listened to the opinions of our stakeholders.”
33
for the second cash transfers. Those which reported problems, fundamentally cooperation, were
groups formed only after the disaster.
• The use of cash grants should be monitored if these transfers are conditionally provided to ensure
that these are used for the intended purpose. Individual conditional grants can sometimes be
used for other objectives depending on the economic situation and needs of the household.
• FGD participants said that during shelter construction, the provision of relief goods, especially
food, should continue as the household is focused on this major recovery need. In some areas,
the government and other organizations provided relief goods at the time that the project was in
the shelter phase. ACCORD also provided relief goods from another funding source in some
project sites during shelter construction and FGD participants from these areas said that it had
really eased their situation and helped them avoid falling into debts or from using part of the
shelter grant to purchase food and other items.
• Providing technical assistance and knowledge for both shelter and livelihoods had increased
awareness and enhance capacities of beneficiaries to upgrade their houses to resilient levels and
to manage their productive resources in a manner that these are maximized, operating costs are
reduced, risks are minimized and better margins are achieved.
• Providing technical support to complement materials inputs make for success. Without technical
inputs, use of material inputs would most likely go to waste. Timing of technical assistance is
essential. It should be provided when it is needed.
• The project bridged communities and local authorities for the former to access services of the
latter. From a rights perspective, it became clear to communities that they have the right to
access government services. It also clarified government/local authorities are duty bound to
provide services to communities. In terms of sustainability, facilitating community capacity to
access technical support can result in availability of technical support even beyond the life of the
project.
• Disasters give rise to the opportunities for DRR and gender equality to be mainstreamed as their
relevance is highlighted due to the situation. Communities and local authorities are more open
to DRR after emergencies. The need to mobilize human resources to respond to the disaster has
also shown what women can contribute during this challenging situation.
34
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
For future early recovery programming in the same or related context as the impact of Typhoon Haiyan,
the following recommendations are made to CARE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• CARE should continue with mainstreaming DRR and gender equality in a programmatic way in disaster
response projects in the interest of promoting community resilience and consolidation of
sustainability. This will ensure that the gains from the project are secured, especially in a country like
the Philippines, which is plagued by chronic disasters in increasing frequency and magnitude.
• For the shelter component of the project, the issue at hand was whether the SRK plus the top-up cash
grant was adequate. The visits in the project sites have shown how far beneficiaries had gone from
the provision of the SRKs and cash grant and demonstrated their capacity for recovery after a disaster.
CARE can consider two (2) options for emergency shelter programming: (1) To continue programming
for the provision of SRKs with the top-up cash grant and cover a wider number of beneficiaries; or (2)
to provide for walling materials in addition to the roofing materials, if more resources are available. If
resources are not sufficient, walling materials can be sourced collectively and distributed from the
debris of the typhoon by tapping the community for this purpose.
• For the livelihoods component, CARE should continue providing technical assistance (knowledge) and
better productive assets for livelihoods combined, as these have proven effective in enhancing the
value of economic activities. Investing in shared facilities (productive assets) has motivated people
towards group formation. The use of the cash grants for its purpose should be underscored during the
orientation and monitored after these are provided to the beneficiaries.
• Livelihood groups that are newly formed after the disaster need to be supported, aside from cash
grants, with organizational capacity building that includes values formation, managing organization’s
affairs and group projects and organizing themselves into formal/registered organizations.
• In the development of disaster-response projects, CARE should develop projects whose strategy
promotes synergies among different CARE projects, and with other stakeholders and partners who can
put together their strengths and resources to deliver the intended services; tap organizations with
presence or experience in the areas to be covered to facilitate interaction with communities.
• CARE should always consider Local Government Units (LGUs) as strategic partners in a disaster
response project for several reasons: (1) LGUs are the recognized leaders in the community and have
the capacity to mobilize their constituents; (2) LGUs have their own resources, both human and
material, which can complement a disaster response project; (3) As an institution that is mandated to
deliver basic services to the people by virtue of devolution, the LGU is also a strategic partner for the
attainment of sustainability.
35
• Disaster response projects are community-based, and interaction with the community is almost an
everyday activity. CARE should therefore ensure that project management capacities for an
intervention responding to a scale such as Haiyan include strong skills in planning, operations,
coordination, logistics management, monitoring, financial management, community development
processes, communications and capacity building. The Terms of Reference (TOR) of these skills should
be worked out in advance in the context of the situation.
• CARE and its partner organizations should be prepared for the challenge of big disasters by developing
a database of reliable suppliers and contacts to lessen the difficulty of logistics during these times. A
roster of stand-by potential partners who can be immediately brought in for the timely start-up of the
project will also prove useful.
• To ease the pressure of widening an organization’s human resources base, CARE might consider
outsourcing some of the activities to provide an immediate manpower for the project’s urgent
activities. Shelter, livelihoods and DRR are equally demanding interventions and an organization,
depending on its size, may explore partnership or contracting options. The development of a
volunteers’ pool, already trained in disaster response skills, as an immediate source of manpower, is
also advisable.
