Post Completion Mission Upland Development Programme in ... UDP-Post Completion... · 9 Loan...

European Commission

Post Completion Mission Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao 1

st Draft Final Report

Project No. DCI-ASIE/2009/211131

HTSPE Limited Thamesfield House Boundary Way Hemel Hempstead Herts HP2 7SR United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1442 202400 Fax: +44 (0) 1442 266438 Email: [email protected] Web: www.htspe.com Office for Economic Policy and Regional Development (EPRD) Szkolna 36A Street Kielce 25-604 Poland Tel: +48 41 345 32 71 (to 74) Fax: +48 41 345 25 87 Email: [email protected] Website: www.eprd.pl

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or the Government of the Philippines.

(5009112)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.htspe.com/

http://www.eprd.pl/

UDP Post Completion Mission - 1st Draft Final Report

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... I

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Evaluation Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Context ............................................................................................................................. 1

2 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Evaluation questions ......................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Collection of information .................................................................................................... 5

3 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 6

3.1 Land Use Based Barangay Development Planning (LUB-BDP) ......................................... 6

3.2 Diversified Farming Systems (DFS) ..................................................................................10

3.3 Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery (UAED) ................................................................14

3.4 Barangay Forest Protection and Management (BFPM) .....................................................18

3.5 Performance Assessment of the UDP-RFS (January 2002 – July 2007) ...........................21

3.6 Performance Assessment of the USM-CIBP (2007 – 2009) ..............................................26

3.7 Upland Village Enterprise Development (UVED) ...............................................................31

3.8 Replication of SUD schemes after UDP ended .................................................................34

3.9 Relevance of SUD schemes to initiatives under the MTF-RDP .........................................39

3.10 Respect for Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) ................41

3.11 Consideration for other crosscutting issues.......................................................................43

4 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 45

5 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 52

5.11 58

ANNEXES

A Terms of Reference AN-1

B List of persons and organisations consulted AN-8

C List of documents consulted AN-17

D LUB-BDP / BFPM scheme site visits AN-19

E DFS site visits AN-20

F UAED scheme site visits AN-22

G LBRRM scheme site visits AN-24

H USM-CIBP information AN-28

I UVED scheme site visits AN-30


LIST OF TABLES Page

1 Evaluation Questions 5

2 Accomplishments of the LUB-BDP scheme 6

3 Preparation of LUB-BDPs after UDP ended 9

4 Potential income per hectare from a combination of different crops 10

5 DFS Accomplishments 11

6 Examples of current income levels from DFS Learning Sites 11

7 Accomplishments of the UAED scheme 15

8 Accomplishments of the BFPM scheme 18

9 Loan Performance of the UDP-RFS as of 30 June 2007 24

10 Components of the USM-CIBP Program Structure 30

11 Status of USM-CIBP Fund as of 30 June 2009 30

12 Status of USM-CIBP Budget Utilization as of 30 June 2009 31

13 Accomplishments of the UVED scheme 32


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACPC Agricultural Credit Policy Council IEC Information Education and Communication AFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act IP Indigenous People

AIP Annual Investment Plan ISP Institutional Strengthening Program

ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao JNA Joint Needs Assessment

AT Agricultural Technician LBP Land Bank of the Philippines

AusAID Australian Aid LBRRM Based Routine Road Maintenance

BAC Land Bank Accredited Cooperative LGU Local Government Unit

BDA Bangsamoro Development Agency LMP League of Municipalities of the Philippines

BDC Barangay Development Council LUB-BDP Land Use Based Barangay Development Plan

BDP Barangay Development Plan MDC Municipal Development Council

BDS Business Development Services MDP Municipal Development Plan BEW Barangay Extension Worker MENRO Municipal Environment Natural Resource

BFP Barangay Protected Forest MFI Micro Finance Institution

BFPA Barangay Forest Protected Areas MIS Management Information System

BFPM Barangay Forest Protection and Management MLGU Municipal Local Government Unit

BLGU Barangay Local Government Unit MPDC Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator

CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim MPDO Municipal Planning and Development Office

CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title MTF Mindanao Trust Fund

CALC Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim MTF-RDP Mindanao Trust Fund for Development and

CALT Certificate of Ancestral Land Title Reconstruction Program CBET Community Based Extension Team NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

CBFM Community Based Forest Management NEC National Executive Committee

CBFMA Community Based Forest Management Agreement NEDA National Economic and Development Authority

CBO Community Based Organisation NGO Non Government Organisation

CDD Community Driven Development Non-BAC non-Land Bank Accredited Cooperative

CEFE Community Based Economies Formation of NRM Natural Resource Management

Entrepreneurs NVS Natural Vegetative Strip

CENRO City Environment & Natural Resources Office PAO Provincial Agricultural Office

CIDA Canadian International Development Assistance PCFC People’s Credit and Finance Corporation

CIDE Community Institutional Development Extension PEC Program Executive Committee CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural

CRMF Community Resource Management Framework Resources Office

CSC Certificate of Stewardship Contract PFI Partner Financial Institutions

CWP Community Watershed Plan PhP Philippine Peso

DA Department of Agriculture PLGU Provincial Local Government Unit

DAP Development Academy of the Philippines PO People’s Organisations

DAR Department of Agrarian Reform PPDO Provincial Planning and Development Office

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources RFS Rural Financial Services

DFS Diversified Farming Systems SAD Sustainable Agriculture Development DILG Department of Interior & Local Government SALT Sloping Agricultural Land Technology

DOLE Department of Labour and Employment SCFI South Cotabato Foundation Inc.

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways SHED Social Health Environment and Development

DSWD Department of Social Welfare Development Foundation Inc

DTI Department of Trade and Industry SMAP Southern Mindanao Agricultural Programme

EAC Environmental Awareness Campaign SUD Sustainable Upland Development

EBI Enterprise Bank Inc. TAMF Trust Account Management Fund

EC European Commission TBG Landbank Trust Banking Group

ENRO Environment and Natural Resource Office TNA Training Needs Assessment ESC Executive Steering Committee UBA Upland Barangay Association

EU European Union UDLF Upland Development Loan Fund

FA Financing Agreement UDP Upland Development Programme in Southern

FLUP Forest Land Use Plan Mindanao (the Programme)

FPIC Free and Prior Informed Consent UDTF Upland Development Trust Fund

FSC Financial Service Centres UMTF Upland Micro Finance Trust Fund

FTG Farmers Training Group USAID United States Aid for International Development

GFI Government Financial Institution USC UDLF Steering Committee

GIS Geographical Information System USM-CIBP Upland Southern Mindanao–Credit and Institutional

ICB Institutional Capacity Building Building Program ICC Indigenous Cultural Community UVED Upland Village Enterprise Development

ICRAF International Centre for Research on Agro-Forestry WB World Bank


i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao (UDP) was a special project of the Department of Agriculture jointly funded by the Government of the Philippines and the European Commission. The Programme ran for eight and a half years from January 1999 to July 2007 which included an eighteen-month extension phase. It was a successor to the Southern Mindanao Agricultural Programme (SMAP) but had very different objectives. 2. The Overall Objective of UDP was to develop a replicable model for sustaining the upland resource base and improving the living standards and prosperity of communities who derive most of their income from upland farming. The Programme had two specific objectives: 1) to develop and test a replicable model for the sustainable management of natural resources in the uplands; and, 2) to enable upland communities to address their subsistence needs and produce new marketable surpluses through sustainable market-led agricultural development. 3. The programme was implemented in 144 upland barangays of thirty-eight municipalities in the provinces of Compostela Valley, Davao Oriental, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Sarangani and South Cotabato. The target beneficiaries were upland communities, mainly the farmers and their households, People’s Organisations, and Local Government Units (LGUs) at the barangay, municipal and provincial levels. 4. The first few years of the Programme were spent developing the capabilities of upland communities and LGUs through a combination of technical training, organisational/institutional development and the implementation of micro-projects. It was during this time that UDP had to come to terms with the twin purposes of the Programme and reconcile the need to define a replicable model for sustainable development with the more physical target-orientated approach of a traditional rural development project. Delays in identifying a replicable model were highlighted by the mid-term review mission in 2003 as a result of which the Programme re-focused activities to quickly develop a model that could be tested during the final years of the programme. 5. Agreement on the final model to promote and replicate was reached in 2004. The Sustainable Upland Development (SUD) model was composed of six schemes, namely:

1) land-use based barangay development planning (LUB-BDP); 2) upland agricultural extension services for the diversification of farming systems (UAED); 3) barangay level forest protection and management (BFPM); 4) labour based barangay road maintenance (LBRRM); 5) the improvement of rural financial services (RFS); and, 6) upland village enterprise development (UVED).

6. The overall objective of the Post-Completion Review was to formulate recommendations for future interventions to assist with poverty reduction in the Philippines. The more specific objective was to assess the impact and replicability of the six SUD schemes listed above. Particular attention was paid to the impact in terms of sustainable benefits accruing to upland communities and the identification of factors responsible for successful replication or expansion of the SUD schemes after UDP ended. 7. The mission held discussions with government officials and attended an initial briefing session in Manila before commencing the field work in Davao Oriental on 07 August 2009. The Mission met with officials of the provincial and municipal LGUs before proceeding to barangays where the SUD schemes had been implemented. By organising visits according to which of the SUD schemes had been implemented in each barangay, the team was able to meet with barangay officials and the residents of sixty-four barangays in twenty-three of the municipalities covered by UDP.


ii

Land Used Based Barangay Development Planning (LUB-BDP)

8. The LUB-BDP scheme is recognised by both LGUs and barangay residents as being an appropriate community-based approach to development planning and natural resource management. Barangay officials clearly understood the value of land-use based planning and the preparation of a comprehensive Barangay Development Plan as an entry point for environmental and development projects in the barangay. 9. Implementation of the LUB-BDP scheme improved the capacities of barangay LGUs (BLGUs) to undertake land-use planning and led to an improvement in the development planning processes of municipal LGUs (MLGUs). The participatory nature of the process resulted in greater awareness of local environmental governance and led to improved institutional capacities at the barangay and municipal levels. 10. Arguably the greatest benefit from the LUB-BDP exercise has been the funding secured for development projects prioritised in the BDPs. Various BLGUs were able to access funding from MLGUs and PLGUs as well as from a range of government agencies and private companies such as Nestle Philippines. At least twenty-one barangays were able to access funds from the World Bank’s Mindanao Rural Development Project (MRDP). 11. The replicability of the LUB-BDP scheme is best illustrated by the fact that sixteen out of eighteen municipalities assessed by the mission had gone on to replicate the scheme in other barangays after UDP ended. The number of land-use based barangay development plans prepared by LGUs in the six provinces covered by UDP increased from 175 when the programme ended to at least 285 by August 2009. Diversified Farming Systems (DFS)

12. Diversified farming systems have shown the potential to produce significant economic benefits for those upland families implementing them properly. A few farmers are already earning the targeted PhP 100,000 / ha / year, however, the majority have yet to benefit from any significant increase in income because the fruit trees, which were the most popular choice for diversification, have yet to reach maturity. 13. Banana and vegetable production have been the two most lucrative components of the DFS to date with some farmers earning an additional PhP 20,000 to PhP 50,000 per year from intercropping within the DFS plot. The lanzones, rambutan, durian, mangosteen, pommelo and other fruit trees planted between 2004 and 2006 will start coming into production in the next few years and can be expected to provide income gains for many more families than are currently benefiting from DFS. 14. Both provincial and municipal LGUs have continued to fund projects promoting diversified cropping although this is not always identified as following the UDP model. Other national and local programmes also include mixed tree cropping of a similar nature. An important factor in the replication of the UDP-DFS model has been positive political support from leaders in the local government units. Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery (UAED)

15. The most important members of the Community Based Extension Teams (CBETs) were the Barangay Extension Workers who are highly valued by both local governments and upland farmers. Their value is evidenced by the fact that BEWs have been maintained in nineteen out of twenty-one barangays visited by the mission and in many cases the MLGU has gone on to appoint BEWs in barangays not originally covered by UDP (including lowland barangays). 16. Other elements contributing to the effectiveness of the UAED scheme were: the learning sites and model farms operated by known and well respected local farmers; the farmer to farmer transfer of knowledge facilitated by farmer training groups; the hands on skills training for farmers, BEWs and municipal Agricultural Technicians; and, farmer cross visits to profitable, well managed and diversified farms in other areas.


iii

Barangay Forest Protection and Management

17. The BFPM scheme has already resulted in improvements to environmental conditions and the conservation of natural resources in some of the barangays visited. Efforts to protect the remaining pockets of natural forest have been well respected by the community in most barangays that established a Barangay Forest Protected Area through a barangay ordinance adopted by the MLGU. 18. In some barangays the BFPM scheme has led to the development of a legal tenurial instrument through the declaration of a Barangay Protected Forest (BFP) by means of a barangay ordinance subsequently adopted by the MLGU. This is seen as a means of sharing and transferring responsibility for the protection and management of forests and watershed areas with the direct stakeholders and serves as an alternative to watershed proclamations by the Depart of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 19. Whilst the BFPM scheme improved the capabilities of barangay officials and other members of the community to conserve forest resources, there are a number of barangays where the BFPM scheme has been sustained in name only whilst illegal logging and timber poaching continue. This is most notable in barangays where officials changed as a result of the barangay elections in October 2007. 20. The varying levels of success of the BFPM scheme can be attributed to a combination of factors. These include: the level of community organisation and quality of governance; technical expertise and decisiveness of the MLGU; politics of and between the BLGU and MLGU; technical support from the DENR; and, last but not least, acceptance and ownership by the community. Labour Based Routine Road Maintenance (LBRRM)

21. Only two out of twenty barangays visited by the mission had continued with a purely labour-based maintenance scheme. Many parts of the roads in these barangays were in poor condition owing to a lack of gravel surfacing and compaction which could only have been achieved with equipment support. Although the roads are passable during dry months, they become very slippery and are frequently impassable during the rainy season. 22. Half of the barangays visited had resorted to a combination of “bayanihan” and paid labour supported by equipment such as graders and dump trucks from the provincial or the municipal government. Under these Labour Based / Equipment Supported (LB/ES) schemes, labour was used for minor works such as vegetation control and clearing of drainage ditches and culverts whilst the major items of work were left to grading and other equipment from the MLGU with fuel paid for by the BLGU. 23. Whilst the labour-based schemes were not sustained, the introduction of LBRRM often stimulated the barangay LGU to undertake more frequent road maintenance with the support of the municipal LGU. This had very positive impacts on the local economy through increases in the volume and value of products marketed outside of the barangay. The commitment of BLGUs was evident through the regular allocation of a road maintenance budget (however limited) from the internal revenue allotment which was rarely the case before the LBRRM scheme was introduced. Rural Financial Services (RFS)

24. The design of the UDP-RFS was weak and focussed more on the supply of credit than the demand for financial services in upland barangays. 25. There was insufficient understanding of the limitations and absorptive capacity of the upland organisations expected to become financial intermediaries. Farmers recognised the difficulties UDP faced trying to transform them into competent financial managers. Their lives revolve around farming, hence they would rather be competent farmer-producers converting their products to cash than become micro-bankers. 26. The performance of the Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) was better than that of the Farmers Service Centers (FSCs)-turned cooperatives in terms of both outreach and loan portfolio quality. MFIs were more effective channels of financial products and services owing to their professional experience and motivation to innovate and provide a client-responsive array of products.


iv

The Upland Southern Mindanao-Credit and Institutional Building Program (USM-CIBP)

27. The Agricultural Credit Policy Council (ACPC) has performed well in consolidating the remaining funds of the Upland Development Program Trust Fund (UDPTF), ensuring the collection of receivables from the UDLF (Upland Development Loan Fund) and placing these in trust fund accounts. The total amount available for the USM-CIBP is PhP 137 million of which 15% (PhP 20.7 million) was receivable as of 30 June 2009. 28. The LBP-led scheme for assistance to non-Bank Accredited Cooperatives (non-BACs) is an enhancement of the UDP-RFS scheme for developing cooperatives as enterprise centers. However, the objective of also strengthening non-BACs to enhance their capacity as financial service providers appears to be a repetition of the UDP-RFS weaknesses. 29. The credit scheme through a hold-out or guarantee fund as an integral component of the USM-CIBP may serve as an incentive for MFIs to expand their operations in upland areas, but does not address the MFIs’ need for additional loan capital to finance such an expansion. 30. The absence of a strategic plan with clear indicators of success for the initial three-year duration of the USM-CIBP could result in ambiguity over whether or not the program is meeting its targets. The strategic plan approved by the National Executive Committee was only for the Land Bank-led scheme and not for the entire USM-CIBP Program. Clear and time-bound impact indicators are needed to ensure that efficient use is made of the available resources. 31. The USM-CIBP is only now coming close to the end of its preparatory phase and has yet to make any measurable impact on the development of viable financial institutions with efficient fund delivery systems operating in the upland areas of Southern Mindanao. Upland Village Enterprise Development (UVED)

32. Of the sixteen Upland Village Enterprises visited by the mission only seven are still operating and only two could be rated as strong with the potential to grow. The remaining five operational UVEs were operating with gross sales/income levels ranging from PhP 216,000 to PhP 720,000 per year. Operational surpluses are low and without access to additional working capital there is little potential for growth. 33. Although UDP recognised the limitations of upland farmers as entrepreneurs and provided business capability training, there was inadequate provision for continuing support to develop their skills and confidence after the Programme ended. 34. None of the UVEs set up as trading organisations were able to reduce the dependency of farmers on middlemen for marketing their produce. The aim of eliminating the role of the ‘middleman’ was unrealistic given that many of the UVEs were newly organised and considering that private traders commonly provide their customers with additional services such as production loans and inputs chargeable to crop. Relevance to Mindanao Trust Fund-Reconstruction and Development Program (MTF-RDP)

35. Of the six SUD schemes, only the LUB-BDP is applicable to current initiatives under the MTF-RDP. Not as precursor to other activities as it was on UDP, but rather as a way of phasing out assistance from the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA) and handing over the responsibility for continuing support to the municipal LGU. The immediate benefits would be from a continuation of skills enhancement and confidence building at the community level and from strengthening links with the municipal LGU. 36. The other SUD schemes are of less relevance to the MTF-RDP at this time. That could change when a peace agreement is signed and the BDA’s priorities shift towards larger projects and longer term development goals. When that happens there is likely to be scope for initiatives on diversified farming and possibly forestry protection and management.


v

Respect for the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs)

37. The participatory processes used to prepare comprehensive watershed plans and later the land-use based Barangay Development Plans successfully ensured that indigenous peoples were able to actively participate and contribute to the formulation of development plans for the areas populated by IPs. There was however, no assistance for the preparation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs). 38. Guidelines of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) were followed to ensure that Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) was obtained for all projects implemented in ancestral domains. There was however an example of where the process may have been followed but members of the tribal community still did not feel that they had been properly consulted with the result that they did not feel any sense of ownership for the project (a water system) or contribute to its maintenance. It is clearly not enough to simply follow the procedures; ICCs/IPs must be intimately involved in the planning and given time to internalise the project before it is implemented. 39. UDP provided considerable assistance for the delineation of barangay boundaries and the formulation of Barangay Development Plans, but did far less to help ICCs/IPs with their applications for Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) or the preparation of ADSDPPs. UDP’s assistance was limited to disseminating information about the guidelines for acquiring CADTs which, in the mission’s opinion, was a wasted opportunity to address the rights of ICCs/IPs to collective ownership and sustainable development of their ancestral domain.

Recommendations 40. The following summary of recommendations includes those applicable to future EC interventions as well as those for the maintenance or enhancement of SUD schemes already implemented in Southern Mindanao. Land Use Based Barangay Development Planning

1) There should be an annual review of the LUB-BDP to promote transparent governance through the participation of barangay constituents.

2) PLGUs/MLGUs should initiate the documentation of best practices and lessons learned from land-use based planning in successful barangays.

3) The LUB-BDP guidelines should be updated to include additional sections on Income Generation and the barangay Poverty Reduction Agenda.

4) The next phase of LUB-BDP should include parcellary mapping and zoning ordinances at the barangay and municipal level.

5) Future interventions should encourage LGUs to develop sectoral strategies on climate change adaptation / disaster management for integration in the BDPs

6) Future land-use planning interventions in the uplands should coordinate with the DENR Forest Land Uses Division and its regional affiliates to assess and delineate boundaries between forestlands, national parks and agricultural lands.

7) MLGUs should initiate a land-use plan and watershed monitoring system to track the implementation of land use planning decisions (implementation monitoring) and gather the data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring).

Diversified Farming Systems

1) Future projects should adopt the UDP-DFS scheme with perennial crops as the central element for sustainable long-term increases in the income from upland farming.

2) Vegetables crops should only be promoted in easily accessible upland barangays where cooler conditions prevail and where they can be integrated into an alley-cropping system.

3) Future projects should avoid forging rigid links between erosion control strips and crop diversification as they have different, even if complementary, aims.

4) The UDP guidelines for identifying diversification strategies according to slope gradients, soil depth and the individual farm objectives are clear and comprehensive and should be adopted by future projects targeting upland areas.

5) New projects which provide agricultural or other inputs intended to change behaviour and improve economic circumstances should be carefully designed to promote farmer ownership, self-reliance and enhance the prospects for sustainability.


vi

Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery System

1) The barangay extension worker approach should be promoted to provide a link between farmers and the technical support from local government units and other service providers.

2) New projects should provide and institutionalise appropriate compensation and incentives systems to motivate Barangay Extension Workers to carry out their roles efficiently and effectively.

3) Future projects should promote an informal farmer-to-farmer extension system to complement the official process.

4) BEWs should be regularly exposed to new techniques, innovations and changing market demands through appropriate skills training and information.

5) Learning sites should not be provided with inputs that potential adopters can not provide from their own resources or which induce dependence on external assistance.

6) Extension delivery systems should have a strong demand driven (demand from communities) element to promote ownership of activities by the farmer adopters.

Barangay Forest Protection and Management

1) MLGUs should elicit DENR’s assistance with the preparation of Forest Land Use Plans (FLUPs) that incorporate the Barangay Forest Protection and Management Plans.

2) Barangay FLUPs should be integrated in the municipal and provincial level comprehensive land use plans to take account of situations where critical watersheds cross barangay or municipal boundaries.

3) The MENRO should be established as a permanent office tasked to oversee the preparation of FLUPs and forest protection activities in each municipality.

4) Future interventions should ensure that the NRM components involve DENR, DA and other national government agencies, including the NCIP and the League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP), not only in the implementation of upland development projects but also during the planning and design phases.

Labour-Based Routine Road Maintenance

1) Future projects should revise the LBRRM scheme to allow for periodic equipment support hence implementing a more sustainable Labour Based / Equipment Supported (LB/ES) model.

Upland Southern Mindanao–Credit and Institutional Building Program

1) Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) interventions should consider the geographic location and the presence of existing financial providers which provides for two different types of ICB and credit support: one focusing on enterprise development leaving re-lending to an established MFI; and one to develop a non-BAC as a financial intermediary in an area with no existing MFI.

2) The ICB interventions should not only be focused on the officers/management staff of the cooperative but also on cooperative members.

3) The USM-CIBP management should fast-track implementation of the program, set up clear performance indicators and ensure that the intended support reaches upland areas in the most efficient and effective way.

General recommendations on financial services

1) A comprehensive market research and behavioural analysis of the target groups must be conducted at the beginning of all new projects striving to improve access to financial services.

2) A demand survey should also be undertaken prior to the start of the project to determine the appropriate mix of financial products and services, the capacity to pay and affordability of loans to the target groups.

3) Implementation of any financial related project must be organised as a business without undermining its social mission of poverty alleviation.

4) Operational and performance targets should be set and given greater emphasis than the rate of fund disbursement. The focus should be on efficiency, productivity, profitability and the quality of outreach.

5) Financial services or credit components should not included in the operational plans of grant-funded rural development programs in the Philippines.


vii

Upland Village Enterprise Development 1) An in-depth feasibility study of the economic, trading and market circumstances in which the

enterprise is expected to operate should be carried out prior to organising groups of farmers to engage in commodity trading.

2) Continuing and long-term support in the form of coaching and training on business planning and management should be provided for farmers groups or associations with limited entrepreneurial skills.

3) Farmers groups and associations should not be pushed towards registering as cooperatives before they are ready.

4) Future projects should explore the potential for setting up individual family enterprises as an alternative to cooperative owned and managed enterprises.

Replication of SUD schemes

1) The LMP should encourage the nomination of one municipality in each region to become a learning center for replication.

2) The PLGU should provide technical and financial assistance to the MLGUs and BLGUs for sustaining the positive impacts of SUD schemes.

3) The DENR as lead agency for the DENR-Upland Development Program should convene the steering committee to act on matters concerning replication of the SUD schemes

4) Future projects and programs concerned with upland development / poverty alleviation should learn how to scale down activities so that the poor and lower class LGUs can absorb new capabilities.

Relevance of the SUD schemes to initiatives under the MTF-RDP

1) Land-Use Based–Barangay Development Planning should be undertaken after a conflicted affected community has successfully completed three sub-project cycles and the Bangsamoro Development Agency is preparing to phase out assistance under the MTF-RDP.

Respect for the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples

1) New projects should give priority to the preparation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs) in all areas where Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) have been awarded or applied for.

2) For those areas not covered by CADTs, the project should begin by conducting a separate planning exercise led by the Barangay Tribal Council and the boundaries for the land use plan should be those of the clan or the tribe rather than those of the barangay.


1

1 INTRODUCTION

1. The Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao (UDP) was a special programme of the Department of Agriculture (DA) jointly funded by the Government of the Philippines (GOP) and the European Commission (EC). The Programme began in January 1999 and ended in July 2007. This Post-Completion Review was conducted in August 2009 two years after the Programme ended.

1.1 Evaluation Objectives

2. The overall objective of the Post-Completion Review, as specified in the terms of reference, was to formulate recommendations for future interventions to assist with poverty reduction in the Philippines. The more specific objective was:

To assess the impact and replicability of Sustainable Upland Development (SUD) schemes developed by the Upland Development Programme.

3. Particular attention was paid to the impact in terms of sustainable benefits accruing to upland communities and the identification of factors responsible for successful replication or expansion of the SUD schemes after UDP ended. The six components of the SUD model assessed by the evaluation were:

1) land-use based barangay development planning (LUB-BDP);

2) upland agricultural extension services for the diversification of farming systems (UAED);

3) barangay level forest protection and management (BFPM);

4) labour based barangay road maintenance (LBRRM);

5) the improvement of rural financial services (RFS); and,

6) the development of upland village enterprises (UVED). 4. By focussing on these schemes the evaluation was more concerned with the barangay level impact of the SUD model and the factors influencing its sustainability than the relevance, efficiency or effectiveness of the Upland Development Programme per se. The difficulties faced by the programme and the often tortuous paths taken to produce a replicable model for the sustainable development of upland communities are well documented in the Programme’s own reports as well as by the external reviews at mid-term in September 2003 and pre-completion in October 2005. This post-completion review completes the picture by looking at what happened between the end of the European Commission’s financial and technical assistance in July 2007 and the time of the post-completion review in August 2009.

1.2 Context

5. The Financing Agreement for UDP was signed on 20 October 1998 and the Programme officially began when the Technical Assistance contract was signed on 18 January 1999. The Programme was expected to last for seven years but was granted an eighteen month extension by virtue of Addendum No.1 to the Financing Agreement signed on 25 November 2005. 6. UDP built on experience gained from the Southern Mindanao Agricultural Programme (SMAP). It was implemented in similar areas by many of the same people; but it had very different objectives. Whereas SMAP aimed to support community-based development through the implementation of numerous agricultural and infrastructure micro-projects, the overall objective of UDP was to develop a replicable model for sustaining the resource base and improving the living standards of upland communities. 7. This is evident from the specific objectives of the Programme which were:

o to develop and test a replicable model for the sustainable management of natural resources in the uplands of five provinces in Region XI; and,

o to enable upland communities to address their subsistence needs and to produce new marketable surpluses through sustainable market-led agricultural development.


2

8. As a result of changes to administrative boundaries soon after the programme began, UDP worked in four provinces of Region XI (Compostela Valley, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur and Davao del Norte) and two provinces of Region XII (Sarangani and South Cotabato). 9. The Programme had six components the aims of which were laid out in the Financing Agreement and elaborated upon in the Global Work Plan. The components were:

a) Community and Institutional Development and Extension (CIDE) which was responsible for establishing or strengthening community-based organisations capable of implementing sustainable resource management systems, establishing functional development and business linkages and institutionalising the use of sustainable resource management plans;

b) Resource Management (RM) which aimed to develop a model for the sustainable management of natural recourses that would be adopted by Local Government Units (LGUs) and implemented by upland communities;

c) Sustainable Agriculture Development (SAD) which aimed at securing food production and increasing the income of upland farmers through diversified farming systems while safeguarding the watershed resource base;

d) Rural Financial Services (RFS) that would establish a savings-based credit delivery system providing production and providential loans and savings services to upland farmers, enterprises and communities.

e) Marketing and Enterprise Development (MED) that aimed to establish market information systems, provide information on income generation in the uplands, strengthen producers organisations, increase market awareness and train LGUs on marketing and enterprise development; and,

f) Agricultural Support Infrastructure. (AIS) which aimed to respond to infrastructure needs for resource management and market-led production in beneficiary communities.

10. This was a fairly standard mix for an EC-funded rural development project in the late 1990’s, but UDP was not helped by the choice of components and component objectives being similar to those on SMAP despite the very different objectives. Compartmentalisation along component lines combined with the understandable urge of former SMAP employees to continue what they had started on SMAP were two of the factors contributing to delays and difficulties in the early years. 11. UDP’s internal performance assessments identified inconsistencies and problems in the way micro-projects were being implemented by the different components and drew attention to a potential shortfall in use of the EU grant. These were attributed to the following:

o the mix of modelling with a more traditional development approach wherein coverage and micro-project numbers were pursued at the expense of replicability;

o the component based approach that created confusion during implementation and led to isolated rather than integrated activities which would have hastened development of a replicable model;

o overestimation of LGU capacities to implement micro-projects and provide counterpart contributions; and,

o the need to develop models and best practises that would be within the capacities and capabilities of LGUs and upland communities to implement without continued reliance on external funds.

12. The fact that UDP was designed with two specific objectives was at least partly to blame for the confusion and false starts during the first half of the programme. The specification of a single Purpose has long been regarded as a basic requirement for the formulation of a useful Logical Framework Matrix. Split purposes can lead to a lack of focus and differing ideas on the results to be achieved and the means of achieving them. This was precisely what happened on UDP and it is surprising that such a glaring weakness in the project design was not mentioned in the global work plan or highlighted as a sensitive point in the annual work plans. 13. The design flaws and weaknesses in the organisational setup were confirmed by the Mid-Term Review mission in September 2003. Debates over whether the focus should be on quality or quantity had continued and the Programme was still having difficulties reconciling the modeling role with the achievement of physical outputs expected from a more traditional rural development project. The MTR recommended a more proactive and flexible approach to changing direction and instigating new approaches in the light of experience and emphasised the need to encourage


3

greater synergy between components. Despite these weaknesses and other unavoidable delays during the first four years of the programme, UDP was considered to have accumulated enough experience to identify what could and what could not be implemented by upland communities and the LGUs. The priority was to clearly define the models for sustainable upland development so that they could be tested during the final years of the programme. 14. Changes were made to re-focus activities as a result of the mid-term review but it was not until the latter part of 2004, almost five years into the original seven-year programme that agreement was reached on the model to promote and replicate. The Sustainable Upland Development model was made up of six schemes, one for each of the six components; four schemes were to be implemented by the barangay and municipal local government units (LUB-BDP, UAED, BFPM, LBRRM) whilst two (RFS, UVED) were considered to be private sector support schemes. Definition of the SUD model and schemes resulted in a more focused approach and facilitated the standardisation and integration of activities at the barangay level. 15. Despite the scheme rather than a component approach being mentioned in the annual work plans for 2004 and 2005, the Pre-Completion Review Mission (October/November 2005) noted that the concept was not really elaborated upon and could not be found “in the LogFrame, or the approval forms, or the accounting system, or the M&E system, or anywhere else”. The PCRM did however note that the SAD and RM components in particular had contributed to the development of replicable models but that UDP still needed to focus on demonstrating the effectiveness of models at the barangay level. Writing guidelines and manuals was one thing; implementing sustainable and replicable schemes to protect the natural resource base and increase farmer incomes was something else. The PCRM concluded that while UDP’s objectives and activities were highly relevant, the Programme’s performance had been characterised by low efficiency and effectiveness. With less than three months of the scheduled duration remaining, more than a third of the EC grant was unspent and little experience had been obtained with the latest versions of the models being promoted. UDP had however established good relations with the municipal and barangay LGUs, developed an excellent tool in the LUB-BDP and produced relevant agricultural models with an appropriate extension system and a promising scheme for forest protection and management. All that was needed was more time to focus on further testing and replication of the SUD schemes. 16. The delay in defining and testing replicable models along with under-utilisation of the EC grant made an extension inevitable. Addendum No.1 to the FA provided for an eighteen month extension period with the following aims:

1) To showcase more examples of the Sustainable Upland Development (SUD) model schemes in UDP covered areas;

2) to facilitate the sustainability and replication of Local Government Units and Upland Communities by mainstreaming within LGU systems the various schemes under the model, and;

3) to mainstream within and elevate the SUD model to higher levels of government that will result in a national policy and replication programme for LGUs.

17. The heightened sense of urgency brought about by a realisation that the SMAP/UDP era was finally coming to end meant that expectations of the extension phase were achieved and, in the case of the tie-up with League of Municipalities of the Philippines and the promulgation Executive Order 606, they were probably exceeded. 18. The mid-term and pre-completion mission reports both discuss UDP’s efficiency and effectiveness in some detail. The purpose of highlighting the time taken to develop the SUD schemes (4-6 years) in comparison to the time spent testing them (2-3 years) in the introduction to this report is that in many respects the SUD schemes evaluated by the Post-Completion Mission were still works in progress. 19. Without meaning to pre-empt the succeeding sections of the report, it soon became apparent that none of the schemes represented a finished product that could be simply taken from the shelf (or downloaded from the website) and implemented without adaptation. In fact it was probably unrealistic to expect that anything more than an applicable approach to sustainable upland development could have been produced by a programme like the UDP. Producing replicable models or blueprints for sustainable upland development is probably best left to the academia.


4

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Evaluation questions 1. Evaluation questions were formulated to focus the field work and subsequent analysis on a limited number of key points related to the objectives of the evaluation. The questions were derived from the terms of reference for the mission and consideration of the UDP’s intervention logic as reflected in the logical framework matrix. 2. The terms of reference included a number of very specific questions that were to be answered by the mission. These were grouped around the following themes:

the quality and maintenance of SUD schemes implemented during the lifetime of UDP; the adoption and expansion of SUD schemes after UDP ended; the role of financial institutions in providing financial services to upland communities; elements of the SUD that could be incorporated in initiatives under the MTF-RDP; and, the extent to which crosscutting issues were adequately addressed by the UDP.

3. Additional questions were identified with reference to the final LogFrame and various documents describing the anticipated results and expected benefits of the SUD schemes. An attempt was made to enrich the analysis by formulating an effects diagram but changes in direction and emphasis over the life of the programme meant that this added very little to what was already apparent from the outline of the SUD model and the final LogFrame. 4. Twelve evaluation questions were formulated and presented at the initial briefing session on 06 August 2009. As a result of comments made during the briefing, the EC Delegation suggested that the extent to which the rights of indigenous peoples had been respected be raised as a separate question rather than being discussed under the more general heading of consideration for crosscutting issues. 5. The only other significant change to the original list of evaluation questions resulted from difficulties gathering information to assess the cost efficiency of the programme. This was always going to be difficult because of UDP’s twin objectives, one of which was to develop a replicable model that would be of use to an unknown and indeterminable number of beneficiaries. It was impossible to segregate the funds and other resources allocated to development of the SUD model from those used to achieve other results more directly relating to improvements in the incomes of upland farmers. The Mission therefore proposed an analysis of the costs and benefits of promoting diversified farming systems which was the only intervention specifically designed to increase farmer incomes. 6. The problem was that there was no detailed or reliable income data available from the DFS sites. None of the farmers had any written records and the recalled sales ranged from less than PhP 1,000 (at sites that were poorly maintained and/or where most of the produce was consumed or given away) to over PhP 200,000 per year (on a well maintained DFS model site). With the range in benefits being as great within barangays as across provinces, it proved impossible to make any meaningful estimate of how many of the 12,481 reported adopters of diversified farming systems were earning PhP 1,000 or less and how many were earning closer to PhP 200,000 per year. There was the added complication that most of the fruit trees provided by UDP, which had represented a significant proportion of the total investment, have yet to start bearing fruit. The attempt to produce any cost-benefit analysis was therefore abandoned. 7. The Findings and Analysis presented in Section 3 of the report are based on the twelve evaluation questions listed in Table 1.