• An early recovery project is generally a transition period to the development phase. CARE is
recommended to revisit or review national, regional or local development plans and see how these
can contribute in identifying interventions especially in areas of local economic development. For
example, the devastation of coconut plantations may be an opportunity to change crop and invest in
higher-value crops that are suitable to the area. Most development plans have information on
potentials in the area. This can be considered in programming for livelihoods. Municipalities have
Comprehensive Development Plans (CDPs) and can be reviewed as part of the formulation of DRRM
plans.
• CARE is recommended to include in the project an output on advocacy & policy development. In the
course of the implementation of the project, policy weaknesses, national or local, can be identified and
strengthening of these policies or proposing new policies to LGU’s can go a long way in mitigating
future disasters and recovery.
• As a transition phase to development, CARE is advised to continue the practice of its disaster response
projects in early recovery having a very strong exit and sustainability strategy to ensure that its
outcome is linked to the development phase. Early recovery projects that are strong in capacity and
institution building have successfully delivered on the requirements for a transition to development.
36
LIST OF REFERENCES:
(CARE) Project Summary – Recovery and Resilience Project (final version) 4 March 2014
(ACCORD) SHO Budget Proposal TY Yolanda. 2014
(ACCORD) Community Based Disaster Risk Management Training Tracking Sheet. 2015
(ACCORD) Cash Grants Distribution List. 2015
(CARE) SHO Interim Report. September 2015
(CARE) SHO Terminal Report. February 2016
(CARE) Total Financial Report SHO Project. 2016
(CARE) CEFs Updates. 2016
(CARE) List of CEFs. 2016
Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA): Philippines Typhoon Haiyan. 2013 November
Yolanda Recovery and Rehabilitation Program (YRRP). National Economic and Development Authority.
2013 December
Reconstruction Assistance to Yolanda (RAY). National Economic and Development Authority. 2014
January
Inter-Agency Steering Committee (IASC) Report on the Humanitarian Evaluation of the Typhoon Haiyan
Response (UNOCHA). 2014 October
37
ANNEXES
A. Case Study 1: Mainstreaming Gender in Early Recovery
B. Case Study 2: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Early Recovery
C. Evaluation Matrix
D. Project intervention Areas
E. Log frame of the Project
F. List of FGD’s Participants
G. List of Key Informants
H. Schedule of Evaluation Process
I. Itinerary of Field Work
J. On-site Programme of Field Work
K. Photos of SHO Programme
38
A. Case Study 1: Mainstreaming Gender in Early Recovery
Women are always in the list of the most vulnerable sectors. But given the opportunity, women can overcome their vulnerability by unleashing their experiences and skills that can benefit even disaster risk mitigation and preparedness. By recognizing and promoting the unique capacities of women, one can simultaneously further community resilience and advance gender equality.* Women from the municipalities of Dagami, La Paz, Tabontabon (Leyte Province) and San Dionisio and Estancia (Leyte) who participated in CARE’s SHO project are showing the way that women can be active and equal partners and can meaningfully contribute to recovery, even in a complex situation that was created by Typhoon Haiyan. Women who participated in the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were all aware of the stereotypical role of the Filipino woman, that is confined to child rearing and household chores like cooking, cleaning and laundry. It had been a liberating and empowering journey for these women who worked hand-in-hand with the men in their communities in starting over and cope with the disastrous impact of Typhoon Haiyan. By actively participating in the project, women were given the opportunity to explore their potentials and develop their capacities beyond the stereotypical roles. To provide equal opportunity, the SHO project ensured gender balance in the composition of its Roving Teams and women were tapped as community facilitators (CF). Eunice Villarta, 39, from Barangay Cabariwan, Dagami, Leyte, was a Community facilitator (CF) and a member of the Roving Team (RT). “I learned what it means to Build Back Safer (BBS); I learned how to build the model. Going house-to-house during construction, there were those who were hard-headed and didn’t want to follow BBS; I had to convince them, which was the difficult part. But I was able to perform my role. ” Villarta said that she was also involved in the livelihoods and DRR Training components of the project as community facilitator. According to her, “as CF, I informed the community households about the schedules of the DRR training and why it was important to attend these. Many had excuses for not attending. It was another test for me on how well I could convince households to send a representative. It was the same case for livelihoods. As CF, I worked with the project staff in determining the livelihoods that needed to be restored. I also helped in the scheduling of the livelihoods training and informing households about these.” For Villarta, her experience with the project has been most rewarding. “I used to be shy; I had overcome this. As a CF and member of the Roving Team, I had to talk to all sorts of people. But we were trained by the project for this role. I developed patience and broadmindedness. I never thought I could take on these roles. But most of all, I am very happy that I had contributed to the recovery of my community. ”
___________________________ *Gender and Disasters. UNDP.
During the FGD with Tabon-tabon, Leyte, the women said that they were involved in the design of their
house, managed the budget of the construction and participated in the restoration of their houses. “We
did what men normally do. We carried construction materials and brought these to the carpenters; other
women did the nailing. We are also active in our group livelihood. We now also help in the planting of rice
39
and the cleaning of the rice mill. We now know what DRR is. We now know what to do in case of a disaster. We are now more confident.”
Tabon, Tabon, Leyte Dagami, Leyte
From the women from Dagami, Leyte, they said that “Our time is now important. Our husbands now share in the household chores like cleaning the plates and the house. We manage our backyard gardens that we have planted with lemon and cassava.” The women from La Paz, Leyte and San Dionisio, Iloilo pointed out that their involvement in the livelihoods had empowered them economically. “Before, only men earn a living for the household. Now we have our own livelihoods that we manage.” The women said that raise hogs, chicken, goats, turkey and manage vegetable gardens. Majority of the key informants from the ranks of the Barangay Captains were women who worked closely with the project staff all throughout its implementation. Analita C. Garcela, 47, is the barangay captain of Barangay Cambucao, Tabon-tabon, Leyte. She said “”The project has done a lot for me. My leadership skills were enhanced because of my involvement. We were all affected here by the typhoon. All except one household (because they did not qualify) were all given shelter assistance, 56 in all. Mutual aid was strengthened when we started construction. DRR training taught me how to prepare and manage a contingency plan.”
Garcela (center) shows the mini-rice mill that is now the Behind the rice mill, chicken feed on the rice hull, which is also centerpiece for livelihood of the barangay that she leads. organic fertilizer for the cassava plants. “Nothing is wasted”, according to Garcela.
40
Barangay Cambucao is a rice-planting community where Garcela also leads the Cambucao Farmers’
Association and its 57 members. She has plans to move the community forward with the productive
facilities that they now have. In addition to post-harvest facilities, the association also has hand tractors
and a rice thresher. “My vision is for us to really go commercial and control the facets of production,
harvesting, milling and marketing. Our next goal therefore is to build a warehouse. This way, our members
will earn more and will not be at the mercy of middlemen.”
There were more women than men who attended the FGDs that were organized; women participants
were very articulate and could express themselves. Among the barangays which were represented in the
FGDs, majority of those who completed their contingency plans were led by women barangay captains.
In addition, during the FGDs, CFs and Roving Teams said more women attended the DRR training because
the men were not available due to work. This is an indicator that women could represent their households,
when this used to be the domain of men.
As one woman FGD participant had described her participation in the project, “it was an empowering
experience” and she was grateful for the opportunity to have “discovered” herself and what she could be
“capable of doing”.
-o0o-
41
B. Case Study 2: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Early
Recovery
“The howling winds, then the storm surges as high as 10 meters breached the breakwater, went inland
as far as five (5) kilometers. We were not prepared for a typhoon as strong as Typhoon Yolanda. This
hasn’t happened before. We thought it was just one of those typhoons that pass our place every year.
We are just grateful that we are still alive”, recalled a group of women from the coastal community of
Barangay Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo.
Barangay Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo after Typhoon Haiyan. The rubble from a breached breakwater and debris from houses.
(Photos from the FB Account of San Dionisio, Iloilo Community)
8 November 2013 will be a day that will long be remembered. The story of Typhoon Haiyan will be retold
through generations. And the victims of this disaster will never forget how Typhoon Haiyan had changed
their lives in a matter of hours and how they started over and coped with a ‘ground zero’ situation.
During the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted in the project sites, the participants said that only
after being involved in the SHO project’s shelter, livelihood and DRR training activities, did they find out
how little they knew about being prepared for a disaster. A beneficiary said the project taught me that
“disaster preparedness begins with a resilient house, a resilient livelihood and in case of an evacuation, a
systematic and orderly way of preparation”.
Thus, the SHO project provided Shelter Repair Kits (SRKs) with materials that can produce a sturdier house.
Using the Building Back Safer (BBS) standards, beneficiaries were taught the eight (8) BBS indicators,
namely : (1) Be prepared; (2) Site your house safely; (3) Simple shape to keep safe; (4) Build on strong
foundations; (5) Tie-down from bottom up; (6) Brace against storm; (7) Use strong posts; and (8) Good
house needs a good roof.
_____________________________
*Typhoon Haiyan is locally known as Typhoon Yolanda.
42
CARE shelter advisor trains ACCORD staff on how to build safer homes. (R) Community carpenters construct a model house
frame to demonstrate the basic tips on how to build back safer to beneficiaries during repair and construction. These carpenters
were part of the Roving Teams (RTs), organized and trained to facilitate the construction process. (ACCORD photos)
Finished products. A family stands happily at the doorway of their house; braces for a strong roof are shown. (ACCORD photo);
(R) A house in La Paz, Leyte.