5

Table 1

Evaluation Questions

Q1. What benefits have been derived from Land Use Based Barangay Development Planning?

Q2. To what extent has the adoption of diversified farming systems led to sustained increases in household income?

Q3. How important was the role of the Community Based Extension Teams in facilitating the adoption of more diversified farming systems?

Q4. How effective have initiatives on barangay forest protection and management been in protecting the remaining forest areas?

Q5. To what extent has the labour-based maintenance of barangay roads helped stimulate the economy of upland communities?

Q6. How well was the UDP-Rural Financial Services (RFS) scheme implemented?

Q7. How well has the Upland Southern Mindanao-Credit and Institutional Building Program (USM-CIBP) been operationalised to achieve its objectives?

Q8. To what extent did the support for village enterprises result in increased economic activity in the upland communities?

Q9. To what extent have LGUs, the LMP-MDC, DA, DENR and NGOs been able to replicate the SUD schemes using their own resources?

Q10. How relevant are the SUD schemes to current initiatives under the Mindanao Trust Fund-Reconstruction and Development Program (MTF-RDP)?

Q.11 To what extent were the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) respected in UDP project activities?

Q12. How effectively were other crosscutting issues addressed by the UDP?

2.2 Collection of information 8. The approach taken by the mission included: discussions with officials of national line agencies, financial institutions and foreign assisted projects in Manila and at the regional level; interviews with officials of local government units at the barangay, municipal and provincial levels; field visits to SUD scheme sites; interaction with barangay residents in focus group discussions; and a review of secondary data and information. 9. Technical reports and information on the SUD schemes were sourced from the www.saveuplands.org website whilst the UDP’s global work plan, annual reports, and external monitoring reports were obtained from the EC Delegation. 10. Field work began in Davao Oriental on the day after the initial briefing session. Twenty-three municipalities were visited in the provinces of Davao Oriental, Davao del Norte, Compostela Valley, Sarangani, South Cotabato and Davao del Sur. The Mission

1/ met with officials at the provincial and

municipal LGUs before proceeding to barangays where the SUD schemes had been implemented. By organising visits according to the mix of schemes implemented in each barangay, the team was

1 / The evaluation team comprised of Glynn P. Baker (Team Leader), Dennis Craggs (Agriculture and Agri-

business), Enrique Nuñez (Natural Resource Management), Connie Hina (Micro-Finance), Arturo Aportadera (Institutional Development/Capacity- Building) and Clovis Ike Payumo (Rural Infrastructure).

http://www.saveuplands.org/


6

able to validate the current status and discuss the impact of interventions in sixty-four barangays between 07 August and 28 August 2009. 11. The number of barangays visited was less than half the total of 144 barangays where the UDP operated, but it was considered adequate to obtain a representative impression of the impact and extent to which SUD schemes had been sustained and replicated after UDP ended. 12. A more important limitation to the analysis was that the Mission did not have access to UDP’s Management Information System (MIS) and very few of the Programme’s internal reports were available in the UDP library at the University of the Southern Philippines (USEP) in Davao City. This meant that the Mission had to reach conclusions without firm data for the size and composition of barangays covered, training undertaken for barangay extension workers, the numbers and inputs provided to DFS adopters, the participants at barangay planning meetings, the sequence of activities and lessons learned in forest protection, the involvement of women in project activities, the costs of different activities, etc.

3 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Land Use Based Barangay Development Planning (LUB-BDP) 13. The purpose of Land Use-based Barangay Development Planning (LUB-BDP) was to produce a long-term development plan wherein the main stakeholders i.e. barangay residents and Indigenous Cultural Communities, the BLGU, the MLGU and others, agree on the sustainable use of natural resources in the barangay. The scheme aimed to enhance existing Barangay Development Plans (BDPs) by providing land use plans delineating forestlands, agricultural lands and settlement areas to ensure regulated land uses. The LUB-BDP was also intended to facilitate the formulation of barangay-level land use policies that would support macro level policies affecting watershed areas and improve local governance especially in relation to the environment and natural resource management. 14. Prior to land-use based planning, UDP facilitated sitio-based community watershed planning to identify and prioritise interventions in the targeted communities. However, the UDP Mid Term Review, conducted in 2003, considered the community watershed approach to be an unclear planning framework which had hampered project implementation. It was recommended that UDP redefine the model and use the administrative barangay as the planning unit. 15. The LUB-BDP scheme was introduced in the latter part of 2005 to facilitate the process whereby communities effectively manage their natural resources on the basis of integrated land use plans that become the entry point for all development projects in the concerned barangay. By the end of the Programme, UDP had facilitated the preparation of LUB-BDPs in 175 barangays and all of these had been endorsed by the Barangay Development Council/Barangay Council. Of the endorsed LUB-BDPs, 114 were presented at meetings of the Municipal Development Council/Sangguniang Bayan.

Table 2 Accomplishments of the LUB-BDP scheme

Activity Indicators End of

Project Target Completed by

June 2007 % Completion

June 2007

BDPs packaged 120 175 146%

BDPs approved by BDC/Barangay Council 120 175 146%

BDPs presented at MDC/SB meetings 120 114 95%

Source: UDP Programme Final Report – 2007 16. Management Information Systems (MIS) for incorporating BDP outputs in annual investment plans and monitoring other SUD schemes were installed in twenty-five MLGUs and staff provided with source code as well as operations and technical manuals. PLGU staff was trained on the MIS applications so they would be in a position to provide back-up support to the MLGUs as required.


7

17. Fourteen MLGUs were also provided with a Geographical Information System (GIS) and trained so that they could share their expertise with other MLGUs that wanted to copy the system. The PLGUs were also given the GIS and large-sized plotters to provide mapping services to the MLGUs when required.

3.1.1 Verification

18. All eighteen of the municipalities visited by the Mission continue to support the LUB-BPP scheme and seventeen had replicated the scheme in other barangays after UDP ended. However, the pace of producing additional LUB-BDPs varied and was influenced by factors such as: the decisiveness of the MLGU and BLGU; the availability of MLGU funds; the commitment of barangays leaders in pursuing the objectives of their BDPs, political will, technical and logistical support from MLGUs and PLGUs; and, technical expertise and support from DENR and other agencies. 19. The approved BDPs were being used as the basis for preparing annual investment plans (AIPs) in eighteen of the twenty-one barangays verified by the Mission. The other barangays had put the LUB-BDPs aside following changes in barangay leadership at the October 2007 election. 20. Some of the GIS and MIS software installed in the provinces and municipalities was still functional and being used by the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO), however, in many MGLUs the MIS had been abandoned owing to hardware and software problems. Many of the MLGUs also indicated that personnel trained for encoding and MIS report generation had been transferred or resigned.

3.1.2 Impact

21. An important impact of the LUB-BDP scheme has been the inclusion of environmental protection and conservation practices in barangay development plans. Through the LUB-BDP process barangays were able to identify local issues and plan for the regeneration of forests; protection of riparian zones; protection of critical slopes; adoption of agroforestry technologies; and, the introduction of diversified farming practices. Such activities were rarely included in earlier BDPs which tended to be heavily biased towards infrastructure and traditional livelihood projects more suited to lowland areas. 22. The barangay viewed the scheme as a community-based approach to natural resource management; however, long-term improvements to the availability and quality of resources may be less than anticipated since the planning unit was the barangay and not the watershed. While it is important to retain the barangay as a planning unit for administrative purposes, the watershed should be seen as the most practical planning unit for an ecosystem approach to resolving environmental issues. 23. The capacity of BLGUs to undertake participatory community-based planning was undoubtedly improved by the LUB-BDP scheme, but when it came to updating the plans, it seems that many barangay officials prefer to fall back on more traditional methods, such as barangay council meetings with or without a general assembly, for revising the list of prioritised projects. There have also been mixed results in the determination of BLGUs to implement plans; in some barangays there have been positive results and impact (i.e. places where ordinances enacted on the basis of the land use plan are strictly enforced), while in others the results are unsatisfactory (i.e. protected areas which are no longer protected or trained barangay officers who do not make use of their BDPs). 24. Although the LUB-BDP scheme was primarily intended to transform the way development was planned at the barangay level, it also improved and enhanced the planning process of the municipalities. Improved institutional capacities at the MLGU level were demonstrated through the initiation of land-use based planning in barangays not covered by UDP, the updating of older BDPs and confidence in marketing the barangay development plans for funding by other government agencies and foreign donors. However, such improvements may not necessarily be a result of UDP’s intervention alone since similar capacity-building initiatives have been undertaken by NGOs and a variety of foreign assisted projects. 25. No matter how or by whom institutional capacities were improved, a significant benefit from the preparation of LUB-BDPS has been the funding secured for barangay-level projects from


8

national government agencies and foreign assisted projects. This resulted from an understanding on the part of both BLGUs and MLGUs that the LUB-BDP would serve as an entry point for investment in the barangay. The BDPs have been used to access funding from DPWH (for roads and water supply projects), DOH (for medical supplies and health services), DA (for abaca and rubber seedlings), DENR (seedlings for reforestation) and private enterprises such as Nestle Philippines for agriculture projects. Agricultural, livelihood and small-scale infrastructure projects prioritised in the LUB-BDPs have been implemented in at least twenty-one barangays with funding support from the World Bank’s Mindanao Rural Development Project (MRDP). 26. LUB-BDP has also promoted the social and economic agenda of barangays in terms of improved delivery of basic social services. Through the BDPs, basic social services such as health, nutrition, education, road maintenance and water supply infrastructure projects have been identified and given due recognition in the Annual Investment Plan (AIP) of the barangay. 27. There was evidence of improved participation and collaboration among LGUs, Community Based Organisations (CBOs), Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs), NGOs and other groups with a stake in the conservation and protection of upland resources. Factors that facilitated success of the LUB-BDP process included: effective partnership and co-management arrangements; collaborations forged through MOAs, site management agreements (SMAs); partnership agreements with the private sector; the matching of grants and sharing of resources; and, effective moral leadership at the BLGU and MLGU level. 28. The LUB-BDP scheme provided some improvements to human capital, such as improved planning skills, knowledge on upland farming and resource management capabilities of community members. There were also indications that the LUB-BDP exercise initiated changes so that some barangay and community leaders now look at participatory planning as a way to address land tenure issues in the uplands. 29. Existing tenurial arrangements such as Community Based Forestry Management (CBFM), Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) and other stewardship agreements had been recognised in the BDPs of several barangays visited. The BDPs indicated these areas for easy reference not only by barangay leaders but also by other stakeholders, however, the maps were not always readily available in the barangay and in some cases the overlays were never returned by the Service Provider contracted to package the BDP. 30. The LUB-BDP resulted in some improvement to physical capital in the barangays, but only to the extent that funding was available for projects prioritised in BDPs. In many cases, barangay residents expressed disappointed that so few of the projects included in the BDPs had materialised. This might be considered a negative impact of the LUB-BDP scheme in that it raised expectations of projects being implemented without seriously addressing the crucial issue of how the projects were going to be funded. 31. Despite the participatory and inclusive nature of the LUB-BDP process, there were varying degrees of ownership of projects emanating from the BDPs. Some barangay leaders and residents of the upland communities considered the production of a LUB-BDP to be more of a requirement for accessing projects from the UDP than a tool for development planning and resource management. They saw no need to pursue the planning process introduced by UDP since the project had ended and with it funding to pursue their projects. This attitude could have resulted from a combination of several factors such as: inadequate social/community preparation; poor facilitation skills of the service provider and/or MPDO staff involved; previous experience with the non-implementation of plans prepared for other agencies; lack of awareness; and/or, the commitment of barangay leaders and other influential persons. 32. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any documentation of lessons learned during the LUB-BDP process in each barangay which makes it difficult to assess the quality of participation during meetings and hinders the replication of best practices. The reports submitted by the service providers engaged to facilitate the process failed to give a full assessment of the capability building efforts and merely reported on the activities undertaken during their contract period. 33. A weakness in the LUB-BDP scheme was that it did not comprehensively address vulnerability issues, particularly on climate change, hazards such as droughts, forest fires, landslides, floods and storms and how to increase the resilience of people and ecosystems. While


9

the LUB-BDP manual had hoped to address these issues, there was no disaster and risk management plan integrated in the LUB-BDP. Although not directed towards addressing vulnerabilities of communities, the implementation of projects identified in the BDP has, to some extent, helped mitigate the effects of deforestation in the uplands and addressed issues such as soil erosion, forest fires, siltation of rivers and the loss of habitat. 34. Changes to the external institutional environment were an important consequence of the LUB-BDP scheme. In particular, the development of better governance as a consequence of local level empowerment and greater public awareness and political support for environmental issues helped foster changes in priorities at the municipal and barangay level. This created scope for addressing local-level environmental priorities in national policies as exemplified by Executive Order 606 directing national line agencies to work with LGUs in the pursuit of sustainable upland development.

3.1.3 Adoption and continuation of the LUB-BDP scheme

35. Although the LUB-BDP scheme was primarily intended to transform the way development was planned at the barangay level, it also enhanced the planning processes of municipalities. All the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators (MPDCs) were convinced that participatory planning at the barangay level was a worthwhile and beneficial exercise that facilitated the formulation of comprehensive municipal development plans. All the MPDCs and most of the Mayors expressed their desire to extend the production of LUB-BDPs to all barangays in the municipality. The main constraint was said to be availability of funds although this really boils down to a matter of political will and the priorities of the chief executive. Once the team from the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) has been trained, it only costs from PhP 10,000 to PhP 50,000 to prepare and package a land-use based barangay development plan. 36. The extent to which LUB-BDPs were prepared after UDP ended using municipal funds, sometimes with a barangay counterpart, is shown in Table 3. Note that Table 3 only includes replication in the eighteen municipalities where credible data was provided

2/.

Table 3 Preparation of LUB-BDPs after UDP ended

Province

MLGUs visited by

PCR Mission

Number LUB-BDPs July 2007

Number LUB-BDPs

August 2009

MGLUs with LUB-BDPs prepared after UDP

% MLGUs replicating LUB-BDPs

Davao Oriental 6 44 80 5 83%

Compostela Valley 2 29 37 2 100%

Davao del Norte 1 16 26 1 100%

Sarangani 4 37 37 3 75%

South Cotabato 2 31 46 2 100%

Davao del Sur 3 18 59 3 100%

Totals 18 175 285 16 89%

Source: MPDOs in municipalities visited by the Post Completion Mission 37. The two most important factors supporting replication of the LUB-BDP scheme were political will and the technical capability of the MPDO. In most cases, the MPDO initiated the preparation of additional LUB-BDPs but there was also pressure coming from barangays that had seen the benefits a well prepared BDP could bring in terms of funding for development projects. Phase II of the World Bank’s Mindanao Rural Development Project (MRDP) was an important stimulus to the preparation of LUB-BDPs in all provinces formally covered by the UDP. Only those barangays with development plans of the LUB-BDP standard are eligible for infrastructure and livelihood projects under the MRDP. The only enhancements required by the MRDP are the inclusion of additional sections on Income Generation and the barangay Poverty Reduction Agenda. At least fourteen of the

2/ Other municipalities claimed to have replicated the scheme but were unable to locate the BDPs.


10

barangays where BDPs were prepared before UDP ended and seven barangays where BDPs were prepared after the UDP ended have benefited from PhP 2.5 million made available for agricultural, livelihood and small-scale infrastructure projects under the MRDP Community Fund for Agricultural Development or CFAD.

3.2 Diversified Farming Systems (DFS) 38. Diversified farming systems (DFS) were introduced to increase the productivity of upland farming and thereby reduce the need for farmers to grow such expansive areas of subsistence crops on fragile sloping land. The aim was that steep slopes farmed with short-term crops like corn would be gradually converted to perennial cropping based on fruit and other long-term cash crops. This was expected to protect the upland resource base from erosion whilst generating more income for upland farmers. 39. Under the DFS approach farmers were encouraged to grow short term crops for immediate cash requirements and medium term crops to provide intermediate income until longer term tree crops provided a sustainable income. It further addressed the need for sustainable farming systems that applied soil and water conservation measures appropriate to different land units (usually distinguished by slope) and incorporated the principles of dualistic cropping by promoting cash cropping on flat or slightly sloping lands, and tree farming on moderate to steep slopes. 40. The economic justification was based on a comparison of tree crops and vegetables compared with corn as the reference crop

3/.

Table 4 Potential income per hectare from a combination of different crops

(Gross Income - Production costs not deducted)

Crop Ave. Yield Mt / ha / yr

Farm Gate Price

PhP /kg

Income PhP / ha /

year PhP/m

2 Area m

2 PhP / year

Corn 4.0 2 harvests

7.0 28,000 3 10,000 28,000

Lanzones 3.0 20.0 60,000 6 1,000 6,000

Eggplant 8.5 8.0 66,400 7 1,000 6,640

Papaya 14.5 5.8 84,100 8 1,000 8,410

Okra 9.0 9.0 81,000 8 1,000 8,100

Banana 13.0 6.7 87,100 9 3,000 26,130

Mango 6.5 18.0 115,200 12 1,000 11,520

Durian 3.5 42.5 144,500 14 1,000 14,450

Pineapple 35.5 6.7 234,500 23 1,000 23,450

TOTAL (excluding corn) 10,000 98,700

Adapted from SUD Model, UDP, 2007

41. Using the above figures adapted from the UDP description of the SUD model a combination of fruit and tree crops, plus vegetables (without corn) covering one hectare has the potential to provide a gross income of almost PhP 100,000 /ha /year. This compares very favourably with corn which will earn only PhP 28,000/year from the same area. This is a clear economic justification for diversifying the farming system away from a reliance on corn; but the DFS promoted by UDP was also intended to reduce cultivation on steep slopes and reduce soil erosion.

3/ UDP SUD model - April 2007


11

42. The numbers of farmers and area reported to have been converted to DFS are shown in Table 5. In addition, the UDP Final Report states that 1,726 heads of breeding goats were distributed and seventy-eight fishponds established as alternative food and income sources. Eleven communal and six municipal managed nurseries were also supported for the production of fruit tree seedlings and, to a lesser extent, timber trees.

Source: UDP Programme Final Report 2007

3.2.1 Verification

43. The twenty DFS learning sites visited during the course of the mission were generally well maintained and served as a good visible demonstration to other farmers in the barangay. The learning sites were all managed by farmers who accepted their role as a showcase to others and readily gave advice as required. They had been well selected and were knowledgeable about DFS. They received comprehensive training from UDP as well as free inputs to establish the sites. These inputs included fruit tree seedlings, vegetable seeds, goats and in some cases assistance with establishing hedgerows or stocking fish ponds. 44. As well as visiting the learning sites, the Mission visited other farmer co-operators who had received inputs to diversify production on parts of their farms. Most of these were found to be of a lesser quality than the learning sites; for example, small areas or no short-duration crops, incorrect planting distances for trees, diseased plants, inappropriate/ineffective contour strips, etc.

3.2.2 Impact

45. The base line figure for farmer earnings was PhP 12,000 – PhP 54,000 /ha/year in 2003 4/.

These levels were confirmed by the mission in discussions with LGU staff and farmers. With the types and amounts of inputs provided to DFS co-operators it was estimated that one hectare of diversified crops which included 1,000 m

2 of vegetables with the remainder covered by fruit trees

and bananas would have the potential to generate over PhP 100,000 a year which compares very favourably to the 2003 income levels. 46. Regrettably, the Mission was only able to obtain rough estimates of current income levels from half of the DFS Learning Sites visited (see Table 6 and Annex E). The other farmers were either reluctant to disclose the figures or genuinely had no idea how much they had earned (with the implication that it was not a very significant amount). Of those farmers that could recall their income, only one, with a very good example of diversified farming, exceeded the PhP 100,000 /ha/year mark while all the rest were at similar levels to the 2003 base line figures. 47. The explanation for this rather disappointing performance of the DFS is that only the farmers with banana or those that persevered with vegetable production are earning significant amounts from DFS at this time. Around half of the farmers have already stopped growing or obtain very little income from the short and medium-term crop components of the DFS. They, along with a majority of the other DFS adopters, are waiting for the fruit trees such as lanzones, rambutan, durian, mangosteen, pommelo, etc. which are not yet mature enough to bear fruit. It is only on learning sites established early in the development of the DFS model that farmers have started to earn significant amounts from the fruit trees.

4/ Developing a model for sustainable upland farming in Southern Mindanao, Final report of the Upland

Farming / Soil & Water Conservation Specialist, Kenneth R S Proud July - November 2005

Table 5 DFS Accomplishments




June 2007

Farmers with established DFS 10,000 12,481 125%

Areas with DFS (hectares) 12,000 10,751 90%

Fruit trees planted 800,000 381,048 48%

Fruit trees surviving 640,000 309,092 48%


12

Table 6 Examples of current income levels from DFS Learning Sites

Activities Earnings

PhP / Year

Well maintained DFS – Barangay Tagubo, Mati 200,000

Mixed vegetables (Bulb Onions, Carrots, Tomatoes) 50,000

500 hills Bananas (Lakatan class A) 1 ha mixed w/ tree crops 43,200

600 hills Bananas (Latundan) 1 ha mixed w/ tree crops 28,800

Tilapia / catfish from fish ponds 24,000

Tomatoes (three harvests) 24,000

300 hills Bananas (Cardava), est. 0.5 ha mixed w/ tree crops 19,200

One harvest of 16 rambutan trees (first bearing) 16,000

48. As of August 2009, banana production of all types, cadaver, latundan and lakatan has been the most lucrative component of the DFS with vegetables such as tomatoes, onions, carrots, cucumber and bell peppers providing the more industrious farmers with valuable but seasonal sources of income. The fruit trees planted between 2004 and 2006 will start coming into production in the next few years and can be expected to provide income gains for many more families than are currently benefiting from the DFS. 49. One of the Learning Site farmers reported sales of worm casts for organic fertiliser amounting to PhP 1,000 / month from an estimated 10 m

2 of composting area. In addition, worms

were being sold at one peso each, often during farmer visits to his learning site. Vermiculture is only carried out by the DFS farmers with livestock as they were told that an input of animal manure is required. However, it is possible to raise worms without manure although their growth and multiplication will be slower. Nevertheless vermiculture is a useful way to generate income and organic fertiliser from waste vegetation and would be a valuable addition to a fully diversified farm. Under UDP it was promoted as part of a “3-in-1” scheme comprising banana, mushroom culture and vermiculture. 50. Goats featured on a number of the DFS Learning Sites, but were rarely found on other farmer co-operator sites. The Pre-completion Mission Review also noted this and reported that the low uptake was due to the inability to meet pre-conditions of establishing forage plots/hedgerows and housing for a cut-and-carry feeding system. In addition to a reluctance to establish leguminous hedgerows, the restriction of UDP inputs to a maximum value of PhP 3,000 per co-operator is likely to have reduced demand as the goats were valued at PhP 1,500 each. With only PhP 3,000 to “spend” on diversification, it is quite understandable that the vast majority of farmers opted to plant banana suckers at PhP 4.00 each or fruit trees at PhP 30 to PhP 120 each. 51. The Land Unit-based DFS scheme advocated dualistic farming in which reduced areas of subsistence crops such as corn would be planted on flat or gently sloping land while enlarged areas of perennial crops would be planted on steeper sloping land. The Mission encountered an alternative to this where farmers with an established income from fruit trees or cacao were purchasing their subsistence needs rather than cultivating sloping land for corn or rice. This could happen on more farms once the long-term crops come into full bearing and leads to the preferred option of only perennial crops being planted on sloping land in the uplands.

3.2.3 Sustainability

52. The greatest inducement for farmers to sustain their diversified farms is the income they expect their current mix of crops / enterprises to generate in the future. Banana production has been a lucrative component of the DFS as has vegetable production although the latter is less likely to have been sustained over successive cropping cycles. However, the potential income from fruit trees is the greatest motivation for most farmers to continue maintaining the DFS plots. 53. Erosion control was an important element aimed at sustainability of the DFS model and some of the municipal Agricultural Technicians (ATs) seem to have been adhered to the old SMAP policy of not handing over fruit trees or other planting material until the farmer had marked out and


13

planted contour lines. The contours could be planted with leguminous hedgerows such as flemengia or rensoni, natural grassy vegetation, or introduced grasses such as vetiver or napier. The recommended barrier depended on land classification criteria (slope gradient and length, soil type and depth etc.) and is well documented in the technical notes for soil and water conservation

5/.

Contours lines are still in evidence and effectively reducing sheet erosion on some of the learning sites and model farms, but these are managed by the most diligent and well trained farmers that were given free inputs. In most other cases, contoured barriers were intermittent, misaligned, or non-existent and would do little to reduce erosion if the sloping areas were cultivated with short duration crops. 54. Some of the DFS sites that were not being well maintained were in barangays where farmers were reported to have been initially suspicious of the programme and apprehensive that they would lose control of their land (Lupon municipality, Davao Oriental). In another barangay of the same municipality, farmers had expected to be paid for planting the trees and seeds provided by UDP. Neither of these situations bode well for the future promotion or sustained adoption of DFS in the area. Although these were very much isolated incidents, they indicate that were some difficulties with community interaction, misunderstandings and possibly a lack of perceived ownership by farmers participating in the DFS scheme. 55. To prevent such misperceptions in the future, programmes which provide agricultural or other inputs intended to improve economic circumstances and change behaviour should be carefully designed with appropriate mechanisms to promote farmer ownership of activities and sustainability. There are several elements to such a design which involve a dynamic interaction between participants and service providers and which have the overall effect of promoting sustainability, self-reliance and reducing dependence on external sources. This would include clear explanations of programme aims and methods of working, full farmer participation in identifying, planning and implementing activities, a counterpart contribution and continuous step-by-step support and training.

3.2.4 Replication of DFS schemes

56. Most of the provincial and municipal LGUs visited are replicating diversified cropping in their areas although this is not always identified as following the UDP model (see Annex E for the extent of replication in different municipalities). National programs of the DA, provincial programs of the PLGUs and local initiatives such as the Davao Integrated Development Programme also promote the diversification of farm systems through perennial crops. 57. Although coffee was not a high priority during the time of UDP, a number of MLGUs were vigorously promoting this crop as a replication of DFS, notably the LGU of Tupi in South Cotabato. The basis for promotion is the strong market demand and presence of a private sector buyer (Nestle Philippines). Nestle has provided four clones which bear fruit at different times of the year which fits the DFS objective of evening out income flows to the farmer. 58. Two of the most important, and interrelated, factors influencing replication of the DFS scheme by LGUs have been positive political support and the availability of funds. A particularly noticeable example of this was in Davao Oriental where the governor is very supportive of the DFS approach and has encouraged the municipalities to replicate the scheme within their respective capacities. Other examples of positive leadership promoting DFS were encountered in the municipality of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley which has allocated PhP 500,000 for upland farming, and Laak which has replicated DFS in all forty barangays of the municipality. 59. Conversely there are examples of where a change in political leadership in May 2007 brought an end to the promotion of DFS because funds were allocated to alternative priorities, e.g. Malalag municipality in Davao del Sur. 60. It is also noticeable that those local governments with higher Internal Revenue Allotments, notably the first and second class municipalities, are more likely to have allocated funds for the promotion of DFS. 61. Another factor affecting the uptake of DFS and its subsequent success/quality is farmer interest and diligence. It is acknowledged by municipal staff that some farmers are simply more open and interested in alternative approaches than others and that these are the ones which have

5/ Slope Treatment Oriented Practices UDP Technical note


14

been the most successful with diversified farming – the so called ‘early adopters’. An independent study undertaken in 2007 found that exposure to DFS farms and contact with the municipal Agricultural Technician, the Barangay Extension Worker and the Farmers Training Group were the most important factors for successful adoption of DFS

6/.

62. Other aspects that need to be considered are the levels of poverty and opportunity. Farm diversification is less common among lower income families which do not have the money to buy fruit tree seedlings and other inputs even if they do have some form of land title. These families are obliged to work for other wealthier farmers as well as tending to their own farm to meet subsistence needs. Ironically, it is these families which are marginalised to the less fertile and fragile slopes and which need more than just advice and encouragement to diversify their farms. 63. In Sarangani province, the agriculture office of Alabel municipality made an effort to replicate DFS in barangay Alegria but only fifteen out of ninety farmers were considered successful. This was attributed to the poor response of the resident indigenous people and was very likely to have been due to a lack of understanding of the cultural nuances and development priorities of the area. The provincial government is reported to have had more success implementing a special project of upland DFS to support the resettlement of NPA returnees with a budget of PhP 500,000. 64. In addition to that initiated by LGUs, there are many examples of DFS having been adopted through farmer to farmer exchange with no assistance from UDP or the LGU. One of the most notable occurred in barangay Burias in the municipality of Glan, Sarangani province while UDP was still in operation. Burias was not covered by UDP but farmers there had observed the activities in their neighbouring barangay and were so interested that they approached the farmers there directly to obtain seeds of vegetative hedgerows and information about DFS. Subsequently forty-five families purchased fruit tree seedlings, banana suckers and vegetable seeds to establish DFS farms covering 23 hectares. Although the fruit trees are not bearing fruit yet they are selling bananas and one interviewee indicated sales amounting to PhP 500/week, plus other income from vegetables. 65. There are other unverified reports of farmer-farmer replication for example in barangay Tubaon, Tarragona municipality, Davao Oriental, where 600 farmers are reported to have diversified their farms albeit without the benefit of contours. In Malita farmers interested in establishing DFS are reported as paying PhP 15-30 for fruit tree seedlings which is a strong indication of their assessment of the viability of the enterprise. A successful high value vegetable farmer in barangay Tagaytay, Magsaysay municipality, Davao del Sur who frequently shows his farm to others estimated that up to 100 other farmers have started producing vegetables in the area. 66. Contour strips are far less common on farmer replicated areas of DFS which indicates a widespread lack of interest in the practice although there is acknowledgement that they are valuable for erosion control. The reality is that there are still vast areas of the uplands where steep slopes are being cultivated for annual crops and are not protected against erosion. Based on the experience from UDP and its predecessor SMAP, it seems very unlikely that the uplands in Mindanao will be protected against erosion with vegetative contours planted by farmers. The more likely scenario is that the steep sloping areas currently planted with corn will gradually be converted to perennial cropping with little or no protection against erosion in the interim period. The rate of conversion will be largely dependent on government or private sector funded “plant-now pay-later” schemes for perennial crops. This is where the future for sustainable development of the uplands lies: widespread planting of perennial crops provided to farmers free of charge in recognition of the fact that it is an investment in their futures that they would not otherwise be able to afford.

3.3 Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery (UAED) 67. The objective of the UAED scheme was to introduce diversified farming systems to upland farmers on lands delineated for agricultural land use in the LUB-BDP. The need to improve the extension service to achieve the DFS targets grew from the realisation that the existing LGU extension services were insufficient to encourage farmers to adopt new techniques and technology. The municipal extension workers were too few, poorly trained and lacked the resources and mobility to effectively service farmers in the less accessible upland barangays.

6/ Assessment of the crucial factors including economic factors that made upland farmers change from

unsustainable mono cropping farming system to sustainable diversified farming system - SHED 2007.


15

68. UDP sought to strengthen and improve the existing extension system through the active involvement of a network of players particularly LGUs and their Municipal Agriculturists (MAs) and Agricultural Technicians (ATs), Barangay Extension Workers (BEWs), Farmer Training Groups (FTGs) with members from each sitio or purok, community-based organisations (CBO) such as the Upland Barangay Association (UBA) and NGOs. The AT, BEW and FTG members together with their CBO comprise the Community Based Extension Team or CBET. 69. The emphasis was on strengthening the CBET through a redefinition of the roles and accountability of key players, improvement of skills in extension delivery and encouragement for the provinces and municipalities to allocate higher budgets for agricultural development. Extensive capacity building, training and exposure of the ATs, BEWs and FTGs were undertaken along with the establishment of model farms and learning sites in the target barangays. 70. Central to the CBET were the BEWs and FTGs. The BEWs were appointed in consultation with Barangay officials, paid a minimal honorarium and were under the administrative supervision of the Barangay Chairman. They received training, were taken on study tours to learning sites / model farms where improved technology had already been adopted and were expected to work under the spirit of voluntarism. Operating in close co-ordination with the municipal AT and the CBO, the BEW’s role was to: assist farmers to plan and implement diversified farming systems; organise farmers’ consultation meetings to discuss urgent farm problems; and, advise on production and pest/disease control. They were expected to report to the barangay office when the AT visited the barangay. 71. Physical accomplishments related to the installation of community based extension teams in barangays where DFS was being promoted are shown in Table 7. The Programme made a considerable effort to develop the expertise of all members of the CBET through a comprehensive training program in conjunction with the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) of the Department of Agriculture. A comprehensive training program was undertaken in conjunction with the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) of the Department of Agriculture to develop the expertise of all members of the CBET

Table 7 Accomplishments of the UAED scheme




June 2007

ATs deployed for upland agriculture 120 206 172%

Municipal LGUs with functioning Community Based Extension Teams

30 38 127%

Barangays with BEWs 150 361 241%

Sitios with FTG members 480 551 115%

Learning sites established/ functional 400 539 135%

Source: UDP Programme Final Report – 2007

3.3.1 Verification

72. The Mission visited twenty municipalities to assess the impact of the UAED scheme. It was clear that all the MLGU Agricultural Technicians had been actively involved in the CBET operations and were very knowledgeable about diversified farming systems. Barangay extension workers, or AMBETS

7/ as they are known in Davao Oriental, were still active in all but two of the barangays

visited and their services and were appreciated by municipal LGUs, barangay officials and local farmers, particularly during the time of UDP. They indicated that they had been well trained on DFS and were continuing to apply the learning on their own farms. Skills upgrading was an important aspect of CBET capacity building and the training was appreciated by the ATs as much as the BEWs and members of the FTGs.

7/ The Agriculturang Makamasa Barangay Extension Technician (AMBET) has the same functions as a BEW.


16

73. Although the farmers training groups were active and received training during UDP, few of them were still operating as formal groups in the extension process and even fewer were still receiving training from the MLGUs. One notable exception was in the municipality of Laak municipality in Compostela Valley which carries out regular training for all its FTG groups. 74. The twenty learning sites visited by the Mission (Annex F) were all in good condition two years after UDP support ended. This positive aspect is probably due to the fact that these sites are owned by a ‘model’ farmer who was well selected as being industrious and interested in trying out new ideas on his or her farm (almost one-third of those identified as learning site co-operators were women). In addition, the owners of learning sites were provided with free inputs and were encouraged to maintain the plots as a result of the sometimes quite significant increases in income they earned. However, there were only a few examples of learning sites having become “Earning Sites” in the sense that the farmers were earning income from the sales of seedlings or by charging PhP 5.00 “entrance fees” to those attending on-site training

3.3.2 Impact

75. The presence of barangay extension workers has been a particularly important element in the promotion of DFS and its associated economic benefits. Being available in the barangay to provide support and advice to farmers they are a valuable mechanism which could not be provided by the agricultural technician based in the municipality. 76. The municipal ATs were reported as having been the main source of information for model farmers managing the learning sites, but it is likely that the BEWs played a more significant role with the hundreds of other farmers that went on to establish DFS with support from the UDP. 77. The extension training carried out by UDP and ATI had a positive effect on the knowledge levels of ATs, BEWs and members of the FTGs. This improved the credibility of the extension system at the barangay level and had a positive impact on the ability of farmers to diversify their farms. These links to the barangay and sitio level also led to greater confidence in the extension network continuing to support them after UDP ended. 78. The CBET as a whole was instrumental in facilitating the adoption of more diversified farming systems. What is evident, however, is the central and key role played by the BEWs in supporting farmer adopters and providing a direct link to the municipal offices of agriculture. BEWs had been maintained in all the municipalities visited by the Mission and many cases the MLGU has appointed BEWs in barangays not covered by UDP (including lowland barangays). With this clear endorsement of the BEWs, it can be reasonably expected that their status and value is similar in other areas not visited by the Mission. The logical conclusion is that the BEW plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of the CBET strengthened by the UAED scheme. 79. Other elements contributing to the effectiveness of the UAED scheme were: the visual demonstrations of diversified farming (learning sites and model farms) operated by well respected local farmers to show what can be achieved and how; farmer to farmer transfer of knowledge facilitated by farmer training groups; the hands on skills training for farmers, BEWs and municipal Agricultural Technicians; and, farmer cross visits to profitable, well managed and diversified farms in other areas. 80. Without these key elements the transfer of techniques and adoption rates of DFS would have been much reduced and quality of replicated farms poorer. This is a view confirmed by an independent study in 2007 which found that exposure to DFS farms and contact with the AT, BEW and FTG were the most important factors for the adoption of DFS.