As agriculture communities devastated by Typhoon Haiyan and faced with the challenge of food security
and recovering their livelihoods, beneficiaries were provided cash transfers to ensure a steady supply of
food for the table and to restore individual and collective livelihoods and restart earning income for their
daily needs. The sharing of knowledge on DRR tools for livelihoods was incorporated in this project
component.
Beneficiaries attended a training that combined DRR and livelihoods. Their livelihoods were assessed if
appropriate and doable risk reduction measures were incorporated in the livelihood. The modules were
thus structured into two key parts: (1) basic concepts on DRR including risk assessments; and (2) livelihood
specific tips for different crops, livestock, trading activities, and management of common service facilities.
The result has been an appreciation of resilient crops like root crops and crop diversification, not only to
maximize their land, but to become more resilient to disasters and changing weather patterns.
43
La Paz, Leyte. Bananas and root crops (like cassava) are weather resilient.
“The concept of sustainable agriculture was new to us”, said a farmer-beneficiary. “We planted rice all
year long, not knowing that we should adapt to seasonal patterns due to climate change.” Another
farmer-beneficiary said “We are used to planting just one crop and never thought we could plant other
crops together with our coconut trees. We also did not know which crops were strong against floods and
typhoons. Now we know that root crops, bananas and short-gestating vegetables are not only resilient,
but can add to our income.”
The project built capacities on DRR of both for local government units (LGUs) and communities. By doing
this LGUs became better equipped to fulfil their mandate to lead in DRR and to experience what it takes
to practice DRR with their constituents. Formal training on DRR included the following modules: (1)
Community Risk Assessment; (2) Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction Training; (3) Disaster
Preparedness Training; and (4) Contingency and Risk Reduction Planning.
During this training, LGUs and communities go through the risk assessment process during a workshop
that will guide the preparation of early warning systems, evacuation plan and the contingency plan.
Training also provided orientation on the basic concepts and approaches on disaster risk reduction,
climate change adaptation and ecosystem management and restoration.
The Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Officer (MDRRO) of Dagami, Leyte, Gerry Imperial, said that the
DRR training “went beyond the usual orientation training that LGUs normally undergo and went into the
details of contingency planning.” He added that his task to produce a municipal contingency plan had
been facilitated because the project trained the barangays as well. The MDRRO of Estancia, Iloilo, Randy
Baido said that the DRR training he attended under the project “was useful for strategic planning and
provided knowledge on cost-effective mitigation options”.
44
Kuya Joel of Barangay Caltayan, La Paz, Leyte discussing the community’s outputs
during ACCORD's Community Risk Assessment seminar. (ACCORD caption and photo)
An evacuation map prepared during the DRR training.
The culminating activity of DRR training is the community drill where the contingency plan is tested. In
Barangay Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo, 575 households participated in a community drill to test their
contingency plan and the overall preparedness of its Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Committee (BDRRMC) by simulating a typhoon like Typhoon Haiyan. At risk households participated in
the activity that include those living in coastal areas and those whose houses are made of light materials.
This is how the community drill was described*:
________________________
45
*Article appeared in Panay News (www.panaynewsphilippines.com) and was uploaded on the website of ACCORD
(www.accord.org.ph)
“Drill organizers provided scenarios to which members of the BDRRMC and the whole community
responded. In the first phase of the drill, barangay officials went around the barangay in motorcycles
shouting ‘Preparar’ (prepare) on their megaphones. Families readied themselves and their emergency kits.
In the second phase, church bells rang while the roving patrol shouted ‘Lakat Na!’ (Start walking). This
served as the signal for evacuation to commence. Evacuees rode the trucks at designated pick-up points
across the barangay, while others walked to pre-assigned evacuation centers. These arrangements are
according to the community-based early warning system.
Orientation of observers before drill starts. Evacuation
map is shown behind the speaker. (Tep Cocjin) (ACCORD Photo)
Led by Vice Mayor Bimboy Albania, representatives from other barangays and municipal and provincial
DRRM councils were present to observe the conduct of the activity. They noted that the people really
followed instructions, bringing food and clothes and moving to evacuation centers as if the emergency was
actually happening.
Ma. Cecile Hipolito, barangay captain of
Poblacion, agreed and said that, ‘Today has
shown that we have learned the lessons
of Yolanda, thanks to systems and processes
we for have set up that are understood by all. That
is the most important thing – our preparations would
not mean anything if people do not participate.’
Do not forget these important things to bring in case of
an emergency evacuation. Preparedness is
power. (ACCORD caption and photo)
Hipolito
46
For his part, John Carlos Quijano, ACCORD Area Coordinator for Panay, expressed pride at what the
barangay has accomplished. ‘They have really owned the process - from the preparations to the actual
drill to the assessment afterwards. This is the essence of our disaster risk reduction efforts - empowering
the people and their leaders so that they themselves can work together towards resilience. Even as our
project here comes to a close, we are confident that our work here will be sustained and the community
will further build on this’."
As of 2015, the Philippines was: fourth (4th) in the world among countries hit by the highest number of
disasters over the past 20 years*; among the top 10 countries with the highest absolute number of
affected people, with 130 million (also in 20 years); and fifth (5th) most vulnerable country in terms of
disaster risk implications for development capacity. Given this scenario, disaster risk reduction inevitably
has to become part of the lifestyle and consciousness of at risk areas. Where zero casualty and minimal
damage to property are the goals, the mainstreaming of DRR is a must and not just an option.
-oOo-
________________________
* According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). A total of 274 disasters were recorded in the
Philippines from 1995 to 2015, trailing the United States (472), China (441), and India (288).
47
C. Evaluation Matrix
The table below shows the evaluation matrix that guided the inquiry into the performance of the
project. The evaluation questions led into the analysis of findings and conclusions on the project’s
overall performance.
EVALUATION MATRIX CRITERIA EVALUATION QUESTIONS DATA REQUIRED SOURCES OF
DATA
METHODS
OF
COLLECTION
• Relevance
--How relevant were the early
recovery interventions to the
community and beneficiaries? To
what extent was the overall
approach appropriate to address
the identified needs in shelter,
food security and livelihoods and
capacity development sectoral
intervention areas?
--Do the assisted communities
view that the needs are met by
the assistance? Are the program
interventions appropriate and
relevant to local needs and
capacities?
--Did the program target the
most vulnerable and does it have
potential for multiplier effect?
--Is the timing of the
interventions appropriate to the
local needs and situation? Does
the timing of the interventions
enable the objectives to be met?
--Could there have been
alternatives or better
approaches?
--Integration,
coherence and
timing of program
components
(shelter, FSL,
capacity
development)
--Community-based
DRR approach
--Testimonials that
the project has met
the needs of
beneficiaries
Beneficiaries,
project staff,
NGOs/INGOs,
LGUs, national
line agencies,
CARE/ACCORD,
Project
documents
--Desk reviews
--FGDs with
beneficiaries
-- KIIs with
implementing
partners,
I/NGOs,
-Ocular
inspection
• Effectiveness
--Was the stated Outcome
achieved?
--To what extent has the project
contributed to the outcome?
--What progress was made?
--What changes were brought to
the main beneficiaries?
What changes can be
observed as a result
of interventions?
Importance of the
approach and
methods used to
implement the
projects
Beneficiaries,
project staff,
NGOs/INGOs,
LGUs, national
line agencies,
CARE/ACCORD,
Project
documents
--Desk reviews
--FGDs with
beneficiaries
-- KIIs with
implementing
partners,
I/NGOs
48
--What could have been done
better?
--Who benefits from cash
transfers in the households?
--How effective was the
partnership strategy with
ACCORD? How effective were
the partnership strategies and
modalities in program
implementation?
--How effective was the
program’s accountability
mechanism?
--How were beneficiary
participation, information and
complaints and response
mechanism (CRM) ensured
throughout the program cycle?
--How effectively have program
components complemented one
another to achieve the program
objectives? What is the
relationship/link among the
sectoral responses? What is the
link between shelter and
livelihood recovery with cash-
based intervention as catalyst?
---Are there different outcomes
for those who received shelter
assistance but no livelihoods
assistance versus those who got
both?
--What were the positive and
negative (if there are any) results
of the project?
--Has there been an effective
coordination mechanism
established between CARE,
partners and other stakeholders
involved in the same sector?
- Interaction between
partners
--Ocular
inspection
• Efficiency --Were resources focused on the
set of activities that were
expected to produce significant
results?
--Were the activities
Implemented within deadline and
cost estimates?
--Effective
mechanism for
monitoring
implementation
--Funding strategy
and use of resources
--Sources and uses of
funds (Financial
reports)
Project staff,
CARE/ACCORD,
Project
documents
--Desk reviews
-- KIIs with
implementing
partners
49
• Impact and
Sustainability
---What had been the impact of
the project in your lives right after
Typhoon Yolanda?
---To what elements of the
project do you attribute this
impact?
--Were initiatives designed to
have sustainable results
given the risks?
--Was an exit strategy included?
--Were development related
concerns included into recovery
planning?
--Is the project replicable to other
post-disaster context elsewhere?
--Trigger effects
--Replicability
Beneficiaries,
project staff,
NGOs/INGOs,
LGUs, national
line agencies,
CARE/ACCORD,
Project
documents
--Desk reviews
--FGDs with
beneficiaries
-- KIIs with
implementing
partners
• Gender --What was achieved in terms of
mainstreaming gender?
--Any good practices to be
replicated?
--Can results of the
programme be
disaggregated
by sex?