81. In all municipalities, except Tupi in South Cotabato, the BEWs have been maintained and in many cases the numbers have increased. The BEWs continue to receive honorarium of varying amounts from PhP 100/month to PhP 2,000/month paid from a combination of provincial, municipal and barangay funds. However, those with the lower honorarium and others not receiving the full amount promised by the BLGU/MLGU or PLGU appeared to be less motivated than their better paid counterparts. There were also examples of BEWs being motivated by automatic inclusion in “plant-now-pay-later” and other promotional programs of the municipal and provincial governments.


17

82. In Tupi municipality the BEW position was discontinued in 2008 due to financial constraints, however, because of the value of these extension workers to the municipal agriculturalist, she is lobbying for BEWs to be reinstated in all barangays in 2010 with an honorarium of PhP 800 from the MLGU plus a contribution from the barangay. The BEWs are clearly seen as an economical means for LGUs to maintain links and the flow of information between the farmers and government offices as well as augmenting the technical services of ATs. 83. While not all the learning sites are still being used by LGUs as training facilities, it is clear that the owners of these sites are continuing to provide advice and technical support to their peers using their farm as an example. This indicates the importance of establishing visible and good-quality demonstrations with farmers whom their peers in the barangay respect and regard as credible. The importance of such visible demonstrations cannot be over emphasised. 84. Municipal agricultural staff indicated the importance of BEWs as a feedback mechanism, i.e. reporting, collecting data, etc. When asked about the flow of information in the opposite direction (i.e. from municipality to BEWs to farmers), the response was less clear. This indicates an area for concern as it represents perhaps the most important role of the BEW - to continually pass on new ideas and techniques for farmers to try themselves. 85. It is important to ensure the BEWs are continuously exposed to new techniques and ideas through appropriate skills training and information. There was evidence of this happening in some municipalities where the BEWs had been on training courses as diverse as fruit tree production, beekeeping, verniculture, fish pond establishment, vegetable production and goat raising organised by the Municipal Agriculturalist, or more commonly, the office of the Provincial Agriculturalist. 86. The municipal ATs are still active in the barangays formally covered by UDP. They are responsible for implementing programs and projects of the PLGUs and MLGUs and commonly use the BEWs to organise meetings and arrange distribution of inputs. However, all the ATs reported that the Office of the Municipal Agriculturalist lacks funds for mobility and other operating expenses needed to provide extension services in all upland barangays. 87. Other elements of the UAED scheme, notably regular training and technical support, worked well during the period of UDP funding but do not appear to have been sustained at the former levels of intensity. This is to be expected as the CBET structure would be difficult for both municipal and barangay LGUs to maintain with their limited resource capacity. Indeed, this was anticipated by UDP which set the functionality of the complete complement of the extension system for a period of three years. Following this farmers were expected to have moved on to ‘higher levels of development and to have been oriented towards a cost-sharing scheme for extension services. There is some evidence that this is starting to happen in some places, for example in barangay Kilalag, in Malita, where on demonstration days at the learning sites farmers are asked to pay an entrance fee of PhP 5 each, plus they have to pay for any seeds or seedlings they take from the site. However, the idea of farmers paying for extension services is still a long way from the reality of upland farming in Southern Mindanao.

3.3.4 Replication

88. As mentioned above, the BEWs are valued by all levels of local government and this is confirmed by the fact that many have gone on to appoint BEWs in barangays not originally covered by UDP. In some cases the PLGUs have played a strong role in replicating the BEWs and are providing a substantial proportion of their honorarium, up to 50% or PhP 1,000 per month in the case of Davao Oriental which currently has 175 of these workers (up from forty at the end of UDP). The other province of note is Sarangani which has increased the number of BEWs from 26 to 156. 89. Many MLGUs have also taken the initiative and appointed BEWs in all barangays of the municipality, including those in the lowlands, without provincial support. This again indicates the value placed on barangay based extension workers and is known to have occurred in the municipalities of San Isidro in Davao Oriental; Laak in Compostela Valley; Tampakan in South Cotabato; and, Malita and Magsaysay in Davao del Sur. 90. The municipality of Laak in Compostela Valley province has developed its own learning centre where it frequently conducts farmers training.


18

91. The Agricultural Training Institute of the DA is developing an e-learning module using the material developed in conjunction with UDP for the upland extension trainers’ manual. This e-learning module will be available on-line and as such has the potential for wide coverage. In addition, the training material is being used for reference purposes in the graduate school of the University of South Eastern Mindanao (USEP) which is attended by students from all regions of the Philippines thus promoting national coverage of the methods developed.

3.4 Barangay Forest Protection and Management (BFPM) 92. The BFPM scheme was designed to empower and assign responsibility to upland communities and the BLGUs to jointly protect and manage the natural resources within their barangay. The scheme has its basis in the devolution of DENR functions on forest management to the local government units under the Local Government Code 7160 and a joint memorandum circular of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) of 2001 concerning the co-management of natural resources. 93. The scheme was formulated to address the continued degradation of the remaining forest areas as a result of illegal logging and the continued expansion of inappropriate farming practices on critical slopes in the watershed areas. The mechanics of the scheme include the identification, delineation and declaration of a site as a protected zone and the formation of a barangay forest protection and management team together with the deputation of representatives from the BLGUs and communities as barangay forest protection officers. 94. The BFPM scheme was expected to result in preserved forests, increased biodiversity, improved water sources and river systems in the uplands and in increased commitment and enhanced capacity of BLGUs and communities to protect and manage natural resources. 95. Physical accomplishments of the BFPM scheme are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Accomplishments of the BFPM scheme

Activity Indicators End of Project

Target Completed

by June 2007

% Completion June 2007

No of Barangays implementing the BFPM scheme and Barangay Forest Protection and Management Committees organized

60 62 103%

Areas declared as Protected Forests

24,000 hectares (revised from initial

target of 5000 hectares)

43,833 hectares (areas surveyed and

delineated as barangay forestland)

183%

Length of Riverbanks Protected 35,000 meters 50,880 meters 145%

Forest trees planted 1 million with 80%

surviving in 120 barangays

430,505 (surviving trees)

54%

No. of Forest Guards and Committee Members trained

380 729 191%

MOA signed between LGUs, DENR, NCIP, BLGU and the stakeholders for the protection of declared sites

30 39

106%


96. Various capacity building activities were undertaken in collaboration with the DENR and NCIP to equip LGUs with the skills to sustain and expand the BFPM scheme to more barangays after UDP ended. 97. A total of 1,198 site management agreements (SMAs) were signed by individual upland dwellers and the BLGUs and fifteen barangay-based nurseries were established.


19

3.4.1 Verification

98. The Mission visited twenty-one barangays where the BFPM scheme had been implemented. A majority had declared forest protected areas through barangay ordinances that were subsequently endorsed by the MLGU. In many barangays, there was a signed memorandum of agreement between the environment and natural resources office or agriculture office at the municipal level. Continued support was being provided by the DENR along with NGOs such as the Philippine Eagle Foundation which works in the barangay forest protected areas in Manay and Ompao in Davao Oriental.

3.4.2 Impact

99. The BFPM scheme has successfully addressed the concerns of people in the barangays over the remaining natural forest areas and has already resulted in improvements to environmental conditions and ecological sustainability in some of the barangays visited. Efforts to protect the remaining pockets of natural forest have been well respected by local communities in those barangays that established their Barangay Forest Protected Area through a barangay ordinance adopted by the MLGU. 100. In some barangays the BFPM has already resulted in observable, but unquantifiable improvements to the environment. The improvements include: changes to the quality and quantity of water resources; the regeneration of forest cover; stabilisation of the watershed through activities in the riparian zone; improved biodiversity; and, a halt to land conversions and landscape degradation. Barangay residents reported a noticeable increase in the population of some animal species such as wild pigs, birds, monkeys, snakes and butterflies. They also pointed out that the greater biological diversity and improvements to forest and water resources provided potential for future economic gain through ecotourism. These changes need to be quantified and a community-based biodiversity monitoring needs to be developed and integrated in the plans of the BLGU and MLGUs. This should be coordinated with the DENR and environmental NGOs as they can provide technical expertise in community-based biodiversity monitoring and documentation. 101. The establishment of barangay forest protected areas alongside the declaration of a Philippine Eagle Reserve in Davao Oriental has resulted in improvements to forest resources and helped protect the habitat of this endangered species. 102. Implementation of the BFPM scheme has begun to mitigate the effects of deforestation such as erosion, siltation, and loss of habitat in some barangays. However, not all barangay officials are equally committed to protection of the remaining forest. This can be attributed their personal and political will to implement the scheme, including the enforcement of policies and ordinances established as a result of the BFPM scheme. The continued protection of forested areas is also threatened by the availability of funds and other socio-cultural, institutional and political issues. There are continued violations such as illegal logging and timber poaching in some barangays. In Barangay Del Pilar in Manay (Davao Oriental) and Barangay Maligang in Kiamba (Sarangani Province), community members and barangay leaders felt no ownership of the barangay forest protected areas and claimed that they were only established as a requirement of the UDP. On the positive side, in Nabunturan, there were reports of improvements in soil stability as a result of the BFPM scheme; however this claim could not be substantiated. 103. There are also potential economic benefits from the BFPM scheme. Improvements in the forest ecosystem have resulted in improvements to water quality and quantity in some places. In Barangay Don Mariano Marcos in Lupon, more stable stream flows from the protected areas are said to have increased lowland agricultural productivity but this needs to be studied further to determine the full impact. In other municipalities, the barangays have seen that improvements in their forest resources will increase opportunities for ecotourism. In Laak, Compostela Valley and San Isidro, Davao del Norte for instance, the MLGU has developed an environmental management program anchored on ecotourism. 104. An important impact of the BFPM scheme is that it has catalysed policy action to strengthen natural resource management through the enactment of ordinances at the barangay and municipal level. The scheme has been instrumental in promoting good governance and transparency in decision making involving the management of natural resources through actions such as the establishment of barangay forest protection councils; the forging of MOAs between agencies and


20

stakeholders; the award of site management agreements; and, the participation of civil society groups as service providers to increase knowledge regarding the status of upland and forest resources in the barangay. 105. Legal instruments for the establishment of Barangay Forest Protected Areas (BFPAs) are already in place in some barangays. In a way, the BFPM has also introduced innovations to environmental policy at the local level by introducing the BFPA as a community-based legal tenurial instrument enacted by barangay ordinance and adopted by the MLGU. This is seen as a means of transferring responsibility for the protection of forests and watershed areas to the direct stakeholders and offers an alternative to watershed proclamations by the DENR. However, the responsibility of the BLGU for forest/upland resources remains tenuous since the Local Government Code did not devolve any forest management functions to the barangay and the DENR still has the constitutional and legal mandate over forest resources. 106. Co-management strategies and site management agreements have improved the state of the remaining forests in some of the barangays visited. The co-management strategy of declared forest protected areas seemed to be the most viable approach of the BFPM; however, coordination among institutions needs to be improved, particularly in the area of enforcement. Also, SMAs forged between the BLGU and MLGU and the establishment of barangay forest protection and management councils / committees have improved capacities of the MLGU and BLGU to manage their resources without having to rely so much on the DENR. 107. There was a good understanding of the benefits of forest protection, conservation and management in many of the barangays visited. The barangay officials and community members in Barangay Ompao, Tarragona; Barangay Santo Rosario, San Isidro; and San Roque, Nabunturan were particularly well able to identify and explain the benefits of soil and water conservation, forest conservation and species diversity as a result of their involvement in the BFPM scheme. Appreciation of the benefits in their barangays encouraged them to advocate for the same initiatives to be replicated in contiguous watersheds or forest areas. 108. The level of community organisation and quality of governance was a factor influencing the success of the BFPM in many barangays. The formation of the Barangay Forest Protection Multi Sectoral Council composed of representatives from influential local sectors (such as education, religious, POs, etc.) contributed to a wider understanding of the importance of forest protection. It also encouraged the active participation of local communities; however, in many barangays the council has been less active since UDP ended and in some barangays it has ceased to function. 109. Success of the BFPM scheme was also related to the technical expertise and experience of those involved. This included the expertise of the service provider who facilitated the planning exercise for BFPM in each barangay; the decisiveness and experience of the MLGU staff (including availability of a full-time MENRO); and, the technical and logistics support provided by DENR.

110. While there have been undoubted successes in the implementation of the BFPM, greater impact may have been achieved with the inclusion of mechanisms for resource pricing, user fees and other incentive systems. At the local level, upland farmers receive no incentive for maintaining or improving the environment through their diversified farming systems or forest management initiatives. At the national level, there are no incentives or rewards to upland farmers based on carbon sequestration values of the forests, biodiversity or watershed protection. In line with the principle of water pricing, an effective policy mechanism needs to be designed for charging agricultural, domestic and industrial users the economic value for the water they use and reserving a proportion of such service charges and user fees for funding watershed management activities. This could include national or local policies to provide incentives to those upland farmers maintaining their lands within safe limits as defined in the LUB-BDP and FLUP.


111. BFPM helped transform the approach to natural resource management at the barangay level, but there are a number of issues that affected the sustainability of the scheme. These include a lack of commitment to the protection of forest areas in barangays such as in Maligang, Kiamba (Sarangani) and Del Pilar, Manay (Davao Oriental); the politics of and between the BLGUs and MLGUs and appreciation of the BFPM scheme by other agencies of the LGU who should be providing logistical and technical support; the location and size of the protected area and forest zones; and, the resolution of conflicts within the barangay protected area.


21

112. Despite these issues, most of the LGUs are eager to sustain the gains of the BFPM scheme and have adopted policies and mechanisms to sustain the benefits of community-based natural resource management. These include the institutionalisation of BFPM in both barangay and municipal development plans and the allocation of budget at the BLGU, MLGU and PLGU level to implement forest protection and management activities such as tree planting and riparian zone protection activities. 113. The signing of MOAs between stakeholders, the erection of signboards, the physical delineation of protected areas, the LGU and Community resolutions, appointment of forest guards, site management agreements with forest occupants etc. are all indicators of a commitment to BFPM, but may not be enough to ensure that the forest areas will continue to be protected. The LGUs, DENR and other relevant agencies will still be required to enforce strict implementation of the forest protection ordinances and laws and the MLGUs must continue to provide logistical and administrative support to the barangay forest guards with assistance from the DENR. 114. The presence of other projects and programs is also likely to help the LGUs sustain forest protection and management initiatives at the community level. There are a number of places where the BFPM scheme has facilitated the mobilisation of funds from other foreign assisted projects. Among these are the World Bank (WB)’s Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project Phase II (ARCDP2) and CIDSS-Kalahi Project, ADB Infrastructure for Rural Productivity Enhancement Structure (Infres) and AusAid’s Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP2) - Innovation Support Fund Project. In Sarangani Province, forest protection initiatives and strategies under the UDP are being sustained and replicated through the USAID Ecogov project and DENR’s UDP project focussing on nine priority watersheds in Region XI. 115. Finally, there is strong LGU commitment and community support for uplands resource management. In municipalities like Nabunturan, San Isidro, Magsaysay and Glan the strong commitment and unity of LGU officials and staff, local community leaders and barangay residents has been crucial in ensuring sustainability. MLGU initiatives to undertake forest land use planning and integrate the Forest Land Use Plans (FLUPs) in their Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) are something to look forward to in Sarangani, South Cotabato and Davao Oriental.

3.4.4 Replication

116. Some municipalities and were able to replicate the BFPM scheme in other barangays long after the UDP program ended. Often with different modalities but all with the same objective of protecting remaining forestlands. However there were no reports of the BFPM scheme being replicated outside of the municipalities originally covered by UDP. 117. Among the notable examples of planned BFPM replications are in the provinces of Compostela Valley (Municipalities of Laak and Nabunturan), Sarangani (Kiamba, Glan, Maasim), South Cotabato, Davao del Sur (Municipalities of Maligang and Magsaysay),Davao del Norte (Municipality of San Isidro) and Davao Oriental (San Isidro, Tarragona and Banay-Banay). The pace of replication by the MLGUs varies due to a number of factors such as decisiveness of the MLGU and BLGU, availability of funds and commitment of barangays leaders as mentioned in the preceding sections. 118. At the national level, Executive Order 606 has formally adopted sustainable upland development as the Philippine government’s strategy to achieve “food, wood and no-wood” security and enhance economic productivity in almost 15 million hectares of uplands and forestlands nationwide. DENR’s latest upland development program aims to address the 172 priority critical watersheds of major river systems or river basins, highly vulnerable protection forestlands, mangroves, urban and coastal areas, areas affected by natural calamities, and degraded areas in protected areas in the country. In Region XI, DENR will be focussing on nine priority watersheds.

3.5 Performance Assessment of the UDP-RFS (January 2002 – July 2007) 119. The Rural Finance Service (RFS) component of UDP was intended to establish a savings-based credit delivery system providing loans and savings services on reasonable terms to upland farmers, enterprises and communities through the establishment of provincial-level and


22

community-level revolving funds. The ultimate goal was to create village-based financial intermediaries in areas where no such services existed before. The scheme was based on the assumption that the introduction of new farm and non-farm enterprises together with other project interventions would lead to a considerable demand for credit and other financial services. 120. The scheme implemented from 2002 to 2004 followed the Grameen self-help groups (SHG) approach linked to community based and managed barangay-level associations referred to as Financial Service Centers (FSCs). These FSCs were established and supported by twelve Partner Financial Institutions (PFIs) composed of five rural banks, one cooperative rural bank, and six local cooperatives under contract with UDP. UDP provided subsidies in the form of co-sharing the PFIs’ operational costs in upland areas as well as credit in the form of investment funds channelled a) to FSCs as seed capital funds (SCFs) and b) to the municipality-based Upland Development Loan Fund (UDLF) managed by the PFIs. 121. In 2003, the RFS, which had just started to establish the PFI/FSC combination as a permanent savings and credit service system, had to change its direction and approach in compliance with Executive Order 138 and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) or RA 8435

8/. The EC Delegation and the DA agreed to allow UDP to establish Trust Funds to

operate under their joint Trusteeship to ensure that all UDP-sourced finance for credit and institution building purposes remained in UDP areas both during and after its closure. 122. Hence, two Trust Funds (UDTF and UDMTF) were established within the LANDBANK Trust Banking Group (TBG) and for LBP to administer the fund for cooperatives through a secretariat. In this new direction, the FSCs and their members were either absorbed into existing PFIs or LANDBANK accredited cooperatives (Model 1), or reformed into new cooperatives (Model 2). However, this new arrangement resulted in considerable dissatisfaction among the FSCs as they were required to return the UDP investment capital made available at no cost for PFI-managed UDLF (PhP 31.85 million) and to FSCs as seed capital funds (PhP 5.87 million). It appears that the lack of clear information about changes to the UDP-RFS scheme led to significant declines in both UDLF and FSC loan portfolio recovery rates and a cessation savings and loan activities. Less than 50% of the original FSCs joined the new scheme as Model 1 or Model 2. 123. Parallel to the rural finance initiative, UDP tapped the People’s Credit and Finance Corporation (PCFC), a wholesale fund provider to accredited microfinance institutions (MFIs), to encourage its partner-MFIs already operating in Southern Mindanao to serve as financial intermediaries for the upland target clients. Hence, a UDP-PCFC Special Financing Program began operations towards the end of 2003 by providing institutional credit and investment loans for the expansion of four MFIs

9/ lending operations to UDP communities for on-farm and off-farm

productive purposes. 124. With UDP scheduled to end in July 2007, the EC and DA were unable to harmonise an agreement on the final destination and subsequent management of the trust fund. Thus, UDTF/LANDBANK recommended engaging the two most successful of PCFC’s lead microfinance institutions (Adjesum and Enterprise Bank) as UDTF service providers and to adopt a new approach termed ‘Lend-Capacitate-Transfer’ (LCT) to service the weakest Model 2 cooperatives over a period of three years to enhance their managerial capacities for savings and loans. However, this proposal for the PCFC to lead the scheme was abandoned following withdrawal of PCFC from the Program. The main reason for PCFC’s withdrawal was that the cost in administering and complying with UDP's requirements far outweighed the benefits it could derive. There were also some inter-institutional issues. 125. Finally, with the signing of the Closure Act signed between EC and DA in July 2007, it was agreed that the trust fund management be transferred to DA through the Agricultural Credit and Policy Council (ACPC), its affiliate agency and to continue the remaining gains of the RFS under a new program referred to as the Upland Southern Mindanao-Credit and Institutional Building Program (USM-CIBP).

8/ National policies that mandate the termination of all government agencies’ aid-assisted directed credit

programs and abolition of all subsidies for informal institutions as part of government’s effort to rationalize all credit programs and transfer financial intermediation functions to and through a government financial institutions 9/ PCFC partner MFIs were Adjesum Development Foundation, Inc.; Enterprise Bank, Rural Bank of Isulan (RBI), and

Cooperative Bank of Davao del Sur


23

3.5.1 Assessment of the UDP-RFS design and approach

126. While the intention of the UDP-RFS to build viable community based and owned financial intermediaries was noble, its design was more supply than demand driven. The allocation of a fixed amount of PhP 2.3 million per municipality that could be accessed by FSCs through the PFIs heightened hopes among the target groups that such funds could be readily accessed if they were only able to provide initial savings and capital build-up. This is viewed as an inappropriate way to motivate savings mobilisation and establish viable financial institutions. At the same time, existing cooperatives and rural banks were tapped to serve as funding channels, regardless of the level of competence or prior experience with agri-micro lending or financial intermediation. 127. Key informants interviewed by the mission recounted that some cooperatives that were close to dormancy before UDP resurrected themselves in anticipation of the funds they would receive (which were perceived as grant). The selection of PFIs as conduits for FSCs does not appear to have been based on institutional competence as financial intermediaries but rather by geographical location and proximity to UDP areas. The economies of scale necessary for the growth and viability of any financial intermediary, this case, the FSC-cooperative, was a limiting factor as its potential clients only came from the barangay level, where the number of households was limited (typically around 500). For any self-help type of lending, a minimum of 1,500 active clients are needed to reach viability

10/. Likewise, multiple borrowings by two or more cooperative

members coming from one household affected the repayment capacity of the members. Since the member’s capacity to pay is dependent on the overall household cash position, recovery rate was affected. On top of these limitations, loan appraisals of FSC-cooperative members were not primarily based on the 5 C’s of credit (character, capacity, cash flow, collateral, capital) but on the amount of savings the member had accumulated. 128. While UDP initiated a series of capacity building activities to make SLG/FSCs financial intermediaries, the struggle of farmers to manage credit and savings operations remained a challenge given their limited technical knowledge and capacity. The intention of the project to help upland farmers manage a community-owned lending and savings operation was recognized as a valuable and gracious gesture, but the design failed to adequately address this limitation. Farmers interviewed by the Mission revealed that while they were thankful for UDP’s attempts to address their financial needs and improve their access to finance, expecting them to become competent financial managers was beyond their capacity. Their life revolved around farming; hence, they would rather be competent farmer-producers that could transform their products into cash than become micro-bankers. 129. The abrupt change of the UDP-RFS scheme worsened the default rate amongst FSCs and cooperatives. There was considerable dissatisfaction amongst those categorized as Model 1 or Model 2 and transferred to Land Bank. The conversion of what they thought were grants to loans that had to be repaid to UDP gave rise to negative perceptions of the Programme in a majority of the cooperatives. The consultant/technical service provider, who facilitated the implementation of the new scheme, was blamed for the changes. There appear to have been a lack of change management measures to counteract the resistance of the clients to the new scheme. Resistance to change is inherent among people and could be expected on any project, but the negative effects on UDP could have been minimised with proper consultation and clear information dissemination among the affected groups. Building hopes and making promises of financial support is a sensitive issue among the upland poor. Changes to the financial delivery scheme in the midst of implementation are easily perceived as threats to their hopes for economic upliftment.

3.5.2 Accomplishments vis-à-vis Targets

130. In terms of outreach, there were 289 (vs. a target of 4,000) cooperative/FSC clients and 5,610 (vs. a target of 10,000) clients of the MFI financial intermediaries. The LBP supported cooperatives’ rate of accomplishment was lower at 13% when compared to 56% for the PCFC-partner MFIs. The slow pace of achievement, especially of the cooperatives, can be attributed to a mix of the intervening factors cited above. There was no attempt to monitor or gather quantitative data on the number of clients that were still active after the closure of UDP. Although, the MFIs have continued to provide loans in the UDP areas, internal reporting is not segregated into active or new clients per UDP barangay but in terms of service center. A service center can cover two or more barangays.

10

/ Based on worldwide experience of MFIs adopting the SHG methodology


24

131. Since most of the members of Model 2 cooperatives defaulted on their loans and lending operations slowed down or stopped after UDP, an updated portfolio report could not be generated. The absence of a reliable loan tracking system and MIS among these cooperatives was a problem. It was all but impossible for the Mission to determine any reduction or increase in the actual number of active clients from either the cooperatives/PFIs or the MFIs. The same situation applies to savings generated by the cooperatives & MFI clients. The accumulated amount of savings generated at the end of UDP was reported as PhP 6 million. The Mission was unable to determine whether or not there had been any increase or decrease in this amount. 132. In terms of fund disbursement, PhP 55 million (100%) of the fund was disbursed from UDP to the Upland Development Trust Fund (UDTF)-Credit component, PhP 27.5 million (92% of the PhP 30 million) to the Upland Micro-Finance Trust Fund (UMTF), and PhP 13.6 million (72% of the PhP 19 million) to the UDTF-Institutional Building (IB) fund

11/. From July 31 to December 2007, the

consolidated available fund balance of these funds amounted to PhP 107 million pesos, of which 48% was collectible from the UDLF and UDTF.

Table 9 Loan Performance of the UDP-RFS as of 30 June 2007

Financial Provider

Loans Approved by

the UDP (PhP)

Actual Loan Amount

Disbursed to clients (PhP)

% Utili-sation

Active Clients

Average Loan Size

(PhP)

GNI per Capita

(PhP)***

ALS /GNI

Coops

Model 1* 65,500,000 43,300,000 66% 150 288,667 74,520 387%

Model 2** 1,000,000 1,000,000 100% 139 7,194 74,520 10%

Sub-total 66,500,000 44,300,000 67% 289 153,287 74,520 206%

MFIs

3 MFIs 45,260,000 26,340,000 58% 5,610 4,695 74,520 6%

Grand Total 112,760,000 71,640,000 64% 6,038 11,865 74,520 16%

* bank accredited and already established before UDP ** established out of the merger of two or more FSCs *** Based on ADB figure for 2007

133. Analysis of the loans approved and actually disbursed by the end of the UDP-RFS showed that only 64% of the approved loan funds of PhP 112.7 million both were disbursed and reached the upland clients (see Table 9). Whist the cooperatives’ disbursement rate of 67% was higher than the MFIs at 58%, the quality of the cooperatives portfolio was lower, manifested by the high default and past due rate

12/. This emphasis on quantity over portfolio quality can be attributed to the lack of

proper screening and selection of borrowers. While PCFC-MFIs (NGO) may have a lower rate of disbursement than the cooperatives, the portfolio quality was higher as indicated by a repayment rate of equal to or greater than 95%. The portfolio at risk (PAR), which is an important measure of portfolio quality, was higher in cooperatives model 1 & 2 than the PCFC-MFIs. By international standards the lower the PAR, the better the quality of portfolio. 134. Further analysis shows that in terms of deep in outreach, as measured by the average loan size of the clients, cooperatives, especially those from the Model 1 type, have a much higher average loan amount at PhP 288,667 compared with the MFI average loan amount of PhP 4,695. This proxy indicator is used to show the depth of reach of a financial service provider in serving the under-served and poorer sector of the society as a percentage of the GNI. Higher percentage means the higher the income level/potential of the clients served. Thus it shows that the cooperatives (Model 1) catered more to the higher income segment of upland-borrowers. 135. The linkage of RFS with the Upland Village Enterprise (UVE) and other components of the UDP were unclear. Most of the upland village enterprises established by UDP were intended to 11

/ UDP Programme Final Report - 2007 12

/ High past due rate and defaults had been reported in UDP Pre-Completion Report of 2005 and the UDP

Programme Final Report of 2007.


25

address the problem of market access and reduce the opportunistic and abusive practices of middlemen in the area. Most suffered from a lack of capital and there was unclear operational direction among the UVEs and their interface with the RFS.

3.5.3 Impact

136. While there were no measurable impact indicators in the UDP-RFS design, one positive change was that clients were given options for access to financial services at their doorsteps. Through the formation of SLGs and FSCs, upland dwellers began to recognise the value and importance of savings. However, their motivation to save was in anticipation of the loan they could avail of once they raised the minimum savings and capital build-up requirement. This was contrary to the essence of saving as coping mechanism in mitigating stressful life cycle and economic shocks such as sickness, death, natural calamities, etc, and to increase the asset base of the household. 137. Positive attributes were also given to the UDP-RFS in terms of providing options to access loans lower interest rates than those charged by informal money lenders such as the traders, usurers or “5/6” operators. Moreover, the basic training provided to clients on basic financial recording, skills and livelihood enterprises along with field trips is viewed to have enhanced their level of confidence, knowledge and skills especially among the indigenous cultural communities. However, the failure of the cooperatives to continue and sustain the credit and savings operations created frustration and dissatisfaction among their members and resulted in the non-payment of outstanding loans. The unclear income potential of their savings in the cooperative compounded the problem as it was not explained to them if their accumulated savings amount would earn interest or how much. 138. The formation of FSCs and SLGs, which served as a venue for members to relate with other upland community members, enhanced their social capital. Management and organization of FSCs/cooperatives opened their mind to the value of working together in a formal type of structure. However, the rigor of maintaining these structures and sustaining operations remained an issue. 139. A positive and unexpected impact was observed at the institutional level of the participating MFIs. The NGOs and Rural Banks under PCFC were able to develop agri-microfinance products specifically tailored to the needs of upland borrowers. Before their participation in the UDP-RFS, the MFIs were more focused on lowland areas. Through the UDP-RFS, they started to modify existing loan products or develop new ones to suit the seasonality of agri-based enterprises. These PCFC-accredited MFIs have recognised the value of providing financial services to upland clients who are traditionally considered to be riskier and costlier to serve than lowland clients. MFIs have put into action the concept of financial inclusion, which is in line with the Philippines’ National Microfinance Strategy and the UN Millennium Goal Number One (1).


140. The sustainability of microfinance operations is focused on the ability of financial service providers to cover the high transaction costs so that they can continue their financial intermediation activities. Hence, it is a function of productivity (growth in outreach), efficiency, and profitability. From the clients’ perspective, in this case the upland farmers, sustainability means continued cash flow in the household brought about by sustained and profitable farming activities. Thus, what upland farmers’ need may not necessarily be credit but other support services such as inputs, technology and market access. While credit is viewed as one of the key elements for the farmers to finance their operations, an appropriate product design to address the seasonality of cash flow is necessary. 141. Clients of the MFIs and some of the strong cooperatives that served as PFIs have continued providing access to loans in the UDP areas and many clients are already in the 3rd or 4th loan cycle. In terms of repayment rate and portfolio quality, the four participating MFIs were in consensus that clients in the upland showed higher repayment rates compared to their lowland clients. A key factor in this sustained access is the nature of microfinance methodology which is highly based on the character of the client. Clients in the uplands are more careful not to besmirch their reputation with MFIs by failing to meet their obligations to pay. MFIs are also strict in instilling credit discipline through intensive conscientisation of the client’s accountability and responsibility. Moreover, since the MFIs’ main focus is on the provision of access to financial services – micro-loans, savings and micro-insurance, coupled with intensive social intermediation through pre-disbursement, value formation, and livelihood skills types of training and seminars, they have the institutional capacity to


26

continue servicing their upland clients even after the UDP ended in 2007. Other contributory factors were the strong commitment of the MFI to balance their financial and social mission and goal, buy-in of the staff to service the upland areas, operational competence and professionalism. 142. On the other hand, the financial services of the UDP-organized FSC-turned-cooperatives (Models 1 & 2) slowed down or stopped due to high default rates. Aside from the reasons cited earlier, the perception that having a share in the cooperative meant their loan could be offset against their deposits, showed a lack of credit discipline from among the member-borrowers. Strict adherence to the accountability and obligation of both parties in a lender-borrower relationship was lacking in the Model 1& 2 cooperative scheme. For those cooperatives which served as partner finance institutions (PFIs) and were organized prior to UDP, lending operations continued but was limited to their members whose past due rate was also high. On top of lending, these cooperatives were engaged in other micro-business and enterprises such as consumer stores, trading of farm products etc., which make up the bulk of their revenues.

3.6 Performance Assessment of the USM-CIBP (2007 – 2009) 143. The Upland Southern Mindanao–Credit and Institutional Building Program (USM-CIBP) was established as the successor to the UDP-RFS and is implemented by the Agricultural and Credit Council (ACPC) - an attached agency of the DA. ACPC is mandated to implement institutional capacity building programs for the benefit of small farmer organisations and to oversee, manage and monitor agri-credit funds of the DA under the Agro-industrial Modernisation Credit and Financing Program (AMCFP) of AFMA, Executive Order No. 113 and the Magna Carta of Small Farmers. DA has the responsibility to ensure continuity of credit and institution building (IB) activities, utilizing the loan repayments and recoveries from cooperatives and institutional borrowers from the UDP-RFS by virtue of Article 6 of the UDP Closure Act of 2007. DA designated ACPC to continue the gains of UDP-RFS in the DA Administrative Order 27, signed in September 2007. Funding for the USM-CIBP comes from a Trust Fund deposited with the Landbank Trust Banking Group, consisting of the existing balances of the UDTF, IB, reflows, credit funds and existing receivables of the UDTF and UDLF. 144. The USM-CIBP aims to create sustainable financial service delivery systems for small farmers in upland areas previously covered by the UDP. As such, it will initiate and implement institutional building interventions to improve access to credit in the uplands. The objectives of the USM-CIBP include increasing the number of cooperatives that will become accredited with the LBP and to upgrade the level of maturity of these bank accredited cooperatives (BACs) to become viable financial institutions with sustainable sources of financial resources and efficient fund delivery systems that could provide credit to the target groups.

3.6.1 Transition and institutional issues

145. The ACPC was not actively involved in the UDP-RFS and the absence of a smooth transition to the USM-CIBP resulted in organisational policy and operational issues complicated by the bureaucratic intricacies of the agencies involved. While the DA Administrative Order was signed in September 2007, it was only released for circulation on 21 December 2007. Pending the issuance of this order, the ACPC could not start performing its designated functions. Thus, there were no operations from August to December 2007. ACPC then focused on the consolidation of the funds and consultation with the USM-CIBP partners. For the period January-December 2008, preparatory activities like setting up the program structure, policies and plans were undertaken through meetings and workshops. From January–July 2009, activities focused on coordination with partner cooperatives and MFIs. 146. Since LBP was the USM-CIBP partner designated to assist cooperatives with credit and institutional building, a memorandum of agreement needed to be forged between ACPC and LBP. Certain policy issues and conflicting design schemes had to be resolved which meant it took six months before the MOA was signed on July 31, 2008. Under this agreement, LBP serves as the main provider of credit and institutional building support to cooperatives with 60% of the USM-CIB Trust Fund allocated as a hold-out deposit for loans extended by LBP to these cooperatives. The interest earnings of the trust fund will be used for institution and capacity building interventions and program operating costs. Moreover, LBP continues to serve as collector of the remaining funds


27

under the UDLF in the previous UDP_RFS. ACPC serves as the fund manager of the USM-CIBTF and acts as the oversight body with monitoring and evaluation functions.