--Evidence of gender
empowerment
Beneficiaries,
project staff,
NGOs/INGOs,
LGUs, national
line agencies,
CARE/ACCORD,
Project
documents
--Desk reviews
--FGDs with
beneficiaries
-- KIIs with
implementing
partners
---Ocular
inspection
50
D. Project intervention areas
Map 1. Project coverage in Leyte (visited areas in italic)
Map 2. Project coverage in Iloilo
A. Selection of Beneficiaries
Tabontabon
Santa Fe
Pastrana
Dagami
La Paz
Estancia
San Dionisio
51
E. Log frame of the Project
The table below shows the project’s log frame:
Intervention Logic Objectively Verifiable
Indicators
Target
Provide access to food security and livelihoods
(FSL) and shelter services that incorporates
disaster risk reduction (DRR) in order to speed
up the recovery of most affected populations in
targeted remote and underserved communities
of Leyte and Iloilo Provinces, Philippines
% of targeted households
are able to meet basic needs
through sustainable
livelihood activities
90%
% of households have
incorporated risk reduction
measures in the repair or
rebuilding of their homes
90%
% of women and girls are
benefiting from, and
participating in food security
and livelihoods, shelter and
DRR activities
30%
Short-term food security and livelihood needs
of targeted vulnerable households are met
Number of targeted
households that have
immediately restarted quick-
impact livelihoods
6,220
Number of targeted
households which are able
to access and maintain
productive assets
6,220
Number of households that
have received capacity
building inputs including
sustainable agriculture and
disaster risk reduction
9,180
Shelter recovery by targeted vulnerable
households is adequately supported
Number of households that
received shelter repair kits
that meet technical and
performance standards,
including Cluster standards
1,500
Number of households that
have received information
on better construction
practices and building back
safer homes
1,765
52
F. List of FGDs Participants
DAGAMI, LEYTE
NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM
PROJECT
BARANGAY
Livelihood Shelter Kit
1. Cherry S. Dometita F 36 � � Cabariwan
2. Eunice C. Villarta* F 39 � � Cabariwan
3. Enrique Bayona M 44 � � Cabariwan
4. Benedicto Bayona F 41 � � Cabariwan
5. Erlinda Tajarros F 68 � � Cabariwan
6. Rosita S. Superales F 72 � � Cabariwan
7. Shemie C. Lotilla F 35 � � Banayon
8. Marianita C. Alter F 58 � � Banayon
9. Erlinda C. Superales F 52 � � Banayon
10. Rita L. Lomtong F 41 � � Banayon
11. Wilfredo Mendoza M 55 � Banayon
12. Nathaniel S. Ramos M 26 � � Maca-alag
13. Cristeta Villablanca F 38 � � Maca-alag
14. Lorna R. Manasis F 51 � � Maca-alag
*Community Facilitator and Member of Roving Team
DAGAMI, LEYTE
NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM
PROJECT
BARANGAY
Livelihood Shelter Kit
1. Juan Blones M 38 � � Los Martires
2. Vilma M. Dolor F 43 � Bolirao
3. Florida R. Bertos F 40 � Bolirao
4. Marbelina M. Maguio F 51 � � Bolirao
5. Evelyn T. Justimbaste F 43 � � Bolirao
6. Porfirio G. Justimbaste M 54 � � Bolirao
7. Ma. Nilda A. Omoy F 45 � � Tagkip
8. Ma. Paz G. Badeo F 32 � � Tagkip
9. Silverio Omoy M 58 � � Tagkip
LA PAZ, LEYTE
NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM
PROJECT
BARANGAY
Livelihood Shelter Kit
53
1. Dolly M. Odo F 38 � � Mag-aso
2. Elvira E. Andrade F 51 � � Mag-aso
3. Utmi B. Gabrino M 36 � � Mag-aso
4. Nelia Rabalo F 44 � � Bagacay West
5. Rogelio Calsado M 58 � � Bagacay West
6. Liza C. Agrava F 36 � � Bagacay West
7. Francisca A. Soriano F 45 � Calabnian
8. Yolanda Y. Hijana F 49 � Calabnian
9. Noel P. Luanos M 46 � Calabnian
MUNICIPALITY OF LA PAZ IN LEYTE PROVINCE
NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM
PROJECT
BARANGAY
Livelihood Shelter Kit
1. Lerma G. Llames F 31 � � Bagacay East
2. Melinda E. Perida F 25 � � Bagacay East
3. Aida A. Canete F 42 � � Bagacay East
4. Ana Joy A. Maballo F 36 � � Bagacay East
5. Trinidad J. Calooy F 61 � Sta. Ana
6. Jenneth E. Pingol F 45 � Sta. Ana
7. Gloria P. Tanega F 58 � Sta. Ana
8. Danilo L. Mella M 44 � � Bongtod
9. Rosalita L. Cajoto F 40 � Qui-ong
10. Ellen C. Resma F 46 � Sta. Ana
11. Chona C. Ero F 42 � Mag-aso
12. Marlene B. Asis F 46 � � Bongtod
TABONTABON, LEYTE
NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM
PROJECT
BARANGAY
Livelihood Shelter Kit
1. Jefferson G. Apetas M 30 � � Cambucao
2. Ruel P. Cuayzon M 34 � � Cambucao
3. Analita C. Garcela F 47 � � Cambucao
4. Nieva E. Sequito F 36 � � Cambucao
5. Gina O. Valdez F 45 � � Mercaduhay
6. Marissa R. Tatoy F 46 � � Mercaduhay
7. Nora D. Remandaban F 43 � � Mercaduhay
8. Edna D. Trecene F 47 � � Mercaduhay
9. Cecilia R. Villamor F 44 � � Mering
10. Nelia M. Bibar F 47 � � Mering
11. Concordio T. Budog M 54 � � Mering
12. Erwin C. Gausin M 33 � � Mering
54
SAN DIONISIO, ILOILO
NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM
PROJECT
BARANGAY
Livelihood Shelter Kit
1. Elsie N. Jordan F 42 � � Batuan
2. Jenelyn Bautista F 47 � � Batuan
3. Nick Basong* M 30 � � Batuan
4. Edwin S. de la Cruz* M 44 ** � Batuan
5. Enrique Cerveza* M 48 � � Tamangi
6. Nixon Medel M 45 � � Tamangi
7. Jhonny Villamor M 31 � � Tamangi
8. Joycel Villamor* F 29 � � Tamangi
9. Nancy Medel F 40 � � Tamangi
10. Regina Sanan F 34 � � Tamangi
11. Rhodora S. Ociel F 53 ** ** Poblacion
12. Aquiles Rogador Sr. M 53 ** ** Poblacion
13. Rosemarie B. Rogador F 51 ** ** Poblacion
14. Lorna E. Constantino F 53 ** ** Poblacion
15. Judith R. Carpio F 34 ** � Poblacion
16. Erlinda P. Bagadion F 62 ** � Poblacion
17. Clara J. Matenc F 58 ** � Poblacion
18. Vilma R. Hechanova F 49 ** � Poblacion
*Member, Roving Team (RT)
**Barangay Poblacion received shelter kits and DRR training only. Those who did not receive shelter kits were not
qualified because they were members of the Barangay Council, but they participated in the DRR training. In areas
where livelihood assistance was provided, government employees and those with relatives who were Overseas
Filipinos Workers (OFWs) or in general, with relatives abroad, were exempted.
ESTANCIA, ILOILO
NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM
PROJECT
BARANGAY
Livelihood Shelter Kit
1. Josephine Ramirez F 49 ** � Tabu-an
2. Perla Casabuena F 66 ** � Tabu-an
3. Delia Bernas F 65 ** � Tabu-an
4. Maribeth Del Rosario F 40 ** � Tabu-an
5. Arlyn D. Ramirez F 31 ** � Tabu-an
6. Melissa V. Villa F 26 ** � Lonoy
7. Remar S. Celedonio M 28 ** � Lonoy
8. Careen P. Castillo F 28 ** � Lonoy
9. Merly Barana F 22 ** � Lonoy
10. Marissa Aguilar F 21 ** � Lonoy
55
11. Joy Patente F 56 ** � Lonoy
12. Jenelyn Amistoso F 43 ** � Lonoy
13. Mario Amistoso* M 59 ** � Lonoy
14. Betty S. Gayacan F 69 ** � Lonoy
15. Rosemarie Rebadomi F 46 ** � Lonoy
16. Felamae Bornales F 21 ** � Lonoy
17. Jose Bornales* M 50 ** � Lonoy
18. Dallia Repollo F 29 ** � Lonoy
19. Dionito Baniagas M 67 ** � Lonoy
20. Melchor Amistoso M 52 ** � Lonoy
21. Ulricah Mosqueda F 62 ** � Lonoy
22. Regina Badiang F 35 ** � Lonoy
23. Hennie Bacay F 53 ** Lonoy
24. Analiza D. Baniagas* F 41 ** � Lonoy
25. Pia Alleno F 38 ** � Lonoy
26. Ellen B. Tadyo F 28 ** � Lonoy
27. Hasim S. Marcelo M 41 ** � Lumbia
28. Abelardo A. Paner M 66 ** � Lumbia
29. Venus S. Mosqueda* F 35 ** � Lumbia
30. Nena P. Magbanua F 48 ** � Lumbia
31. Risa P. Dollentes F 44 ** � Lumbia
32. Selfa P. Borgonia F 47 ** � Lumbia
33. Marivic Sobrevega F 33 ** � Lumbia
*Member, Roving Team (RT)
**Estancia received shelter kits and DRR training only. However, FGD participants said that livelihood assistance
was provided by Save the Children. Among those who attended the FGD, only said that she did not qualify for the
shelter kits because her house was evaluated as made of strong materials; but she attended the DRR training.