3.6.2 USM-CIBP design and framework

147. The design of the USM-CIBP reflects a shift from the supply-driven UDP-RFS to a demand-driven approach. Two parallel support schemes were identified: 1) the LBP-led assistance to strengthen cooperatives to deliver financial assistance; and, 2) ACPC-led support to MFIs to improve financial access by UDP target groups. Both schemes are intended to provide long term and sustainable financial service delivery systems in the upland areas of Southern Mindanao. 148. The documents provided to the Mission included a conceptual framework with dual strategies of institutional building and enterprise development for cooperatives that had not been accredited by the LBP (non-BACs). However, while the framework shows the direction of the LBP-led scheme, it does not present the framework of the USM-CIBP as a whole that also includes support to MFIs. Since both schemes are integral components of the USM-CIBP, it is important to have a document showing how these two schemes are integrated to achieve the USM-CIBP’s goal of attaining sustainable financial service delivery system for the small farmers. Moreover, since this two-pronged approach (LBP-led cooperative and ACPC-led MFI) involves funding allocations from the trust funds separately maintained for the purpose (LBP and UCPB), its utilisation needs to be carefully projected, planned and translated into measurable targets with underlying performance criteria anchored on efficiency and productivity. The relationship between these two USM-CIBP components is unclear in the absence of a strategic plan showing performance targets to guide the implementers and measure the achievement of results. It is the understanding of the evaluation mission that the planning documents produced for the USM-CIBP were work and financial plans covering the periods January-June 2008, July- December 2008 and January-December 2009. While these work and financial plans serve as guides in the implementation, they do not show the strategic direction of the USM-CIBP. 149. Since the USM-CIBP is financed out of the interest income earned from the two trust funds established under the USM-CIBP in investment instruments by the designated trustee banks, it goes without saying that utilisation of these funds needs to be translated into measurable performance targets with established sets of indicators to ensure that the funds are used in the most efficient and productive way. Such performance targets – result, outcome, impact – among others, need to be established at the outset so that they can be monitored to give decision makers information with which to gauge the accomplishment of targets. The lack of clear performance targets of the USM-CIBP as a whole (rather than separate targets of LBP and ACPC) could lead to inefficient use of resources and leave the USM-CIBP prone to external pressures. 3.6.2.1 LBP-led Credit and Institutional Building Support to non-BACs

150. Under this scheme, LBP adopts the lend-capacitate-transfer (LCT) approach, combining institutional capacity building and enterprise development with credit for fifteen non-bank accredited cooperatives (non-BACs) in the UDP areas. However, credit will only be provided once cooperatives have a ready market or a purchase order for their product, wherein LBP facilitates the linkage to a market. LBP will use its regular loan funds while the USM-CIBP provides a hold-out or guarantee up to a maximum of PhP 3 million per cooperative. Based on the Training Needs Assessment (TNA), the maturity level of the non-BACs was categorised in accordance with the seven pillars of the LBP, which serve to measure the readiness of a cooperative to avail of loans and the TA services. A technical service provider will be tapped based on approved TOR to provide technical assistance in membership growth, capital formation, savings mobilization, leadership and management, organisational structures, policies and procedures, strategic and operational planning and budgeting, financial recording and control, business development, financial literacy, and networking awareness. 151. The twenty-eight cooperatives participating at the end of the UDP were classified into bank accredited (BAC) and non-bank accredited cooperatives (non-BAC). Of the eighteen, non-BACs, three were no longer operational so fifteen became the focus for LBP technical and credit assistance. However, out of the fifteen, the Mission found that one already collapsed (Cabinuagan MPC in Compostela Valley) and the rest either had stopped credit operations to focus on the collection of past dues or continued savings and loans operations at a low level.


28

152. It was agreed between LBP and ACPC that, due to the limited fund resources, the main focus for institutional capacity building (ICB) services should be on the non-BACs whilst the institutional capacity building requirements of the BACs would be provided by Land Bank using their own funds. However, it is opinion of the Mission that the BACs, even those that were operational before UDP, still need assistance to raise their level of competence in financial intermediation activities and begin reducing default rates. It would be beneficial to support these BACs as well as the non-BACs under the USM-CIBP rather than leaving it to Land Bank to source funds elsewhere. 153. The LBP-led scheme for non-BACs is an enhancement of the UDP-RFS, with integration of the Upland Village Enterprise Development concept wherein cooperatives are developed as enterprise centers. However, the objective of strengthening non-BACs to enhance their capacity as financial service providers

13/ appears to be unrealistic and a repetition of the UDP-RFS

weaknesses. The officers and members of FSC-cooperatives visited by the Mission pointed out the problems such cooperatives faced trying to sustain savings and loans as their main business. The inherent nature of upland cooperatives, where governance is weak and the officers have limited experience of managing micro-banking operations, is a serious limitation to this approach. The volunteerism practice, where management and staff deliver their services on a part-time basis, influences productivity and the quality of tasks needed for an intensive micro-lending operation. Volunteers can on rarely manage the level of bookkeeping and other financial management functions required, no matter how much training they are given. Nobody will be a volunteer for life and very few upland residents are qualified to do the job professionally

14/. Besides, the economy of

scale in micro-lending operations, wherein the profitability and financial sustainability depends on the growth in outreach and productivity is limited to the geographical location and the area where the cooperative can operate. 154. Rather than targeting these non-BACs to become financial intermediaries and providing them with technical assistance that they can barely absorb, the focus should be on strengthen them as market-led enterprise centers rather than for re-lending. Since most of the non-BACs are registered with the CDA as multi-purpose cooperatives, they are allowed to engage in business enterprises other than lending. While the intention of the USM-CIBP program is commendable, it has to recognise the limitations identified by the target groups themselves. 155. However, in exceptional cases (distance, poor road access) where there are no strong micro-financial service providers, cooperatives could be considered as financial intermediaries as a last resort. Intensive coaching and mentoring would need to be integrated in the LBP intervention. Class-room type of training good only for 2-3 days has been proven to be woefully inadequate as a means of transferring the knowledge and skills necessary for micro-lending operations to flourish. The area of coverage would have to include adjacent sitios and barangays to generate enough outreach, which is a pre-condition to viability. An example is the Nagmabaul MPC in Upper, Malungon, Sarangani, where there are no MFIs operating within the barangay or adjacent villages. 3.6.2.2 ACPC-led Support to MFIs

156. Under this scheme ACPC taps existing MFIs that are willing to include the UDP areas in their microfinance operations. Three of the five MFIs – Adjesum, Enterprise Bank and Coop Bank of Davao del Sur – were under the previous UDPMTF managed by the PCFC while two served as partner financial institutions under the UDLF – Rural Bank of Montevista and Sarangani Rural Bank, Inc. These institutions continued providing microfinance services in upland barangays even after UDP had ended. Unlike the PCFC partnership for UDP-RFS, ACPC only provides guarantee support as security against possible credit losses that may be incurred in the implementation of microfinance programs in the uplands. The loan portfolio that will be enrolled under this facility will be covered by the guarantee fund with actual credit guarantee coverage of less than or equal to PhP 3 million per MFI. The extent of coverage will be up to 80% and 50% of the outstanding loan portfolio for new and existing upland clients respectively. The MFI/PFI will pay a guarantee fee of 2% per annum to ACPC USM-CIBP based on the extent of the actual loan portfolio covered by the guarantee mechanism. The NEC has approved a fund allocation of PhP 18 million for this guarantee facility 157. While this scheme serves the purpose of mitigating the risk of MFIs serving upland clients, the MFIs spoken to by the Mission expressed the need for additional loan funds and institutional

13

/ This objective is stipulated in the PowerPoint presentation provided by both LBP and ACPC 14/ Lessons Learned cited in the UDP Programme Final Report - 2007


29

support to continue serving and covering more UDP areas. In the case of Adjseum, serving UDP barangays in Davao Oriental and Compostela Valley, the risk of default and non-payment among their upland clients is almost zero and actually less than with their lowland clients. They have developed an agri-microfinance product that suits the needs of upland dwellers and a lending methodology that includes zero tolerance of default. Since Adjesum is an NGO, it incorporates other non-financial services as integral components of the lending process such as livelihood skills training, value formation and financial literacy among their upland clients. This scheme has allowed clients to diversify to off-farm enterprises even though the loan is for agricultural production. However, in order to replicate this in other underserved and un-served barangays, they need additional loan funds rather than a guarantee fund. 158. In both schemes, it is noticeable that capacity building activities are limited to the organisations. A key lesson from UDP-RFS was that cooperative members also need capacity building in order for them to have a stake of the program. A typical problem in any credit-led intervention is the low level of knowledge and skills among member-clients in household resource management, budgeting and understanding their rights and obligations as borrowers. To continue the gains of the UDP-RFS in stimulating savings consciousness, the USM-CIBP should seriously consider the inclusion of financial education among clients for both MFIs and cooperatives.

3.6.3 Program structure and institutional arrangements

159. USM-CIBP operates in a structure composed of a National Executive Committee, (NEC), Program Executive Committee (PEC) and Program Executive Committee (PCC). These bodies are ad-hoc committees composed of representatives from DA, LBP, ACPC and EC. The EC representative seats as an observer without voting rights. This structure is supported by a Secretariat based at ACPC, with a Project implementing office and Project Management Office. The latter is based in Davao City but directly reporting to the over-all coordinator of the Program. The Secretariat provides administrative and logistical support to the Program. Likewise, a project management office is established at LBP in Davao City. Figure 1. USM-CB Program Structure

Implementing Agency 160. The program structure (Figure 1) is a matrix type with ad-hoc committees at three hierarchical levels typical in a ‘tall’ organisation. However, since the USM-CIBP is a collaborative undertaking mainly between DA, ACPC and LBP, establishing multiple layers of decision makers can slow the decision-making process, especially if agreement is anchored on consensus. Since the composition of all these committees comes from the same agencies, there could be duplications of function of these committees. Since the PCC and PEC are in-charge of the operational aspect of the USM-CIBP, it may be more practical to merge the functions of these two committees rather than having them function separately. Similarly, convening the various committees depends on the availability of the members coming from the organic staff of three involved agencies. This may lead to less prioritisation of USM-CIBP matters that need to be decided immediately in favour of the primary obligations to their respective mother agencies.

National Executive Committee (DA,ACPC,LBP,EC)

(NEC)

Program Executive Committee (DA,ACPC,LBP,EC)

(PEC) – Management

Program Coordinating Committee (DA,ACPC,LBP,EC)

(PCC) - Operations

Program Secretariat

(ACPC) )

ACPC – Project

Implementing Office

ACPC Project Management

Office LBP- PMO


30

Table 10 Components of the USM-CIBP Program Structure

Committee / Body

Function Composition Frequency of meetings

NEC policy making body of the Program reviews and approves the general Program related policies and guidelines

ACPC, LBP, DA, (EC)

Twice a year

PEC

in charge of operations aspect of the program; decides on operational issues of the program such as approval of the report on training needs analysis, review of policy guidelines and issues, monitoring reports, etc.

ACPC,LBP, DA (EC)

Once per quarter

PCC in charge of operations aspect of the program; operating body at the field level

ACPC, LBP, DA (EC)

As required

Secretariat provides administrative and logistical support to all committees

ACPC

LBP-PMO in charge of LBP led activities (non-BAC support) LBP

3.6.4 Fund Consolidation, Allocation and Utilization

161. The ACPC has performed well in consolidating the remaining funds of the UDP-RFS. The process, which took almost a year, involved identifying the different holders of the fund belonging to the UDP; entering into agreements with the Trust Departments of Land Bank and UCPB for the opening of a Trust Accounts; coordination meetings with Land Bank, UDP Programme Office, PCFC, DA and other organizations; and, sending official letters to the holders to transfer funds to the USM-CIBP Trust Fund. 162. The mission verified that as of June 2009, the fund balance amounted to PhP 137.7 million, comprising of the remaining UDP-RFS fund and the reflows and receivables collected from the UDLF and UDTF. Of this amount, 15% are receivables. These funds are kept in a separate trust fund accounts at the LBP and UCPB (Table 11).

Table 11 Status of USM-CIBP Fund as of 30 June 2009

Account Details As of 31 December 2007 As of 30 June 2009

Amount (PhP) Total (PhP) Amount (PhP) Total (PhP)

1. Trust Fund 41,169,962.01 113,725,654.71

LBP TA-05-058 38,681,105.92

LBP TA-05-058-A 2,498,856.09

UCPB Trust Fund Account No. 08-1306

36,468,556.06

LBP Head Office Trust Fund No. 05-205

77,257,098.65

2. Reflows Account – LBP-MBG

14,083,564.61 3,236,031.06

IB fund 582,055.52 0.00

Credit Fund 6,281,144.94 0.00

Reflows fund 7,220,364.15 3,236,031.06

3. Receivables from UDLF and UDTF

51,859,195.25 20,741,114.51

UDLF 27,922,826.45 19,683,813.13

UDTF 23,936,368.80 1,057,301.38

GRAND TOTAL 107,112,757.87 137,702,800.28

Source: ACPC Accomplishment Report as of March 2009 and interview with USM-CIBP over-all coordinator


31

3.6.4.1 Fund Allocation

163. The Program can only utilize the interest earnings from the trust funds for the institutional and capacity building and operational costs. For the LBP administered non-BACs support, 60% of the total trust fund deposit with the LBP account shall be allocated for credit under a hold-out deposit basis while the balance of 40% shall be reserved solely to support the ICB activities of these cooperatives. A maximum loan of 3.0 million per cooperatives will be allocated as long as total loan exposure does not exceed the 60% limit of the trust fund deposit. In excess of the PhP 3.0 million allocations, LBP will co-finance the loan requirements of cooperatives. For the ACPC managed MFI support, the amount of PhP 36 million is earmarked, of which 50% is reserved for the ICB and the other half for the hold-out or guarantee fund. Of the total fund consolidated from the previous UDP-RFS, 60% will be will be allocated for the credit support in the form of hold-out and guarantee scheme and 40% for institutional building activities. 3.6.4.2 Fund Utilization

164. The USM-CIBP budget for 2009 approved by the NEC was PhP 7.2 million (see Table 12). As of June 2009, only PhP 272,000 (12%) had been expended by the LBP and PhP 2.4 million (48%) by ACPC. The fund was used to defray operational expenses such as staff salaries, consultant’s fees, conduct of collaborative and orientation meetings, workshops and seminars, field visits among MFIs and other preparatory activities. The utilisation rate during the first six months of the year was particularly low in the case of LBP.

Table 12 Status of USM-CIBP Budget Utilization as of 30 June 2009

Institution Approved (for 2009)

Expended (as of June 2009)

% Utilization

LBP 2,200,000 272,000 12%

ACPC 5,000,000 2,400,000 48%

Over-all Program 7,200,000 2,672,000 37%

Source: figures supplied by ACPC and LBP.

3.6.5 Program Accomplishments

165. From the period August 2007 to June 2009, the USM-CIBP was concerned with activities such as fund consolidation, setting up structures, establishing policies and guidelines along with the validation and needs assessment of beneficiaries. While there was no allowance for a transition period from the UDP-RFS and the USM-CIBP, which hampered the speed with which the Program could be made fully operational, the Mission considers that two-years was a long time to arrive at the current status of the USM-CIBP. 166. One contributory factor has been slow decision making within the multi-layered Program structure. Some deliberations were said to have been carried over from one meeting to the next which will obviously constrain progress particularly when the concerned committee only meets quarterly or semi-annually. Whilst the Mission acknowledges the difficulties faced by the implementers in establishing the USM-CIBP, it is important to also consider the views of those expected to benefit from the scheme. The fact that so much money is available but none has been delivered as credit to upland farmers in the UDP area can be seen as a manifestation of government’s inefficiency and slow action. Upland beneficiaries have long been waiting for the promised assistance. As pointed out to the Mission by the officers and members of struggling cooperatives, “the grass is too late when the horse is already dead”

3.7 Upland Village Enterprise Development (UVED) 167. The Upland Village Enterprise Development, or UVED scheme, aimed to establish producer or processing groups to function as the marketing components of upland communities. The aim was to increase incomes of upland farmers by consolidating their produce to achieve a quantity which would enhance their competitive advantage and allow negotiation for higher prices with local traders.


32

168. The scheme intended to encourage farmers to become entrepreneurs, take a more active role in improving their productivity and try to link directly with their target markets. The UVED scheme had the following objectives:

1) to establish and train upland-based producer groups to conduct economic activities;

2) to develop sustainable market linkages between village enterprises and buyers; and,

3) to enhance the capability of the LGUs in facilitating the provision of business development services to village enterprises.

169. The scheme was developed as a tool to enhance the development of upland village enterprises taking off from the promotion of short, medium and long duration crops promoted for incorporation in diversified farming systems. In support of market development, the Programme initiated a crop inventory study to identify and profile priority crops produced in the uplands. A market efficiency study was carried out to determine market channels and the marketing options for priority crops in the barangays covered by UDP. 170. The CEFE (Competency based Economies Formation of Entrepreneur) Entrefarm training was the main capacity building training provided to upland farmers during which they developed farm plans taking into account the business side of farming. The Entrefarm training focused on assessing and developing the personal entrepreneurial capacities of farmer-participants. Six accredited CEFE training institutions and trainers trained 4,002 farmers throughout the Programme area. 171. Thirty of the enterprises assisted with business development services were reported as being operational in July 2007 when UDP ended.

Table 13 Accomplishments of the UVED scheme




June 2007

UVE with backward linkages to upland farmers established and strengthened

30 34 113

Business plans formulated and implemented by UVEs

30 25 83

Marketing contracts executed by UVEs 30 5 17

Operational UVEs 30 30 100


3.7.1 Verification

172. Of the sixteen upland village enterprises (UVEs) visited by the Mission, only seven were still in operation and of these only two were considered as strong with active management and moderate potential for growth. The other five were operating on a small scale and making only minimal contributions to the local economies (see Annex J). 173. The Malaumon Upland Farmers Multi-purpose Co-operative in barangay Rio Del Pilar of Glan is trading in bananas produced by its members. There is some evidence that members are planting more bananas in response to the high incomes being obtained which will increase the marketable quantity. The economic benefits of the enterprise are currently minimal and the main benefit to members would seem to be a saving of transport costs to market their produce individually. The prices paid to producers are similar to those of the private traders, although the cooperative paid Patronage and Dividends amounting to PhP 192,000 in 2008 (an average of PhP 600 per member). Two local people are employed by the co-operative, a manager and a bookkeeper and each receive an honorarium of 10% of the operational surplus. There are many fruit trees planted under the diversified farming system in the barangay, e.g. mango, lanzones, rambutan, durian, pommelo and mangosteen, which will be coming into maturity during the next few years and could be marketed through the cooperative. This should enable it to grow.


33

174. The United Maligang Farmers Multi Purpose Cooperative in barangay Maligang of Kiamba is processing and trading abaca fibres. The group have an agreement to provide abaca fibres to a local trader but can currently only supply 300 kg of the 2,000 kg requested per month. This indicates substantial potential to increase economic activity and the members are being encouraged to plant more abaca to meet the demand. Should this be realised the contribution to the local economy would be significantly increased. The economic benefits are limited to savings in transport costs for members, some added value through processing (stripping abaca fibres) and the employment of nine people on a minimal payment package. An example of the savings on transport costs for individual farmers is as follows: return fare to municipality with produce PhP 200 two times per month = P400 savings per member. With 100 farmer members of the co-operative the total savings would equate to PhP 40,000 per month. 175. The Pintatagan Nito Weavers Association of barangay Pintagan in Banay Banay municipality, is a women’s group producing nito handicrafts, baskets etc., to order for customers as far way as Cagayan de Oro. Each member makes his/her own discrete products and receives payment accordingly, but marketing is collective. This is probably the main strength of the group; there is little scope for mistrust and mismanagement of funds. Although they existed before UDP began they were assisted by the Programme with management and enterprise training as well as a product display cabinet. As they have been is existence for some time it is clear they are stable although sales are minimal. It is a home based enterprise. There may be potential for growth through a little marketing assistance because they are producing high quality handicrafts. 176. The Upo Valley Multi purpose Cooperative in barangay Upo Valley of Maitum is processing abaca and selling abaca fibre to local traders. They currently process and sell around 2,000 kg of abaca fibre per month and claim that a lack of working capital, rather than a lack of supply, prevents them from selling more. The coop profit is minimal and both fund management and financial record keeping are weak considering the assistance they received from UDP. With little capital they have little potential for growth although the PLGU has recently given them PhP 500,000 to produce rubber plantlets for distribution to their members. 177. Waywayan Bamboo Furniture Makers Association in barangay Waywayan of Lupon is a home based enterprise comprised of around twenty families each making and selling their own bamboo furniture sets to buyers in Mati. UDP assistance included provision of tools and equipment, which is held centrally by the association, as well enterprise training. They collect the raw material locally. Total sales are indicated at ten sets of furniture per month at PhP 1,800 each. Although economic activity is not high the group is stable but there may be little scope for growth unless more markets could be found for which they would need further assistance. The main strength of the group is probably their loose family-based structure which eliminates mistrust between members and the mismanagement of funds. 178. None of the other village enterprises visited have any significant effect on local economies and had effectively ceased to operate during the two years since UDP ended. The Mission was given no indication that any of the UVEs not visited were operating at anything more than a minimal level of economic activity and most are likely to have ceased operations. Commercial nurseries - a missed opportunity

179. Many provincial and municipal LGUs have their own tree crops nurseries for the provision of seedlings and while these efforts are valuable their capacity is limited. In contrast there appears to have been no enterprises of this nature established with private farmers with the exception of an association in barangay Albagan of Tampakan, South Cotabato, which is still functioning. There were a few examples of small scale nurseries established spontaneously by active farmers. Assistance from UDP to establish private enterprise tree crops nurseries with farmers would have made a viable income generating enterprise. 180. This must be seen as a missed opportunity particularly considering that against a target of 800,000 fruit trees to be distributed for the promotion of diversified farming systems only 381,000 were planted (with 309,000 surviving). It would have complemented the efforts of the LGUs and made tree seedlings more locally available to farmers wishing to replicate or expand DFS as well as contributing to the economic activity of the barangays. It need not preclude assistance to LGU nurseries but should be seen as a complementation to reduce dependence on government institutions.


34


181. As discussed above sustainability of upland village enterprises is very limited with only two of the sixteen UVEs visited being in a relatively strong trading position with the potential to grow in the future. 182. It is worth considering that efforts to promote upland trading enterprises may have been somewhat premature as prior to the DFS programme there was little in the way of marketable surpluses in the barangays. The very nature of the DFS programme, which included planting fruit trees which take several years to reach maturity, has meant that only now, two years after UDP ended, are these crops beginning to generate saleable produce. Only the short and medium term crops such as vegetables, bananas and abaca have been available for marketing in recent years. It appears that no mechanisms for continuing support to the UVEs were provided for by UDP, for example links with the Department of Trade and Industry, NGOs etc. 183. The other main problem indicated by many of the enterprises which got into difficulties is the competition from private traders who are in a better position to provide credit and inputs to farmers and thereby secure the bulk of the produce. Most of these traders are quite wealthy, one indicated as a large corporation, influential and able to exclude the fledgling enterprises from the market. These are the very ‘middlemen’ that UDP intended to exclude through the upland village enterprise activities which in retrospect appears to have been an unrealistic expectation. A major contributory factor in this inability to compete with traders appears to have been a lack of capital and access to finance. 184. It is noticeable that of the five enterprises that have continued functioning at some, albeit low, economic level, two are associations of families/women who take responsibility for their own manufactured produce and receive the proceeds for their work. Marketing is the only activity undertaken collectively. Associations such as this may be a more appropriate structure at least in the early stages of group enterprises, and more sustainable.

3.7.3 Replication

185. There has been no reported replication of the UVED scheme since UDP ended. The lack of linkages with permanent service providers to follow on from UDP may be a contributory factor to this. As the longer term tree crops start to bear fruit, those trading-based UVEs still in existence may be in a position to take part in the marketing of produce.

3.8 Replication of SUD schemes after UDP ended 186. The PLGUs and MLGUs were expected to take the lead in replicating the SUD schemes in provinces and municipalities were they had been introduced under UDP. All thirty-eight of the MLGUs covered by UDP made commitments to continue support and replicate the schemes in other upland barangays through budget allocations in their AIPs for 2007 and 2008. 187. More widespread adoption of the SUD model was expected through initiatives of the League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) and most particularly as a result of Executive Order No. 606 entitled “Pursuing Sustainable Upland Development anchoring on food, wood and non-wood security and economic productivity and providing the mechanisms for its implementation and for other purposes”. EO 606 was signed on 27 February 2007 and declared that it was a national policy “to pursue sustainable development of the country’s upland areas and communities by ensuring proper balance between ecological and economic concerns in a manner that the forests natural base is maintained and improved. At the same time this would promote economic activities in the uplands through agricultural and forest production and utilization of upland resources to generate sufficient income for the communities residing and making a living in the uplands”. 188. The DENR was appointed as the lead agency and operationalisation of the EO at local levels was to be consistent with the principles of sustainable forest management by adopting the Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) strategy in the conduct of community mobilisation, local land-use planning, delivery of basic social services, extension services, forest protection and resource management, rural infrastructure and development of local enterprises and livelihood activities. Thus the CBFM strategy was the main strategy or model to be followed.


35

189. With respect to the UDP-SUD model, the most pertinent section of EO 606 was Section 7 on LGU Participation which states that:

“The LGUs are encouraged to assist (1) in convening the provincial/municipal committees created under the Convergence Initiative for the identification of specific roles and functions, (2) in recommending specific programs/projects and interventions, (3) in formulating specific administrative and operational guidelines related upland development in coordination with members of related committees, (4) in identifying sources of funds to ensure the delivery of needed services and implementation of specific programs/projects and (5) in providing assistance to the program beneficiaries in packaging and marketing of products derived from the project areas including resources mobilization.” 190. The LMP together with the Mayors Development Center (MDC) raised awareness of the UDP-SUD schemes with the Chief Executives of municipalities nationwide and provided them with a venue for sharing information and their experiences with upland development.

3.8.1 Land Used Based Barangay Development Planning (LUB-BDP)

191. The LUB-BDP scheme has been the most widely replicated component of the UDP-SUD model. Land-use based barangay development plans were prepared for at least 110 barangays after UDP ended. The preparation of additional LUB-BDPs was funded by the MLGUs, often with a contribution from the BLGU. The value of incorporating projects identified through a barangay-level planning process in the municipal AIP was appreciated by the MPDCs. It improved both transparency and accountability for the use of economic development funds from the IRA. 192. The main impetus for extending the LUB-BDP to additional barangays was however the demand for financial assistance from local and foreign sources. The MLGU and, to some extent, the PLGU provide additional allotments directly to barangays on the basis of identified needs and priorities in the LUB-BDP. Projects prioritised in a well prepared BDP are also far more likely to be funded by Congressmen or foreign assisted projects like the MRDP. 193. The LMP/MDC has promoted LUB-BDP as an important process for rationalizing barangay resources and needs through policy advocacy and training for innovative local governance. Municipalities like Laak, Compostela Valley, San Isidro, Davao Oriental and Santa Cruz, Davao Sur have expanded LUB-BDP to 100% of their barangays since UDP ended. GTZ experience in Leyte has shown that LUB-BDP is an empowering tool which allows people and government to converge. It also highlights their learning about the resources of their area. 194. DENR has expressed its intention to support the gains of UDP by conducting a review of all the LUB-BDPs to validate technical soundness and applicability to the DENR-UDP (see below). LMP shall continue to promote LUB-BDP through trainings and local executive fora, highlighting actual experiences with the process.

3.8.2 Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery (UAED) scheme

195. The Diversified Farming System of UDP is in demand not only as an environmentally friendly approach to upland development, but also in the promise of additional income from fruits, vegetables and other high value crops such as abaca, rubber and coffee. Successful implementation of DFS in the UDP barangays generated pressure from adjacent barangays for inclusion in plant-now-pay-later projects of the MLGUs so much so that many of them have already invested in the establishment or improvement of municipal nurseries. Such was the case of Kiamba, Sarangani Province which invested in tissue culture laboratory for the propagation of abaca. The PLGU has also provided a grant for a rubber nursery in barangay Upo of Maitum. 196. The UAED scheme highlighted the importance of having a ground level technician within the reach of farmers and linking to technical resources in the municipality and province as well as with the DA Regional Offices. Barangay Extension Workers (BEWs) have been have been maintained in all municipalities visited by the Mission and in at least five cases the MLGU has gone on to appoint BEWs in all barangays of the municipality (including lowland barangays). The BEWs receive an honorarium from the BLGU, the MLGU and, in the case of Davao Oriental, the PLGU. 197. The Agribusiness Office of the DA considers the promotion of diversified farming as an opportunity for providing technical assistance for market and product development.


36

3.8.3 The Barangay Forest Protection and Management (BFPM)

198. While this scheme has resulted in improvements to the environment and the sustainability of the natural resources of the barangay, replication has been constrained by the lack of political will and availability of financial support from the BLGUs. 199. At the PLGU and the MLGU levels, complementarity with the BFPM scheme is best demonstrated by environmental programs such as the Million Trees Program in Davao Oriental; the Lake Sebu Rehabilitation Conservation and Development Program in South Cotabato; and, the Environmental Program of Laak MLGU in Compostela Valley which is an exact replication of the UDP-BFPM scheme and includes additional financial support for the forest guards in UDP barangays. 200. The similarities and differences between Upland Development Program of the DENR and the BFPM scheme of the UDP are discussed below.

3.8.4 Labour Based Routine Road Maintenance (LBRRM)

201. There were no reports of the LBRRM having been implemented in any additional barangays after the UDP ended. Some barangays were said to have introduced “bayanihan” schemes, but there was no indication of whether or not these were sustained as they were not monitored by the MLGU. The main constraint to implementing and sustaining the LBRRM scheme was that the roads were already badly dilapidated rendering them impossible to maintain by manual labour alone. The upgrading of a road to a maintainable condition is a pre-requisite to any LBRRM replication or the introduction of a Labour Based / Equipment Supported scheme.

3.8.5 Barangay Local Government Units (BLGUs)

202. Barangay development planning was institutionalised many barangays through the initiative of NGOs in collaboration with the PLGUs. Many barangays had already prepared BDPs before the UDP but these were improved and updated with the introduction of the Land Use Based Planning under UDP. People’s participation in governance is evident in the planning process from data generation through to plan formulation. Ownership of the plan by the barangay was high at the start, but some of the plans subsequently became “relics” of UDP. Copies of the plan have disappeared from some barangays and some of the MLGUs use them more as technical instrument to meet foreign assistance requirements and generate annual budgets. Only rarely is it used as a dynamic tool for decision making. There is a need for an annual review of the LUB-BDP in all barangays.

3.8.6 Municipal Local Government Unit (MLGU)

203. Ideally the LUB-BDPs would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of each municipality. Where the UDP projects became successful and where the MLGU found it worth investing, replication occurred. In the municipalities of Santa Cruz, Davao Sur, San Isidro, Davao Oriental and Laak in Compostela Valley, the exposure of the LGU to years of foreign assistance from projects such as SMAP and the LGSP-CIDA developed the motivation to replicate projects that promote sustainable development. 204. Replication of the LUB-BDP and support for DFS and the UAED scheme show where the MLGUs’ interest lies, but the quality and quantity of goods and services provided cannot compare with levels attained under UDP because the MLGUs do not have the financial resources to continue alone. 205. The LMP Mindanao reported that LGU Tamparan and Tungawan in Lanao and Josefina in Zamboanga Sibuguey have adopted components of SUD model but no details were available. The Environmental Management and Development Program (EMDP) in Laak, Comval Province is an offshoot of the UDP implementing the LUB-BDP, UAED and BFPMP schemes managed by the LGU.

3.8.7 Provincial Local Government Unit (PLGU)

206. PLGU support for the SUD schemes is most evident in the promotion of DFS through the production and distribution of planting material for abaca, fruit trees, coffee and rubber. These initiatives are backed-up with technical advice and support to the MLGUs and sometimes directly to the barangays through the Office of the Provincial Agriculturalist


37

207. The PLGUs of Bohol, Misamis Oriental and Palawan all have projects for tree planting or reforestation in upland areas. These are similar in intent to the BFPM scheme but do not involve the delineation of protected areas or employment of forest guards. The PLGUs have accessed assistance from domestic and foreign sources; developed local schemes for plant propagation and distribution; conducted citizen mobilization for tree planting such as the annual tree planting festival of Palawan. Technical advice for these projects is provided by staff of the DENF or Provincial Government Environment and Natural Resources Office.

3.8.8 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

208. Being the lead agency for the Upland Development Program, the DENR replicates similar schemes to those developed by UDP through a combination of NGOs, LGUs, private and corporate organizations adopting CFBFM strategy. This includes “local land use planning, delivery of basic services, extension services, forest protection and resource management, rural infrastructure and development of local enterprise and livelihood” which incorporates elements of the UDP-SUD schemes of LUB-BDP, BFPM, UAED, UVED, and LBRRM. 209. The Upland Development Program (DENR Memo Circular 2008-04) aims to generate employment among upland households through the rehabilitation and protection of the forest and forest resources. It aims to address the 172 priority critical watersheds, 20 major river systems or river basins, highly vulnerable protection forestlands, mangroves, urban and coastal areas, areas affected by natural calamities, and degraded areas in protected areas in the country. In Region XI, DENR focuses on 9 priority watersheds, consisting of 3274 ha (uplands and mangrove areas) for implementation of reforestation, agro-forestry and enhancement planting in the uplands. 210. DENR has initiated co-management arrangements with LGUs and the private sector as by itself it cannot attain its target of restoring forest cover of 14 M hectares. This will be primarily through the CFBFM strategy. However, for the barangays that already have their LUB-BDP, these will be validated with the Forest Protection standards and measures to be consistent with existing rules and practice. 211. DENR is considering deputising local executives in the protection of forest and forest resources as in the case of the Governor of Isabela Province. Others could have been deputized had the convergence process been given emphasis and time by both LMP catalyzing the Mayors and the UDP embedding it into the eighteen month extension phase. 212. To enhance the use of UDP-SUD schemes in the DENR-UDP, the DENR has suggested convening a meeting of the UDP steering committee to generate support from the regional, provincial and municipal working groups to undertake the following:

o review all 175 LUB-BDPs from Southern Mindanao to balance the need for poverty alleviation with the protection of the resources of the country;

o agree on the oversight roles of each in sustaining and replicating UDP; o assess the feasibility of an arrangement where DENR enters into a “co-management”

arrangement with some of the LGUs to sustain the DA-UDP areas.

3.8.9 Department of Agriculture (DA)

213. The Department’s commitment to upland agriculture development continues through the implementation of projects such as Phase II of the Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project (CHARM) and Phase II of the Mindanao Rural Development Program (MRDP) both of which have similar aims and employ similar strategies to the UDP. 214. When the UDP closed in July 2007, the Project Management implemented a phase out scheme with multi-track interventions at the operation and policy levels of the Department. The bottoms-up process was tedious and it took time to manage the change process. The first track consisted of the planning of the change management interventions as well as the roles of the various stakeholders including the convergence team of E.O 606. The second track was concerned with the LGUs. At the barangay and municipal levels, the LGUs passed resolutions committing to sustain and replicate the UDP. The Provinces maintained the position that they would provide the technical and financial assistance when needed after intensive participation during the final two years of UDP. The third track involved the DA regional offices who at that time had changed to a commodity based focus. The DA Regional Offices considered UDP to be an arrangement between


38

the LGUs and the DA Central Office. The regional offices provide technical support to the LGUs when asked. Discussions between DA Central Office and UDP resulted in the integration of SUD model in the framework of the Department’s programs for the uplands. The Department sought the assistance of the UDP to develop a mechanism for continuity of SUD schemes for which the LMP was tapped. 215. The Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) has sustained training for extension workers of UDP in Regions XI and XII and has developed e-learning materials on DFS for dissemination.

3.8.10 Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)

216. NGOs have long been at the forefront of development activities in the uplands of Southern Mindanao. DA has taken its inspiration from the early modelling work of the MBLRC which today has expanded to Agusan and other provinces in Mindanao promoting SALT and potable water systems. Modelling was also contributed by REFORM in barangay planning and local governance aspects. The Kinaiyahan Foundation, Land Care, Mahintana and South Cotabato Development Foundation among many other NGO’s are in upland development. Replication however is contingent on the funds support which is largely donor driven. 217. LMP-Mindanao has reported that NGOs actively promoting the SUD model include Land Care Foundation in Misamis Oriental, PCEEM in Davao City, and VWAB in South Leyte. They have mostly replicated the LUB-BDP and the UAED schemes. In Davao Oriental MINRAP has assisted the Province in replicating SUD model with MLGUs. GTZ has been supporting NGOs replicating the LUB-BDP and DFS schemes in Leyte, Southern Leyte and San Carlos City.

3.8.11 League of Municipalities of the Philippines

218. The main role of the LMP together with the Mayors Development Center (MDC) has been to raise awareness of the UDP-SUD schemes with the Chief Executives of municipalities nationwide and provide them with a venue for sharing information and their experiences with upland development. 219. Implementation of DENR Upland Development Program also generated advocacy for LMP to highlight SUD-UDP schemes during the trainings and fora of the local chief executives of the municipalities. This is vital to the role of LMP and MDC in linking policy using the learning process to the local executives who are made to understand that “good governance is good politics.” 220. LMP-Mindanao has independently assisted with the replication of LUB-BDP where the LGUs have allocated funds for barangay planning the helped with the UAED scheme which is less costly and has been replicated by the LGUs of Tamparan in Lanao del Sur and Tungawan in Zamboanga Sibugay. 221. LMP has put forward its position paper for the continuing devolution of DENR functions to the LGUs over a 10 year phased out scheme and advocated for LMP/MDC involvement in the drafting of such a plan. This plan recognizes the inherent function of the LGUs in the management and protection of the environment and natural resources. 222. The LMP/MDC plans to use its experience with Coastal Resource Management to organise a nationwide conference on Sustainable Upland Development to further promote the UDP-SUD LMP/MDC depends on the market for resources to effect its advocacy for innovative governance. However, building the convergence mechanism both at the top and among the LGUs was not pursued with vigour while there were still funds available from the UDP. The lack of strength of this mechanism has affected the replication process.