56
G. List of Key Informants
KEY INFORMANTS
NAME POSITION MUNICIPALITY,
BARANGAY or
ORGANIZATION
Vincent Bano Councilor San Dionisio, Iloilo
Gerry Imperial Head, HR and Personnel and concurrent
MDRRMO Officer
Dagami, Leyte
Leo Nevaliza Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) Dagami, Leyte
Zolita Besa MAO Tabontabon, Leyte
Randy Baido Acting MDRRMO Officer Estancia, Iloilo
Analita C. Garcela Barangay Captain Cambucao, Tabontabon,
Leyte
Chona C. Ero Barangay Captain Mag-aso, La Pa, Leyte
Ma. Cecile A. Hipolito Barangay Captain Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo
Nona J. Mateus Barangay Kagawad (Council Member)
and Barangay Secretary
Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo
Ma. May B. Lumawag Barangay Kagawad (Council Member) Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo
Luma A. Toquillo Barangay Kagawad (Council Member) Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo
Nora D. Renamdaban Barangay Captain Mercaduhay, Tabontabon,
Leyte
Erie C. Ramirez Barangay Captain Tabuan, Estancia, Iloilo
Benito Inocencio Barangay Captain Lonoy, Estancia, Iloilo
Frankie P. Lanaque Barangay Kagawad (Council Member) Lumbia, Estancia, Iloilo
Jones Dizon Team Leader for Projects OXFAM
Gladys Montales Programme Coordinator Save the Children
Rodrigo Luego Livelihood Sector Head Food for the Hungry
Marietta L. Alcid Executive Director ACCORD
Ma. Teresa Bayombong Director for Programmes CARE PHL
Synadicta Nkrumah Finance Director CARE PHL
Ma. Adelma Montejo Monitoring & Evaluation, Accountability
and Learning (MEAL) Manager
CARE PHL
Athena Gepte Emergency Response Coordinator CARE PHL
Jerome Lanit Area Coordinator, Region VIII CARE PHL
Magdaleno Bargamento Area Coordinator, Panay CARE PHL
Antonette Barlisan MEAL Officer, Region VIII CARE PHL
Macy Sally Daproza MEAL Officer, Panay CARE PHL
57
H. Schedule of Evaluation Process
Activity Deliverables # of days Timeframe
1. Preparatory activities
a. Briefing with CARE and ACCORD
b. Desk review
c. Submission of inception report, including
initial review and analysis of program
accomplishments and gaps based on
available documents, and evaluation
instruments/tools
Inception
Report
4 4th week January
2016
2. Field visit/data collection Field Data 11 1st week
February 2016
3. Report writing and submission of draft report
including case study
Draft Report
of Evaluation
10 2nd and 3rd week
February 2016
4. Report presentation Powerpoint
Presentation
1 1st week March
2016
5. Preparation of the final report Final Report
of Evaluation
2 2nd week of
March 2016
Total # of days 28
I. Itinerary: Field Work
AREA
2016 Feb
1 Mon Dagami (38 minutes from Tacloban City)
2 Tues Tabon-Tabon (36 minutes from Tacloban City)
3 Wed La Paz (1 hr from Tacloban City)
4 Thu Interview with CARE, and ACCORD field staff, other NGOs based in
Tacloban
8 Mon San Dionisio (1 hr 11 min from Roxas City)
9 Tues Estancia (57 minutes from Roxas City)
10 Wed Interview with CARE and ACCORD field staff, other NGOs based in
Estancia
J. On-Site Programme: 1,2,3,8 and 9 February 2016 TIME ACTIVITY WITH WHOM/WHERE
8:30 A.M.
10:00
9:00
FGD No. 1
For Dagami and La Paz (Leyte) where two
(2) Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) will be
held.
FGD No. 2 in Dagami and La Paz
Women and senior citizens fairly
represented; beneficiaries from nearby
barangays will be represented; maximum
of 12 participants per FGD; snacks to be
prepared.
58
For Tabontabon (Leyte), Estancia and San
Dionisio (Iloilo), only one (1) FGD
11:00 Key Informant Interview (KII) Barangay Captain(s); shelter roving team;
shelter and livelihood group leaders
12:30 P.M LUNCH
1:30 P.M. Ocular Inspection On site: Results of shelter and livelihood
3:00 Key Informant Interview (KII) LGUs (Mayor and/or head of relevant
offices/committees such as planning,
DRRM, agriculture and social welfare and
development---latter can be convened as
one group)
5:00 END
59
K. Photos of SHO programme implemented by CARE
Dagami, Leyte
Estancia, Iloilo San Dionisio, Iloilo
A good roof. Correct spacing of roof nails.
Barangay Mag-aso, La Paz, Iloilo. Building strong foundations was emphasized as well.
60
Barangay Cabariwan, Dagami, Leyte. Barangay Cambucao, Tabontabon, Leyte
Barangay Lonoy, Estancia, Iloilo
Stakeholders' meetings in Panay. Municipal officials, barangay leaders, and ordinary community members have committed to
support the project. (ACCORD Photos)