3.8.12 Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA)

223. A variation of the UDP-DFS scheme was piloted by the Land Care Foundation under the auspices of the BDA in Barangay Malisbong, Palembang, Sultan Kudarat. The experience was therapeutic to the people who experienced the worst massacre in the 70’s. True to Islamic ways, stewardship of resources is a paramount value; thus, the introduction of any development intervention is preceded by a values transformation process to put ethical and moral foundation based on the teachings of Islam on any development initiative.


39

224. BDA is wary of the motivation and capability of government agencies such as DA and DENR, the latter for having lost its credibility as forest resource stewards according to the ways of Islam and the former for not being Muslim friendly. Furthermore, the approach of Land Care is anchored on the principle of learning according to the absorptive capacity of the people. Incremental in nature, agriculture development started with household gardens adding small income and simple technology but generating huge impact on a much neglected community. Land Care however, is donor driven thus the need to sustain its initial effort is shortened by its need for financial support.

3.9 Relevance of SUD schemes to initiatives under the MTF-RDP 225. The Mindanao Trust Fund (MTF) is a mechanism for development partners to pool and coordinate assistance to conflict-affected communities in Mindanao. It was launched in March 2006 and is guided by the findings and recommendations of a multi-donor Joint Needs Assessment (JNA) conducted in the latter part of 2005. 226. In March 2006, the World Bank and other donors, including Australia (AusAID), Canada (CIDA), New Zealand (NZAID), and Sweden (SIDA) launched the Mindanao Trust Fund for Development and Reconstruction Program (MTF-RDP). The European Commission and the United States (USAID) joined soon afterwards. The program focuses on capacity building and small-scale reconstruction / development projects in conflict affected areas of Mindanao that suffer from a lack of infrastructure, have internally displaced populations and where there is mistrust of local government services. These areas have received little or no development assistance over the past thirty years. 227. The specific objectives of the MTF-RDP are: 1) to promote economic and social recovery by assisting conflict-affected communities and internally displaced persons to benefit from visible restoration of some basic services; and 2) to build the capacity of the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA) to manage and implement the program. 228. The MTF-RDP has two phases. Phase 1 began in April 2006 and has focused on building the capacity of the BDA by training and piloting learning activities in conflict affected barangays. Phase 2, which will begin once a Peace Agreement is signed, will involve the implementation of larger sub-projects, broadening the scope of capacity building to include LGUs in addition to the BDA, and a phased transfer of program management responsibility to the Bangsamoro entity to be identified / confirmed after the peace signing.

3.9.1 MTF-RDP development initiatives

229. A key feature of the MTF-RDP is the use of a community-driven development (CDD) approach. The CDD involves community members in analysing their problems, identifying and prioritising their needs, deciding on what sub-projects to undertake, implementing or assisting in the implementation of sub-projects, and managing funds for the sub-projects. Community members are organised into community-level People’s Organisations. The POs are then trained to undertake sub-projects using the CDD approach. All POs have to undergo a values training where the members learn about good universal values and their responsibility to their communities and to God. The POs manage grants downloaded directly to their bank account and implement sub-projects on behalf of the communities they represent. The role of the BDA, in collaboration with LGUs, is to facilitate the process (through their Municipal Development Facilitator), provide technical assistance, and monitor the procurement processes, sub-project implementation and sub-project quality. 230. The CDD approach, which incorporates a phased learning-by-doing approach for the implementation of sub-projects, is similar to the participatory processes of UDP and other EC assisted projects in the Philippines. It is however tailored specifically to the socio-cultural conditions in predominantly Muslim communities and places more emphasis on capacity building of the community and the PO representing it. Whilst the planning processes of EC projects tended to focus on the participatory identification of sub-projects, the CDD approach is as much concerned with confidence building as identifying projects. 231. There are also significant differences in the pace, phasing and types of sub-project implemented under the MTF-RDP. BDA was still an infant organisation in 2006 and the Program focussed on the experiential “learning by doing” of community development in only six sites with one site covered by each of the six BDA regional Offices (Batch 1). The next phase of implementation,


40

2007-2008, focussed on learning to network and work with partners and involved sub-projects in five to ten sites per regional office (Batch 2). Fifty-three sub-projects had been implemented in forty-five barangays by the end of 2008. In fact the numbers of sites and sub-projects are of little consequence in comparison to the effort that was put into capacity building for BDA staff and others involved with social preparation and orientation in the targeted barangays. 232. The types of sub-projects funded for Batch 1 and Batch 2 were all small-scale community infrastructure projects which included potable water systems, solar driers, multi-purpose buildings, concrete tyre tracks, warehouses and, accounting for around half of the total, community and livelihood / training centers. There were no agricultural or environmental projects of the type the UDP-SUD schemes were designed to support. 233. Batch 3, which began in 2009, will increase the types and number of sub-projects to include stronger partnerships with the LGUs and an emphasis on learning to manage a reconstruction and development program. Most of the sub-projects are still expected to be for the construction of social infrastructure. 234. Each barangay is expected to go through two to three cycles of sub-projects depending on the availability of funds and the performance of the barangay. After the first sub-project cycle, the POs continue to need organisational development assistance to keep members actively participating. The second cycle builds on the experience gained and is intended to provide a sense of continuity of assistance. After the third cycle, which none of the barangays have yet reached, the BDA is obliged to move on to provide assistance in other conflict affected communities. The BDA is currently unable to commit to more than three sub-project cycles or PhP 1 million (including training costs) in any one barangay because there were 3,833 barangays identified as being affected by conflict as of May 2000.

15/

235. In 2007 the MTF-RDP opened a grant facility to help expand the network of partners working in conflict-affected communities. Grants of PhP 300,000 to PhP 500,000 were awarded for projects in the areas of knowledge management, gender in peace building, Muslim and indigenous youth vocational training, and educational facilities improvement. Again these are not the sorts of initiative the SUD schemes were designed to facilitate.

3.9.2 Relevance of SUD Schemes to MTF-RDP implementation

236. The MTF-RDP is still very much in Phase 1 of operations with an emphasis on capacity building and learning by doing. The sub-projects are implemented by POs rather than LGUs and they target quick and visible results that contribute as much to confidence and peace building as they do to economic development. They are very different from the types and purpose of investments the UDP-SUD schemes were intended to facilitate. 237. Sub-projects concerned with the diversification of farming systems, forest protection and management or even barangay road rehabilitation and maintenance are a low priority for funding by the BDA at this time. Without an immediate need for institutionalised assistance from local government units, the UAED, BFPM and LBRRM schemes are not relevant to current initiatives under the MTF-RDP. This could change when a Peace Agreement is signed and BDA shifts its attention to larger sub-projects that could well address the problems of food security and low agricultural productivity. There could also be scope for forest protection and management in the future although the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) is conspicuously absent from the list of priority areas for upland development and reforestation under the DENR-UDP. 238. The UDP-scheme that has most relevance to current initiatives is the LUB-BDP. Some of the barangays targeted by the MTF-RDP already have BDPs prepared with assistance from the WB-ARMM Social Fund Project, but in others there are no plans and projects tend to be identified by politically influential people in the area (but not necessarily from the barangay concerned). Community investment plans are prepared as part of the CDD approach and endorsed by the BDC, but these to not include land-use mapping because such a level of analysis is unnecessary to identify the priorities for quick acting assistance under the MTF-RDP. Such an exercise could also be counterproductive to the peace process in areas with ongoing boundary disputes or conflicts over land ownership.

15

/ Conflict-affected areas as identified by the GRP-MILF Joint Committee on cessation of hostilities


41

239. There may however be a place for LUB-BDP after completion of the 2nd

or 3rd

sub-project cycle when BDA is preparing to move on to other barangays. The MTF-RDP program for 2009 includes strengthening partnerships with the LGUs (which were initially wary of the BDA’s intentions) and this could be extended to LGU capacity building undertaken by the BDA or others on their behalf. Training staff of the MPDO on barangay development planning, land-use-based or otherwise would be appreciated by the LGUs. It would also reinforce the view that the BDA is a partner in local development rather than a potential competitor for political allegiance. The barangay planning exercise itself should be conducted by the Municipal Technical Team / LGU staff rather than the BDA so that it would build confidence and strengthen links between the municipal LGU and conflicted affected communities. One aspect of land-use based planning that needs to be treated with sensitivity is that the boundary or area of influence for planning purposes is likely to be as much related to religious leadership as the traditional Datu or administrative boundaries in parts of the Bangsamoro homeland. 240. A final point is that some form of participative development planning such as the LUB-BDP has proven to be particularly effective at bridging divides and building trust in communities where migrant settlers, Muslims and indigenous peoples live together. This is the situation in many of the conflict affected areas of Sultan Kudarat, North and South Cotabato and the Lanao provinces.

3.10 Respect for the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs)

241. There are around three million

16/ indigenous persons living in the provinces covered by UDP

with the Blaan, Tboli, Bagobo, Langilad/Talaingod, Mansaka, Tagakaolo, Matigsalog and Mandaya being the predominant ethno-linguistic groups. These indigenous cultural communities are found throughout the uplands of Southern Mindanao and slightly over half (55%) of the barangays covered by UDP were populated by IPs or, more commonly, a mixture of IPs and migrants from the Visayas. 242. The Financing Agreement required UDP to ensure that the rights of these indigenous peoples would be respected in all project activities and the Global Work Plan identified the (then) newly created National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Cor Jesu College, church groups with missions in tribal areas and the Sarangani Provincial LGU-PPDO Kasfala secretariat as institutions / organisations which would advise the Programme on dealings with ICCs/IPs. 243. That the NCIP was only expected to be one among a number of agencies advising UDP reflects the fact that the commission was still comparatively new and barely functional when UDP began in 1999. The NCIP was created by virtue of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (RA 8371), however, it was poorly funded under the Estrada administration and whilst it had regional offices and a presence at the provincial level, it lacked the budget and personnel to meaningfully engage with foreign assisted projects such as the UDP. 244. The IPRA addresses four main concerns of the ICCs/IPs, namely: 1) rights to ancestral lands and domain; 2) the right to self-governance and empowerment; 3) the right to protection and preservation of indigenous culture, traditions and institutions; and 4) social justice and human rights. These rights are embodied in the IPRA, but it must emphasised that while UDP was working in upland areas that included ancestral domains, the Programme was not designed to specifically address the concerns of ICCs/IPs, but merely respect their rights in all activities.

3.10.1 Recognition of ancestral domain

245. The recognition of ancestral domain and traditional land rights are fundamental issues for ICCs nationwide. At the time when UDP started, the DENR had recently handed over responsibility for awarding Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) and the Certificates of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) to the NCIP. The Global Work Plan for UDP noted that whilst the NCIP was still in the process of building up its capabilities, there would be opportunities for collaboration and support in the delineation and recognition of ancestral domains. 246. The Community and Institutional Development and Extension (CIDE) component of UDP distributed summaries of the IPRA Law in 2001 and 2002. When the CADC and CALC were superseded by the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and the Certificate of Ancestral

16

/ NCIP projected population – July 2009


42

Land Title (CALT), UDP assisted the NCIP with information and education campaigns, genealogy workshops and preparations for perimeter surveys - especially in Davao del Sur. Information campaigns continued through 2003 and 2004 and collaboration with NCIP was reported to have intensified and resulted in ten CALTs being awarded in 2004. The Mission was unable to ascertain where these were or precisely what assistance was provided. 247. In Barangay Ompao, of Tarragona in Davao Oriental, the Mission was told that despite the absence of any formal claim lodged with the NCIP, the barangay leaders were assisted by UDP to map the ancestral domain of the Mandaya, parts of which included the Barangay Forest Protected Area and the Barangay center. 248. By 2005, the interest in securing ancestral domains seemed to have waned and the only accomplishment reported for the year was a single application for a CADC in Davao del Sur (and this was being facilitated by an NGO rather than UDP). The general lack of progress on land tenure issues was attributed to a combination of factors, including: questions over jurisdiction in the uplands; conflicting policies of the DENR and NCIP; the tedious application process and the difficulties communities faced meeting all the requirements (documents; surveys; consultation meetings etc.). 249. Thus, although UDP fulfilled its obligation to respect the rights of ICCs/IPs to ancestral lands, it did not achieve much in terms of assisting NCIP with the process of awarding CADTs or CALTs. Poor performance resulted from a combination of the limited capacity of the NCIP provincial offices and UDP’s initial emphasis on the community watershed and later the barangay as the planning unit for programme interventions. 250. If UDP had paid as much attention to the delineation of ancestral domain and applications for CADTs as it did to land-use based barangay development planning it could have followed-up with assistance for the preparation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs). These are recognised by the NCIP as being the most appropriate planning documents on which to base external assistance and ensure the well being of IPs/ICCs.

3.10.2 The right to self-governance and empowerment

251. Indigenous peoples groups have a right to meaningful participation in the development processes affecting them. Ideally, they would have been recognised in UDP’s mechanisms for participative planning and these would have respected their traditional structures and decision making processes. 252. There was no mention of ICCs/IPs having any special status or receiving any special treatment during the community watershed planning exercises in 2000/01 and the workshop reports give no indications that IPs had any differing expectations or development priorities to migrants. This does not seem to have resulted from a lack of representation as tribal elders along with members of the tribal councils were commonly present at the workshops and many of the barangay officials were themselves IPs who would have been expected to raise specific issues in the concerned barangays. 253. What is more likely is that the communities (tribal, migrant or mixed) tailored requests to their perception of what was on offer from the agency facilitating the planning exercise. This is a common occurrence and would result in the prioritisation of different forms of assistance from a project like the UDP, an NGO concerned with environmental issues or the Bangsamoro Development Agency. 254. It is however, not only a case of the types of projects or interventions identified, but also the sense of ownership of those projects when they come to be implemented. A key instrument for indigenous empowerment is the principle of free and informed consent. This requirement reflects the right of indigenous peoples to accept or reject development interventions in their communities. It is strictly enforced for resource extraction such as mining or logging in ancestral domains but is often relaxed for ‘demand driven’ projects such as those funded by the UDP. 255. The Mission visited NCIP provincial offices and the staff there confirmed that there had been regular consultation with UDP through provincial level Technical Working Groups and that appropriate procedures for Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) had been followed. Prior to the NCIP guidelines on FPIC being issued in 2003, it was common for en blanc approval for UDP


43

activities to be obtained through endorsement by the Tribal Leaders Council and/or the Barangay Council. More rigorous procedures were followed from 2004 onwards with individual projects requiring resolutions of consent from the relevant Barangay and Municipal Tribal Councils. Copies of these resolutions were a requirement for UDP funding. 256. Even with formal consent there can still be distrust and scepticism amongst ICCs/IPs that have not been properly orientated on the purpose and intentions of the project. An evaluation study undertaken by RIMCU

17/ in 2005 noted that the less accessible communities and those with

indigenous populations were more reluctant to get involved with the UDP than other communities. A fear voiced in many ICCs, and one expressed to the mission, was that when it first arrived in the area they thought UDP was going to take their land for commercial plantations or mining. 257. Another breakdown in the information and consultation process was noted in the mixed IP/migrant community in barangay Del Pilar of Manay in Davao Oriental where the FPIC process may have been followed but members of the tribal community did not feel that they had been properly consulted. The result was that they did not feel any sense of ownership for the potable water system constructed by the predominantly migrant barangay council and therefore did not contribute to its maintenance. There were also reports that a conflict of leadership within the ICC in Mabini in Compostela Valley meant that IPs were poorly represented in the planning process and felt little ownership for projects identified by the wider community represented by the Barangay Council. 258. These were however isolated cases and the overwhelming impression was that ICCs/IPs in the UDP programme area had been given every chance to express their views and aspirations through the comprehensive watershed planning and later the land-use based barangay development planning processes. 259. There were also harmonious relationships between the tribal council and the barangay council in the vast majority of cases. This was exemplified by the situation in barangay Marayag of Lupon in Davao Oriental where the barangay and tribal council operate in harmony recognising that the barangay is a creation of law of the Republic while the tribal council represents the traditional ways and culture of the IPs. The spirit governing interactions between the two bodies is one of consultation and consensus. The barangay council upholds the mandates of the IPRA law to ensure that free, prior and informed consent is obtained from the tribal chieftains representing the IPs. In instances of conflict, the barangay respects the decision of the tribal council. This somewhat ideal situation is no doubt helped by the fact that the Barangay Chairman and a number of the barangay councillors are themselves IPs.

3.11 Consideration for other crosscutting issues 260. The Financing Agreement required UDP to pay particular attention to ensuring that gender concerns were properly addressed and that the rights of indigenous persons were respected in all project activities. Respect for the rights of ICCs and IPs was discussed above, this section considers gender concerns and environmental protection which were the two other cross-cutting issues specifically addressed by the UDP.

Gender equality

261. UDP employed a local Gender Specialist to prepare a Gender Framework along with policy statements and guidelines in the latter part of 2002. The Gender Framework was a comprehensive document that recognised discrimination on the basis of gender and ethnicity in upland communities and sought to provide equitable access to the resources and opportunities represented by the sub-projects and activities of UDP. It called for the establishment of mechanisms for gender responsive project formulation; coordination across government agencies and NGOs; the use of a sex-disaggregated data base; mainstreaming gender issues in all programme components; and, special attention to women in special circumstances. This was to have been implemented alongside consciousness-raising, affirmative action and the production of advocacy materials. The mix, on

17

/ Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City


44

paper at least, was a very potent one and the impacts were to have been captured through the M&E system for Gender in Upland Development. 262. The gender policy statements and guidelines were followed by a host of gender related seminars and workshops for the programme and LGU field workers as well as for those living in upland barangays. The guidelines and manuals prepared for the SUD schemes invariably included sections on gender sensitivity and the need to emphasise women’s participation in upland development. Seminars and focus group discussions on mainstreaming gender in the various SUD schemes continued through until the end of the Programmes. 263. In short, UDP did a lot more to raise awareness and create an environment in which gender concerns could be addressed than any other rural development project funded by the EC in the Philippines. 264. The Mission did not have access to sex-disaggregated data for all activities, however, information from the Programme’s annual reports suggests that women were well represented in the diversification of farming (with 32% of the learning site co-operators); the agricultural extension service (with 30% of the BEWs and 60% of the ATs); the Upland Barangay Associations (with 53% of the members and 45% of the officers); and, the Savings and Loans groups in which a slight (57%) majority of members were women. There was some stereotyping of roles with men most likely to be selected as DFS Co-operators and barangay extension workers while women were more often identified with financial matters (household savings) and commonly appointed as the secretary, accounts officer and/or bookkeeper in community organisations. 265. Given the attention to gender issues throughout the Programme, it is interesting that the Pre-Completion Evaluation Mission was apparently unaware that the UDP had a gender policy

18/

which may be taken as an indication that UDP staff and those in the barangays were unable to explain what the impact of all the policies and gender awareness raising activities had been. 266. When the Post-Completion Mission asked what the impact had been MLGU staff were adamant that gender issues had been considered during all UDP activities and that women had participated in all activities, but they were unable to provide any specific examples of how all the advocacy and training had actually allowed women to make more of the opportunities provided by UDP. At the barangay level, the impact of the gender sensitivity training was described in terms of husbands helping with washing clothes and cleaning the house. 267. More positive outcomes were associated with the LUB-BDP scheme which recognised the importance of involving women in the barangay planning processes and encouraged their participation during consultations and in decision-making. Almost all of the women interviewed reported that they had attended more barangay meetings and increased their involvement in other community activities since the BDP was formulated. There were no reports of the other SUD schemes having any positive impacts on the role or status of women in the barangays. 268. The only known example of women being negatively impacted by UDP’s interventions was when support was withdrawn from the Financial Service Centers in 2005. A majority of those saving in the FSCs were women and many lost not only their savings and access to affordable loans but also their confidence in financial services organised by the UDP.

Environmental protection

269. With one of the UDP’s twin purposes being to develop a model for the sustainable management of upland resources it is no surprise that considerable attention was paid to environmental issues. The programme conducted barangay and municipal level environmental awareness campaigns, integrated soil and water conservation techniques into the promotion of diversified farming systems and developed a SUD scheme specifically for the protection and management of remaining forest areas. Any environmental consequences of infrastructure projects undertaken in the earlier years were short-term in nature and, in the case of road rehabilitation works, corrective actions were taken to ensure that there was no lasting damage. 270. The UDP was reportedly concerned about the entry of multi-national corporations to expand the areas planted with cassava, banana and pineapple in upland barangays in 2004. On one side it

18

/ UDP Pre-Completion Evaluation report - Section 4.8.1


45

offered access to new markets with the potential increase farmers’ income. On the other, there was concern that the types of technology being introduced could increase the use of pesticides and soil erosion and that upland farmers might not fully understand the environmental consequences of switching from corn to commercial crops. The Programme therefore embarked on an information and awareness campaign in collaboration with the LGUs to ensure that where new crops were introduced they were done so using the diversified farming system models that included erosion control measures and consideration for the use of organic fertilizers and only essential levels of pesticides. 271. The Programme produced a number of ad hoc papers on environmental issues in the uplands of southern Mindanao and devoted considerable resources to the introduction of environmentally sustainable farming practices and the protection and management of remaining forest areas. Environmental sustainability is fundamental to the land use based barangay development planning exercise underlying all UDP’s interventions and there is already anecdotal evidence that there has been a positive impact on the natural resource base in some of the barangays covered by the programme 272. Lobbying for the inclusion of SUD schemes in the Land Use Act was regarded as an example of UDP’s efforts to influence national policies to protect the natural resource base of the uplands. At the local level, the UDP encouraged the enactment of barangay, municipal and provincial ordinances as a recognition of the role LGUs had to play in protecting and managing the upland areas. 273. There is no evidence to suggest that the UDP had anything but a positive impact on the environment and it is fair to conclude that the programme successfully contributed to the protection and regeneration of natural resources in upland areas.

4 CONCLUSIONS

1. The main conclusions from the findings and analysis are presented here using the twelve evaluation questions as headings.

Q1. What benefits have been derived from Land Use Based Barangay Development Planning?

2. Implementation of the LUB-BDP scheme improved the capacities of BLGUs to undertake land-use planning and led to an improvement in the development planning processes of MLGUs. The participatory nature of the process resulted in greater awareness of local environmental governance and led to improved institutional capacities at the barangay and municipal levels. However, there appear to have been mixed results depending on the particular service provider contracted to train personnel of the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) and facilitate production of the first LUB-BDPs. 3. Critical to the success of the LUB-BDP process was the active participation and collaboration among LGUs, Community Based Organisations (CBOs), Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs), NGOs and other groups with a stake in the conservation and protection of upland resources. Factors that facilitated success of the process included: effective partnership arrangements; collaborations forged through MOAs, site management agreements (SMAs); partnership agreements with the private sector; the matching of grants and sharing of resources; and, effective moral leadership at the BLGU and MLGU level. 4. Despite the participatory and inclusive nature of the LUB-BDP process, there were varying degrees of ownership of the resultant barangay development plan. There were some barangays where the production of a LUB-BDP was seen to be more of a requirement for accessing projects from the UDP than a tool for development planning and resource management. This is likely to have been related to the skills of the service provider and/or MPDO staff conducting the orientation and other meetings during the planning process. 5. The LUB-BDP promoted the social and economic agenda of the barangays in terms of improved delivery of basic social services. Through the BDPs, basic social services such as health, nutrition, education, road maintenance and water supply infrastructure projects have been identified


46

and given priority in the barangay Annual Investment Plan. Development projects identified in the BDPs took into consideration the provision of these services and are given priority not only in the allocation of their barangay IRA, but also in sourcing funds from MLGUs, PLGUs, line agencies and foreign assisted projects. 6. Arguably the greatest benefit upland communities gained from the LUB-BDP has been funding secured for development projects prioritised in the BDPs. The BDPs have been used to access funding from the MLGUs and PLGUs as well as from the DPWH (for roads and water supply projects), DOH (for medical supplies and health services), DA (for abaca and rubber seedlings), DENR (seedlings for reforestation) and private companies such as Nestle Philippines for agriculture projects. Agricultural, livelihood and small-scale infrastructure projects prioritised in the LUB-BDPs of at least twenty-one barangays have been funded by the World Bank’s Mindanao Rural Development Project (MRDP). 7. The LUB-BDP scheme resulted in improvements to human capital, such as improved planning skills, knowledge on upland farming and resource management capabilities of community members and LGUs. However, the not all of the improvements can be attributed to UDP alone since similar capacity-building initiatives have been undertaken by NGOs and a variety of other foreign assisted projects.

Q2. To what extent have diversified farming systems led to sustained increases in household income?

8. Diversified farming systems have shown the potential to produce significant economic benefits for those upland families implementing them properly. A few farmers are already earning the targeted PhP 100,000 / ha / year, however, the majority have yet to benefit from any significant increase in income because the fruit trees, which were the most popular choice for diversification, have not yet reached maturity. 9. Banana and vegetable production have been the two most lucrative components of the DFS to date with some farmers earning an additional PhP 20,000 to PhP 50,000 per year from intercropping within the DFS plot which continues to be planted with corn to meet subsistence requirements. The lanzones, rambutan, durian, mangosteen, pommelo and other fruit trees planted between 2004 and 2006 will start coming into production in the next few years and can be expected to provide income gains for many more families than are currently benefiting from DFS. 10. Vegetative contour strips (grass, leguminous hedgerows or other plants) were an integral part of the DFS model that were expected to reduce erosion during short duration cropping of vegetables, corn or rice planted on sloping land. Many contours are still in existence on the learning sites and model farms established by UDP but these represent quite small isolated areas. Contour strips are far less common on areas replicated by farmers using their own resources indicating a lack of interest in this component of the technology. The reality is that most farmers are reluctant to establish contour strips, especially hedgerows. It seems unlikely that large tracts of the uplands in Mindanao or any other part of Philippines will ever be planted with vegetative or hedgerow contour strips. 11. Both provincial and municipal LGUs have continued to fund projects promoting diversified cropping although this is not always identified as following the UDP model. Other national and local programmes also include mixed tree cropping of a similar nature. An important factor in the replication of the UDP-DFS model by LGUs has been positive political support from leaders in local governments. Executive Order 606 is acknowledged by LGUs but they commonly reported that replication of DFS was mostly due to their own interest and impetus. Many cases of spontaneous replication of DFS were said to have occurred through farmer to farmer exchanges without formal assistance from the LGU.

Q3. How crucial was the role of Community Based Extension Teams in facilitating the adoption of more diversified farming systems?

12. The Community Based Extension Teams (CBETs) as a whole were instrumental in facilitating the adoption of more diversified farming systems, but the most the most important members were the Barangay Extension Workers who are highly valued by both local governments and upland farmers. Their value is evidenced by the fact that BEWs have been maintained in nineteen out of twenty-one barangays visited by the mission and in many cases the MLGU has


47

gone on to appoint BEWs in barangays not originally covered by UDP (including lowland barangays). Without the BEWs, the transfer of technology and adoption rates of DFS would have been much reduced and the quality of its replication poorer. 13. Other elements contributing to the effectiveness of the UAED scheme were: the visual demonstrations of diversified farming (learning sites and model farms) operated by known and well respected local farmers to show what can be achieved and how; the farmer to farmer transfer of knowledge facilitated by farmer training groups; the hands on skills training for farmers, BEWs and municipal Agricultural Technicians; and, farmer cross visits to profitable, well managed and diversified farms in other areas. 14. Although the Farmers Training Groups (FTGs) are no longer in existence as formal units there is evidence that farmer to farmer exchange of techniques and innovations is continuing, sometimes facilitated by LGUs, but also informally. This is a valuable and effective means of transferring credible knowledge which is trusted by other farmers.

Q4. How effective have initiatives on barangay forest protection and management (BFPM) been in protecting the remaining forest areas?

15. The BFPM scheme has already resulted in improvements to environmental conditions and the conservation of natural resources in some of the barangays visited. Efforts to protect the remaining pockets of natural forest have been well respected by the community in all barangays that established a Barangay Forest Protected Area through a barangay ordinance adopted by the MLGU. 16. In some places there have been observable, but unquantifiable improvements to the environment. These include: improvements to the quality and quantity of water resources; the regeneration of forest cover; stabilisation of the watershed through activities in the riparian zone; improved biodiversity; and, a halt to land conversions and landscape degradation. Noticeable increases in the population of animal species were reported in some barangays. The establishment of protected areas and declaration of a Philippine Eagle Reserve in a cluster of barangays in Davao Oriental has helped protect the habitat of endangered species. 17. In some barangays the BFPM scheme has led to the development of a community based legal tenurial instrument through the declaration of a Barangay Protected Forest (BFP) by means of a barangay ordinance subsequently adopted by the MLGU. This is seen as a means of sharing and transferring responsibility for the protection and improved management of the forests and watershed areas with the direct stakeholders and serves as an alternative to watershed proclamations by the DENR. 18. The BFPM scheme has catalysed policy action and agreements to strengthen natural resource management at the local level through: resource use and environmental enforcement ordinances at the barangay and municipal level; the enhancement of good governance and transparency in decision making involving natural resources with the establishment of barangay forest protection councils; MOAs between agencies and stakeholders; site management agreements (SMAs) forged between the BLGU and MLGU for jointly protecting their natural resources; the participation of civil society groups and NGOs as service providers; and, increasing knowledge regarding the status of upland and forest resources in the barangay. However, the results and impacts of multi-agency agreements and enforcement of local ordinances have not been adequately documented. 19. There is evidence that the BFPM has led to an improved understanding of the benefits of forest protection, conservation and management in the community; improved awareness of different forest uses according to land use zones; and, greater awareness of the benefits of environmental conservation and management at the barangay level. A number of people in barangays with the BFPM scheme want the initiatives to be replicated in neighbouring forest areas to multiply the benefits. 20. However, whilst the BFPM scheme improved the capabilities of barangay officials and other members of the community (forest guards, upland barangay associations) to conserve forest resources, there are a number of barangays where the BFPM scheme has been sustained in name only whilst illegal logging and timber poaching continue. This is most notable in barangays where officials changed as a result of the elections in October 2007.


48

21. The varying levels of success of the BFPM scheme can be attributed to a combination of factors. These include: the level of community organisation and quality of governance; technical expertise and decisiveness of the MLGU; politics of and between the BLGU and MLGU; technical support from the DENR; and, last but not least, acceptance and ownership by the community.

Q5. To what extent has the labour-based maintenance of barangay roads helped stimulate the economy of upland communities?

22. The wages paid to those maintaining the roads under the Labour Based Routine Road Maintenance (LBRRM) scheme did not contribute much to the local barangay economies. The labourers usually only got a chance to work for three to five days per year earning Php 100 per day or between Php 300 and Php 500 per year. 23. Only two out of the twenty barangays visited by the mission had continued with a purely labour-based maintenance scheme. In these cases it was observed that many parts of the road were in poor condition owing to a lack of gravel surfacing and compaction which could only have been achieved with equipment support i.e. with the use of dump trucks for hauling aggregates and road rollers for proper compaction. Although the roads are passable during dry months, they become very slippery and are frequently impassable during the rainy season. 24. Half of the barangays visited had resorted to a combination of “bayanihan” and paid labour supported by equipment such as graders and dump trucks from the PLGU or MLGU. Under these Labour Based / Equipment Supported (LB/ES) schemes, labour was used for minor works such as vegetation control and clearing of drainage ditches and culverts. The major items of work like road surface reshaping, restoring lost materials, filling up potholes, ruts, and rills were left to grading and other equipment from the MLGU with fuel paid for by the BLGU. 25. Whilst the schemes themselves were not sustained, the introduction of LBRRM often stimulated the barangay LGU to undertake more frequent road maintenance with the support of the municipal LGU which has in turn had very positive impacts through improved accessibility and increases in the volume and value of products marketed outside of the barangay. The LBRRM scheme also installed a sense of responsibility for maintaining upland roads and renewed the “bayanihan” spirit among community members. The commitment of BLGUs was evident through the regular allocation of a road maintenance budget (however limited) from the IRA which was rarely the case before the LBRRM scheme was introduced.

Q6. How well was the Rural Financial Services (RFS) scheme implemented?

26. The design of the UDP-RFS was weak and focussed more on the supply of credit than the demand for financial services in upland barangays. 27. There was insufficient understanding of the limitations and absorptive capacity of the upland organisations expected to become financial intermediaries. Farmers recognised the difficulties UDP faced trying to transform them into competent financial managers. Their lives revolve around farming, hence they would rather be competent farmer-producers converting their products to cash than become micro-bankers. 28. The performance of the Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) was better than that of the Farmers Service Centers (FSCs)-turned cooperatives in terms of both outreach and loan portfolio quality. MFIs proved to be more effective channels of financial products and services owing to their professional experience and motivation to innovate and provide client-responsive arrays of products. 29. A quantitative measurement of the UDP-RFS impact was not possible in the absence of baseline data and without any monitoring after the UDP ended. Qualitative assessment was based on anecdotal and reported accounts of key informants.


49

Positive impacts

Negative impacts

Upland farmers in some barangays, primarily those served by MFIs, are able to access loans with lower interest rates than those charged by informal money lenders or traders.

Recognition of the value and importance of savings although some viewed it as a prerequisite for accessing loans rather than as a mechanism for coping with unexpected events and increasing their asset base.

Enhanced knowledge, skills and confidence on borrowing and other financial matters.

Enhanced social capital through the formation of SLGs/FSCs working together for a common purpose.

MFIs encouraged to venture into the uplands where they found the portfolio quality to be higher than with their lowland clients.

MFIs started to develop financial products tailored to the needs of upland clients.

Negative perception of the UDP / projects introducing financial services to the uplands which was brought about by the abrupt and poorly explained changes made to the schemes half way through the project.

Some FSC clients lost their savings when proposed mergers with cooperatives were cancelled.

Loss of confidence in hired consultants (who were blamed for the changes).

Q7. How well has the Upland Southern Mindanao-Credit and Institutional Building Program (USM-CIBP) been operationalised?

30. The Agricultural Credit Policy Council (ACPC), the designated implementing agency of the USM-CIBP has performed well in consolidating the remaining funds of the Upland Development Program Trust Fund (UDPTF), ensuring the collection of receivables from the UDLF (Upland Development Loan Fund) and placing these in trust fund accounts. The total amount available for the USM-CIBP is PhP 137 million of which 15% (PhP 20.7 million) was receivable as of 30 June 2009. 31. The LBP-led scheme for assistance to non-Bank Accredited Cooperatives (non-BACs) is an enhancement of the UDP-RFS scheme for developing cooperatives as enterprise centers. However, the objective of also strengthening non-BACs to enhance their capacity as financial service providers appears to be a repetition of the UDP-RFS weaknesses. Expecting non-BACs to become mature and viable financial service providers in the short-term (3-5 years) is unrealistic especially when the cooperatives officers are already doubtful of their ability to manage and sustain savings and loans operations. 32. The prioritisation of non-BACs as recipients of institutional capacity building leaves out many of the BACs that are also in urgent need of capacity building and technical assistance to enhance their lending activities. 33. The credit scheme through a hold-out or guarantee fund as an integral component of the USM-CIBP may serve as an incentive for MFIs to expand their operations in upland areas, but does not address the MFIs’ need for additional loan capital to finance such an expansion. 34. The absence of a strategic plan with clear indicators of success for the initial three-year duration of the USM-CIBP could result in ambiguity over whether or not the program is meeting its targets. The preparation of work and financial plans (semi-annual or annual) is not enough to provide a clear indication of what needs to be achieved over the next three years. The strategic plan approved by the National Executive Committee was only for the Land Bank-led scheme and not for the entire USM-CIBP Program. Clear and time-bound impact indicators are needed to ensure that efficient use is made of the available resources to achieve the Program Goals.


50

35. The structure of the USM-CIBP is anchored on a matrix arrangement with committees composed of partner-agencies’ representatives at three hierarchical levels which makes the decision-making process slow. Convening these committees depends on the availability of members from three involved agencies who tend to prioritise obligations to their respective mother agencies over those of the USM-CIBP. 36. The USM-CIBP is only just coming close to the end of its preparatory phase and has yet to make any measurable impact on the development of viable financial institutions with efficient fund delivery systems operating in the upland areas of Southern Mindanao.

Q8. To what extent did the support for village enterprises result in increased economic activity in the upland communities?

37. Of the sixteen Upland Village Enterprises visited by the mission only seven are still operating and only two could be rated as strong with the potential to grow. The remaining five operational UVEs were operating with gross sales/income levels ranging from PhP 216,000 to PhP 720,000 per year. The operational surpluses are low and without access to additional working capital there is little potential for growth. 38. The UVEs make only minimal contributions to the local economy. The main economic benefits to upland communities are savings of transport fares for producer members of the co-operatives engaged in banana or abaca trading which, for an enterprise serving 100 producers, could amount to up to PhP 40,000 per month. 39. Although UDP recognised the limitations of upland farmers as entrepreneurs and provided business capability training, there was inadequate provision for continuing support to develop their skills and confidence after the Programme ended. 40. None of the UVEs set up as trading organisations were able to reduce the dependency of farmers on middlemen for marketing their produce. The aim of eliminating the role of the ‘middleman’ was unrealistic given that many of the UVEs were newly organised and considering that the private traders commonly provide their customers with additional services such as production loans and inputs chargeable to crop.

Q9. To what extent have LGUs, the LMP-MDC, DA, DENR and NGOs been able to replicate SUD schemes using their own resources?

41. DENR aims restore 14M hectares of forest cover using a Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) strategy which has similarities to the SUD-Schemes. DENR recognises the Barangay Forest Protection and Management (BFPM) sites but wishes to validate the Land-Use Barangay Development Plans (LUB-BDPs) for compliance with Forest Protection technical measures and standards. DENR plans to enter into co-management arrangements in watershed areas where the LGUs have exhibited matured governance. 42. The LUB-BDP has been replicated by a number of MLGUs as a means of securing funding from other foreign assisted projects like the MRDP. In all cases the replication of SUD schemes by LGUs conditional upon the active support and personal values of the mayors, barangay captains and governors. 43. Among the NGOs, replication is limited to assistance with the preparation of LUB-BDPs and the promotion of Diversified Farming Systems. These are being actively promoted by the Land Care Foundation, PCEEM, VWAB and MINRAP among others.

Q10. How relevant are SUD schemes to current initiatives under the Mindanao Trust Fund-Reconstruction and Development Program (MTF-RDP)?

44. Of the six SUD schemes, only the LUB-BDP is applicable to current initiatives under the MTF-RDP. Not as precursor to other activities as it was on UDP, but rather as a way of phasing out assistance from the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA) and handing over the responsibility for continuing support to the municipal LGU. Organising training and providing funds for the preparation of barangay development plans would provide BDA with opportunities to increase the assistance to LGUs in those municipalities with weak planning skills. The immediate benefits would be from a continuation of skills enhancement and confidence building at the community level and


51

from strengthening links with the municipal LGU. In the longer term, the presence of a well prepared BDP could be expected to attract funding from national line agencies and international donors as has already occurred in some of the areas formally covered by UDP. 45. The other SUD schemes are of less relevance to the MTF-RDP at this time. That could well change when a peace agreement is signed and the BDA’s priorities shift towards larger projects and longer term development goals. When that happens there is likely to be scope for initiatives on diversified farming and possibly forestry protection and management.

Q11. To what extent were the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) respected in UDP project activities?

46. The participatory processes used to prepare comprehensive watershed plans and later the land-use based Barangay Development Plans successfully ensured that indigenous peoples were able to actively participate and contribute to the formulation of development plans for the areas populated by IPs. There was however, no assistance for the preparation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs). 47. Although varying procedures were followed in the early years, the Programme ensured that Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) was obtained for all projects implemented in the ancestral domains. The NCIP guidelines for securing FPIC were followed from 2003 onwards with resolutions of consent from the concerned Barangay/Municipal Tribal Councils being a requirement for UDP funding. The Mission did however come across an example of where the process may have been followed but members of the tribal community still did not feel that they had been properly consulted with the result that they did not feel any sense of ownership for the project (a water system) or contribute to its maintenance. It is clearly not enough to simply follow the procedures, ICCs/IPs must be intimately involved in the planning and given time to internalise the project before it is implemented. 48. For the most part, there was active participation of IPs as DFS co-operators, in the agricultural extension services, in the maintenance of barangay roads and for the forest protection and management schemes. Implementation was said to have been smoother in those barangays where the Barangay Council and the Barangay Tribal Council worked together and were both involved in calling meetings, organising work schedules, distributing inputs, etc. Harmonious relationships were most evident in those barangays where IPs were elected members of the Barangay Council. 49. UDP provided considerable assistance for the delineation of barangay boundaries and the formulation of Barangay Development Plans, but did far less to help ICCs/IPs with applications for Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) or the preparation of ADSDPPs. UDP’s assistance was limited to disseminating information about the guidelines for acquiring CADTs which, in the Mission’s opinion, was a wasted opportunity to address the rights of ICCs/IPs to collective ownership and sustainable development of their ancestral domain.

Q12. How effectively were other crosscutting issues addressed by UDP?

50. UDP paid conspicuous attention to gender concerns from the outset and both the quality and quantity of gender related documents were well above those of other rural development projects supported by the EC in the Philippines. A comprehensive Gender Framework along with policy statements and guidelines were produced in 2002. These were followed by gender sensitivity training for project staff and seminars / focus group discussions on gender issues in the targeted barangays. Other gender related training, seminars and workshops were conducted through until the end of the programme. 51. The Mission did not have access to sex-disaggregated data for all activities, but the Programme’s annual reports suggest that women were well represented in the micro finance programmes, among the Barangay Extension Workers, as LGU Agricultural Technicians, as participants in technical training courses and amongst the officers of cooperatives and other community based organisations assisted by the Programme. The conclusion is therefore that UDP was successful in encouraging the equal participation of men and women in project activities. 52. The impact on balancing the role of men and women in the target communities is less clear. The Programme did not make any deliberate attempts to address issues such as domestic violence,


52

the multiple burdens of women in rural households or access to reproductive health services, even though these were documented as issues in the upland communities. UDP did however strive for gender equality in access to the opportunities and benefits from a project designed to address more gender-neutral concerns (agricultural productivity and environmental degradation). 53. The only example of women being negatively impacted by UDP’s interventions was when support was withdrawn from the Financial Service Centers (FSCs) in 2005. A majority of those saving in the FSCs were women and many lost not only their savings and access to affordable loans but also their confidence in financial services organised by the UDP. 54. With one of the UDP’s twin purposes being to develop a model for the sustainable management of upland resources, it is no surprise that considerable attention was paid to the consequences of current farming practices and the identification of ways to arrest environmental degradation. The Programme produced a number of ad hoc papers on environmental issues in the uplands of Southern Mindanao and devoted considerable resources to the introduction of environmentally sustainable farming practices and protection of the remaining forest areas. 55. Environmental sustainability was fundamental to the land use based barangay development planning exercise underlying all UDP’s interventions and there is already anecdotal evidence that there has been a positive impact on the natural resource base in many of the upland barangays covered by the programme. 56. There is no evidence to suggest that the UDP had anything but a positive impact on the environment and it is fair to conclude that the Programme successfully contributed to the protection and regeneration of natural resources in upland areas.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

57. The following recommendations apply to sustaining the benefits from existing SUD schemes as well to new projects and programs targeting poverty elevation in the uplands.

5.1 Land Use Based Barangay Development Planning

1. MGLUs should give priority to the preparation of a municipal Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) by consolidating the LUB-BDPs that incorporate Barangay Forest Protection and Management Plans. The LUB-BDPs must be adjusted first to ensure that land use classifications are consistent with existing forest policy and the land use classification of DENR. 2. The FLUP should then be integrated in the MLGU’s comprehensive land use plan. As indicated in the Joint Memorandum Circular 98-01 between DENR and DILG, the expanded DENR-LGU partnership on forest management activities specifies that they shall jointly undertake forest land use planning, the output of which shall become an integral part of the concerned LGUs comprehensive land-use plan. 3. The Municipal FLUPs must give consideration to allowing multiple uses of watershed areas combining water source and biodiversity protection with compatible uses that are economically viable, ecologically sustainable, socially-acceptable and based on land suitability. This may entail joint policy formulation at the barangay, municipal and provincial levels. 4. The PLGUs/MLGUs should initiate the documentation of best practices and lessons learned from land-use based planning in successful barangays such as Barangay Santo Rosario, Municipality of San Isidro and Barangay Ompao, Municipality of Tarragona in Davao Oriental; and barangay Tagaytay, Municipality of Magsaysay in Davao del Sur. 5. The LUB-BDP guidelines need to be updated to include additional sections on Income Generation and the barangay Poverty Reduction Agenda. 6. The next phase of land-use based barangay development planning should include parcellary mapping and zoning ordinances at the barangay and municipal level. The purpose would be to improve on the LUB-BDP thematic maps. The exercise should be led by the MLGUs and the output integrated in the municipality’s CLUP.


53

7. Future interventions should encourage LGUs to develop sectoral strategies on climate change adaptation / disaster management for integration in the BDPs considering the critical nature of the upland and the vulnerabilities of people living there. A paper on how to prepare for the effects on climate change on agriculture was commissioned by the UDP and recommendations therein can be reviewed by LGUs to develop strategies applicable to their local conditions. 8. Future land-use planning interventions in the uplands should coordinate with the DENR Forest Land Uses Division and its regional affiliates that are tasked under the recent DENR DAO 2008-04 to assess and delineate boundaries between forestlands, national parks and agricultural lands. The objective is to determine the boundaries of permanent forest lines in the barangays so as not to create conflicts in the future and/or resolve the present uncertainties and conflicting claims, over legal land classification in the uplands. 9. MLGUs should initiate a land-use plan and watershed monitoring system to track the implementation of land use planning decisions (implementation monitoring) and gather the data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring). The MIS which was initiated in MLGUs and PLGUs during the UDP should be reactivated as this includes some simple facilities for more comprehensive monitoring with respect to output indicators (quantitative and qualitative), implementation processes and results. The indicators used in DILG’s performance monitoring system should be incorporated in the system to ensure compatibility and once the BDP data has been added the MIS will show the relationship between the BDP and municipal annual investment plan.

5.2 Diversified Farming Systems (DFS)

10. Future projects targeting sustainable development of the uplands should adopt the UDP-DFS scheme with perennial crops as the central element for increasing farm income. Priority should be given to the promotion of fruit trees, coffee, cocoa, coconut and rubber for which there are established marketing chains. 11. Vegetables crops such as carrots, onions, cabbage, broccoli and potatoes should only be promoted in easily accessible upland barangays where cooler conditions prevail and where they can be integrated into an alley-cropping system with medium-duration crops like abaca or banana as well as fruit trees. 12. Full training and support should be provided based along the lines of the UDP - Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery scheme with emphasis on demonstrations in barangays (learning sites); a farmers field school approach to technology transfer and cross visits to successful farms in other areas to promote farmer to farmer links. 13. Future projects should forging avoid rigid links between erosion control strips and crop diversification as they have different, even if complementary, aims. The UDP-DFS guidelines rightly assert that permanent tree crops or multi-storey crops with a good ground cover are an imitation of the natural forest system and provide adequate protection for the soil surface. This would avoid confusion over the primary purpose of the DFS scheme. 14. The UDP guidelines for identifying appropriate diversification strategies according to slope gradients, soil depth and the individual farm objectives are clear and comprehensive and should be adopted by future projects promoting the sustainable development of the uplands. Care should be taken to focus on the appropriate combination of short, medium and long-term crops rather than the establishment of contour hedgerows or vegetative strips. 15. New projects which provide agricultural or other inputs intended to improve economic circumstances and change behaviour should be carefully designed with appropriate mechanisms to promote farmer ownership, self-reliance and enhance prospects for sustainability. This would include clear explanations of project aims and methods of working at the outset, full farmer participation in identifying, planning and implementing activities, a counterpart contribution and be supported by continuous step-by-step support and training. This would be part of an extension system which is embedded in the barangay in a similar manner to the UDP-UAED scheme.


54

5.3 Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery System

16. The barangay extension worker concept should be promoted on future projects to provide an accessible link to technical support and local government services as well as other service provider within and outside the barangay/municipality. It also represents an economical means of achieving clientele assistance for the LGU in support of agricultural technician services. 17. New projects should provide and institutionalise an appropriate compensation and incentives system to motivate barangay extension workers to carry out their roles efficiently and effectively. 18. Future projects should also promote an informal farmer to farmer extension system to complement the official process. This could be similar to that developed by UDP with the emphasis on skills enhancement and “training of trainers” training for the farmers taking part. It is important that as much of the extension mechanism as possible will still function when external donor support ends and so needs to kept as simple as possible and self perpetuating (e.g. farmer to farmer exchanges). As much of the functionality as possible should be embedded in the community with but with the opportunity to access specialised external assistance via the LGU when necessary. 19. It is important to ensure the BEWs are continuously exposed to new techniques, innovations and changing market demands etc. through appropriate skills training and information so as to maintain BEW skills and motivation as well as keep farmers informed on a continuous basis. LGUs need to institutionalise regular skills upgrading in the same manner as for their ATs by utilising the appropriate specialised agencies, for example the DA-ATI. 20. Learning sites of diversified farms operated by private farmers as their own enterprises Are valuable as a hands-on training venue for skills development and visual demonstrations of what can be achieved. It is important that such learning sites are not provided with assistance that is impossible for potential adopters to provide from their own resources or which induce dependence on external assistance. 21. As well using established learning centres the LGU should carry out training and demonstrations on other farmer co-operator sites which are of notable quality. This would have the effect of promoting quality and facilitate farmer to farmer linkages. 22. Extension delivery systems should have a strong demand driven (demand from communities) element to promote ownership of activities by the farmer adopters. Other principles are full participation in identification, planning and implementation of activities, and counterpart contributions which contribute to a sense of farmer ownership of the project.

5.4 Barangay Forest Protection and Management

23. MLGUs should elicit DENR’s assistance with the preparation of Forest Land Use Plans (FLUPs) that incorporate the Barangay Forest Protection and Management Plans. The LUB-BDPs must be adjusted first to ensure that the land use classifications are consistent with existing forest policy and the land use classification of DENR. The FLUPs should incorporate a community-based watershed and biodiversity resource monitoring and evaluation mechanism for use within the barangay forest protected area. 24. Barangay FLUPs should be integrated in the municipal and provincial level comprehensive land use plans to take account of situations where critical watersheds cross barangay or municipal boundaries. The amalgamation of FLUPs will highlight opportunities for inter-LGU collaboration in managing shared resources. 25. The MENRO should be established as a permanent office tasked to oversee the preparation of FLUPs and forest protection activities in the municipality. The joint DENR-DILG Memorandum Circular no. 98-01 encourages the appointment or designation of ENRO and the creation of an ENR Office in the LGU. It also states that Joint DENR-LGU forest protection teams shall be created to enforce forest laws and regulations. The creation of a separate MENRO with its own budget, rather than being part of the office of the Mayor or an additional function of the office of agriculture, will help strengthen the co-management system that has been proven to be successful in many barangays covered by UDP.


55

26. Other areas of intervention could include activities and strategies to: a) support PLGUs and MLGUs to develop mechanisms for rewarding upland farmers for maintaining and sustaining environmental services; b) provide training and logistical support to enhance the capabilities and skills of MLGUs and BLGUs in the performance of their NRM functions; c) facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experience with BFPM and its corresponding impacts; and, d) encourage LGUs to conduct regular and information and education campaigns to raise and deepen the awareness on biodiversity conservation and forest management. 27. Future interventions should ensure that the NRM components of future projects involve DENR, DA and other national government agencies, including the NCIP and LMP, not only in the implementation of upland development projects but also during the planning and design phases.

5.5 Labour-Based Routine Road Maintenance

28. Future projects should revise the LBRRM scheme to allow for periodic equipment support hence implementing a more sustainable Labour Based / Equipment Supported (LB/ES) model with the following conditions:

1. roads must be rehabilitated or upgraded to a maintainable level first with proper surfacing (gravel armouring with tyre tracks along road gradients of more than 12%) and proper drainage facilities (lined canals with slopes of more than 12% and appropriate sizes of drainage crossings) prior to putting them under the LB/ES maintenance scheme;

2. labour-based repairs need to be initiated immediately after heavy rainfall or as soon as the early signs of distresses become evident - the prompt use of manual labour while the damage is manageable can help avoid the expensive use of equipment later;

3. active and continuing participation and commitment of barangay officials in initiating labour based activities and providing regular maintenance budget for incentives of the workers from the BLGU IRA;

4. regular monitoring of road status through general assembly and reminding the community of their responsibilities to maintain the facilities to sustain the benefits that can be derived from a well maintained road;

5. establishment and implementation of appropriate road use policies and ordinances (to include the imposition of road tolls); and

6. routine technical, equipment and financial support built into the annual investment plan of the municipal LGU.

5.6 Upland Southern Mindanao–Credit and Institutional Building Program

Recommendations Specific to the USM-ICBP:

29. Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) interventions should consider the geographic location and the presence of existing financial providers which provides for two types of ICB and credit support

19/:

Case 1: For UDP areas with the strong presence of an existing MFI, the primary focus of technical support to cooperatives should be on enterprise development leaving re-lending to the established MFI. However, there needs to be strong coordination and agreement with the MFI to allow cooperative members to access their micro-agri credit products and other financial services. Case 2: For UDP areas without any existing MFIs or mature cooperatives, a non-BAC with a positive net surplus, a well prepared business plan and firm commitment among its core officers and management team could be developed as a financial intermediary. However,

19

/ ACPC is of the opinion that these recommendations are already incorporated in the framework but this is to

reiterate that enterprise development should be the primary focus of the ICB rather then developing non-BACs as financial intermediaries in areas with existing MFIs. This is to avoid credit pollution and the duplication of financial services to the same target groups.


56

the technical assistance must be intensive and not confined to training workshops. It must include mentoring, coaching and hands-on guidance with a focus on savings and loans.

30. The ICB interventions should not only be focused among officers/management staff of the cooperatives but also among cooperative members. Credit with education, basic financial literacy including household budgeting and resource management must be incorporated in the training program. 31. The USM-CIBP management needs to fast-track implementation of the program, set up clear performance indicators (financial, operational and impact), adhere to the approved work schedule and ensure that the intended support reaches upland areas in the most efficient and effective way. General Recommendations

32. A comprehensive market research and behavioural analysis of the target groups must be conducted at the beginning of any project striving to enhance access to financial services by the upland communities. 33. A demand survey, including geographical, poverty and product mapping should also be undertaken prior to the start of the project to determine the appropriate mix of financial products and services, the capacity to pay and affordability of loans to the target groups. The financial products should not only be limited to credit and savings but should also include micro-insurance to mitigate the effect of risk-bearing and shock impacting events to household cash flows. 34. Implementation of any financial related project must be organised as a business without undermining its social mission of poverty alleviation; the right balance of financial and social goals has proven to be effective if understanding and the right culture is established at the start. 35. Operational and performance targets should be set and given greater emphasis than the rate of fund disbursement. The focus should be on efficiency, productivity, profitability and the quality of outreach rather than the rate of disbursement. 36. Financial services or credit components should not included on grant-funded integrated rural development program in the Philippines. Even national projects and programs would be well advised to leave the provision of credit to established financial institutions that operate as profitable businesses.

5.7 Upland Village Enterprise Development

37. An in-depth feasibility study of the economic, trading and market circumstances in which the enterprise is expected to operate should be carried out prior to organising groups of farmers to engage in commodity trading. This is particularly important with respect to the existence of well established private traders which can severely affect the viability of newly established enterprises. Linking the enterprises with financial service providers at an early stage would help them to compete with private traders. 38. Continuing and long-term support in the form of coaching and training on business planning and management should be provided for farmers groups or associations with limited entrepreneurial skills. Linking small scale, fledgling enterprises, with permanent business development service providers for continuing support after project support ends is essential to make them viable 39. Farmers groups and associations should not be pushed towards registering as cooperatives before they are ready. Associations of families are often a more appropriate structure at least in the early stages of development. The group can be assisted to progress further as their skills and confidence develop according to their needs. Skills training using the CEFE system may be beneficial. 40. Instead of following the association/co-operative model for enterprise development, future projects should explore the potential for setting up individual family enterprises as an alternative. These are more likely to be sustainable especially where there are no clear and achievable advantages to a co-operative. Individual enterprises can be encouraged to seek assistance or


57

markets as a group whilst maintaining their own integrity; facilitating finance would be an important element. 41. One private enterprise that can be recommended and promoted in combination with diversified farming systems is the establishment of barangay level tree-crop nurseries managed individually by farmers. Careful selection would be a pre-requisite and the individual concerned should be able to make some personal counterpart contribution beyond the usual labour commitment. Complete training in nursery techniques as well as in business planning and development would be necessary.

5.8 Replication of SUD schemes after UDP ended

42. There should be a routine annual review of the LUB-BDP to promote transparent governance through the participation of the barangay constituents as an exercise of the democratic and learning process. LGUs need continuous technical administrative and management trainings by the convergence team composed of DENR, DAR, DA, and DILG with support coming from LMP-MDC as provided for in E.O 6. Successful SUD municipalities like Laak in Compostela Valley, San Isidro in Davao Oriental, Santa Cruz in Davao del Sur and Glan in Sarangani should be tapped by LMP-MDC to serve as learning centers for SUD and be promoted by DENR to pilot the co-management arrangement. 43. Similarly, LMP-MDC should encourage the nomination of one municipality in each region to become a learning center for replication. The municipality of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur would be a strong candidate for Region XI. LMP-MDC should vigorously pursue advocacy for sustainable upland development among those LGUs that have so far been reluctant to adopt the SUD schemes. Similar to coastal resource management experience, LMP should take the lead with the support of for a SUD convergence team and by conducting by annual summits for SUD. 44. The PLGU should provide technical and financial assistance to the MLGUs and BLGUs for sustaining the positive impacts of SUD schemes. It should provide continuity where political exercises threaten the growth of upland communities. People’s participation should be supported for it promotes social and organizational learning crucial to institutional development of the CBOs. This also promotes empowerment of people and their institutions a condition needed for sustainable development. 45. The DENR as lead agency for the DENR-Upland Development Program should convene the steering committee to act on the following:

a). Review the DA-UDP accomplishments and provide the necessary oversight to harmonize all LUB-BDPs to be consistent with existing forest protection and management standards and processes of the Department.

b). Enhance the awareness of local executives on forest management and sustainable upland development and develop their leadership and capability for co-management arrangements.

c). Collaborate with LMP-MDC on a program of learning and advocacy for local executives to hasten the replication and multiplication of SUD-schemes.

d). Improve the process of convergence among the agency members at the top and, with the assistance of LMP/MDC, strengthen convergence at the LGU level.

46. Future projects and programs concerned with upland development / poverty alleviation should learn how to scale down activities so that the poor and LGUs can absorb new capabilities. The poor should be capacitated to control and manage local resources and there should be less reliance on importing materials and services from outside. Projects should remain small, visible and impartial by encouraging the use of local mechanisms for aspects such as the selection of participants and project sites.

5.9 Relevance of the SUD schemes to initiatives under the MTF-RDP

47. Land-Use Based–Barangay Development Planning could be undertaken after a community has successfully completed three sub-project cycles and the BDA is preparing to phase out assistance under the MTF-RDP. The exercise should be led by the Municipal Technical Team rather than the BDA and serve as a means of strengthening links between the municipal LGU and


58

conflicted affected communities. The precise mapping of boundaries or the delineation of land types should not however be attempted in areas with ongoing boundary disputes or conflicts over land ownership.

5.10 Respect for the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities / Indigenous Peoples

48. New projects should give priority to the preparation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs) in all areas where Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) have been awarded or applied for. The ADSDPP would then be the basis for identifying and funding socio-economic projects within the ancestral domain. 49. For those areas not covered by CADTs, but never the less populated by IPs, the project should begin by conducting a separate planning exercise led by the Barangay Tribal Council. The boundaries for the land use plan should be those of the clan or the tribe rather than those of the barangay. Traditional decision making processes should be used to select and prioritise activities for inclusion in the Tribal Development Plan (TDP). The TDP can then be merged with the Barangay Development Plan with those projects not appearing in both plans being included under a separate Indigenous Peoples sector heading in the BDP.

5.11

UDP Post Completion Mission – 1st Draft Final Report

ANNEXES

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX A

AN-1

UPLAND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN SOUTHERN MINDANAO POST

COMPLETION MISSION TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Origin and main features of the Project

The Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao (UDP) ("the Program") was a program of the Department of

Agriculture (DA) jointly funded by the Government of the Philippines (GOP) and the European Commission (EC). It was the

successor of the EC- funded Southern Mindanao Agricultural Program (SMAP), and built on the gains and lessons learned of the

SMAP. Based on these earlier experiences, the UDP adopted different concepts and objectives, in particular a shift from a micro-

project approach towards a modelling one with the aim to encourage replication of best practices by stakeholders. The Financing

Agreement (FA) for the Program was signed on 20 October 1998 and the Technical Assistance Contract on 18 January 1999.

According to the original FA, the Program should have ended on 17 January 2006, based on a 7-year time duration for

implementation. However, in order to increase the program impact and maximize the chances of sustainability and replicability

of the upland development models, extension of crucial of activities up to 31 July 2007 was jointly decided by the GOP and the

EC (Addendum 1 to the FA).

In the FA and approved Global Work plan (GWP), the Program was supposed to operate in 120 barangays, 30 municipalities and

5 provinces in Region XI. Due to administrative changes made by the Government of the Philippines (GOP) in the course of

Program implementation, two of the covered provinces were resituated in Region XII. Replication also changed the original FA

targets in respect of municipalities. By the end of the Program, it operated in 2 Regions, 6 Provinces, 38 Municipalities and 144

Barangays.

The Overall Objective of the UDP was to develop a replicable model for sustaining the upland resource base and improving

living standards and prosperity of communities who derive most of their income from upland farming.

The specific objectives were the development and testing of a replicable model for sustainable management of the natural

resources in the uplands and to enable upland communities to address their subsistence needs and to produce new marketable

surplus through sustainable market-led agricultural development.

Local government units (LGUs-- provincial, municipal and barangay) and upland communities were the beneficiaries as well as

the implementers in the field. To facilitate and capacitate the LGUs (provincial, municipal and barangay) and communities, the

Program recruited staff, of whom a majority worked in SMAP. It also contracted local consultants and civil society organizations

for that purpose.

The original Program budget of UDP was €48.65 million (€18.3M from EC;€ 7.68 M from GoP; € 9.6M from LGUs; € 0.55M

from Partner Financial Institutions (PFIs); and € 12.52 M from Beneficiaries) This was reduced to € 47.65 M due to the

decommitment of € 1M from the EC grant of € 18.3 M when the time extension was granted in November 2005.

UDP was organized into 6 components:

1. Community and Institutional Development and Extension,

2. Sustainable Agriculture

3. Resource Management

4. Marketing and Enterprise Development

5. Rural Financial Services

6. Agricultural Infrastructure Support

After a couple of years in operation, internal performance assessments identified a dispersed implementation approach, delayed

implementation and a low financial performance due to flaws in the design and some other reasons that can be summarized as

follows:

1. In respect of design flaws:

a. The mixing of modeling with a traditional rural development program whereby in the latter

case, maximum coverage and number of (micro) projects are usually pursued and replicability

is not prioritized; and

b. The component based approach that has created confusion during implementation and created

a lot of isolated instead of integrated activities. It made the learning curve for developing a


AN-2

replicable SUD (sustainable upland development) model extra long, both for UDP's own staff

as well as for the counterparts, particularly the LGUs;

c. There was an overestimation of LGU (provincial, municipal, barangay) absorption capacities

in respect of activities, and counterpart contributions; and

d. Replicability of the SUD best practices should somehow be within capacities and capabilities

of LGUs and upland communities, being the implementers and not donor funding driven

which would undermine sustainability and replicability. In short, less funds than originally

foreseen were required.

2. The covered LGUs (provincial, municipal and barangay) were exposed to such a major donor sponsored development

program like the UDP for the first time and had to get used to the conditions tied to such programs.

3. There was a frequent turnover of LGU (provincial, municipal and barangay) staff.

4. There was also a delayed deployment of GOP staff assigned to UDP.

5. Some security problems also delayed the Program implementation and subsequently affected expenditure levels.

The internal assessments had also brought to light the weaknesses in the quality of the LGU (provincial, municipal and barangay)

extension service delivery and limited effects on stakeholders of environmental awareness campaigns (EACs), exposures,

trainings etc. This subsequently resulted in relatively weak community organisations and slow adoption by farmers of appropriate

technologies for upland farming, protection of the land against erosion and poor prevention of further encroachment into forest

areas by upland farmers. The tendency to be sucked into infrastructure projects implemented at poor standards and without

establishing systematic maintenance schemes were also identified as a constraining factor in achieving UDP's objectives. The

fragmented component based approach as a result of the Program design, was another cause found for relatively low performance

by the LGUs (provincial, municipal, barangay) and communities in respect of sustainable upland development. During the course

of the Program, the Rural Finance Services (RFS) scheme was also subjected to major changes beyond the control of the Program

as a result of Executive Order No. 138 and the passing of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), whereby the

responsibility of implementing the scheme had to be handed over to Government Financial Institutions (GFIs).

All this affected the timing of the formulation and testing of the targeted replicable model and expenditure levels as well. The

internal assessment findings were confirmed by the findings of a Mid- Term Review (MTR) Mission fielded in September 2003

and a switching of course and the need to agree and adopt the best-tested practices, strategies/final model to promote SUD, was

recommended. In 2004, an agreement was reached with relevant stakeholders on the final model to promote and replicate. This

implied revisions in several of the strategies. Service providers to address the need for continuous capacity building of LGUs

(provincial, municipal and barangay) and communities to implement and replicate the schemes were engaged which created a

much broader spectrum of stakeholders involved in promoting SUD. The component approach was abolished which reduced

/stopped support for isolated activities. Instead, a more integrated support package was provided to the implementing partners. It

also resulted in the dropping and/or refocusing of certain activities, which had consequences in respect of achieving original log-

frame targets at that time. The shift in implementation strategy facilitated a more focused approach and standardization and

integration of activities. It also involved many more development partners from civil society. The final model was named

Sustainable Upland Development or SUD model with 4 schemes implemented under the auspices of the LGUs (provincial,

municipal and barangay) and 2 private sector driven schemes.

A pre-completion mission was conducted by the end of 2005, just before the extension was granted. It confirmed that the SUD

model was a good strategy for SUD and recommended to replicate it massively during the extension period.

The model has the following schemes:

1. Landuse-Based Barangay Development Planning (LUB-BDP);

2. Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery for introducing Diversified farming Systems with upland farmers (UAED-DFS);

3. Barangay Forest Protection and Management (BFPM) of remaining forest pockets and ecologically critical areas in a

barangay; and

4. Labour-Based Routine Barangay Road Maintenance and Repair of vital barangay roads.

The two private sector driven schemes which support the SUD are:

1. Rural Financial Services (RFS) implemented by Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), cooperatives and micro-

finance institutions (MFIs); and

2. Upland Village Enterprise Development (UVED) implemented by farmer- groups/cooperatives.

To elevate environmental and agricultural concerns in the upland areas to higher levels as strongly recommended by various

evaluation and monitoring missions, the Program started to participate in and organise Regional and National fora to present and

get feedback on its model for further improvement. It also presented its upland concerns and solutions to the Congressional


AN-3

Committees on Natural Resources Management and Agriculture. Finally in 2007, it managed, with the help of the League of

Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) and its Mayors Development Centre (MDC) to get an executive order (E.O. 606) and

implementing guidelines on SUD in place and duly signed by the President of the Philippines and Secretaries of the concerned

National Agencies. E.O. 606 and its guidelines spell out among others that the SUD model schemes should be pursued for the

sustainable development in the uplands of the country. The LMP is given an important facilitating, supervising and coordinating

role whereby support from the concerned national agencies should be provided.

In order to ensure sustainability and continuity of the rural finance services, a successor program called the Upland Southern

Mindanao-Credit and Institution Building Program (USM-CIBP) was established before UDP's closure in July 2007. USM-CIBP

seeks to provide credit and institutional capacity-building services to 2 major rural finance institutions, the cooperatives and the

micro-finance institutions (MFIs). For the cooperatives component, the Land Bank of the Philippines will be the major partner

and credit provider while for the microfinance component, ACPC would be the major partner together with established rural

finance institutions with significant micro-finance experience in the provision of credit. ACPC serves as the secretariat of the

whole USM-CIBP.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

2.1 Beneficiaries

The Government of the Philippines (GoP) and its concerned Agencies i.e. the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department

of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the European Commission, the League of Municipalities (LMP), and the

Program stakeholders such as the LGUs (provincial, municipal, barangay) and upland communities and civil society

organisations (CSOs).

2.2 Objectives

The global objective of the assignment is to conduct a post completion evaluation of the Upland Development Program (UDP)

and formulate recommendations in future areas of EC interventions in poverty reduction in the Philippines. Specifically, the

Mission will be tasked to:

1. To assess the impact of the UDP in terms of sustainability and the quantitative (e.g., increase in income levels) as well

as qualitative (e.g, improved standard of living, reflected in key indicators, including child and maternal nutrition)

indicators of replicability of the SUD schemes in the areas that were covered by the Program such as:

a. How many of the schemes which were implemented by the end of the UDP are still in

operation and at what level of quality e.g. are extension teams still in place and providing

services to upland farmers?; are these community based extension teams that were

organised and capacitated during UDP still supported by the Provincial and Regional

Training teams; have the farmers who benefitted from DFS support continued to look after

their farms; are the learning sites still functioning and how many became "earning sites"; to

what extent the LUB-BDPs have been implemented, has the land use agreed upon been

followed, how many projects in the BDP were funded and for how much; are the areas

declared as forest protection areas still properly protected; are the barangay roads where

maintenance crews were fielded still well maintained, how many crews are still working

and for how many days a year; are the Upland Village Enterprises (UVEs) supported by the

Programme still operating;

b. How many SUD schemes, in how many more barangays and in how many originally UDP

covered MLGUs, were replicated and at what quality and quantity when compared to the

original specifications that guided the implementation of the schemes during UDP?

c. In respect of rural financial services, assess accomplishments of the Program from the

beginning until its completion in July 2007 and how the successor USM-CIBP has been

operationalised to achieve its objectives. Areas of assessment on USM-CIBP would include

amount of funds that have been consolidated, assessment of UDP-supported cooperatives

for institutional capacity-building intervention as well as possible credit beneficiaries,

management structure that has been established, resource organisations contracted for the

operations of the program, etc. among others.

2. To assess to what extent the SUD schemes have been adopted by other LGUs (provincial, municipal, barangay) and upland

communities in Mindanao and countrywide; and what is the quality of implementation;

3. To assess to impact the Executive Order (EO) 606 has had on replicating the SUD schemes;

4. To assess the role and effectiveness of the League of Municipalities in the Philippines (LMP) and its Mayors Development

Center (MDC) in respect of promoting SUD country wide;

5. To provide the GoP, EC Delegation and LMP/MDC with recommendations that may further enhance their effectiveness in

enhancing the dissemination of the SUD model, for example recommendations that would further enhance the effectiveness

of the DENR in providing the leadership role among support national agencies in the replication of the SUD model as

facilitated by the LMP-MDC;


AN-4

6. To assess efficiency of the program, including the number of beneficiaries in relation to the resources made available and an

analysis of the costs of the program;

7. To determine potential links of UDP to current rural development initiatives under the Mindanao Trust Fund-Reconstruction

and Development Program (MTF-RDP) and provide recommendations as to how these links could be addressed in the MTF-

RDP; and

8. How has UDP addressed crosscutting issues in terms of:

a) Improved respect for the protection of the human rights of upland farmers; to what extent the upland farmers, both

women and men, exercised or claimed rights under the ambit of UDP;

b) Better gender relations and equitable opportunities for women and men in the project sites; have gender roles and

cultural difference affected access to project benefits or to the exercise of human rights;

c) Increased the gender accountability of national government agencies and LGUs (provincial, municipal, barangay); to

what extent have they responded to the varied concerns of upland farmers, both women and men?

d.) Inclusion of Indigenous People (IPs). Most of the UDP areas include indigenous people. To what extent have they

benefited from the project, in particular in respect to development and implementation of their Ancestral Domain

Sustainable Development Protection Plans, the extent to which these have been aligned with the project's objectives

and the extent to which LGUs (provincial, municipal, barangay) involved in project implementation have provided

relevant services to IP communities.

2.3 Requested Services

The actual organisation of the Mission's work is left to the Team Leader. However, the following requirements will have to be fulfilled

i. A briefing session will be organised in Manila with the EC Delegation, the Philippine

authorities, LMP-MDC, DA, DENR, NEDA1, DILG2, the Agricultural Credit and Policy Council

(ACPC) and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) at the start of the Mission

in the Philippines

ii. Collection of first hand information in the UDP covered areas through detailed discussions and

consultations during site visits with P/M/BLGUs' officials and upland communities/farmers,

farmer learning sites, the Community Based and Regional Extension Networks, CSOs and other

stakeholders and review relevant program documents and progress and evaluation reports and

other information as well, all available at: www.saveuplands.org and in the library of the MDC

Mindanao. The Mission will establish itineraries and visits after initial briefings, and review

these on a two-week basis.

iii. The Mission will be given as much autonomy and flexibility as possible, although the Mission's

Team Leader is encouraged to discuss regularly the Mission's progress, preliminary findings and

recommendations with the main partners on SUD i.e., LMP/MDC together with University of

Southeastern Philippines, an important partner of LMP/MDC for SUD replication in Mindanao,

DA, DENR and the EC.

iv. The wrap-up meeting at the MDC Mindanao and Manila together with relevant regional offices

of the DA, where findings, recommendations and conclusions are to be presented and adequately

discussed for the benefit of LMP and the DA.

v. Meet with other donors actively supporting sustainable rural development programs in the

Philippines to know which of the successful practices of UDP have been picked up by other

donors; as well as donors with pipeline projects on providing technical assistance on natural

resources management and support to indigenous peoples.

vi. Formulate recommendations for future EC interventions in the Philippines.

vii. A debriefing session will be organised in Manila with the same participants as the briefing (see i), on the basis of the

Aide Memoire referred to in point 5.2 below. Unless considered absolutely vital by the Mission - in which case a

further debriefing will be conducted on those new points -no additional new major recommendations should be

proposed by the Mission after the debriefing.

In the Philippines, the Mission will be co-ordinating with mainly with the EC Delegation in Manila, the LMP and the DA.

2.4 Expected Results

In a general manner, the Mission will have assessed, and evaluated the sustainability and replicability of the SUD schemes in the

former UDP covered areas as well as countrywide under the auspices of the LMP. The quality of implementation in replication

areas in the covered regions as well as elsewhere will also be indicated. It will elaborate on the perceived constraints and also

give recommendations in respect of further improving and expanding the schemes and how their replication can be accelerated.

http://www.saveuplands.org/


AN-5

3. EXPERTS' PROFILE 3.1 General

requirements

One category 1 expert as Team Leader and five category 2 experts will compose the team, as described below. The team should

be well balanced so that the required field of expertise as described below is met. The Team Leader, in consultation with its team

members, will organise the division of tasks. The major criteria to be considered are a smooth and efficient process and an

excellent output.

All experts must be fluent in English and have the category indicated in the headings below.

In particular, the Team Leader must have proven personal experience of long-term technical assistance in the scope of EU funded

projects in Asian countries. It is also required that due to the nature of the terrain that all the experts are physically fit to

undertake the fieldwork required.

3.2 Expert n°1: Team Leader Category I

The expert must have a relevant university degree, preferably Economist/Environmentalist/Rural Development, and at least 15

years of relevant work experience in developing and transition countries and be familiar with upland concerns in South-East

Asia. Experience in working with integrated rural development/environmental programs, part of which must have been in the

position of Team Leader/Project Manager, is required; must have skills in project management, monitoring and evaluation, as

well as consolidating the work of a team of experts. Must be familiar with EC objectives and approaches to development in

different regions of the world, in particular in South East Asia. Experience in decentralised government structures in Southeast

Asia, preferably in the Philippines, will be an advantage. Background on EU crosscutting policies is desirable.

Main tasks, besides the necessary input required in the various domains covered by the team, will be the following: a) Ensure

effective supervision and co-ordination of the work of all the experts of the team, paying particular attention to the experts'

capacity to interact positively in a multi-cultural environment; b) Ensure that the technical inputs and results are geared towards

strategic goals and objectives shared by the Philippines and the EC; c) assess the cost efficiency of the program; d) Supervise the

drafting of individual expert contributions and lead the drafting and revisions of the intermediate and final reports; and e) Present

the outcome to the GOP and EC within the agreed timetable.

The Team Leader will be expected, apart from the team and mission management, to specifically look into strategies, what can be

done more in respect of improving and replicating the UDP schemes in the UDP covered regions and beyond.

3.3 Expert n°2: Agriculturist/Farming Systems/Extension/ Agri- Marketing Specialist Category II

An agriculturist/agricultural engineer with at least 10 years relevant work experience. Experience in agriculture extension

processes specifically with upland/highland farming systems in fragile mountainous regions and familiar with low external inputs

for sustainable agriculture is required. The specialist should have experience in upland farming systems for small holders and be

familiar with government based as well as private based extension mechanisms. The expert will focus on the UAEDS/ DFS and

UVE scheme of the SUD model and its impact in the UDP covered areas as well as in replication areas. He/she should also have

relevant work experience in the marketing systems for high value but perishable produce (vegetables, fruits, forest products), in

remote and poorly accessible mountain areas, and in rural agri-enterprise development that have backward linkages to upland

farmers. Familiarity of the local farming practices in the Philippines and knowledge of any of the major dialects in the

Philippines, particularly in Mindanao is required.

3.4. Expert n° 3: Natural Resources Management Expert Category II

The expert will have at least 10 years relevant work experience with upland natural resource/forest management programs in the

Philippines and should have extensive experience in community based natural resources management/forest protection. S/he will

focus on the Land-use-Based participatory Barangay Development-Planning scheme and the Barangay Forest Protection Scheme

and its scope and relevance in terms of saving the remaining forests in upland barangays and the extent of replication of the

scheme elsewhere. S/he will also evaluate the utilisation and extent of replication of the GIS/MIS that was piloted during UDP in

selected LGUs. Knowledge of various national and local laws on natural resources, forestry and land-use in the Philippines is

required.

3.5 Expert n°4: Rural Micro-Finance/Co-operative specialist Category II

The expert must have academic and professional qualifications in finance, banking economics and practical banking procedures

and at least 10 years of relevant work experience. S/he should have substantial hands on operating experience in rural

development projects with microfinance and rural agricultural credit programs and rural credit systems for co-operatives. This

expert will specifically review and evaluate the Rural Financial Services Scheme managed by the GFIs and should be familiar

with GoP's policies on financial service delivery.


AN-6

3.6 Expert n°5: Social/Institutional Development/Capacity- Building with LGUs and Community Organisations

Category II

A social scientist or related graduate with at least 10 years of relevant work experience. Fully conversant with the Philippines'

Local Government Code and government decentralisation thrust and with substantial experience in LGU capacity building,

Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) and with substantial experience in working with IP communities. H/she should be

familiar with GoPs priorities in terms of convergence in national programmes, the co-management concept, especially with the

content and spirit of E.O. 606. Background on gender equality and human rights issues are desirable.

The expert will specifically look into the institutionalisation regarding the sustainability and replicability of the SUD model as

facilitated by the LMP together with the concerned line agencies.

3.7 Expert n°6: Engineer for Rural Community Infrastructure Support Category II

The expert will have vast experience in rehabilitation and maintenance of rural infrastructures, (access roads, trails, water supply)

in remote and poorly accessible mountain areas, and in a complex social environment found in uplands. S/he will not only be a

technical person but also well known and familiar with and competent to assess and recommend the institutional and

organisational issues related to rehabilitation and maintenance of upland community infrastructures.

The expert will specifically look into the labour- based barangay road maintenance scheme and its relevance to support

agricultural production and marketing and its sustainability and replication.

4. LOCATION AND DURATION (PLAN OF WORK)

4.1 Location

The mission will develop its work in the Philippines, both in Manila, the Program area and in replication areas (see 1.1 above).

4.2 Duration and Timing The assignment will start on the day of day of travel of the Team Leader to the

Philippines and finish on the day of submission of the Final Report, final version (see 5.3 below) and on

21 December 2009 at the latest. The maximum duration of the assignment is 165 calendar days.

The mission is scheduled to commence by end of July 2009.

4.3 Experts' inputs schedule

The duration of the inputs by expert will be the following:

EXPERT Philippines Field

mission (working

days incl 2 days

travel)

Philippines;

briefing and de-

briefing

(working days)

Final Report

completion

(working days)

Total

N°1.Team Leader 30 2 5 37

N°2. Agriculturist/Agri

Marketing Specialist

22 2 3 27

No 3. Resource Management

Specialist

22 2 3 27

N°.4 Rural Micro- 22 2 3 27

Finance Specialist

N°5. Institutional Development

Specialist

22 2 3 27

N°6. Rural Infra. Engineer 22 2 3 27

172

5 REPORTING

All reports shall be written in English. All reports must be transmitted also electronically to the relevant offices of the recipients.

They shall be forwarded to the addresses of the relevant offices of the recipients, in the number of copies as stated below.

5.1 Aide Memoire

This Aide Memoire will include the major findings and recommendations of the Mission. It will be submitted at least 5 days before the de-briefing referred to in 2.3 viii above.

5.2 Mission's Final Report


AN-7

It shall follow the format agreed with the Delegation as proposed by the Team Leader during the course of his mission in the

Philippines. Both hard and soft copies of the report will be submitted.

5.2.1 First Draft

The First Draft is to be submitted within 10 working days after the debriefing of the mission team in the Philippines. It sha ll be

submitted in eight (8) copies, distributed as follows: 2 copies for EC Delegation, 6 copies for the GOP. Electronic copies will be

also sent. The Commission, the Philippine authorities and institutions concerned are given 30 calendar days upon receipt of the

first draft to comment on the report.

5.2.2 Revised Draft

The Revised Draft must incorporate the necessary modifications and answers to any comment on the First Draft. It will be submitted in 2 copies to the EC Delegation in Manila and 6 copies for the GOP, within 2 weeks after having received comments on the First Draft.

The Commission and the Government will approve or, alternatively, further comment on the Revised Draft within 14 calendar days from its receipt. However, they reserve the right to have it redrafted by the Mission as many times as necessary before approval.

5.2.3 Final Version

Elaborated on the basis of the approved Revised Draft, the Final Version is to be submitted to the EC Delegation in Manila in 8 copies within one week after the approval of the Revised Draft.

6 REMARKS 1. During contacts with the Philippine Authorities or any other Organisation, the Consultants will clearly identify themselves as independent consultants and not as official representatives of the EC.

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX B

AN-8

List of persons and organisations consulted Glynn P. Baker – Team Leader

Thursday 30

th July 2009 – Davao City Friday 31

st July 2009 – Davao City

Emilia P. Pacoy - Associate Dean, College of Governance, University of Southern Philippines (USEP) Gladis Ortiz – Faculty USEP Ben-Hur Viloria – Visiting Faculty USEP (ex UDP) Wiebe van Rij – UDP European Co-Director Jos Bonnemayor – Consultant on GIS

Alex Tabadda - Senior Programme Specialist, ICRAF-Philippines

Saturday 1st August – Davao City Tuesday 4

th August – Manila

Joemil S. Montebon – Exec. Director KASILAK Development Foundation

Eida Perez - Special Projects Coordination and Management Assistance Division (SPCMAD) - DA Roy Abaya – Director Field Operations Service - DA Li-Ann De Leaon – Executive Director, League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) Geraldo V. Calderon – ASEC Local Government Concerns and Lands – DENR Dorie Nuevas – on-call consultant to LGUs

Friday 7th

August –Davao Oriental Monday 10th

August –Davao Oriental

Davao Oriental PLGU Freddie Bendulo - PPDO Dashille Indelible- Consultant on Agriculture – Former National Project Director UDP Reymundo L Curammeng - Provincial Agriculturalist Engr. Felicisitas Reojelon - PEO Mati MLGU Josefa P Mejos – AT Vicky Lubaton – AT assigned to Culinan Brgy Culinan Raymundo Wenceslao – Barangay Chairman, Culinan Rosita Diano – Barangay Kagawad, Culinan Jackelou Gallardo – Barangay Kagawad, Culinan Various farmers and residents of Barangay Culinan

Tarragona MLGU Mayor Samuel L. Uy – Municipal Mayor Eng. Ariel C. Mosquera – MPDC Vivencio L. Knislag – Municipal Administrator Manay MLGU Zaldy D. Escarian – MPDC Belinda Macadagat – MAO Mati NCIP Provincial Office Marylyn Yumon – Com. Dev. Officer III – NCIP

Tuesday11th

August –Davao Oriental Wednesday 12th

August - Davao Oriental

San Isidro MLGU Mayor Apolinar Ruello – Municipal Mayor Nonato Togonon – MPDC Brgy San Miguel Generosa Alom - Barangay Chairman, San Miguel Marylyn Fuerzas - Kagawad, San Miguel Vicente Sortones Jr. - Kagawad, San Miguel Lizel Pavilla - Barangay Kagawad, San Miguel Maximo Evangelista - Barangay Kagawad, San Miguel Various farmers and residents of San Miquel

Lupon MLGU Municipal Mayor Minda Brasilleno – MAO / Project Development Officer Banay Banay LGU Pedro Mejos – Municipal Mayor Liberato Undan - MPDC Brgy Marayag Gregorio Manggob – Brgy. Captain Various residents of Barangay Marayag Brgy. Way Wayan Cirilo Flores – President Bamboo Craft Assoc.

Thursday 13th

August – Compostela Valley Friday 14th

August – Davao Del Norte

Compostela Valley PLGU Romeo Celeste – PPDO Ronald Sibayan - Planning Officer - OPA Marylyn A Perlos – Planning Officer –OPA NCIP Provincial Office – Compostela Valley Roger Lumbin – Community Development Officer Maco LGU Municipal Mayor Victor S. Gako – MPDC Efren Estorio - MAO

Davao Del Norte PLGU Dominador A Enearnacion - Provincial Agriculturalist San Isidro LGU Renalbert Aurelio - MPDC

Monday 17th

August – Sarangani Tuesday 18th

August – Sarangani

Sarangani PLGU Vic Camacho – Asst. Provincial Administrator Imelda Singugo – Planning Officer Anabel Tagasa – OPA Josephine Velasco – Gender Point Person Edcel Pontong – Community Development Officer Dr. Antoinio Yasana – Provincial Health Officer Ike Matunog – former UDP Provincial Manager Alabel LGU Mayor Corazon Sunga Grafilo – Municipal Mayor Eng. Thomas Montefalcon – MPDC Eng Alan Rivera – Project Officer

Indigenous Peoples Development Program (IPDP) Maribeth E. Farnazo – Program Manager Sarangani PLGU Hermelo Latoja – Social Welfare and Development Officer Rene Punzalan – Community Affairs Officer


AN-9

Wednesday 19th

August – Sarangani Thursday 20th

August – South Cotabato

Maitum LGU Kubli M Kusin – Municipal Councillor Edgarado Del Rosario – Municipal Councillor Cecilla Galang – Project Dev Officer IV Eddie Ampodia - Municipal Agriculturalist Brgy Upo Valley Sebastian Paralejas – Barangay Captain Perido Kusin – Coop Manager – Upo Valley MPC Various farmers and residents of Upo Valley

South Cotabato PLGU Alex Basco – Provincial Adminstrator Rey Legaste – PAO Reynalo Pacacio – Agric. Technologist Peter Carado – Provincial NCIP Coordinator Brgy Tinonogcop, Tangtanan Warlito Ardaliz - Barangay Kagawad Rodolfo Sandia - BEW Tampakan LGU Roselily Joyno – AT Lucila Villanueva – AT Aifia Caniagas - AT Marilyn Exiomo - AT DAF Project Office, Marbel Duetz Calmita – DFA Project Manager Datu Omar Bacal – Peace Convergence Worker Dante Tomaro - Peace Convergence Worker

Monday 24th

August – Davao del Sur Tuesday 25th

August – Kidapawan City, North Cotabato

Davao del Sur – PLGU Governor Douglas Cagas – Provincial Governor NCIP Provincial Office - Davao del Sur Arnold Sen – Legal Officer

Rene Manantan – TA Team Leader – MTF-RDP Alma de la Paz – Kapwa Upliftment Foundation, Inc

Wednesday26th

August – Davao del Sur Tuesday 1st

September - Manila

Digos City Government Eng. Felix Tabasa – City Cooperative Officer - former UDP Provincial Manager

Mary Judd – Mindanao Coordinator Social Development Unit – World Bank Roy Tordecello – Operations Officer – World Bank Kazuyuki Tsurumi – FAO Representative Hanayo Hirai – Programme Officer – FAO Aristeo Portugal – Assistant Representative - FAO

Thursday 3rd

September - Manila

Marie Grace Pascua – Director Policy Planning Research – NCIP Commissioner Rolando Rivera - NCIP

List of persons and organisations consulted --- Dennis Craggs ----

Agriculturist/Farming Systems/Extension/ Agri- Marketing Specialist

Friday 7th

August 2009 – Davao Oriental Monday 10th

August 2009 – Davao Oriental

Provincial Government Offices, Mati, Davao Oriental Dashiel Indelible - Advisor to Governor Reymundo L Curammeng - Provincial Agriculturalist Josefa P Mejos – Agricultural Technologist Barangay Tagubo, Mati Mr. Ellos - DFS Farmer/Learning Site

Municipal LGU Offices, Tarragona Hon. Samuel Uy - Mayor Nolly Senteceira – Municipal Agriculturalist Alexandro Paluma - Agricultural Technologist (Tubaon) Barangay Tubaon, Tarragona Mr. Capuan - Municipal AMBET Mr. Quijano – Learning site (Maganda) Municipal LGU Offices, Manay Belinda Macadagat, Municipal Agriculturalist Roselle Balente, Agricultural Technologist

Tuesday 11th

August – Davao Oriental Wednesday 12th

August – Davao Oriental

Municipal LGU Offices, San Isidro Celestino D Boldo Jr. - Municipal Agriculturalist Joel Orbuda - Agricultural Technologist Barangay San Miguel, San Isidro Eduardo Mariket - Barangay Extension Worker (BEW)/AMBET Barangay Lapu Lapu, San Isidro Daniel B Sieguido – Barangay Captain Barangay Maag, San Isidro George D Cajes – Barangay Captain

Municipal LGU Offices, Lupon Melchura A Aranaydo - Municipal Agriculturalist Judith Dagpin - Agricultural Technologist (Barangay Marayag) Municipal LGU Offices, Banay Banay Panfilo Arlingalan - Municipal Agriculturalist Ge-Fred Peralta - Agricultural Technologist (Barangay Panikian)


AN-10

Thursday 13

th August – Compostella Valley Friday 14

th August – Davao Del Norte

Provincial Government Offices, Compostella Valley Dr. Rolando Simene - Provincial Agriculturalist Ronald Sibayan - Planning Officer Provincial Agriculture Marylyn A Perlos – Planning Officer Municipal LGU Offices, Nabunturan Hon. Macario T Humol - Mayor Offelia V Tomada - Municipal Agriculturalist Municipal LGU Offices, Laak Reynaldo B Navarro - Mayor Justino G Suaybaguio - Municipal Agriculturalist Christopher L Malayan - Agricultural Technologist (Barangay Kilagding)

Provincial Government Offices, Davao Del Norte Dominador A Enearnacion - Provincial Agriculturalist Municipal LGU Offices, San Isidro Rene Pintor - Municipal Agriculturalist

Saturday 15th

August – Davao City Monday 17th


Mr. Alex Tabadda – Freelance Consultant (formerly Team Leader Extension Programme, UDP)

Provincial Government Offices, Sarangani Jonathan C Duhaylungson – Provincial Agriculturalist Lucky C Siao Jr - Provincial Agricultural Technician Municipal LGU Offices, Alabel Darwin B Fajardo – Municipal Agricultural Technician

Tuesday 18th

August – Sarangani Wednesday 19th


Municipal LGU Offices, Glan Virginia R Musa - Municipal Agriculturalist Rose Sebua - Municipal Agricultural Technician Barangay Burias, Glan Japet Ganton – Barangay Extension Worker Danelo S Demol – President Malaumon Upland Farmers MPC, Bgy Rio Del Pilar Rodrigo Zurita – Barangay Extension Worker, Barangay Rio Del Pilar Nora Degracia – DFS Farmer, Brg Rio Del Pilar

Municipal LGU Offices, Maitum Eddie Ampodia - Municipal Agriculturalist Kubli M Kusin – Municipal Councillor Barangay Upo Valley, Maitum Diana G Ulayan – DFS Farmer

Wednesday 19th

August – Sarangani Thursday 20th


Municipal LGU Offices, Maitum Eddie Ampodia - Municipal Agriculturalist Kubli M Kusin – Municipal Councillor Barangay Upo Valley, Maitum Diana G Ulayan – DFS Farmer

Municipal LGU Offices, Tupi Julgen R Dajay – Municipal Planning & Development Co-ordinator Danilo De Gusman – Municipal Agriculturalist Barangay Linan, Tupi Eusebio Abayon - Barangay Extension Worker Barangay Kablon, Tupi Pedro Pendatun - President of Farmers Co-operative Municipal LGU Offices, Tampakan Roselily Joyno - Municipal Agricultural Technician (Barangay Lampitak) Marilyn Exiomo - Municipal Agricultural Technician (Barangay Palo 19)

Monday 24th

August – Davao City Tuesday 25th

August – Davao del Sur

Wiebe van Rij – Ex-director UDP Romulo S Palcon – Regional Technical Director, DA Region XI

Municipal LGU Offices, Malalag Noel A Coronado – Municipal Agriculturalist Barangay Pitu, Malalag Eduardo Lopez - DFS Farmer Monina D Ponciano - DFS Farmer Municipal LGU Offices, Malita Saturnino Parcasio - Municipal Agriculturalist Matias Lucero - Municipal Agricultural Technician (Barangay Kilalag) Alex Camahalan - Municipal Agricultural Technician Julieta Teh - Member Co-op ??Datu Danwata

Wednesday26th

August – Davao del Sur Friday 28th


Municipal LGU Offices, Magsaysay Eugenio T Tumaran - Municipal Agriculturalist Roberto Besonia Jr – MENRO Barangay Tagaytay, Malalag Jimmy Awe – DFS farmer (Barangay Tagaytay)

Provincial Government Offices, Digos City Ernesto Rames Miro – Provincial Agriculturalist Marilog Gestupa – ATI Training Co-ordinator, Provincial Agriculture Engr. Felix Tabasa – Digos City Co-operatives Officer

Saturday 29th

August – Davao City

Mr. Alex Tabadda – Freelance Consultant (formerly Team Leader Extension Programme, UDP)


AN-11

List of persons and organisations consulted --- Enrique A. Nunez, Jr. ----

Natural Resources Management Expert Friday 7

th August – Davao Oriental Monday 10

th August 2009 – Davao Oriental

LGU Offices, Provincial Government of Davao Oriental Dashle P. Indelible, PGO-TA Eulogio C. Baltazar - PG-ENRO Officer (OIC) Dolores D. Valdesco - Environmental Management Superintendent, PG-ENRO Freddie Bendullo, PPDO Officer Municipality of Mati Annie Uy, MPDO Officer Vicky Lobaton, MPDO Staff Noel Paramyo – AT/MAO Noel Samante – UDP Technical Staff, MPDO Barangay, Culian, Mati Reymundo Wenceslao, Barangay Captain Rogelio Fiel, Barangay Kagawad Gerry Cantiveros, Barangay Kagawad and BEW

Municipality of Tarragona Samuel Uy, Tarragano, Municipal Mayor Ariel Mosquerra, MPDO Officer Barangay Ompao, Tarragona Edwin Martino, Resident Rogelio Rabano, Barangay Captain Geraldo Tasong, President, Abacca Farmers Association Fidel Ambi, Farmer and Independent Agri.Technician Edwin Martino, Farmer Eufisima Badayon, Barangay Secretary and member of the Mandaya Tribal Council Almar Badayon, Barangay Extension Worker Simeon Molina, Municipal Agricultural Technologist Mercedita Masanguid, Municipal Agricultural Technologist Olympio Catiad, Former Barangay Captain/Forest Guard Romualdo Quibo, Barangay Kagawad Dominador Catiad, Barangay Kagawad Municipality of Manay Rechie Divyan, MENRO Officer Zaldo Escarian, MPDO Officer Barangay Del Pilar, Manay Informal FGD with local residents (housewives, farmers)

Tuesday 11th

August – Davao Oriental Wednesday 12th August – Davao Oriental

Municipality of San Isidro Madonna Masillones, MENRO Officers Barangay Sto. Rosario, San Isidro Justocoro R. Sajul – Barangay Chairman Feliciano Mapano, Resident Purok Dungga Gina Ocon, Resident Purok Dungga Kagawan Rufino Sahul Jr., Forest Guard Merlin Bala, Resident Purok Dungga and Member of Purok Dungga Women’s Association Cipriano Repolidon Jr. Purok Pres. Misael Romano, Resident Rito Laudros, Sr. Kagawad and Forest Guard Rufino Sajol, Kagawad and Forest Guard Bob Palomares, BEW Olimpia Lacre, Bgy Secretary Samuel Gaudicos, Forest Guard / Barangay Kagawad Leonardo Solano, Barangay Kagawad

Barangay Don Mariano Marcos, Lupon Narcisa Marapa, Barangay Secretary Jesus Simbolas, Barangay Kagawad Roland Patino, Barangay Kagawad Nestor Suico, Former Barangay Kagawad Ciprino Nyez, Resident and Mainit Falls caretaker Municipality of Banay-Banay Mayor Pedro Mejos Engr. Aquilan B. Sarigan, MENRO Officer Barangay Mahayag, Banay-Banay Ronald Chavez, Bgy Captain Ezekiel Decillo, Bgy Kagawad Jose Pajullo, local farmer Manolito Dignos, Bgy Kagawad

Thursday 13th

August – Compostela Valley Friday 14th

August 2009 – Davao del Norte

Provincial Government of Compostela Valley Marilyn Perlas, PO II, Provincial Planning and Development Office National Commission for Indigenous Peoples Roger Lumbin, CDO III Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Compostela Valley Glen Adonis M. Rico, PENRO Nicanor Asidoy, Chief Forest Management Section, CENRO Monkayo Cornelio Sanchez, CENRO Staff in Laak, Com.Valley Municipality of Nabunturan Macario Humol – Mayor Gerardo Pañamogan – AT/MAO Barangay San Roque, Nabunturan Elsa Daanoy, Barangay Captain Manolo Daanoy, DFS Cooperator Rolando Mellana, DFS Cooperator Mary Jane Micarandayo, Barangay Secretary Municipality of Laak Reynaldo Navarro, Municipal Mayor Christopher Malayan, MAGRO Officer Gregcarl Delator, MENRO Officer Barangay Kilagding, Laak

Municipality of San Isidro Tomas Abelita Jr., Municipal Mayor Reynalbert Aurelio, MPDC Officer Cyrus Clamor, GIS Expert Laureano Pintor, MAGRO Officer National Commission for Indigenous People Myrna Caoagas, NCIP Commissioner, Manila Office (Telephone interview) Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office – DENR Davao del Norte Gerry Agustin, PENRO Staff


AN-12

Dionisio Arcete, President, Kilagding UBA Albert Sucnaan, Barangay Kagawad Barangay Naga Benjamin Amahan, Barangay Captain

Saturday 15th

August – Davao City Sunday 16th

August – Davao City

Phildhrra (Service provider) Elmer_____, Project Officer (phone interview)

Philippine Association for Intercultural Development – Service Provider Rino Bersalona, Project Officer

Monday 17th

August – Sarangani Province Tuesday 18th

August 2009 – Sarangani Province

Provincial Government of Sarangani Nemrad Paul Butil, Division Chief, PG-ENRO Noel Carino, PG-ENRO Officer Municipality of Alabel Corazon Sunga Grafilo, Mayor Barangay Alegria, Alabel Dioning Yo, Forest Guard Roberto Tangge – Purok 3 Chairman Diosdado Toto – Purok member/resident

Muncipality of Glan Virginia Musa, MAGRO Officer Barangay Sufatubo, Glan Romeo Ogang, former Barangay Captain Barangay Rio del Pilar, Glan Salvador Degracia, Barangay Captain Rodrigo Zorita, former Barangay Kagawad Lucilo Ople, Barangay Kagawad / Chair: Agriculture Danilo Demol, Forest Guard and Chairman, Rio del Pilar Upland Barangay Association Ronaldo Playda, Barangay Treasurer

Wednesday 19th

August - Sarangani Thursday 20th


Municipality of Kiamba Sheelah F. Corpuz, MENRO Officer (OIC) Mer Olvida, Ecogov Project Barangay Maligang, Kiamba Manuel Lacoy, Barangay Captain Ricardo Añora – PO Chairman Municipality of Maasim Rolando Tuballes, MENRO Officer

Provincial Government of South Cotabato Ramon Ponce de Leon, PEMO Officer Reynaldo Palacio, PAGRO, Provincial Agriculturist Barangay Tinongcop, Tantangan Nelson Buendia, Barangay Captain Timoteo Pauya, Barangay Kagawad Municipality of Tampakan Norma Cariagan – AT/OMAG Barangay Albagan, Tampakan Rodgelito L. Rentura – Barangay Chairman

Monday 24th

August – Davao City Tuesday 25th


Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region XI Hardinado Patnugot, Regional Technical Manager for Forest Management Services, DENR Region XI Alfredo Zarasate, Forest Resource Development Division, DENR Region XI Philippine Environmental Governance Project Raoul T. Geollegue, Mindanao Regional Forestry Advisor Casimiro V. Olvida, Uplands and Governance Specialist

Municipality of Malalag Melody Paras, Municipal Administrator Ronald ____, MPDO Officer Stanley Bernasor, MENRO Officer Barangay Pitu, Malalag Rene Lopez, Municipal Council/ex Barangay Captain Pitu Joseph Lopez, Barangay Kagawad and Forest Guard Rolando Retardo, Barangay Kagawad Violeta Alberca, Barangay Secretary Hermogenes Billones, Barangay Kagawad / Forest Guard Municipality of Malita Dolores M. Ferolin, MDPC Officer Barangay Datu Danwata, Malita Resident and visitor at Mayor’s Office Barangay Pinalpalan, Malita Tomas Alcordo, Barangay Captain Osman Cosain, Member, Pinalpalan Farmer MPC Abdul Marie Bantuwas, Community Member Ruben Ancud – Barangay Treasurer Limwel Alonso, Forest Guard

Wednesday 26th

August 2009 – Davao del Sur Thursday 3th

September 2009 – Quezon City

Municipality of Magsaysay Roberto Binsoya, Jr. MENRO Officer BarangayTagaytay, Magsaysay Cesario Banan, Barangay Captain Apolinario Constantino, Barangay Forest Guard Elizabeth Bernaldez, Elementary School Principal Rosita Banan – BHW Volunteer Thelma Bandayan – Barangay Secretary

Forest Management Bureau – Department of Environment and Natural Resources Remedios Evangelista, Officer-in-Charge, Community-Based Forest Management Bureau Forest Land Uses Division - Department of Environment and Natural Resources Cosme Bal, Supervising Forest Management Specialist Valeriano Ladia, Jr., Civil Engineer Office of Policy, Planning and Research - National Commission for Indigenous Peoples Marie Grace Pascua, Director

Friday 4th

September – Quezon City

Philippine Association for Intercultural Development, National Office, Quezon City Dave de Vera, Executive Director


AN-13

List of persons and organisations consulted --- Maria Concepcion Guatno Hina-Antonio---- Rural Micro-Finance/Co-operative specialist

Date Name of Organization Name of Person Position/Designation

Friday,7th Agricultural Credit and Policy Council (ACPC)

Mel Montenegro USM-CIBP Over-all Coordinator

People’s Credit and Finance Corporation (PCFC)

Julia Valdez Grace

Vice President - Operations Program Officer

Saturday 8th National Credit Council (NCC)

Joselito Almario Executive Director

Tuesday 11th Land Bank of the Philippines Liduvino Geron Vice President

Wed 12th Ad Jesum Development Foundation, Inc.

Sr. Bernadette R. Dollete, CSJ

Executive Director

Mati Davao Oriental Upland Credit Cooperative (MADOUCO)

Gerry Quilaton Anelfa Hermonsada

Chairperson Manager

Thursday 13th Cabinuagan MPC (CAMUPCO

Victoria Villarante

Manager

Maco Development Cooperative (MADECO), Municipality of Maco

Alejandro Munoz Manager

Friday 14th Enterprise Bank, Panabo Branch

Russel Anna May del Campo

Area Manager Head of R & D

Sat 15th Rural Bank of Isulan Lailani Lagon Cherwin De-otay

Manager Deputy Manager

Monday 17th Nagmabaul Multipurpose Cooperative

Eliseo Frias

Chairman

Tuesday 18th Sacapda FSC Farmers Cooperative

Vivilyn Dogomeo Edeltrudes Nadela Rebecca Paskil

Manager Ex-Chairperson Treasurer

Wed 19th United Maligang Farmers Multi-purpose Cooperative

Ricardo Anora Manager

Rural Bank of Isulan, Marlo Parcon Microfinance Supervisor

Tablao MF Center Kanalo Multi-purpose Cooperative (KAMULCO)

Gumbay Dande Arpha Dialawi Mohaliden Dialil Khung Tmabingag Alip Jalil Armando Buyoc Butch Timan

Officers and Members Chairperson Manager BOD Members

Thursday 20th Kablon-Linan-Acmonan Multi-purpose Cooperative (KALIAC)

Alex Dionaldo Manager

Friday 21st USM-CIPB Project Support Staff – Land Bank Mindanao Group

Vittore Inoc

Project Coordinator

Sunday 23rd ACPC-PMO Benjamin Caintic Project Consultant

Monday 24th Enterprise Bank Head – Office

Atty. Ronald Alvizo Chito Alvizo

President Chair – Board of Trustees

Cooperative Bank of Davao del Sur

Pepito Jumamoy Jeffrey Camerino

Manager Compliance Officer – UDP Staff

Sinabadan Ka Sta. Cruz MPC Aniceta Garen Acting Officer/OIC

Tuesday 25th Malalag Integrated Farmers MPC (MAINFARM)

Desmosthenes Gomez Neorlito Jacosalem Warlita Bantan

Chair – BOD Manager Treasurer

Magsaysay Farmers Multi-purpose Cooperative

Danny Derecho Genoviva Mateo Sergio Napico

Project Officer Accountant Account Officer

Wed 26th DA – Region XI Romulo Palcon Regional Technical Director – representative of the DA member to the USM-CIPB PCC

Land Bank Mindanao Group Lito Gutierrez Regional Head

European Commission Emily Mercado UDP Coordinator Observer PCC

Thursday 27th Resource Ecology Foundation for the Regeneration of Mindanao

Arturo Artapodera Director,


AN-14

List of persons and organizations consulted --- Arturo Aportadera ----

Social/Institutional Development/Capacity- Building

Thursday 6th

August – Manila Firday 7th


EC Mission Manila 1. Emily Mercado - Program Officer EU Delegation 2. Lilian M. de Leon - Executive Vice-President MDC 3. Mel Montenegro - Director, ACPC 4. Engr. Elvie Javines - NCIP 5. Remmy Evangelista - DENR

Mati, Davao Oriental 1. Dashille Indelible - Consultant, Governors Office 2. Freddie Bendulo - PPDO 3. Josefa Mejos - Agriculture Technician 4. Juancho Serrano - Tourism Officer 5. Engr. Felicisitas Reojelon - PEO Barangay Sainz, Mati, 1. Roberto Gregorio – Brgy. Captain

Monday 10th

August – Davao Oriental Tuesday 11th

August Davao Oriental

Tarragona, Davao Oriental 1. Samuel Uy – Mayor 2. Ariel Mosquerra – MPDC Barangay Tubaon, Tarragona 1. Romeo Roberto – Brgy Captain 2. Andres Capuyan – Sitio Leader, Sambanganay 3. Concordio Quijano – UVO Chairman

San Isidro Davao Oriental 1. Apolinar Ruello – Municipal Mayor 2. Nonato Togonon – MPDC Manay, Barangay del Pilar 1. Jose Pantungal – BEW/AMBET 2. Belinda Macadayot – MAO

Wednesday 12th

August Davao Oriental Thursday 13th

August Comval Province

Lupon Barangay Marayag 1. Judith Dagpin – AT 2. Gregorio Manggob – Brgy. Captain 3. Roseto Pedro – Tribal Chieftain Banaybanay, Davao Oriental 1. Pedro Mejos – Mayor 2. Liberato Undan - MPDC

Nabunturan, Comval Province 1. Macario Jumol – Mayor Barangay San Isidro, Nabunturan 1. Rogelio Barnido – Brgy. Captain Laac, Comval Province 1. Rey Navarro - Mayor

Fridaqy 14th

August - Comval Province Monday 17th

August , Sarrangani Province

Provincial Governors Office Nabunturan, 1. Romeo Celeste – OIC PPDO

Provincial Office, Alabel Sarangani 1. Imelda Singugo – Planning Officer 2. Jonathan Duhaylungsod – OPAG OIC Upper Lumabat, Malungon, Sarangani 1. Elesio Frias – Cooperative President 2. Roberto Allaga – MAO 3. Nene Saguiguit – Tourism Officer 4. Bong Constantino - Mayor

Tuesday 18th

August - Sarangani Province Wednesday 19th

August , Sarangani Province

Glan , Sarangani Province 1. Enrique YapJr. – Mayor 2. Angeles Ripdos – MPDC

Kiamba, Sarangani Province 1. Rom Falgui – Mayor

Thursday 20th

August - Sultan Kudarat Monday 24th

August - Davao Sur

Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat – Brgy. Malisbong 1. Mark Sisuat – BDA Representative 2. Lorna Luma – Landcare\ 3. Junaid Angcanan – MCDO President 4. Ayob Khanda – Municipal Assesor 5. Samrud Mamansual – Mayor 6. Mohaliken Piang – BDA Regional Manager 7. King Boy Bayan – Political Chairman MI:LF 8. Anami Kanag - ARMDEV Community Facilitatr 9. RC Khadil - MPDC

Digos, Davao Sur 1. Douglas Cagas – Governor 2. Lorna Ferrer – PPDC 3. Ernesto Miro – OPAG 4. Isabel Gamugamo – Planning Officer 4 Sta. Cruz, Davao Sur 1. Joel Lopez – Mayor 2. Aurora Herbito – MPDC 3. Othello Marte l – Budget Officer 4.Jose Martorillas - OIC UDP/MRDP

Tuesday 25th

August - Davao Sur Wednesday 26th

August - Davao Sur

Malita, Davao Sur 1. Dolores Ferolin – Ret., MPDC 2. Julieta The – Kagawad Datu Danwata

Magsaysay, Davao Sur 1. Eugenio Tumaran – MAO 2. Roberto Besunia – MENRO Barangay Tagaytay, Magsaysay, Davao Sur 1. Ceasario Bawan – Brgy. Captain

Tuesday 1st

September , Manila Wednesday 2nd

September , Manila

1. Cecille Astilla – GTZ Project Officer 2. Rommel Martinez – Director MDC 3. Drexille Roque – LMP Plans and Programs 4. Francisco Ramos III – ASEC Agribusiness Dept. DA 5. Roy Abaya – Director Foreign Assistance, DA 6. Bregida Perez – OIC SPCMAD, DA 7. Manuel Gerochi – USEC. DENR Plans & Programs

EC Mission Manila, Philippines 1. Emily Mercado – Project Officer EU 2. Dorie Nuevas – LMP 3. Com. Roland Rivera – NCIP 4. Rolly Carbon – DENR FAP 5. Drexille Roque – LMP 6. Mel Montenegro – Dir ACPC

Friday 4th

September - Davao City

LMP-Mindanao Davao City, Philippines 1. Givel Mamaril – Former LMP Officer


AN-15

List of persons and organisations consulted --- Clovis Ike J. Payumo ----

Engineer for Rural Community Infrastructure Support

Friday 7th

August 2009 – Davao Oriental Monday 10th


Davao Oriental Provincial LGU Dash Indelible – Consultant to the Governor, Davao Oriental Freddie – PPDC Mati Municipal LGU Annie – MPDC Noel Paramyo – AT/MAO Noel Samante – UDP Technical Staff, MPDO Barangay Sainz Edgar A. Atacador – Barangay Councilor, Chair: Education Committee Medardo Masangay – Purok Chair, UBA President, Maintenance Crew Leader, AMBET, Sitio Licop

Tarragona Municipal LGU Samuel L. Uy – Mayor Ariel – MPDC Romualdo Daruca – Municipal Engineer Alejandro Paloma – AT/Mao Barangay Tubaon Romeo Roberto – Barangay Chairman Fredgerick Atugan – Barangay Councilor, Chair: Infra Committee Concordio Quijano – UCO Chairman, LBRRM Foreman Manay Municipal LGU Aileen Rose Veloso – Municipal Engineer Lloyd Castro – Project Development Assistant, MPDO Rosito Sandayan – AT/MAO Barangay Cayawan Norberto Suminguit – Barangay Chairman

Tuesday 11th

August – Davao Oriental Wednesday 12th

August –Davao oriental

San Isidro Municipal LGU Imelda Buenaflor – Municipal Engineer Andres Capalit – Engineering Aide, MEO, UDP AIS In-Charge Dante Matute – Engineering Aide, MEO Barangay Sto. Rosario Justocoro R. Sajul – Barangay Chairman Olympia Lacre – Barangay Secretary Jacinto Bongo – Purok Member Barangay Maag George D. Cajes, Sr. – Barangay Chairman Facundo Cajegas, Jr. – Barangay Councilor Carlito Caluban – Barangay Treasurer

Lupon Municipal LGU Antonio Alinton – AT/MAO Barangay Don Mariano Marcos Cirilo Jangao – Barangay Councilor, LBRRM Foreman, Chair: Agri, Envi, Peace and Order Committee Fernando Bagaslao – Purok President, UBA Vice President, LBRRM Member Arnulfo Generosa – Purok Member Banay-Banay Municipal LGU Pedro T. Mejos – Mayor Roy Enriquez – Municipal Engineer Barangay Mahayag Ronald D. Chavez – Barangay Chairman Wison Tagab, Sr. – UBA President, BEW, AMBET, Bantay Gubat, LBRRM Foreman

Thursday 13th

August –Compostela Valley Monday 17th

August – Sarangani Province

Compostela Valley Provincial LGU Roderick Digamon – OIC Provincial Engineer Nabunturan Municipal LGU Macario Humol – Mayor Thelma Rivera Gisma – Municipal Engineer Gerardo Pañamogan – AT/MAO Barangay San Isidro Rogelio Barnido – Barangay Chairman Eduardo Oroyan – Barangay Councilor, Chair: Appropriations Committee Laak Municipal LGU Reynaldo B. Navarro – Mayor Pedrito Quintin Hibaya – Municipal Engineer Barangay Kilagding Raymundo Paradero – Sitio Treasurer, LBRRM Trainee Dionisio A. Arcite – UBA Chairman

Sarangani Provincial LGU Lucky V. Siao, Jr. – AT/OPAG Alabel Municipal LGU Corazon Sunga Grafilo – Mayor Barangay Alegria Roberto Tangge – Purok 3 Chairman Lorencio Tangge – Purok 2 Chairman Jowena Tumbo – Purok 3 Secretary Diosdado Toto – Purok 3 Member

Tuesday 18th

August - Sarangani Province Wednesday 19th

August –Sarangani Province

Glan Municipal LGU Enrique Yap, Jr. – Mayor Eduardo C. Tava – Municipal Engineer Arvel S.Lara - Draftsman Barangay Del Rio Lucilo Ople – Barangay Councilor, Chair: Agriculture Committee Rodrigo Zurita – BEW

Kiamba Municipal LGU Allan Jay S. Español – Municipal Engineer Barangay Maligang Manuel L. Lacoy – Barangay Chairman Ricardo Añora – PO Chairman Maasim Municipal LGU Eliseo D. Dicla II – Municipal Engineer Mariano M. Munoy – AT/MAO Barangay Nomoh Luna Tabalao – Barangay Chairman Oming Sanatan – Pastor, LBRRM Member


AN-16

Thursday 20

th August – South Cotabato Monday 24

th August – Davao Del Sur

Barangay Tinongcop, Tantangan Rodolfo Sondia – former Barangay Councilor, BEW Tampakan Municipal LGU Norma Cariagan – AT/OMAG Barangay Albagan Rodgelito L. Rentura – Barangay Chairman

Davao Del Sur Provincial LGU Constancio L.Rabaya – Provincial Engineer Gilbert Albaga – Engineer IV/PEO Sta. Cruz Municipal LGU Azucena Boquia – Municipal Engineer George Saniel – AT/MAO Barangay Coronon Alfredo Jusay – Barangay Councilor Lorena Culaba – Barangay Treasurer Sulpicio Dulay – UBA Chairman Nelly Bautista – BOD/UBA Rosalita Siaron – UBA Treasurer

Tuesday 25th

August –Davao Del Sur Wednesday 26th

August –Davao Del Sur

Malalag Municipal LGU Cecilia Cabaobao – Asst. Municipal Engineer Howel Mendez – Engineering Assistant Barangay Pitu Joseph Lopez – Barangay Councilor, Chair: Infra Committee Eduardo Lopez – Barangay Councilor, Chair: Education Committee Marcelino Ramos – LBRRM Foreman Malita Municipal LGU Ronnie Behona – Staff, MEO Barangay Pinalpalan Tomas D. Algardo, Jr. – Barangay Chairman Ruben Ancud – Barangay Treasurer Osman Cosain – Community Member

Magsaysay Municipal LGU Mary Jane Alindajao – Admin. Aide III, MEO Barangay Tagaytay Cesario Banan – Barangay Chairman Rosita Banan – BHW Volunteer Thelma Bandayan – Barangay Secretary

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX C

AN-17

List of Documents Consulted

Addendum No. 1 to Financing agreement between the European Community and the Republic of the Philippines, Upland Development Programme. No. PHI/B7-3000/IB/ALA 97/98; ASIE 1997/2723

Agricultural Extension and Mainstreaming of UDP Schemes: Francisco G. Ladaga - June 2007

An Assessment of UDP Programme in Davao del Sur: The Case of Pitu and Upper Bala

Assessment of the crucial factors including economic factors that made upland farmers change from unsustainable mono cropping farming system to sustainable diversified farming system. Wilfred D. Bidad, Ph.D and Domingo Non, Ph.D, SHED Foundation, Inc. February 2007

Assessment of the upland development program in Sarangani and South Cotabato provinces; Wilfred D. Bidad, Ph.D Domingo M Non Ph.D. Social Health Environment And Development Foundation Inc. General Santos City. 2005

Balancing Biodiversity Conservation and Incomes of Upland Communities: Approaches and Experiencs of UDP in Southern Mindanao. B. Viloria, D. Indelible, W.van Rij, and A. Tabbada. 2005.

Briefer SUD Replication LMP-Mindanao, USEP, August 2009.

Davao Oriental BFPMS Terminal Report. 2007.

Developing a model for sustainable upland farming in Southern Mindanao, Final report of the Upland Farming / Soil & Water Conservation Specialist, Kenneth R S Proud July - November 2005

Developing and webbing local extension capacities for improved upland farming: experiences in southern Mindanao. Alexander U. Tabbada, Dashiel P. Indelible, Wiebe van Rij, Dinah Q. Tabbada and Ben Hur R. Viloria. Undated

Developing community based extension teams an evolving integrative approach to sustainable local extension systems. Alexander U. Tabbada, World Agro-forestry Centre (ICRAF-Philippines) UDP Management Committee II Meeting, Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City May 2006

Developing community based extension teams an evolving integrative approach to sustainable local extension systems Alexander U. Tabbada; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF-Philippines). 2006

Developing the agricultural extension delivery system for the uplands, F.G. Ladaga. Undated

EC Financing Agreement - Upland Development Programme. No. PHI/B7-3000/IB/ALA 97/98. 1998

Enhancing the upland extension system in Southern Mindanao, Project Terminal Report, Alexander U. Tabbada, Senior Programme Specialist, ICRAF-Philippines. February 2007

Europe Aid Evaluation Guidelines eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/methods/mth-ges-en.htm

Evaluation of the Upland Development Program in Southern Mindanao: Its Impact on Households and Community: Cabaraban, Magdalena Ph.D. RIMCU, Xavier University CDO.

Evaluation of the Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao: Its Impact on Households and Communities. Magdalena C. Cabaraban, Ph.D. Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City. Undated

Evaluation of Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao: Its Impact on Households and Communities. Magdalena Cabaraban. Xavier University.2001.

Field manual for agro-ecological zoning; Jef Embrechts. 2000

Final report on the implementation of the Barangay Forest Protection and Management Scheme (BFPMS) in Lupon, Davao Oriental. Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA - Mindanao). 2006.

Forestlands in the Philippines, A story of decline but also of hope Wiebe van Rij

General Guidelines for the Barangay Forest Protection and Management Scheme. August 2005

Guidelines on farm planning. UDP Technical note. Undated

Implementers assistance menu; Options for assisting and replicating the sustainable upland development (SUD) model; UDP. 2005

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Kambalita: Official Publication of Kiamba. Vol 1 No. 11 July 2009

LandCare of the Philippines: Australian Grant/Australia Center International Agriculture Research 2009.

LGU Facilitator’s Manual on Barangay Land-Use Planning. UDP. July 2004

List of Upland Village Enterprises Established & Type of Intervention; UDP. Dec 2006

Local Government Code of 1991

Manila Bulletin; Vol 413, No.6 May 6, 2007, Upland Problem.

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX C

AN-18

MIS Specialists Terminal Report. UDP. 2007.

NCIP – Fieldworker’s Reference Manual – 2007?

NCIP – Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan for Indigenous Peoples 2004-2008

Peoples Taliba Vol 26 No. 307 18 May 2007; Sagip Bundok, Sagip Buhay.

Peoples Tonight Vol 27 No 203 May 19, 2007; Upland Development Program: The Beginning.

Peoples Tonight Vol 27 No. 202 , May 18, 2007 : Save Uplands, Save Lives – LMP

Peoples Tonight Vol.27 No. 204 May 20, 2007; GMA Responds to Uplan Clamor Alleviation of Poverty.

Slope treatment-oriented practices for sustainable upland farming / soil conservation, UDP March 2006

South Cotabato Barangay Forest Protection and Management Scheme Terminal Report. 2007.

Stakeholders and Beneficiaries Chona R. Echavez, Ph.D. Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City. 2005

Star. Vol 21 No. 301, 27 May 2007; LGUs Resolve to Push Upland Development Nationwide.

Sustaining Growth in Upland Communities: Community Based Organizations and Upland Development in Southern Mindanao Vol 4.

Technical notes on soil and water conservation; Alex F J Hamming & Ben Hur R Viloria; UDP. 2000

Tempo: Vol 25 No 136 May 16, 2007: Mayors Lead in Effort to Save Upland Areas.

The Upland Communities: The Post-Intervention Condition as Perceived by the Community Stakeholders and Beneficiaries. Chona R. Echavez, Ph.D. Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City. 2005

The Upland Communities: The Post-intervention Condition as Perceived by the Community Stakeholders and Beneficiary. Xavier University. 2005

TNA of USM-CIBP Beneficiary Organizations; ACPC, DA, Sept 2008.

Trainer’s Manual on Agricultural Extension and Land Management; UDP Manual. Undated

UDP Technical Assistance MIS Exit Report. 2000

UDP Annual Reports – 2002 – 2003 – 2004 – 2005 - 2006

UDP Enterprise development manual - 2000

UDP Logical Framework. Version 2005

UDP Mid-Term Review – Final Report – November 2003

UDP Pre Completion Evaluation – Final Report – March 2006

UDP Programme Final Report, Department of Agriculture – July 2007

UDP Series Book No.4: Implementors' Assistance Menu Options for Assisting and Replicating the SUD Model - LBRRM

UDP SUD model April 2007

UDP Technical Assistance - Final Report For The Period 1999-2007, Wiebe van Rij. – July 2007

UDP Upland Agriculture Extension Delivery System; UDP Technical note. Undated

UDP Upland village enterprise development scheme; UDP key documents. Undated

UDTF Institution Building Program Evaluation: Eleanor Tan - April 2006.

Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao. Final Report.

WB - Joint Needs Assessment for Reconstruction and Development of Conflict-Affected Areas in Mindanao – Integrative Report - December 2005

WB - Mindanao Trust Fund – Reconstruction and Development Program – Annual Report 2008

Wilfred D. Bidad, Ph.D. Domingo M. Non, Ph.D. Conducted by: Social Health Environment and Development Foundation, Inc. (SHED)

AN-

19

PHOTOGRAHS AND NOTES ON SITE VISITS FOR LUB-BDP / BFPM TO BE INSERTED HERE IN THE FINAL REPORT

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X D

AN-

20

DFS Learning Sites visited Municipality

Barangay Satisfactory

DFS Learning Site

Crops grown Income reported

Davao Oriental Province

Mati Tagubo √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango, Mangosteen, Vegetables, Goats,

Estimated at Php 200,000/year

Tarragona Tubaon √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango, Mangosteen, Vegetables, Goats, Fish Ponds Vermiculture

Inc. 25-50% to Php 50-100,000/year

Manay Del Pilar √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Mango Income unknown

San Isidro Lapu Lapu √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango Income unknown

San Miguel √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango Income unknown ײ

Maag √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango Inc. to Php 50,000/year ײ

Banay Banay

Panikian √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango, Rubber, Vegetables, Goats, Fish Ponds

Income unknown

Lupon Marayag √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango, Vegetables, Income unknown

Compostella Valley

Laak Kilagding √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango Mangosteen, Pommelo, Pineapple

Income unknown

Nabunturan San Isidro √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango, Mangosteen, Vegetables, Goats, Vermiculture

Inc. 25% Php 40,000/year

Davao del Norte

San Isidro Mamangan √ Banana, Coconut, Cocao, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango, Rubber

Income unknown

Sarangani Province

Alabel Alegria √ Banana, Coconut, Abaca, Rubber, Mango, Inc. of Php 2,400/mth from bananas

Glan Rio Del Pilar √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Mango, Mangosteen, Pommelo

Inc. of Php 2,800/mth from bananas

Maitum Upo Valley √ Banana, Coconut, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Rubber, Abaca Inc. of Php 3,000/mth from bananas

South Cotabato

Tupi Linan √ Banana, Durian, Rambutan, Mango Income unknown

Tampakan Palo 19 √ Banana, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Coffee Inc. of Php 6,000/mth from bananas

Davao del Sur

Malalag Pitu √ Banana, Durian, Lanzones, Abaca Income doubled to Php 7,000/mth

Malita Kilalag √ Banana, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Goats Income unknown

Magsaysay Tagaytay √ Banana, Durian, Lanzones, Rambutan, Rubber, Vegetables Php 50,000/yr from vegetables

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X E

AN-

21

PHOTOGRAHS AND NOTES ON SITE VISITS FOR DFS / UAED

TO BE INSERTED HERE IN THE FINAL REPORT

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X E

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX E

AN-22

Replication of DFS by LGUs & farmers after UDP ended

Province / Municipality

Barangay DFS Replication since UDP ended

Davao Oriental

Mati Tagubo 600 farmers

Tarragona Tubaon √

Manay Del Pilar 4 barangays, 10 farmers

San Isidro Municipal wide 13 barangays, est. 50 farmers

San Isidro Lapu Lapu √

San Isidro San Miguel 10 farmers

San Isidro Maag 26 farmers

Banay Banay Panikian √

Lupon Marayag √

Compostella Valley

Laak Municipal wide In all 40 barangays, est. >200 farmers

Laak Kilagding √

Nabunturan Municipal wide 7 barangays, est. 35 farmers

Nabunturan San Isidro 26 farmers

Davao del Norte

San Isidro Municipal wide In all 13 barangays, est. 70 farmers

San Isidro Mamangan √

Sarangani

Alabel Alegria 90 farmers but only 15 successful

Glan Rio Del Pilar √

Glan Burias Spontaneous by 45 farmers, 23 ha

Maitum Upo Valley - Minimal -

South Cotabato

Tupi Linan - none -

Tampakan Municipal wide 14 barangays, 143 farmers, 143 ha

Tampakan Palo 19 √

Davao del Sur

Malalag Municipal wide - none -

Malalag Pitu Spontaneous by est. 100 farmers

Malita Municipal wide 19 barangays: 155 farmers, 166 ha,

Malita Kilalag √

Magsaysay Municipal wide 243 farmers, 120 ha

Magsaysay Tagaytay Spontaneous by more than 100 farmers

√ = Reported as replicated but no details provided

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX F

AN-23

Status of the UAED system in barangays visited by the Mission

Province / Municipality

Barangay

Learning Site

Maintained to

satisfactory quality

Farmers Training Group

still active

BEW or AMBET

Maintained

BEW Monthly Honorarium Received (Pesos)

BEW Trained in past

12 months

BLGU MLGU PLGU

Davao Oriental

Mati Tagubo √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

Tarragona Tubaon √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

Manay Del Pilar √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

San Isidro Lapu Lapu √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

San Miguel √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

Maag √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

Banay Banay

Panikian √ -

√ 500 500 1,000 √

Lupon Marayag √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

Waywayan √ - √ 500 500 1,000 √

Compostela Valley

Laak Kilagding √ √ √ N/A N/A N/A √

Nabunturan San Isidro √ - √ N/A N/A N/A √

Davao del Norte

San Isidro Mamangan √ - √ 300 500 - √

Sarangani

Alabel Alegria √ - √ - - 300 √

Glan Rio Del Pilar

√ - √ 1,000 100 300 √

Maitum Upo Valley √ - - - - - -

South Cotabato

Tupi Linan √ - - 1,000 - - -

Tantangan Tinongcop √ √ √ 200 - - √

Tampakan Palo 19 √ - √ 300 - - √

Davao del Sur

Malalag Pitu √ - √ N/A N/A N/A -

Malita Kilalag √ - √ 300 - - √

Magsaysay Tagaytay √ - √ N/A N/A N/A √

.

AN-

24

Site Verification on LBRRM scheme

Province/Road Section/Location

Road Physical Status LBRRM Scheme Adoption Other Observations

Province: Davao Oriental

1. Campo 1-Licop Rd. Brgy. Sainz Mati

A newly graded (2days before mission arrived and 3

rd time for the year), 7km provincial road

using MLGU equipment; road in good shape with sufficient gravel armouring and passable in all weather condition

- highly equipment based (grader) with labor group doing vegetation control, drainage ditch and culvert repair and cleaning as need arises in combination of “Bayanihan” and paid labor time - a few hand tools still serviceable with no replacement provided

- needs technical guidance on proper drainage works - Barangay allocates PhP50,000

annually from IRA for UDP road maintenance mostly for equipment fuel

2. Guibaan-Madian Rd. Brgy, Tubaon, Tarragona

A 3.7km road with some part still passable but mostly deteriorated with mid-point section totally impassable; culverts and drainage ditches either structurally damaged or clogged

- last labor based only during UDP time (2007) with paid wages from UDP budget and none since then with no initiatives from barangay officials

- last graded by MLGU equipment in 2008 - a few hand tools still serviceable with no replacement

provided

- needs barangay official support to re-activate LBRRM

- Barangay allocates PhP30,000 annually from IRA for road maintenance; 15,000 for wages and Php 15,000 for fuel of the PLGU or MLGU equipment.

3. Cayawan-Bagsak Rd Brgy. Cayawan, Manay

A 6km road passable only up to less than 1km and apparently neglected with thick vegetation along roadway, garbage clogged drainage, eroded side ditches and land slips in some sections, indicating that seldom used

- last labor based activity during UDP time (2006) with no initiatives from barangay officials

- hand tools could no longer be accounted for - community not keen on “Bayanihan” and demanding

wages for road maintnence.

- PhP30,000 road maintenance annual budget totally diverted to fuel for MLGU equipment

- MLGU and Barangay not keen with LBRRM and highly dependent on equipment

4. Haguimitan Rd Brgy. Sto. Rosario, San Isidro

A 3.5km road still passable but slippery when wet due to lack of gravel armouring with one (1) major drainage crossing damaged (July 2009 heavy rains) requiring equipment support.

- LBRRM crew very active with last maintenance work in June 2009

- regular bayanihan (food for work) by all purok done quarterly using own tools (UDP tools not turned over)

- “HATAW” program (moral recovery) by brgy officials and all purok presidents every last friday of month maintaining critical road sections

- with full support of barangay and purok officials including MEO

- with existing brgy ordinance for road use - adopts toll fees at Php5 per trader - barangay allocates PhP30,000 annually

for road maintenance for “food for work”

5. Kalinisan-Cape-Candiis Road Brgy. Maag, San Isidro

A 6.5km road generally passable but slippery when wet due to lack of gravel armouring

- LBRRM crew still active doing bayanihan (even before UDP) and paid labor on quarterly basis

- hand tools 50% still serviceable with new tools provided from Brgy. IRA

- barangay allocates PhP30,000 annually for road maintenance for paid labor at PhP100 per day at 3 days per quarter

- no dependence on equipment

6. San Miquel Rd Brgy San Miquel, San Isidro

A 4.7km road that had recently been maintained and surfaced using equipment from the MLGU. Well used road in good condition and passable year round.

- LBRRM crew still active assisting MGLU equipment (backhoe and dump truck) with a combination of bayanihan and paid labor every 3-4 months

- wheel barrows broken, some spades lost, rakes still present and serviceable

- Barangay allocates Php 34,500 annually from IRA for road maintenance; 4,500 for wages and Php 30,000 for fuel of the MLGU equipment.

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X H

AN-

25

7. Don Mariano Marcos Road Brgy.Don Mariano Marcos, Lupon

A 4km road highly deteriorated and impassable during rainy season with lots of rills and ruts and needs new rehabilitation

- no maintenance done since UDP except by barangay councilor initiative due to farm in area

- tools only 2 wheel borrows remaining with no replacement

- request for tools and materials just arrived during mission and to start road repair anytime

- no clear maintenance budget provided

8. Centro-Kawitan Road Brgy. Mahayag, Banay-Banay

A 3.8km road newly graded and graveled by MLGU equipment (a week before mission arrived) hence passable

- no labor based maintenance done since UDP time - hand tools 6 pieces remaining with barangay councilor

- barangay allegedly allocated PhP12,000 budget for road maintenance (vegetation control and clearing as need arises)

Province: Compostela Valley

9. Pk3-5 Rd, Brgy. San Isidro, Nabunturan

A 1.5km road graded by MLGU equipment (a week before mission) hence passable but some sections slippery when wet due to lack of gravel surfacing

- labor based by bayanihan done every quarter (food for work) on vegetation control and ditch clearing; barangay officials organized BROM (Barangay Road O and M) group per purok

- some hand tools still serviceable supplemented by new tools acquired from barangay IRA

- MLGU allocates PhP500,000 for barangay road maintenance for the 4 UDP barangays mostly for equipment use

10. Pigayunan Rd. Brgy. Kilagding, Laak

A 1.1km road opening with tire tracks provided by UDP and extended by MLGU; road is passable in all weather condition

- labor based bayanihan scheme on a quarterly basis with equipment support for gravel materials spread manually

- hand tools still 70% serviceable

- MLGU allocates PhP2.8million for road maintenance of all 48 barangays mainly for equipment use

- MLGU plans to extends tire tracks further by another 70m

Province: Sarangani

11. Alegria-Pait Rd Brgy Alegria, Alabel

A 5km road graded 3 weeks before mission using MLGU equipment hence passable; UDP rehab assistance completed in 2005 and upgraded by GEM II in 2006

- last labor based activity in December 2008 by bayanihan with no incentives

- hand tools only 1 shovel and 1 bar remaining hence used own tools

- no clear indication on regular road maintenance budget since no incentives provided during bayanihan

12. Rio Del Pilar Rd Brgy. Rio Del Pilar, Glan

A 1.5km road with about 50% concreted by MLGU hence passable in all weather condition

- last labor based activity in June 2009 and done quarterly even before UDP time

- some UDP hand tools still serviceable supplemented by individually owned tools

- barangay allocates PhP20,000 per quarter budget for road maintenance for paid labor at PhP130/day @ 5days per quarter per worker

13. Centro-Malayo Rd. Brgy Maligang, Kiamba

A 4km road in good condition with sufficient gravel armouring and passable in all weather condition; UDP work completed in 2006 and GEM II provided spillway and upgraded 1.8km during the same time as UDP

- regular MLGU equipment support with bayanihan and paid labor

- few remaining tools still serviceable - road extension on-going under SELAP

- barangay allocates PhP10,000 annually for road maintenance for “food for work” and wages

- MLGU allocates PhP30,000 annually to barangay for road maintenance mostly for equipment fuel

14. Pk4-Malaklong Rd. Bgy. Nomoh, Maasim

A 4km road with 1km deteriorated but still passable and the rest totally dilapidated and abandoned

- no maintenance done since UDP time - 30% of tools still serviceable - GEM II bridge replacement along the lower road section

(outside of UDP)

- barangay allegedly allocates PhP25,000 per sitio for all projects

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X H

AN-

26

Province: South Cotabato

15. Buendia-Spring Rd. Brgy Tinongcop, Tantangan

A 4km road graded by PLGU equipment in May 2009 and still fully passable with some covered with grasses, an indication of being seldom used

- no maintenance done since UDP time - hand tools could no longer be accounted

- no clear indication of budget for road maintenance

16. Lampitak-Malba Rd. Brgy Albagan, Tampakan

An 11 km road with very difficult terrain and passable only to 4wheel drive vehicles with lots of ruts, rills, sharp rocks and vegetation

- allegedly maintained by barangay but needs equipment due to difficult terrain which could not be done manually

- all hand tools no longer serviceable

- barangay allocates PhP70,000 annually for the 11km road maintenance which is not enough

Province: Davao del Sur

17. Coronon Rd. Brgy. Coronon, Sta. Cruz

A 3km road provided with tire tracks by MLGU and passable at all weather condition with access through a connecting dilapidated private road from the national highway

- last “bayanihan” (food for work) in July 2009 for extension of tire track and repair of culvert; extension of drainage canal done by PLGU backhoe in 2008

- barangay allocates Php69,000 annually for maintenance of 12km barangay road, 35% for equipment fuel and rest for “food for work”

18. Pitu Rd. Brgy. Pitu, Malalag

A 4km passable gravel road with presence of ruts and rills along some sections due to continuous rain

- Last MLGU grading and paid labor based activities in march 2009 to address damages during recent rains with traces of sand bag protection

barangay allocates PhP30,000 annually out of which PhP5,000 for paid labor and rest for equipment fuel

19. Pinalpalan Rd. Pinalpalan, Malita

A 2.5km road with ruts, rills and potholes but still passable during dry season and slippery when wet; access along national highway being graded by PLGU

- last labor based activity during UDP time and none since then but graded by MLGU equipment

- hand tools could no longer be accounted

barangay allocates PhP50,000 annually but mostly for MLGU equipment fuel

20. Tagaytay Rd. Tagaytay, Magsaysay

A 5.1km road provided with concrete tire tracks and full concrete pavement in some part; passable but difficult with the presence of potholes, ruts and rills in some sections

- last labor based work in July 2009 with regular schedule through a “food for work” bayanihan system

- only a few hand tools remaining with no replacement

barangay allocates PhP50,000 annually for equipment fuel and “food for work”

- Highly deteriorated impassable roads - Passable roads maintained by equipment / labour - Passable roads maintained labour alone

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X H

AN-

27

PHOTOGRAHS FOR LBRRM TO BE INSERTED HERE OR

MERGED IN THE ABOVE TABLE FOR THE FINAL REPORT

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X H

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX H

AN-28

Highlights of USM-CIBP Activities/Accomplishments: August 2007-June 2009

Key Areas August –December 2007 January – December 2008 January – June 2009

Program Policies, Agreements, Structure

Approval of DA Administrative Order 27 Setting up of project management offices both for LBP and ACPC

Approval Work & Financial plan Jan-June @ Php 1.14 M July-Dec @ Php 2.9 M MOA LBP and ACPC signed MOA : ACPC & REFORM signed

Approval: 2009 Work & Financial Plan @ Php 7.2 million Conceptual Framework of LBP for cooperatives support

Fund consolidation & Management

Closing and transfer of UMTF to ACPC

Closing and transfer of UDTF, including reflows to new Trust Fund account at LBP Opening of Trust fund for MF component at UCPB Continuous collection of UDTF and UDLF receivables

Transfer of reflows to the TF and continuous collection of UDLF receivables

Institutional & Capacity Building operation

none For Coops Conduct of orientation-workshop among identified non-BACs in July; Training needs assessment of non-BACs completed in September; For MFIs Consultation with 6 MFIs in Feb. & June to review/comment on the credit and ICB program guidelines

For Coops: Conduct of Program orientation at MADECO 2-day Coop validation workshop among 11 non-BACs 3 days Enterprise-based Rapid Assessment among non-BACs 2 days field exposure on Market Initial Negotiation For MFIs MOA was drafted and circulated to 5 MFIs; and Credit Risk Guidelines coordination meetings (During the mission, MOAs were already signed)

Credit operation None None None

Monitoring /Reporting

NEC Meetings 2 meetings (April & July) 1 meeting (February)

PEC Meetings 2 meetings (Aug. & Sept.) 2 meetings (Jan.& Feb)

PCC Meetings 1 meeting (July) 1 meeting (January)

UDP Post Completion Mission – ANNEX H

AN-29

Comparison of Cooperatives and MFIs as Financial Intermediaries

Areas Characteristics and Features

Non-BACs/BACs in UDP Areas MFIs Operating in the Areas (NGOs & Banks) in UDP Areas

Mission/ Purpose

Mostly established to provide wide array of financial and non-financial services to its members; multi-purpose activities

Serves as financial intermediary

Highly focused on financial intermediation

Social intermediation as part of the lending approach and methodology

Ownership & Governance Structure

Owned and managed by the members;

For NGOs, no single ownership;

For banks, owned by individuals and/or corporation with share capital

Management Lack of training on financial management

Highly trained management team

Source of funds Members contribution; some are loans from other cooperatives; donations

Donated equity, loans from commercial financial institutions; investments

Geographical coverage & outreach

Limited to area of establishment; municipality of barangays

No geographical limits; can cover other provinces

Human resource capacity

Majority of management and operations staff are not specialized in credit and lending operations;

Mostly are elementary/high school graduate; few reached college levels/graduate

Management of operation is highly voluntary

Management and staff are trained and specialized on microfinance and lending operations

College graduates

Management and operation by employed and paid individuals

Systems, processes and internal controls

Policies, operational procedures, manuals of operations are not in place or still to be developed

Policies, operational procedures, manuals of operations are in placed such as credit/operations manual, HR manual, finance and accounting manuals, loan tracking system; risk and delinquency policies; internal control

Road maps Strategic, business, and operational plans are still not developed or if developed, not fully implemented and monitored

Strategic, business, and operational plans are developed regularly, implemented and monitored

Lending approach and methodology

Integrated approach and individual methodology

Loan availment is dependent on the on the savings or CBU of the members in general; lack of clear selection criteria for borrowers

Most MFIs adopts Minimalist approach (only financial service provision) and a combination of self-help groups (SHG) and individual lending; only few have integrated approach of combining non-financial services

Intensive social intermediation as part of the lending methodology;

Client selection criteria are established and clear (income, asset value, cash flow, etc.)’

Lending methodology is adjusted to the nature of upland types of productive activities/enterprises/ farm and non-farm activities

Culture on credit discipline and loan portfolio quality

Lack credit discipline as cooperative is perceived as a social network of members; no incentives for maintaining high quality portfolio; Portfolio at risk (PAR) is either not accounted for or more than 10%

Culture of credit discipline is embedded in the lending operations and zero tolerance to delinquency; incentives to staff in maintaining quality portfolio; Portfolio at risk (PAR) ranges from 0-5%

Focus on viability & sustainability

Lack/unclear focus on productivity, efficiency and profitability

Clear productivity, efficiency and profitability targets

AN-

30

Status of Upland Village Enterprises visited by the Mission

Province/ Municipality

Barangay Type of Enterprise Structure Still

Functioning Financial Indicator

Contribution to Local Economy

Comments

Davao Oriental

Lupon Waywayan Bamboo Furniture Association of 10 families

Yes P 216,000 gross sales

per year Minimal Appears strong

Banay Banay Pintatagan Nitocraft Association of women

Yes Members unable to

estimate sales Minimal

Limited production & trading but stable

Manay Del Pilar Rice Trading Co-operative No Mistrust between members

New Bataan Andap Almaciga Resin Loose Association No Uncertain viability / resin being tested

New Bataan San Roque Banana Trading Co-operative No Could not compete with traders

San Isidro Poblacion Mango processing Association No Not viable from outset

Sarangani

Glan Rio Del Pilar Banana Trading Co-operative Yes Est. Operational

surplus P90,000 /yr Minimal Stable with potential to grow

Kiamba Maligang Abaca processing & trading

Co-operative Yes Dividend paid to

members P60,000/yr Minimal Stable with potential to grow

Maitum Upo Valley Abaca processing & trading

Co-operative Yes Est. Operational

surplus P120,000 /yr Minimal Little capital, limited growth potential

Glan Sufatubo Agri-trading/credit Co-operative No Unable to compete with traders

Malungon Upper Lumabat Agri-trading/credit Co-operative No Unable to compete with large trading corporation

South Cotabato

Tampakan Albagan Fruit Tree Nursery Association Yes No sales records Minimal Small scale operation

Tupi Linan Banana Trading Co-operative No Unable to compete with traders

Tupi Kablon Vegetable Trading Co-operative No Unable to compete with traders

Tampakan Palo 19 Agri-trading Co-operative No Unable to compete with traders

Davao del Sur

Malita Datu Danwata Agri-trading/credit Co-operative Yes Paid up capital

P 100,000 Minimal

Problems recovering credit given to members

UD

P P

ost C

om

ple

tion M

issio

n –

AN

NE

X I

Post Completion Mission Upland Development Programme in ... UDP-Post Completion... · 9 Loan...

Documents

Transcript of Post Completion Mission Upland Development Programme in ... UDP-Post Completion... · 9 Loan...